Dermatology News

As medical practices become increasingly dependent on digital systems, protecting the data they generate becomes an increasingly relevant issue. While data protection is important in any industry, it is particularly critical in health care because in addition to the usual financial records, trade secrets, and other valuable data, confidential patient information is also at risk.

You may think that your computer vendor is responsible for safeguarding your data, but third parties can only do so much. And if your data is compromised, the ultimate responsibility is yours – not to mention the financial loss, and the damage to your practice’s reputation.

In addition to the security vulnerabilities inherent in any system, there are external vulnerabilities, such as weak passwords, viruses, and hacking (either externally or internally). And as hardware becomes more and more portable, there is the increasing risk of theft of platforms and storage media containing confidential data.

A close and ongoing relationship with your hardware and software vendors is essential to good data protection. Your office should have a permanent contact at each company, and you should talk to them regularly. Ask them what sort of firewalls, antivirus software, and other safeguards are in place to protect your system. Whenever they identify a bug or other vulnerability, you should know about it. They should tell you about each software update, what improvements it makes, and what defects it fixes. You should also know about any changes to your data encryption.

Encryption has become an essential component of data protection. It is especially important if you use portable devices such as laptops, pads, or smart phones to store and transport patient information. If you lose one of these devices, or a thumb drive or other storage media, HIPAA will probably not consider it a breach if the data it contains is encrypted.

Encryption isn’t perfect, of course. Log-in credentials can be stolen; and data that is stored in house is can be hacked with malware and phishing techniques, especially if the key to decryption is located on that server. And make sure that employees are not putting any medical data on their own private (unencrypted) devices.

Each employee should have his or her own password, and sharing should be strictly prohibited. Multifactor authentication is becoming increasingly popular for an extra level of security.

Your vendor should require you to change your passwords every few months. If it doesn’t, you need to establish a timetable to do it yourself. All passwords should be strong (no birthdays, pet names, etc.), and they shouldn’t be the same or similar to old passwords.

In some offices, I’ve been surprised to see that every employee has unrestricted access to all practice data. The vulnerabilities of such an arrangement are obvious. There is no reason why receptionists, for example, should have access to medical histories, and insurance people don’t need to know what medications a patient is on. Your vendor can help you design partitions that restrict each employee to only the information they need access to.

Ask if your vendor provides security training for employees. If not, look into hiring a security firm to do it. Regular security training can help employees to recognize data security attacks like phishing, and instills a heightened sense of security awareness and vigilance among staff. They will also gain a better understanding of the role they play in maintaining the overall security of your office.

It goes without saying that third parties, such as business vendors, payers, and managed care providers, should never have access to patient records or other personal health information.


 

Backing up data

I have written many times about the importance of regularly backing up your data. Industry statistics show that fully 10% of hard drives fail in any given year, and 43% of computer users lose one or more files every year in the form of clinical data, financial records, photos, email, documents, and other important information. Recovery of lost data, when it’s possible at all, can be very expensive.

Even if your EHR vendor backs up your data, you should consider making a separate backup of your own. Backup drives have been known to fail too; and if you decide to switch computer vendors, you don’t want to be at the mercy of the old company that might be reluctant to transfer your data without a hefty payment.

The first rule of backing up is to store your backup drives in a different location from your computers. Unfortunately, that’s a pain; and external drives can be lost or stolen, creating a HIPAA nightmare. So an increasingly popular alternative is automatic remote backup. Several companies offer that service, and the cost is very reasonable for individual computers. Backing up an entire office costs more, depending on how many computers and/or servers you have, but it’s still very reasonable and includes other services, such as operating system and network share support.

The procedure is simple: You create an account and tell the service which files you want copied. Your first backup can take a long time, often days, depending on how much data you are sending and how fast your Internet connection runs. After that the program runs in the background, copying only those files that have changed since the previous backup. Files are encrypted before leaving your computer, and they remain encrypted at the service’s data center, making them HIPAA compliant and, theoretically, only accessible by you.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

As medical practices become increasingly dependent on digital systems, protecting the data they generate becomes an increasingly relevant issue. While data protection is important in any industry, it is particularly critical in health care because in addition to the usual financial records, trade secrets, and other valuable data, confidential patient information is also at risk.

You may think that your computer vendor is responsible for safeguarding your data, but third parties can only do so much. And if your data is compromised, the ultimate responsibility is yours – not to mention the financial loss, and the damage to your practice’s reputation.

In addition to the security vulnerabilities inherent in any system, there are external vulnerabilities, such as weak passwords, viruses, and hacking (either externally or internally). And as hardware becomes more and more portable, there is the increasing risk of theft of platforms and storage media containing confidential data.

A close and ongoing relationship with your hardware and software vendors is essential to good data protection. Your office should have a permanent contact at each company, and you should talk to them regularly. Ask them what sort of firewalls, antivirus software, and other safeguards are in place to protect your system. Whenever they identify a bug or other vulnerability, you should know about it. They should tell you about each software update, what improvements it makes, and what defects it fixes. You should also know about any changes to your data encryption.

Encryption has become an essential component of data protection. It is especially important if you use portable devices such as laptops, pads, or smart phones to store and transport patient information. If you lose one of these devices, or a thumb drive or other storage media, HIPAA will probably not consider it a breach if the data it contains is encrypted.

Encryption isn’t perfect, of course. Log-in credentials can be stolen; and data that is stored in house is can be hacked with malware and phishing techniques, especially if the key to decryption is located on that server. And make sure that employees are not putting any medical data on their own private (unencrypted) devices.

Each employee should have his or her own password, and sharing should be strictly prohibited. Multifactor authentication is becoming increasingly popular for an extra level of security.

Your vendor should require you to change your passwords every few months. If it doesn’t, you need to establish a timetable to do it yourself. All passwords should be strong (no birthdays, pet names, etc.), and they shouldn’t be the same or similar to old passwords.

In some offices, I’ve been surprised to see that every employee has unrestricted access to all practice data. The vulnerabilities of such an arrangement are obvious. There is no reason why receptionists, for example, should have access to medical histories, and insurance people don’t need to know what medications a patient is on. Your vendor can help you design partitions that restrict each employee to only the information they need access to.

Ask if your vendor provides security training for employees. If not, look into hiring a security firm to do it. Regular security training can help employees to recognize data security attacks like phishing, and instills a heightened sense of security awareness and vigilance among staff. They will also gain a better understanding of the role they play in maintaining the overall security of your office.

It goes without saying that third parties, such as business vendors, payers, and managed care providers, should never have access to patient records or other personal health information.


 

Backing up data

I have written many times about the importance of regularly backing up your data. Industry statistics show that fully 10% of hard drives fail in any given year, and 43% of computer users lose one or more files every year in the form of clinical data, financial records, photos, email, documents, and other important information. Recovery of lost data, when it’s possible at all, can be very expensive.

Even if your EHR vendor backs up your data, you should consider making a separate backup of your own. Backup drives have been known to fail too; and if you decide to switch computer vendors, you don’t want to be at the mercy of the old company that might be reluctant to transfer your data without a hefty payment.

The first rule of backing up is to store your backup drives in a different location from your computers. Unfortunately, that’s a pain; and external drives can be lost or stolen, creating a HIPAA nightmare. So an increasingly popular alternative is automatic remote backup. Several companies offer that service, and the cost is very reasonable for individual computers. Backing up an entire office costs more, depending on how many computers and/or servers you have, but it’s still very reasonable and includes other services, such as operating system and network share support.

The procedure is simple: You create an account and tell the service which files you want copied. Your first backup can take a long time, often days, depending on how much data you are sending and how fast your Internet connection runs. After that the program runs in the background, copying only those files that have changed since the previous backup. Files are encrypted before leaving your computer, and they remain encrypted at the service’s data center, making them HIPAA compliant and, theoretically, only accessible by you.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

As medical practices become increasingly dependent on digital systems, protecting the data they generate becomes an increasingly relevant issue. While data protection is important in any industry, it is particularly critical in health care because in addition to the usual financial records, trade secrets, and other valuable data, confidential patient information is also at risk.

You may think that your computer vendor is responsible for safeguarding your data, but third parties can only do so much. And if your data is compromised, the ultimate responsibility is yours – not to mention the financial loss, and the damage to your practice’s reputation.

In addition to the security vulnerabilities inherent in any system, there are external vulnerabilities, such as weak passwords, viruses, and hacking (either externally or internally). And as hardware becomes more and more portable, there is the increasing risk of theft of platforms and storage media containing confidential data.

A close and ongoing relationship with your hardware and software vendors is essential to good data protection. Your office should have a permanent contact at each company, and you should talk to them regularly. Ask them what sort of firewalls, antivirus software, and other safeguards are in place to protect your system. Whenever they identify a bug or other vulnerability, you should know about it. They should tell you about each software update, what improvements it makes, and what defects it fixes. You should also know about any changes to your data encryption.

Encryption has become an essential component of data protection. It is especially important if you use portable devices such as laptops, pads, or smart phones to store and transport patient information. If you lose one of these devices, or a thumb drive or other storage media, HIPAA will probably not consider it a breach if the data it contains is encrypted.

Encryption isn’t perfect, of course. Log-in credentials can be stolen; and data that is stored in house is can be hacked with malware and phishing techniques, especially if the key to decryption is located on that server. And make sure that employees are not putting any medical data on their own private (unencrypted) devices.

Each employee should have his or her own password, and sharing should be strictly prohibited. Multifactor authentication is becoming increasingly popular for an extra level of security.

Your vendor should require you to change your passwords every few months. If it doesn’t, you need to establish a timetable to do it yourself. All passwords should be strong (no birthdays, pet names, etc.), and they shouldn’t be the same or similar to old passwords.

In some offices, I’ve been surprised to see that every employee has unrestricted access to all practice data. The vulnerabilities of such an arrangement are obvious. There is no reason why receptionists, for example, should have access to medical histories, and insurance people don’t need to know what medications a patient is on. Your vendor can help you design partitions that restrict each employee to only the information they need access to.

Ask if your vendor provides security training for employees. If not, look into hiring a security firm to do it. Regular security training can help employees to recognize data security attacks like phishing, and instills a heightened sense of security awareness and vigilance among staff. They will also gain a better understanding of the role they play in maintaining the overall security of your office.

It goes without saying that third parties, such as business vendors, payers, and managed care providers, should never have access to patient records or other personal health information.


 

Backing up data

I have written many times about the importance of regularly backing up your data. Industry statistics show that fully 10% of hard drives fail in any given year, and 43% of computer users lose one or more files every year in the form of clinical data, financial records, photos, email, documents, and other important information. Recovery of lost data, when it’s possible at all, can be very expensive.

Even if your EHR vendor backs up your data, you should consider making a separate backup of your own. Backup drives have been known to fail too; and if you decide to switch computer vendors, you don’t want to be at the mercy of the old company that might be reluctant to transfer your data without a hefty payment.

The first rule of backing up is to store your backup drives in a different location from your computers. Unfortunately, that’s a pain; and external drives can be lost or stolen, creating a HIPAA nightmare. So an increasingly popular alternative is automatic remote backup. Several companies offer that service, and the cost is very reasonable for individual computers. Backing up an entire office costs more, depending on how many computers and/or servers you have, but it’s still very reasonable and includes other services, such as operating system and network share support.

The procedure is simple: You create an account and tell the service which files you want copied. Your first backup can take a long time, often days, depending on how much data you are sending and how fast your Internet connection runs. After that the program runs in the background, copying only those files that have changed since the previous backup. Files are encrypted before leaving your computer, and they remain encrypted at the service’s data center, making them HIPAA compliant and, theoretically, only accessible by you.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

MILAN – Treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus with biologics may enable steroid tapering while ensuring the achievement of remission or low disease activity in more patients with fewer flares and less organ damage, as well as leading to better responses if used early, according to the latest recommendations on the management of SLE from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR).

Dimitrios Boumpas, MD, president of the Athens Medical Society and chair of the European Task force on SLE, presented the recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. “Although steroids save lives, it is at the expense of excessive collateral damage. They are better for short-term use as a rescue or bridging therapy but may be used in some patients at 5 mg/day of prednisone or less, rather than the previous 7.5 mg/day,” he emphasized.

The 2023 recommendations cover new treatment strategies with more ambitious goals, new data on adverse effects of chronic glucocorticoid use, and newly approved agents and combination therapies.

“Most importantly, we sourced help from experts from all over the world,” said Dr. Boumpas, describing the task force that included 35 rheumatologists, 5 nephrologists, 2 methodologists, 2 patient representatives, and 2 fellows, all brought together from across Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia.

Over 7,000 papers were reviewed, with 437 included in the systematic literature review to inform the updated recommendations.

Session moderator Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam, said that “the underlying heterogeneity and multisystem involvement of SLE can make it difficult to demonstrate and know which drugs work in the condition. However, these latest recommendations should encourage greater confidence to taper steroids early on and perhaps consider new biologic drugs, so that more patients can achieve better results sooner to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance their quality of life.”

Dr. Boumpas provided a summary of the overarching principles that guide the recommendations. These say that SLE requires multidisciplinary individualized management; disease activity should be assessed at each visit; nonpharmacologic interventions such as sun protection, smoking cessation, and following a healthy diet are all important for improving long-term outcomes; pharmacologic interventions are to be directed by patient characteristics, type and severity of organ involvement, treatment-related harms, and patient preferences, among other factors; and early SLE diagnosis is essential to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance quality of life.

Referring to each recommendation statement in turn, Dr. Boumpas provided a detailed description of each, and highlighted any changes since the 2019 recommendations.
 

Hydroxychloroquine, glucocorticoids as bridging therapy, and biologics

Referring to statement 1, Dr. Boumpas reported that hydroxychloroquine should be a first-line therapy at a dose of 5 mg/kg, but this dose should be individualized based on risk of flare and retinal toxicity. “There was some discussion about monitoring blood levels, but this was to ensure adherence only,” said Dr. Boumpas.

Continuing to statement 2, he added, “here is one change. With chronic use of glucocorticoids, the maintenance dose is 5 mg/day or less or prednisone equivalent. This pertains to both new onset and relapsing disease.” Previous recommendations advised a maintenance dose of 7.5 mg/day or less.

But he pointed out that “we are discussing using glucocorticoids in lupus as a bridging therapy only, for short, limited periods of time. We should shy away from chronic use of glucocorticoids and only use them for 3 months, and to do this we need to use glucocorticoid-sparing strategies.”

This led to statement 3, which refers to glucocorticoid-sparing strategies. Dr. Boumpas explained that, in patients who are not responding to hydroxychloroquine or unable to reduce glucocorticoids further during chronic use, add immunosuppressive agents, such as methotrexate and/or biologics (for example, belimumab [Benlysta] or anifrolumab [Saphnelo]).

“To allow flexibility for patients and clinicians, it isn’t necessary to use DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] first if you prefer biologics,” he continued. “We are becoming more liberal with the use of biologics because there are new data that confirm the efficacy of belimumab in extrarenal SLE, plus good data with 3-year extension with anifrolumab.”

Statement 4 says that for patients with organ- or life-threatening disease, intravenous cyclophosphamide, “our old friend,” should be considered, while in refractory cases, rituximab may be considered, Dr. Boumpas said. “It’s okay to use cyclophosphamide. It isn’t a sin.”

Statement 5 refers to skin disease, and Dr. Boumpas explained that good data suggested that biologics help, including both belimumab and anifrolumab.

Nothing has changed with statement 6 concerning neuropsychiatric lupus, said Dr. Boumpas. “Glucocorticoids, immunosuppressive, and antithrombotic therapies should be considered.”

Regarding hematologic disease (statement 7), he said, “the new kid on the block is MMF [mycophenolate mofetil]. For acute treatment, still use the same drugs, including rituximab, but for maintenance you may use rituximab, azathioprine, MMF, or cyclosporine.”
 

Lupus nephritis

Turning to what Dr. Boumpas described as the “reason you had all come here, and what you had been waiting for ... what’s changing with lupus nephritis?” he said.

Statement 8 describes initial therapy in active lupus nephritis. Dr. Boumpas said that low-dose, intravenous cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate should be considered, but also that belimumab or a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) should be considered at the start. The changes were based on two successful phase 3 trials of belimumab and voclosporin, with belimumab being associated with a reduced flare rate and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

“Changes from 2019 include that there is no distinction between classes III/IV and V, which is heretical,” he stressed. Belimumab and CNIs/voclosporin should be considered in all patents as an add-on therapy from the start. “Lupus nephritis has high morbidity, and it’s difficult to predict outcomes at the beginning, but there are clear benefits of add-on therapies. CNIs, although they can be used for all patients, might be more appropriate for membranous or nephrotic-range proteinuria.”

He went on to announce that the “million-dollar question” was whether to use belimumab or voclosporin (or other CNIs), and that this was “a question of gentle, compared with forceful, power and collateral damage.

“For me, voclosporin works very fast, but you worry about side effects, while belimumab is gentle and the response is sustained, preventing flares and organ damage,” he said, adding that “our expert panel discussions showed that nephrologists were more eager to support steroid-free regimens.”

Moving on to statement 9, Dr. Boumpas explained that after initial therapy and renal response, subsequent therapy should continue for at least 3 years. If treated with MMF alone or in combination with belimumab, then these drugs should continue. However, MMF should replace cyclophosphamide if the latter is used initially.

Regarding treat-to-target in lupus nephritis, he said that EULAR now advises to aim for a 25% drop in urine protein/creatinine ratio by 3 months, a 50% drop by 6 months, and a UPCR of less than 0.5-0.7, plus normal eGFR, by 12 months, Dr. Boumpas said.

Statement 10 advises considering high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide in combination with pulse intravenous methylprednisolone for patients at high risk of renal failure.
 

Tapering drugs in sustained remission, managing antiphospholipid syndrome, giving immunizations

Statement 11 suggests to consider tapering immunosuppressive agents and glucocorticoids in patients achieving sustained remission, starting with glucocorticoids first.

There was no change to statement 12, which recommends that thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome associated with SLE be treated with long-term vitamin K antagonists.

Statement 13 addresses immunizations and adjunct therapies. In addition to conventional immunizations, Dr. Boumpas said that renoprotection should receive attention in case of proteinuria and/or hypertension.

“With [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors, it’s a bit early. They’re promising, and you may consider them, although there are no data for patients with eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²,” he remarked, completing his detailed discussion of the updated recommendations.

Dr. Boumpas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landewé served as past chair of EULAR’s Quality of Care Committee, which develops recommendations.

MILAN – Treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus with biologics may enable steroid tapering while ensuring the achievement of remission or low disease activity in more patients with fewer flares and less organ damage, as well as leading to better responses if used early, according to the latest recommendations on the management of SLE from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR).

Dimitrios Boumpas, MD, president of the Athens Medical Society and chair of the European Task force on SLE, presented the recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. “Although steroids save lives, it is at the expense of excessive collateral damage. They are better for short-term use as a rescue or bridging therapy but may be used in some patients at 5 mg/day of prednisone or less, rather than the previous 7.5 mg/day,” he emphasized.

The 2023 recommendations cover new treatment strategies with more ambitious goals, new data on adverse effects of chronic glucocorticoid use, and newly approved agents and combination therapies.

“Most importantly, we sourced help from experts from all over the world,” said Dr. Boumpas, describing the task force that included 35 rheumatologists, 5 nephrologists, 2 methodologists, 2 patient representatives, and 2 fellows, all brought together from across Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia.

Over 7,000 papers were reviewed, with 437 included in the systematic literature review to inform the updated recommendations.

Session moderator Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam, said that “the underlying heterogeneity and multisystem involvement of SLE can make it difficult to demonstrate and know which drugs work in the condition. However, these latest recommendations should encourage greater confidence to taper steroids early on and perhaps consider new biologic drugs, so that more patients can achieve better results sooner to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance their quality of life.”

Dr. Boumpas provided a summary of the overarching principles that guide the recommendations. These say that SLE requires multidisciplinary individualized management; disease activity should be assessed at each visit; nonpharmacologic interventions such as sun protection, smoking cessation, and following a healthy diet are all important for improving long-term outcomes; pharmacologic interventions are to be directed by patient characteristics, type and severity of organ involvement, treatment-related harms, and patient preferences, among other factors; and early SLE diagnosis is essential to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance quality of life.

Referring to each recommendation statement in turn, Dr. Boumpas provided a detailed description of each, and highlighted any changes since the 2019 recommendations.
 

Hydroxychloroquine, glucocorticoids as bridging therapy, and biologics

Referring to statement 1, Dr. Boumpas reported that hydroxychloroquine should be a first-line therapy at a dose of 5 mg/kg, but this dose should be individualized based on risk of flare and retinal toxicity. “There was some discussion about monitoring blood levels, but this was to ensure adherence only,” said Dr. Boumpas.

Continuing to statement 2, he added, “here is one change. With chronic use of glucocorticoids, the maintenance dose is 5 mg/day or less or prednisone equivalent. This pertains to both new onset and relapsing disease.” Previous recommendations advised a maintenance dose of 7.5 mg/day or less.

But he pointed out that “we are discussing using glucocorticoids in lupus as a bridging therapy only, for short, limited periods of time. We should shy away from chronic use of glucocorticoids and only use them for 3 months, and to do this we need to use glucocorticoid-sparing strategies.”

This led to statement 3, which refers to glucocorticoid-sparing strategies. Dr. Boumpas explained that, in patients who are not responding to hydroxychloroquine or unable to reduce glucocorticoids further during chronic use, add immunosuppressive agents, such as methotrexate and/or biologics (for example, belimumab [Benlysta] or anifrolumab [Saphnelo]).

“To allow flexibility for patients and clinicians, it isn’t necessary to use DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] first if you prefer biologics,” he continued. “We are becoming more liberal with the use of biologics because there are new data that confirm the efficacy of belimumab in extrarenal SLE, plus good data with 3-year extension with anifrolumab.”

Statement 4 says that for patients with organ- or life-threatening disease, intravenous cyclophosphamide, “our old friend,” should be considered, while in refractory cases, rituximab may be considered, Dr. Boumpas said. “It’s okay to use cyclophosphamide. It isn’t a sin.”

Statement 5 refers to skin disease, and Dr. Boumpas explained that good data suggested that biologics help, including both belimumab and anifrolumab.

Nothing has changed with statement 6 concerning neuropsychiatric lupus, said Dr. Boumpas. “Glucocorticoids, immunosuppressive, and antithrombotic therapies should be considered.”

Regarding hematologic disease (statement 7), he said, “the new kid on the block is MMF [mycophenolate mofetil]. For acute treatment, still use the same drugs, including rituximab, but for maintenance you may use rituximab, azathioprine, MMF, or cyclosporine.”
 

Lupus nephritis

Turning to what Dr. Boumpas described as the “reason you had all come here, and what you had been waiting for ... what’s changing with lupus nephritis?” he said.

Statement 8 describes initial therapy in active lupus nephritis. Dr. Boumpas said that low-dose, intravenous cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate should be considered, but also that belimumab or a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) should be considered at the start. The changes were based on two successful phase 3 trials of belimumab and voclosporin, with belimumab being associated with a reduced flare rate and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

“Changes from 2019 include that there is no distinction between classes III/IV and V, which is heretical,” he stressed. Belimumab and CNIs/voclosporin should be considered in all patents as an add-on therapy from the start. “Lupus nephritis has high morbidity, and it’s difficult to predict outcomes at the beginning, but there are clear benefits of add-on therapies. CNIs, although they can be used for all patients, might be more appropriate for membranous or nephrotic-range proteinuria.”

He went on to announce that the “million-dollar question” was whether to use belimumab or voclosporin (or other CNIs), and that this was “a question of gentle, compared with forceful, power and collateral damage.

“For me, voclosporin works very fast, but you worry about side effects, while belimumab is gentle and the response is sustained, preventing flares and organ damage,” he said, adding that “our expert panel discussions showed that nephrologists were more eager to support steroid-free regimens.”

Moving on to statement 9, Dr. Boumpas explained that after initial therapy and renal response, subsequent therapy should continue for at least 3 years. If treated with MMF alone or in combination with belimumab, then these drugs should continue. However, MMF should replace cyclophosphamide if the latter is used initially.

Regarding treat-to-target in lupus nephritis, he said that EULAR now advises to aim for a 25% drop in urine protein/creatinine ratio by 3 months, a 50% drop by 6 months, and a UPCR of less than 0.5-0.7, plus normal eGFR, by 12 months, Dr. Boumpas said.

Statement 10 advises considering high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide in combination with pulse intravenous methylprednisolone for patients at high risk of renal failure.
 

Tapering drugs in sustained remission, managing antiphospholipid syndrome, giving immunizations

Statement 11 suggests to consider tapering immunosuppressive agents and glucocorticoids in patients achieving sustained remission, starting with glucocorticoids first.

There was no change to statement 12, which recommends that thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome associated with SLE be treated with long-term vitamin K antagonists.

Statement 13 addresses immunizations and adjunct therapies. In addition to conventional immunizations, Dr. Boumpas said that renoprotection should receive attention in case of proteinuria and/or hypertension.

“With [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors, it’s a bit early. They’re promising, and you may consider them, although there are no data for patients with eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²,” he remarked, completing his detailed discussion of the updated recommendations.

Dr. Boumpas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landewé served as past chair of EULAR’s Quality of Care Committee, which develops recommendations.

MILAN – Treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus with biologics may enable steroid tapering while ensuring the achievement of remission or low disease activity in more patients with fewer flares and less organ damage, as well as leading to better responses if used early, according to the latest recommendations on the management of SLE from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR).

Dimitrios Boumpas, MD, president of the Athens Medical Society and chair of the European Task force on SLE, presented the recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. “Although steroids save lives, it is at the expense of excessive collateral damage. They are better for short-term use as a rescue or bridging therapy but may be used in some patients at 5 mg/day of prednisone or less, rather than the previous 7.5 mg/day,” he emphasized.

The 2023 recommendations cover new treatment strategies with more ambitious goals, new data on adverse effects of chronic glucocorticoid use, and newly approved agents and combination therapies.

“Most importantly, we sourced help from experts from all over the world,” said Dr. Boumpas, describing the task force that included 35 rheumatologists, 5 nephrologists, 2 methodologists, 2 patient representatives, and 2 fellows, all brought together from across Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia.

Over 7,000 papers were reviewed, with 437 included in the systematic literature review to inform the updated recommendations.

Session moderator Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam, said that “the underlying heterogeneity and multisystem involvement of SLE can make it difficult to demonstrate and know which drugs work in the condition. However, these latest recommendations should encourage greater confidence to taper steroids early on and perhaps consider new biologic drugs, so that more patients can achieve better results sooner to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance their quality of life.”

Dr. Boumpas provided a summary of the overarching principles that guide the recommendations. These say that SLE requires multidisciplinary individualized management; disease activity should be assessed at each visit; nonpharmacologic interventions such as sun protection, smoking cessation, and following a healthy diet are all important for improving long-term outcomes; pharmacologic interventions are to be directed by patient characteristics, type and severity of organ involvement, treatment-related harms, and patient preferences, among other factors; and early SLE diagnosis is essential to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance quality of life.

Referring to each recommendation statement in turn, Dr. Boumpas provided a detailed description of each, and highlighted any changes since the 2019 recommendations.
 

Hydroxychloroquine, glucocorticoids as bridging therapy, and biologics

Referring to statement 1, Dr. Boumpas reported that hydroxychloroquine should be a first-line therapy at a dose of 5 mg/kg, but this dose should be individualized based on risk of flare and retinal toxicity. “There was some discussion about monitoring blood levels, but this was to ensure adherence only,” said Dr. Boumpas.

Continuing to statement 2, he added, “here is one change. With chronic use of glucocorticoids, the maintenance dose is 5 mg/day or less or prednisone equivalent. This pertains to both new onset and relapsing disease.” Previous recommendations advised a maintenance dose of 7.5 mg/day or less.

But he pointed out that “we are discussing using glucocorticoids in lupus as a bridging therapy only, for short, limited periods of time. We should shy away from chronic use of glucocorticoids and only use them for 3 months, and to do this we need to use glucocorticoid-sparing strategies.”

This led to statement 3, which refers to glucocorticoid-sparing strategies. Dr. Boumpas explained that, in patients who are not responding to hydroxychloroquine or unable to reduce glucocorticoids further during chronic use, add immunosuppressive agents, such as methotrexate and/or biologics (for example, belimumab [Benlysta] or anifrolumab [Saphnelo]).

“To allow flexibility for patients and clinicians, it isn’t necessary to use DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] first if you prefer biologics,” he continued. “We are becoming more liberal with the use of biologics because there are new data that confirm the efficacy of belimumab in extrarenal SLE, plus good data with 3-year extension with anifrolumab.”

Statement 4 says that for patients with organ- or life-threatening disease, intravenous cyclophosphamide, “our old friend,” should be considered, while in refractory cases, rituximab may be considered, Dr. Boumpas said. “It’s okay to use cyclophosphamide. It isn’t a sin.”

Statement 5 refers to skin disease, and Dr. Boumpas explained that good data suggested that biologics help, including both belimumab and anifrolumab.

Nothing has changed with statement 6 concerning neuropsychiatric lupus, said Dr. Boumpas. “Glucocorticoids, immunosuppressive, and antithrombotic therapies should be considered.”

Regarding hematologic disease (statement 7), he said, “the new kid on the block is MMF [mycophenolate mofetil]. For acute treatment, still use the same drugs, including rituximab, but for maintenance you may use rituximab, azathioprine, MMF, or cyclosporine.”
 

Lupus nephritis

Turning to what Dr. Boumpas described as the “reason you had all come here, and what you had been waiting for ... what’s changing with lupus nephritis?” he said.

Statement 8 describes initial therapy in active lupus nephritis. Dr. Boumpas said that low-dose, intravenous cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate should be considered, but also that belimumab or a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) should be considered at the start. The changes were based on two successful phase 3 trials of belimumab and voclosporin, with belimumab being associated with a reduced flare rate and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

“Changes from 2019 include that there is no distinction between classes III/IV and V, which is heretical,” he stressed. Belimumab and CNIs/voclosporin should be considered in all patents as an add-on therapy from the start. “Lupus nephritis has high morbidity, and it’s difficult to predict outcomes at the beginning, but there are clear benefits of add-on therapies. CNIs, although they can be used for all patients, might be more appropriate for membranous or nephrotic-range proteinuria.”

He went on to announce that the “million-dollar question” was whether to use belimumab or voclosporin (or other CNIs), and that this was “a question of gentle, compared with forceful, power and collateral damage.

“For me, voclosporin works very fast, but you worry about side effects, while belimumab is gentle and the response is sustained, preventing flares and organ damage,” he said, adding that “our expert panel discussions showed that nephrologists were more eager to support steroid-free regimens.”

Moving on to statement 9, Dr. Boumpas explained that after initial therapy and renal response, subsequent therapy should continue for at least 3 years. If treated with MMF alone or in combination with belimumab, then these drugs should continue. However, MMF should replace cyclophosphamide if the latter is used initially.

Regarding treat-to-target in lupus nephritis, he said that EULAR now advises to aim for a 25% drop in urine protein/creatinine ratio by 3 months, a 50% drop by 6 months, and a UPCR of less than 0.5-0.7, plus normal eGFR, by 12 months, Dr. Boumpas said.

Statement 10 advises considering high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide in combination with pulse intravenous methylprednisolone for patients at high risk of renal failure.
 

Tapering drugs in sustained remission, managing antiphospholipid syndrome, giving immunizations

Statement 11 suggests to consider tapering immunosuppressive agents and glucocorticoids in patients achieving sustained remission, starting with glucocorticoids first.

There was no change to statement 12, which recommends that thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome associated with SLE be treated with long-term vitamin K antagonists.

Statement 13 addresses immunizations and adjunct therapies. In addition to conventional immunizations, Dr. Boumpas said that renoprotection should receive attention in case of proteinuria and/or hypertension.

“With [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors, it’s a bit early. They’re promising, and you may consider them, although there are no data for patients with eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²,” he remarked, completing his detailed discussion of the updated recommendations.

Dr. Boumpas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landewé served as past chair of EULAR’s Quality of Care Committee, which develops recommendations.

A new study suggests that prescriptions for low-dose oral minoxidil soared in the wake of a 2022 New York Times article that highlighted its utility for hair loss.

©herkisi/iStockphoto.com

The weekly rate of first-time low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) prescriptions per 10,000 outpatient encounters was “significantly higher 8 weeks after vs. 8 weeks before article publication,” at 0.9 prescriptions, compared with 0.5 per 10,000, wrote the authors of the research letter, published in JAMA Network Open. There was no similar bump for first-time finasteride or hypertension prescriptions, wrote the authors, from Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Truveta, a company that provides EHR data from U.S. health care systems.

The New York Times article noted that LDOM was relatively unknown to patients and doctors – and not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating hair loss – but that it was inexpensive, safe, and very effective for many individuals. “The article did not report new research findings or large-scale randomized evidence,” wrote the authors of the JAMA study.

In an interview, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said that he was not surprised to see an uptick in prescriptions after the Times article.

He and his colleagues were curious as to whether the article might have prompted newfound interest in LDOM. They experienced an uptick at George Washington, which Dr. Friedman thought could have been because he was quoted in the Times story. He and colleagues conducted a national survey of dermatologists asking if more patients had called, emailed, or come in to the office asking about LDOM after the article’s publication. “Over 85% said yes,” Dr. Friedman said in the interview. He and his coauthors also found a huge increase in Google searches for terms such as hair loss, alopecia, and minoxidil in the weeks after the article, he said.

The results are expected to published soon in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.

“I think a lot of people know about [LDOM] and it’s certainly has gained a lot more attention and acceptance in recent years,” said Dr. Friedman, but he added that “there’s no question” that the Times article increased interest.

That is not necessarily a bad thing, he said. “With one article, education on a common disease was disseminated worldwide in a way that no one doctor can do,” he said. The article was truthful, evidence-based, and included expert dermatologists, he noted.

“It probably got people who never thought twice about their hair thinning to actually think that there’s hope,” he said, adding that it also likely prompted them to seek care, and, more importantly, “to seek care from the person who should be taking care of this, which is the dermatologist.”

However, the article might also inspire some people to think LDOM can help when it can’t, or they might insist on a prescription when another medication is more appropriate, said Dr. Friedman.

Both he and Dr. Sinclair expect demand for LDOM to continue increasing.

“Word of mouth will drive the next wave of prescriptions,” said Dr. Sinclair. “We are continuing to do work to improve safety, to understand its mechanism of action, and identify ways to improve equity of access to treatment for men and women who are concerned about their hair loss and motivated to treat it,” he said.

Dr. Sinclair and Dr. Friedman report no relevant financial relationships.

A new study suggests that prescriptions for low-dose oral minoxidil soared in the wake of a 2022 New York Times article that highlighted its utility for hair loss.

©herkisi/iStockphoto.com

The weekly rate of first-time low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) prescriptions per 10,000 outpatient encounters was “significantly higher 8 weeks after vs. 8 weeks before article publication,” at 0.9 prescriptions, compared with 0.5 per 10,000, wrote the authors of the research letter, published in JAMA Network Open. There was no similar bump for first-time finasteride or hypertension prescriptions, wrote the authors, from Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Truveta, a company that provides EHR data from U.S. health care systems.

The New York Times article noted that LDOM was relatively unknown to patients and doctors – and not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating hair loss – but that it was inexpensive, safe, and very effective for many individuals. “The article did not report new research findings or large-scale randomized evidence,” wrote the authors of the JAMA study.

In an interview, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said that he was not surprised to see an uptick in prescriptions after the Times article.

He and his colleagues were curious as to whether the article might have prompted newfound interest in LDOM. They experienced an uptick at George Washington, which Dr. Friedman thought could have been because he was quoted in the Times story. He and colleagues conducted a national survey of dermatologists asking if more patients had called, emailed, or come in to the office asking about LDOM after the article’s publication. “Over 85% said yes,” Dr. Friedman said in the interview. He and his coauthors also found a huge increase in Google searches for terms such as hair loss, alopecia, and minoxidil in the weeks after the article, he said.

The results are expected to published soon in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.

“I think a lot of people know about [LDOM] and it’s certainly has gained a lot more attention and acceptance in recent years,” said Dr. Friedman, but he added that “there’s no question” that the Times article increased interest.

That is not necessarily a bad thing, he said. “With one article, education on a common disease was disseminated worldwide in a way that no one doctor can do,” he said. The article was truthful, evidence-based, and included expert dermatologists, he noted.

“It probably got people who never thought twice about their hair thinning to actually think that there’s hope,” he said, adding that it also likely prompted them to seek care, and, more importantly, “to seek care from the person who should be taking care of this, which is the dermatologist.”

However, the article might also inspire some people to think LDOM can help when it can’t, or they might insist on a prescription when another medication is more appropriate, said Dr. Friedman.

Both he and Dr. Sinclair expect demand for LDOM to continue increasing.

“Word of mouth will drive the next wave of prescriptions,” said Dr. Sinclair. “We are continuing to do work to improve safety, to understand its mechanism of action, and identify ways to improve equity of access to treatment for men and women who are concerned about their hair loss and motivated to treat it,” he said.

Dr. Sinclair and Dr. Friedman report no relevant financial relationships.

A new study suggests that prescriptions for low-dose oral minoxidil soared in the wake of a 2022 New York Times article that highlighted its utility for hair loss.

©herkisi/iStockphoto.com

The weekly rate of first-time low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) prescriptions per 10,000 outpatient encounters was “significantly higher 8 weeks after vs. 8 weeks before article publication,” at 0.9 prescriptions, compared with 0.5 per 10,000, wrote the authors of the research letter, published in JAMA Network Open. There was no similar bump for first-time finasteride or hypertension prescriptions, wrote the authors, from Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Truveta, a company that provides EHR data from U.S. health care systems.

The New York Times article noted that LDOM was relatively unknown to patients and doctors – and not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating hair loss – but that it was inexpensive, safe, and very effective for many individuals. “The article did not report new research findings or large-scale randomized evidence,” wrote the authors of the JAMA study.

In an interview, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said that he was not surprised to see an uptick in prescriptions after the Times article.

He and his colleagues were curious as to whether the article might have prompted newfound interest in LDOM. They experienced an uptick at George Washington, which Dr. Friedman thought could have been because he was quoted in the Times story. He and colleagues conducted a national survey of dermatologists asking if more patients had called, emailed, or come in to the office asking about LDOM after the article’s publication. “Over 85% said yes,” Dr. Friedman said in the interview. He and his coauthors also found a huge increase in Google searches for terms such as hair loss, alopecia, and minoxidil in the weeks after the article, he said.

The results are expected to published soon in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.

“I think a lot of people know about [LDOM] and it’s certainly has gained a lot more attention and acceptance in recent years,” said Dr. Friedman, but he added that “there’s no question” that the Times article increased interest.

That is not necessarily a bad thing, he said. “With one article, education on a common disease was disseminated worldwide in a way that no one doctor can do,” he said. The article was truthful, evidence-based, and included expert dermatologists, he noted.

“It probably got people who never thought twice about their hair thinning to actually think that there’s hope,” he said, adding that it also likely prompted them to seek care, and, more importantly, “to seek care from the person who should be taking care of this, which is the dermatologist.”

However, the article might also inspire some people to think LDOM can help when it can’t, or they might insist on a prescription when another medication is more appropriate, said Dr. Friedman.

Both he and Dr. Sinclair expect demand for LDOM to continue increasing.

“Word of mouth will drive the next wave of prescriptions,” said Dr. Sinclair. “We are continuing to do work to improve safety, to understand its mechanism of action, and identify ways to improve equity of access to treatment for men and women who are concerned about their hair loss and motivated to treat it,” he said.

Dr. Sinclair and Dr. Friedman report no relevant financial relationships.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A major challenge for clinical trials in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is how to get the placebo response rate down low enough that the effectiveness of a drug can actually be seen. Better patient selection may be the key.

Speaking at an international congress on SLE, Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, presented on how the heterogeneity of lupus is contributing to the ongoing failure of so many potential therapies in clinical trials.

“It’s a miracle that any drug has been successful in clinical trials,” she told the conference, comparing the few drugs approved for the treatment of lupus with the much larger numbers of approved, targeted biologics that are available for rheumatoid arthritis.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

The problem is that placebo response rates in clinical trials for lupus are high – well over 40% – Dr. Merrill said, and trials aren’t showing a big difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo arms. “If the placebo response is 40%, wouldn’t an effective drug help 80%?” she said. “If it also affects only 40%, does that mean it’s a failed drug?”

Dr. Merrill suggested that better patient selection could be key to achieving lower placebo response rates, which could in turn reveal if and in whom a drug might be effective. “If we could get the placebo response rate down, at least we’d be able to see a little bit better whether the drug is effective, even if it only could work in 50% of the patients,” she said.

Data from research done by the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation suggested that patients with SLE could be loosely categorized into seven different clusters based on patterns of gene expression in areas such as interferon expression and inflammation pathways.

For example, two of those clusters represented patients with high levels of expression for both interferons and inflammation. “Maybe those are the patients who’d want to be put in a trial for interferon inhibition,” Dr. Merrill said.

This was demonstrated in a trial of type 1 interferon inhibitor anifrolumab (Saphnelo), where patients were sorted into groups according to their level of interferon expression – either high or low – based on expression of certain interferon genes. This revealed that patients in the interferon-high group had a much higher treatment effect than patients in the interferon-low group. But the difference lay in the placebo response.

“The efficacy rate was not that different between the interferon-high and the interferon-low patients,” Dr. Merrill said. “The difference was in the placebo response rate – what they had managed to find was a great marker for sicker patients.”

This phenomenon is not limited to interferon-targeted therapies. Dr. Merrill cited another literature review which looked at subset studies within clinical trials that had delivered disappointing results. This showed consistently that patients who were considered more unwell, by virtue of higher SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) scores, for example, were more likely to show an effect of treatment.

“You begin to see bigger differences between treatment and placebo because the treatment rate might go up, but mostly because the placebo rate goes down,” she said.

Another issue that could be affecting both placebo and treatment response rates is background medication. “Subset analysis of people on less background drugs was showing lower placebo response rates and better differences between treatments and placebo,” Dr. Merrill said. For example, a recent phase 2 study of anifrolumab took the strategy of actively pursuing tapering of glucocorticoids in patients where that could be done safely. That achieved a lowering of the placebo response rate to the point where a greater difference could be seen between the placebo response and the treatment response rates.

The challenge for clinical trials is therefore to identify which patients to include. “If we could figure out which patients would be the most appropriate [to enroll to fit a particular drug’s mechanism of action], then we could really get ahead of the game,” she said.

The unique problem for lupus clinic trials is the heterogeneity of lupus as a disease, Dr. Merrill said in an interview. “We’re going to have to find combinations of treatments that fit right for each patient, and they won’t necessarily be one size fits all,” she said.

Dr. Merrill said that subset analyses at the phase 2 stage could help identify the patients who responded better to the treatment and could therefore be targeted in phase 3 trials. “Once you take that hypothesis, and if you can establish and validate it in phase 3, now you’ve got yourself a biomarker,” she said.

Richard A. Furie, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in New York, agreed that the high placebo response rate was a particular nemesis for researchers involved in lupus clinical trials.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Dr. Furie said it could be that selecting sicker patients is a solution to this, as had been suggested in the subset analysis of the anifrolumab studies – which he was involved in – that identified differences in the response rates between interferon-high and interferon-low patients.

But if that was the case, the challenge would be recruiting enough of any particular subset of patients. For example, relatively few patients in the anifrolumab trial were classified as interferon low.

If the interferon expression levels are a marker for patients who are sicker, that could serve as a way to better select patients for clinical trials, he said. But it would also make it harder to achieve recruitment targets.

“I think the major problem in SLE trials is that patients have inflated activity scores, so you can gain SLEDAI scores with a little alopecia and an oral ulcer,” he said. “You can start eliminating those parameters from counting towards entry, but then as soon as you do that, you’re going to have trouble recruiting.”

Dr. Merrill reported consulting for and receiving research support from a range of pharmaceutical companies including Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and anifrolumab manufacturer AstraZeneca. Dr. Furie reported financial relationships with Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Kezar Life Sciences, Kyverna Therapeutics, and Takeda.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A major challenge for clinical trials in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is how to get the placebo response rate down low enough that the effectiveness of a drug can actually be seen. Better patient selection may be the key.

Speaking at an international congress on SLE, Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, presented on how the heterogeneity of lupus is contributing to the ongoing failure of so many potential therapies in clinical trials.

“It’s a miracle that any drug has been successful in clinical trials,” she told the conference, comparing the few drugs approved for the treatment of lupus with the much larger numbers of approved, targeted biologics that are available for rheumatoid arthritis.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

The problem is that placebo response rates in clinical trials for lupus are high – well over 40% – Dr. Merrill said, and trials aren’t showing a big difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo arms. “If the placebo response is 40%, wouldn’t an effective drug help 80%?” she said. “If it also affects only 40%, does that mean it’s a failed drug?”

Dr. Merrill suggested that better patient selection could be key to achieving lower placebo response rates, which could in turn reveal if and in whom a drug might be effective. “If we could get the placebo response rate down, at least we’d be able to see a little bit better whether the drug is effective, even if it only could work in 50% of the patients,” she said.

Data from research done by the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation suggested that patients with SLE could be loosely categorized into seven different clusters based on patterns of gene expression in areas such as interferon expression and inflammation pathways.

For example, two of those clusters represented patients with high levels of expression for both interferons and inflammation. “Maybe those are the patients who’d want to be put in a trial for interferon inhibition,” Dr. Merrill said.

This was demonstrated in a trial of type 1 interferon inhibitor anifrolumab (Saphnelo), where patients were sorted into groups according to their level of interferon expression – either high or low – based on expression of certain interferon genes. This revealed that patients in the interferon-high group had a much higher treatment effect than patients in the interferon-low group. But the difference lay in the placebo response.

“The efficacy rate was not that different between the interferon-high and the interferon-low patients,” Dr. Merrill said. “The difference was in the placebo response rate – what they had managed to find was a great marker for sicker patients.”

This phenomenon is not limited to interferon-targeted therapies. Dr. Merrill cited another literature review which looked at subset studies within clinical trials that had delivered disappointing results. This showed consistently that patients who were considered more unwell, by virtue of higher SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) scores, for example, were more likely to show an effect of treatment.

“You begin to see bigger differences between treatment and placebo because the treatment rate might go up, but mostly because the placebo rate goes down,” she said.

Another issue that could be affecting both placebo and treatment response rates is background medication. “Subset analysis of people on less background drugs was showing lower placebo response rates and better differences between treatments and placebo,” Dr. Merrill said. For example, a recent phase 2 study of anifrolumab took the strategy of actively pursuing tapering of glucocorticoids in patients where that could be done safely. That achieved a lowering of the placebo response rate to the point where a greater difference could be seen between the placebo response and the treatment response rates.

The challenge for clinical trials is therefore to identify which patients to include. “If we could figure out which patients would be the most appropriate [to enroll to fit a particular drug’s mechanism of action], then we could really get ahead of the game,” she said.

The unique problem for lupus clinic trials is the heterogeneity of lupus as a disease, Dr. Merrill said in an interview. “We’re going to have to find combinations of treatments that fit right for each patient, and they won’t necessarily be one size fits all,” she said.

Dr. Merrill said that subset analyses at the phase 2 stage could help identify the patients who responded better to the treatment and could therefore be targeted in phase 3 trials. “Once you take that hypothesis, and if you can establish and validate it in phase 3, now you’ve got yourself a biomarker,” she said.

Richard A. Furie, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in New York, agreed that the high placebo response rate was a particular nemesis for researchers involved in lupus clinical trials.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Dr. Furie said it could be that selecting sicker patients is a solution to this, as had been suggested in the subset analysis of the anifrolumab studies – which he was involved in – that identified differences in the response rates between interferon-high and interferon-low patients.

But if that was the case, the challenge would be recruiting enough of any particular subset of patients. For example, relatively few patients in the anifrolumab trial were classified as interferon low.

If the interferon expression levels are a marker for patients who are sicker, that could serve as a way to better select patients for clinical trials, he said. But it would also make it harder to achieve recruitment targets.

“I think the major problem in SLE trials is that patients have inflated activity scores, so you can gain SLEDAI scores with a little alopecia and an oral ulcer,” he said. “You can start eliminating those parameters from counting towards entry, but then as soon as you do that, you’re going to have trouble recruiting.”

Dr. Merrill reported consulting for and receiving research support from a range of pharmaceutical companies including Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and anifrolumab manufacturer AstraZeneca. Dr. Furie reported financial relationships with Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Kezar Life Sciences, Kyverna Therapeutics, and Takeda.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A major challenge for clinical trials in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is how to get the placebo response rate down low enough that the effectiveness of a drug can actually be seen. Better patient selection may be the key.

Speaking at an international congress on SLE, Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, presented on how the heterogeneity of lupus is contributing to the ongoing failure of so many potential therapies in clinical trials.

“It’s a miracle that any drug has been successful in clinical trials,” she told the conference, comparing the few drugs approved for the treatment of lupus with the much larger numbers of approved, targeted biologics that are available for rheumatoid arthritis.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

The problem is that placebo response rates in clinical trials for lupus are high – well over 40% – Dr. Merrill said, and trials aren’t showing a big difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo arms. “If the placebo response is 40%, wouldn’t an effective drug help 80%?” she said. “If it also affects only 40%, does that mean it’s a failed drug?”

Dr. Merrill suggested that better patient selection could be key to achieving lower placebo response rates, which could in turn reveal if and in whom a drug might be effective. “If we could get the placebo response rate down, at least we’d be able to see a little bit better whether the drug is effective, even if it only could work in 50% of the patients,” she said.

Data from research done by the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation suggested that patients with SLE could be loosely categorized into seven different clusters based on patterns of gene expression in areas such as interferon expression and inflammation pathways.

For example, two of those clusters represented patients with high levels of expression for both interferons and inflammation. “Maybe those are the patients who’d want to be put in a trial for interferon inhibition,” Dr. Merrill said.

This was demonstrated in a trial of type 1 interferon inhibitor anifrolumab (Saphnelo), where patients were sorted into groups according to their level of interferon expression – either high or low – based on expression of certain interferon genes. This revealed that patients in the interferon-high group had a much higher treatment effect than patients in the interferon-low group. But the difference lay in the placebo response.

“The efficacy rate was not that different between the interferon-high and the interferon-low patients,” Dr. Merrill said. “The difference was in the placebo response rate – what they had managed to find was a great marker for sicker patients.”

This phenomenon is not limited to interferon-targeted therapies. Dr. Merrill cited another literature review which looked at subset studies within clinical trials that had delivered disappointing results. This showed consistently that patients who were considered more unwell, by virtue of higher SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) scores, for example, were more likely to show an effect of treatment.

“You begin to see bigger differences between treatment and placebo because the treatment rate might go up, but mostly because the placebo rate goes down,” she said.

Another issue that could be affecting both placebo and treatment response rates is background medication. “Subset analysis of people on less background drugs was showing lower placebo response rates and better differences between treatments and placebo,” Dr. Merrill said. For example, a recent phase 2 study of anifrolumab took the strategy of actively pursuing tapering of glucocorticoids in patients where that could be done safely. That achieved a lowering of the placebo response rate to the point where a greater difference could be seen between the placebo response and the treatment response rates.

The challenge for clinical trials is therefore to identify which patients to include. “If we could figure out which patients would be the most appropriate [to enroll to fit a particular drug’s mechanism of action], then we could really get ahead of the game,” she said.

The unique problem for lupus clinic trials is the heterogeneity of lupus as a disease, Dr. Merrill said in an interview. “We’re going to have to find combinations of treatments that fit right for each patient, and they won’t necessarily be one size fits all,” she said.

Dr. Merrill said that subset analyses at the phase 2 stage could help identify the patients who responded better to the treatment and could therefore be targeted in phase 3 trials. “Once you take that hypothesis, and if you can establish and validate it in phase 3, now you’ve got yourself a biomarker,” she said.

Richard A. Furie, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in New York, agreed that the high placebo response rate was a particular nemesis for researchers involved in lupus clinical trials.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Dr. Furie said it could be that selecting sicker patients is a solution to this, as had been suggested in the subset analysis of the anifrolumab studies – which he was involved in – that identified differences in the response rates between interferon-high and interferon-low patients.

But if that was the case, the challenge would be recruiting enough of any particular subset of patients. For example, relatively few patients in the anifrolumab trial were classified as interferon low.

If the interferon expression levels are a marker for patients who are sicker, that could serve as a way to better select patients for clinical trials, he said. But it would also make it harder to achieve recruitment targets.

“I think the major problem in SLE trials is that patients have inflated activity scores, so you can gain SLEDAI scores with a little alopecia and an oral ulcer,” he said. “You can start eliminating those parameters from counting towards entry, but then as soon as you do that, you’re going to have trouble recruiting.”

Dr. Merrill reported consulting for and receiving research support from a range of pharmaceutical companies including Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and anifrolumab manufacturer AstraZeneca. Dr. Furie reported financial relationships with Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Kezar Life Sciences, Kyverna Therapeutics, and Takeda.

Infections were the most common adverse events associated with the use of microwave energy devices for hyperhidrosis over a 9-year period, an analysis of reports submitted to the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database showed.

While microwave energy devices (MEDs) are used to treat hyperhidrosis, the largest MED clinical trial included only 101 patients, Samantha Jo Albucker and Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, wrote in a research letter reporting the results.

For the study, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Ms. Albucker, a student at Tulane University, New Orleans, and Dr. Lipner, associate professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, searched the MAUDE database between Feb. 28, 2013, and Dec. 29, 2022, for adverse events (AEs) involving MEDs for hyperhidrosis treatment. Of the 502 medical device reports identified over the study period, the axilla was the most frequent injury site in 50.4% of cases. The three most common complications were infections (45.4%); neurological symptoms including neuropathy, nerve damage, and numbness (21.7%); and burns/ulcerations/erosions (19.1%).

In other findings, 2.4% of patients required hospitalization, most often because of infection (83.3%), followed by burn and coma (8.3% each). The average symptom onset was 2 months postprocedure, and the most common treatment was antibiotics in 62.2% of cases, followed by incision and drainage/aspiration in 21.7% of cases.

A codiagnosis of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) was reported in 5.4% of all medical device reports. The researchers noted that in a published randomized clinical trial of eight HS patients undergoing MED treatment to assess the effect on HS symptoms, the treatment showed no clinical advantage. In addition, they referred to two case reports describing new-onset HS after MED treatment for hyperhidrosis.

“Therefore, we recommend questioning patients about HS history and examining for HS clinical findings before performing MED for hyperhidrosis,” they wrote, adding that the data, “taken together, suggests that avoidance of MED treatment of hyperhidrosis in HS patients is prudent and alternative treatments may be prescribed.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including uncompleted medical device reports, patient reporting, and unverified causes of adverse events. “Large multicenter studies are needed to corroborate our results,” they concluded.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that primary idiopathic hyperhidrosis is a common medical condition that is often overlooked as a legitimate concern, and causes a quality-of-life burden. “Even with the striking numbers in the millions, there are limited treatment options available for axillary let alone other forms of primary hyperhidrosis,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study.

“Therefore, for the short treatment list we have, it is important to have some predictive power with respect to clinical impact to provide realistic expectations as well as potential adverse events to ensure best practices and meaningful patient guidance. In this research letter, our colleagues highlight complications that can ensue from microwave therapy for hyperhidrosis and the frequency of said adverse events. Knowing these data is half the battle, and I for one would not have assumed infection was number one on the list of adverse events.”

Ms. Albucker had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Lipner disclosed that she has served as a consultant for Ortho Dermatologics, Hoth Therapeutics, BelleTorus Corporation, and Moberg Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he is a consultant and/or advisory board member for Medscape/SanovaWorks, Oakstone Institute, L’Oréal, La Roche Posay, Galderma, Aveeno, Ortho Dermatologic, Microcures, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Hoth Therapeutics, Zylo Therapeutics, BMS, Vial, Janssen, Novocure, Dermavant, Regeneron/Sanofi, and Incyte. He has also received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Lilly, Janssen, Incyte, and Galderma.

Infections were the most common adverse events associated with the use of microwave energy devices for hyperhidrosis over a 9-year period, an analysis of reports submitted to the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database showed.

While microwave energy devices (MEDs) are used to treat hyperhidrosis, the largest MED clinical trial included only 101 patients, Samantha Jo Albucker and Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, wrote in a research letter reporting the results.

For the study, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Ms. Albucker, a student at Tulane University, New Orleans, and Dr. Lipner, associate professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, searched the MAUDE database between Feb. 28, 2013, and Dec. 29, 2022, for adverse events (AEs) involving MEDs for hyperhidrosis treatment. Of the 502 medical device reports identified over the study period, the axilla was the most frequent injury site in 50.4% of cases. The three most common complications were infections (45.4%); neurological symptoms including neuropathy, nerve damage, and numbness (21.7%); and burns/ulcerations/erosions (19.1%).

In other findings, 2.4% of patients required hospitalization, most often because of infection (83.3%), followed by burn and coma (8.3% each). The average symptom onset was 2 months postprocedure, and the most common treatment was antibiotics in 62.2% of cases, followed by incision and drainage/aspiration in 21.7% of cases.

A codiagnosis of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) was reported in 5.4% of all medical device reports. The researchers noted that in a published randomized clinical trial of eight HS patients undergoing MED treatment to assess the effect on HS symptoms, the treatment showed no clinical advantage. In addition, they referred to two case reports describing new-onset HS after MED treatment for hyperhidrosis.

“Therefore, we recommend questioning patients about HS history and examining for HS clinical findings before performing MED for hyperhidrosis,” they wrote, adding that the data, “taken together, suggests that avoidance of MED treatment of hyperhidrosis in HS patients is prudent and alternative treatments may be prescribed.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including uncompleted medical device reports, patient reporting, and unverified causes of adverse events. “Large multicenter studies are needed to corroborate our results,” they concluded.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that primary idiopathic hyperhidrosis is a common medical condition that is often overlooked as a legitimate concern, and causes a quality-of-life burden. “Even with the striking numbers in the millions, there are limited treatment options available for axillary let alone other forms of primary hyperhidrosis,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study.

“Therefore, for the short treatment list we have, it is important to have some predictive power with respect to clinical impact to provide realistic expectations as well as potential adverse events to ensure best practices and meaningful patient guidance. In this research letter, our colleagues highlight complications that can ensue from microwave therapy for hyperhidrosis and the frequency of said adverse events. Knowing these data is half the battle, and I for one would not have assumed infection was number one on the list of adverse events.”

Ms. Albucker had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Lipner disclosed that she has served as a consultant for Ortho Dermatologics, Hoth Therapeutics, BelleTorus Corporation, and Moberg Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he is a consultant and/or advisory board member for Medscape/SanovaWorks, Oakstone Institute, L’Oréal, La Roche Posay, Galderma, Aveeno, Ortho Dermatologic, Microcures, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Hoth Therapeutics, Zylo Therapeutics, BMS, Vial, Janssen, Novocure, Dermavant, Regeneron/Sanofi, and Incyte. He has also received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Lilly, Janssen, Incyte, and Galderma.

Infections were the most common adverse events associated with the use of microwave energy devices for hyperhidrosis over a 9-year period, an analysis of reports submitted to the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database showed.

While microwave energy devices (MEDs) are used to treat hyperhidrosis, the largest MED clinical trial included only 101 patients, Samantha Jo Albucker and Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, wrote in a research letter reporting the results.

For the study, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Ms. Albucker, a student at Tulane University, New Orleans, and Dr. Lipner, associate professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, searched the MAUDE database between Feb. 28, 2013, and Dec. 29, 2022, for adverse events (AEs) involving MEDs for hyperhidrosis treatment. Of the 502 medical device reports identified over the study period, the axilla was the most frequent injury site in 50.4% of cases. The three most common complications were infections (45.4%); neurological symptoms including neuropathy, nerve damage, and numbness (21.7%); and burns/ulcerations/erosions (19.1%).

In other findings, 2.4% of patients required hospitalization, most often because of infection (83.3%), followed by burn and coma (8.3% each). The average symptom onset was 2 months postprocedure, and the most common treatment was antibiotics in 62.2% of cases, followed by incision and drainage/aspiration in 21.7% of cases.

A codiagnosis of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) was reported in 5.4% of all medical device reports. The researchers noted that in a published randomized clinical trial of eight HS patients undergoing MED treatment to assess the effect on HS symptoms, the treatment showed no clinical advantage. In addition, they referred to two case reports describing new-onset HS after MED treatment for hyperhidrosis.

“Therefore, we recommend questioning patients about HS history and examining for HS clinical findings before performing MED for hyperhidrosis,” they wrote, adding that the data, “taken together, suggests that avoidance of MED treatment of hyperhidrosis in HS patients is prudent and alternative treatments may be prescribed.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including uncompleted medical device reports, patient reporting, and unverified causes of adverse events. “Large multicenter studies are needed to corroborate our results,” they concluded.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that primary idiopathic hyperhidrosis is a common medical condition that is often overlooked as a legitimate concern, and causes a quality-of-life burden. “Even with the striking numbers in the millions, there are limited treatment options available for axillary let alone other forms of primary hyperhidrosis,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study.

“Therefore, for the short treatment list we have, it is important to have some predictive power with respect to clinical impact to provide realistic expectations as well as potential adverse events to ensure best practices and meaningful patient guidance. In this research letter, our colleagues highlight complications that can ensue from microwave therapy for hyperhidrosis and the frequency of said adverse events. Knowing these data is half the battle, and I for one would not have assumed infection was number one on the list of adverse events.”

Ms. Albucker had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Lipner disclosed that she has served as a consultant for Ortho Dermatologics, Hoth Therapeutics, BelleTorus Corporation, and Moberg Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he is a consultant and/or advisory board member for Medscape/SanovaWorks, Oakstone Institute, L’Oréal, La Roche Posay, Galderma, Aveeno, Ortho Dermatologic, Microcures, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Hoth Therapeutics, Zylo Therapeutics, BMS, Vial, Janssen, Novocure, Dermavant, Regeneron/Sanofi, and Incyte. He has also received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Lilly, Janssen, Incyte, and Galderma.

Delivering microdose incision-site injections of clindamycin significantly reduced the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in skin cancer surgery.

However, prophylaxis with flucloxacillin did not significantly lower SSI rates, compared with not using incision site antibiotics.

The rate of postoperative SSIs was 2.1% in the clindamycin arm, vs. 5.7% in the control arm and 5.3% in the flucloxacillin arm.

“Based on these results, we recommend the routine adoption of incisional microdosed clindamycin for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery,” Maple Goh, MBChB, of the Auckland Regional Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Auckland, New Zealand, and the coauthors conclude. “This strategy appears suitable for widespread implementation because of the magnitude of the effect observed and the absence of adverse events.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

Skin cancer surgery carries a high risk of SSIs, which represent costly yet largely preventable complications of surgery. Despite the risk, there’s a lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials of the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing SSI rates among patients undergoing skin cancer surgery. Previous studies have investigated incisional antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce SSIs with Mohs micrographic surgery, but these surgeries represent a relatively small proportion of overall skin cancer surgeries.

To understand whether this benefit extends to more general skin cancer surgeries, investigators recruited patients from a high-volume skin cancer center in New Zealand who were treated from February to July 2019. In the double-blind, prospective PICASSo trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive an incision site injection of buffered local anesthetic alone (control group), buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of flucloxacillin (500 mcg/mL), or buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of clindamycin (500 mcg/mL). The most common surgery type was excision and direct closure (approximately 80% in all arms), and the mean volume injected per length of direct closure was 1.5 mL/cm.

The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative SSIs, defined as a postoperative wound infection score of 5 or more. The SSI rate was calculated as the number of lesions with SSIs per total number of lesions in the group.

Overall, 681 patients with 1,133 total lesions were included in the study. Compared with the control arm, the rate of postoperative SSIs was nearly threefold lower among patients who received clindamycin, –2.1% (9 of 422) vs. 5.7% (22 of 388) in the control arm (P = .01 for clindamycin vs. control).

However, flucloxacillin did not demonstrate the same effectiveness. The flucloxacillin arm and the control arm demonstrated similar postoperative SSI rates – 5.3% (17 of 323) vs. 5.7%.

The results were similar after adjusting for baseline differences and lesion ulceration.

The researchers also found that the proportion of lesions that required postoperative systemic antibiotics was four times higher among the control arm, in comparison with the clindamycin arm (8% vs. 2.1%; P < .001). It was two times higher than in the flucloxacillin arm (8% vs. 4%; P = .03).

Treatment with microdoses of incisional flucloxacillin and clindamycin was safe and well tolerated.

The researchers speculated that clindamycin’s greater effectiveness may come down to its slightly broader coverage of commonly cultured bacteria in skin and soft tissue infections, including community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clindamycin is known to have more efficacy against anaerobic bacteria that may be lurking in chronically ulcerated skin lesions and is associated with less local tissue inflammation, compared with flucloxacillin.

Overall, “clindamycin was significantly more effective at preventing SSI than flucloxacillin in our study,” the authors conclude. They note that the use of clindamycin as a first-line prophylaxis agent against SSIs for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery is a practical option.

“These results establish evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in one of the most common surgical interventions performed worldwide, where they have been previously absent,” the researchers say.

The authors of an editorial published with the study underscore other advantages of incisional microdosing with antibiotics.

“One advantage of cutaneous antibiotic administration is improved drug delivery to poorly perfused tissue, which would have limited reach by the systemic circulation,” wrote Amanda R. Sergesketter, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Scott T. Hollenbeck, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“While not evaluated in this study, local antibiotic delivery may be especially relevant to larger and more complex wounds,” the editorialists say. They note that the next step for future studies should be to evaluate prophylaxis in more complex situations.

“Such studies should be considered enthusiastically, given the clearly favorable impact on surgical site infections demonstrated in the PICASSo trial,” Dr. Sergesketter and Dr. Hollenbeck said.

The study was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Health Research Council. Dr. Hollenbeck reported educational grants to Duke University from Allergan, Acelity, Synovis, Integra, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, Cook, KLs Martin, Bard, VOptix, Scanlan, True Digital Surgery, Nautilus, Mitaka, Checkpoint Surgical, and Omniguide, and he is a founder and equity holder for InSoma Bio, a premarket company focused on tissue regeneration.

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

Delivering microdose incision-site injections of clindamycin significantly reduced the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in skin cancer surgery.

However, prophylaxis with flucloxacillin did not significantly lower SSI rates, compared with not using incision site antibiotics.

The rate of postoperative SSIs was 2.1% in the clindamycin arm, vs. 5.7% in the control arm and 5.3% in the flucloxacillin arm.

“Based on these results, we recommend the routine adoption of incisional microdosed clindamycin for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery,” Maple Goh, MBChB, of the Auckland Regional Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Auckland, New Zealand, and the coauthors conclude. “This strategy appears suitable for widespread implementation because of the magnitude of the effect observed and the absence of adverse events.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

Skin cancer surgery carries a high risk of SSIs, which represent costly yet largely preventable complications of surgery. Despite the risk, there’s a lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials of the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing SSI rates among patients undergoing skin cancer surgery. Previous studies have investigated incisional antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce SSIs with Mohs micrographic surgery, but these surgeries represent a relatively small proportion of overall skin cancer surgeries.

To understand whether this benefit extends to more general skin cancer surgeries, investigators recruited patients from a high-volume skin cancer center in New Zealand who were treated from February to July 2019. In the double-blind, prospective PICASSo trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive an incision site injection of buffered local anesthetic alone (control group), buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of flucloxacillin (500 mcg/mL), or buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of clindamycin (500 mcg/mL). The most common surgery type was excision and direct closure (approximately 80% in all arms), and the mean volume injected per length of direct closure was 1.5 mL/cm.

The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative SSIs, defined as a postoperative wound infection score of 5 or more. The SSI rate was calculated as the number of lesions with SSIs per total number of lesions in the group.

Overall, 681 patients with 1,133 total lesions were included in the study. Compared with the control arm, the rate of postoperative SSIs was nearly threefold lower among patients who received clindamycin, –2.1% (9 of 422) vs. 5.7% (22 of 388) in the control arm (P = .01 for clindamycin vs. control).

However, flucloxacillin did not demonstrate the same effectiveness. The flucloxacillin arm and the control arm demonstrated similar postoperative SSI rates – 5.3% (17 of 323) vs. 5.7%.

The results were similar after adjusting for baseline differences and lesion ulceration.

The researchers also found that the proportion of lesions that required postoperative systemic antibiotics was four times higher among the control arm, in comparison with the clindamycin arm (8% vs. 2.1%; P < .001). It was two times higher than in the flucloxacillin arm (8% vs. 4%; P = .03).

Treatment with microdoses of incisional flucloxacillin and clindamycin was safe and well tolerated.

The researchers speculated that clindamycin’s greater effectiveness may come down to its slightly broader coverage of commonly cultured bacteria in skin and soft tissue infections, including community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clindamycin is known to have more efficacy against anaerobic bacteria that may be lurking in chronically ulcerated skin lesions and is associated with less local tissue inflammation, compared with flucloxacillin.

Overall, “clindamycin was significantly more effective at preventing SSI than flucloxacillin in our study,” the authors conclude. They note that the use of clindamycin as a first-line prophylaxis agent against SSIs for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery is a practical option.

“These results establish evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in one of the most common surgical interventions performed worldwide, where they have been previously absent,” the researchers say.

The authors of an editorial published with the study underscore other advantages of incisional microdosing with antibiotics.

“One advantage of cutaneous antibiotic administration is improved drug delivery to poorly perfused tissue, which would have limited reach by the systemic circulation,” wrote Amanda R. Sergesketter, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Scott T. Hollenbeck, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“While not evaluated in this study, local antibiotic delivery may be especially relevant to larger and more complex wounds,” the editorialists say. They note that the next step for future studies should be to evaluate prophylaxis in more complex situations.

“Such studies should be considered enthusiastically, given the clearly favorable impact on surgical site infections demonstrated in the PICASSo trial,” Dr. Sergesketter and Dr. Hollenbeck said.

The study was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Health Research Council. Dr. Hollenbeck reported educational grants to Duke University from Allergan, Acelity, Synovis, Integra, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, Cook, KLs Martin, Bard, VOptix, Scanlan, True Digital Surgery, Nautilus, Mitaka, Checkpoint Surgical, and Omniguide, and he is a founder and equity holder for InSoma Bio, a premarket company focused on tissue regeneration.

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

Delivering microdose incision-site injections of clindamycin significantly reduced the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in skin cancer surgery.

However, prophylaxis with flucloxacillin did not significantly lower SSI rates, compared with not using incision site antibiotics.

The rate of postoperative SSIs was 2.1% in the clindamycin arm, vs. 5.7% in the control arm and 5.3% in the flucloxacillin arm.

“Based on these results, we recommend the routine adoption of incisional microdosed clindamycin for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery,” Maple Goh, MBChB, of the Auckland Regional Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Auckland, New Zealand, and the coauthors conclude. “This strategy appears suitable for widespread implementation because of the magnitude of the effect observed and the absence of adverse events.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

Skin cancer surgery carries a high risk of SSIs, which represent costly yet largely preventable complications of surgery. Despite the risk, there’s a lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials of the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing SSI rates among patients undergoing skin cancer surgery. Previous studies have investigated incisional antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce SSIs with Mohs micrographic surgery, but these surgeries represent a relatively small proportion of overall skin cancer surgeries.

To understand whether this benefit extends to more general skin cancer surgeries, investigators recruited patients from a high-volume skin cancer center in New Zealand who were treated from February to July 2019. In the double-blind, prospective PICASSo trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive an incision site injection of buffered local anesthetic alone (control group), buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of flucloxacillin (500 mcg/mL), or buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of clindamycin (500 mcg/mL). The most common surgery type was excision and direct closure (approximately 80% in all arms), and the mean volume injected per length of direct closure was 1.5 mL/cm.

The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative SSIs, defined as a postoperative wound infection score of 5 or more. The SSI rate was calculated as the number of lesions with SSIs per total number of lesions in the group.

Overall, 681 patients with 1,133 total lesions were included in the study. Compared with the control arm, the rate of postoperative SSIs was nearly threefold lower among patients who received clindamycin, –2.1% (9 of 422) vs. 5.7% (22 of 388) in the control arm (P = .01 for clindamycin vs. control).

However, flucloxacillin did not demonstrate the same effectiveness. The flucloxacillin arm and the control arm demonstrated similar postoperative SSI rates – 5.3% (17 of 323) vs. 5.7%.

The results were similar after adjusting for baseline differences and lesion ulceration.

The researchers also found that the proportion of lesions that required postoperative systemic antibiotics was four times higher among the control arm, in comparison with the clindamycin arm (8% vs. 2.1%; P < .001). It was two times higher than in the flucloxacillin arm (8% vs. 4%; P = .03).

Treatment with microdoses of incisional flucloxacillin and clindamycin was safe and well tolerated.

The researchers speculated that clindamycin’s greater effectiveness may come down to its slightly broader coverage of commonly cultured bacteria in skin and soft tissue infections, including community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clindamycin is known to have more efficacy against anaerobic bacteria that may be lurking in chronically ulcerated skin lesions and is associated with less local tissue inflammation, compared with flucloxacillin.

Overall, “clindamycin was significantly more effective at preventing SSI than flucloxacillin in our study,” the authors conclude. They note that the use of clindamycin as a first-line prophylaxis agent against SSIs for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery is a practical option.

“These results establish evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in one of the most common surgical interventions performed worldwide, where they have been previously absent,” the researchers say.

The authors of an editorial published with the study underscore other advantages of incisional microdosing with antibiotics.

“One advantage of cutaneous antibiotic administration is improved drug delivery to poorly perfused tissue, which would have limited reach by the systemic circulation,” wrote Amanda R. Sergesketter, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Scott T. Hollenbeck, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“While not evaluated in this study, local antibiotic delivery may be especially relevant to larger and more complex wounds,” the editorialists say. They note that the next step for future studies should be to evaluate prophylaxis in more complex situations.

“Such studies should be considered enthusiastically, given the clearly favorable impact on surgical site infections demonstrated in the PICASSo trial,” Dr. Sergesketter and Dr. Hollenbeck said.

The study was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Health Research Council. Dr. Hollenbeck reported educational grants to Duke University from Allergan, Acelity, Synovis, Integra, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, Cook, KLs Martin, Bard, VOptix, Scanlan, True Digital Surgery, Nautilus, Mitaka, Checkpoint Surgical, and Omniguide, and he is a founder and equity holder for InSoma Bio, a premarket company focused on tissue regeneration.

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

WASHINGTON – What does shared decision-making about atopic dermatitis (AD) treatment mean at a time of increasing treatment options and patient concerns about drug safety and the potentially lifelong need for systemic treatment?

The question was top of mind for experts who shared their advice during a “Tips and Tricks” session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting. Dupilumab dosing and dupilumab-associated facial redness and ocular disease, self-image issues, topical regimen adherence, and the quantification of disease were among the other topics raised by the experts.

Here are some of their practice pearls.
 

Treatment decisions, safety concerns

Deciding on a treatment is “kind of confusing ... particularly in the last year ... and it will only get more complicated,” said Raj J. Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “We’re all about some version of shared decision-making, but if all else is equal, sometimes it pays to explicitly ask the patient, what do you want to do?”

Questions about how long a systemic treatment should be tried, both initially and in the long run, are common. “I think that oftentimes we all get antsy about making changes when we’re not getting to the endpoint we want to. And at least in my real-world experience, late responders are a real thing. Sometimes 3-4 months ... isn’t enough,” he said.

Trial extension data show that patients who were nonresponders for various endpoints at 16 weeks are “captured continuously as you go further and further out,” Dr. Chovatiya said. Regarding the long term, “realistically, there’s no perfect time to call it quits.”

Addressing fears about Janus kinase inhibitors can be challenging, he said. “When you’ve identified the right patient and labs are done ... have them take the medication in front of you and hang out,” he advised. “It may sound ridiculous, but for the extremely anxious person it can be a big stress reducer for everyone involved.”

Regarding treatment fears more generally, “asking patients ‘what is the biggest risk of not treating your disease?’ sometimes gets people thinking,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

For parents of children with AD, said Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, risks of not treating can become apparent once treatments are started and benefits are realized. “It’s so easy to focus on the risks of any treatment because they’re right there in black and white, and the risks of not treating are not always as apparent, even though – or maybe because – they live with them every day.”

When treatment is underway, “they see [how] everyone sleeps better, how school performance gets better, how concentration gets better,” said Dr. Sidbury, professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington. Seattle, and chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

“Always contextualize,” he advised. “As dermatologists, we’re savvy with navigating boxed warnings.”

David Rosmarin, MD, chair of dermatology, at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and formerly vice chair for research and education at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, said he addresses questions about the length of systemic treatment by advising patients: “Why don’t we start taking [the medication] for 3 months and then we’ll take it from there.”

In some pediatric cases, Dr. Rosmarin said, having the child express “what their AD means to them – how it affects them,” and then acknowledging and validating what the child says, is helpful to parents who are concerned about systemic treatments.
 

Dupilumab in the real world

Some patients on dupilumab do not have a complete response with dosing every 2 weeks and may benefit from more frequent dosing, said Dr. Rosmarin.

“We know from the SOLO-1 and SOLO-2 studies that dupilumab weekly dosing was evaluated. It was only the every-other-week dosing that was approved, and we can see why – in terms of the changes in EASI [Eczema Area and Severity Index] score they’re close to overlapping,” he said.

In real life, however, “some patients benefit from different dosing. It’s important to realize that. I think we all have some patients who may dose more frequently and some who may dose less frequently,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

For a patient who “gets absolutely no response from dupilumab after 3-4 months, I’d switch them to something else. But for those who are partial responders, particularly those who tell me they’re getting itchy before their next dose, they’re the ones who benefit most from doubling the dose to dupilumab weekly,” he said.

For patients who experience dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis, itraconazole may help, Dr. Rosmarin added. “We’re using 200 mg daily for 2 weeks and weekly thereafter, and it helps some of our patients.” The average self-reported improvement was 52% for patients with dupilumab-associated facial redness treated with itraconazole in a retrospective medical record review that he and his colleagues published in 2022.

Dr. Rosmarin pointed to a multicenter prospective cohort study also published in 2022 showing that baseline/pretreatment levels of Malassezia-specific IgE were associated with the development of dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis. The median levels of Malassezia-specific IgE were 32 kUL^–1 versus 2.3 kUL^–1 in patients who experienced dupilumab-associated facial redness, compared with those who did not.

He said that, while there “may be multiple reasons” for dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis and that “plenty of patients” who don’t have Malassezia-specific IgE develop head and neck dermatitis, “this could be one cause.”

Itraconazole has been shown in his practice to be superior to fluconazole, likely because it has greater anti-inflammatory effects and provides better coverage of Malassezia because it is more lipophilic, said Dr. Rosmarin, who does not test for Malassezia-specific IgE before trying itraconazole.

Topical adherence with diffuse xerosis and mild-moderate AD

For patients with diffuse xerosis and mild-moderate AD, especially those who are older and having difficulty with topical regimens, Anna De Benedetto, MD, said she tries to enhance adherence by simplifying the regimen. She asks patients to buy a pound jar of base cream (ceramide base) – “whatever emollient they like” – and mixes into it a high-potency steroid solution. They’re instructed to apply the combined cream once daily for 1-2 weeks, and then three times a week alternating with a nonmedicated cream.

“This way they’re using one [cream] to target the immune system and the skin barrier,” said Dr. De Benedetto, associate professor of dermatology and director of the dermatology clinical trial unit at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
 

‘Wet wrap’ pajamas; self-image for children, teens

Dermatologist Melinda Gooderham, MSc, MD, assistant professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology, said that, for widespread and troublesome AD, she advises patients or parents to wet a thin cotton pajama top and bottom and spin it in the dryer “so it’s almost dry but still moist.” Dry, looser pajamas or a light track suit can then be worn over the damp pajamas. “I usually tell [patients] to buy one size up,” she said.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Body dysmorphia is common with skin disease, and its incidence is six times higher in people with eczema than those without the disease, said Dr. Siegfried. “I’ve found that, for patients subjected to AD for a long time,” this is still an issue, “even when you clear their skin.”

For children, teens and their families, the nonprofit organization Made a Masterpiece can be valuable, Dr. Siegfried said. It offers resources from parents, children, psychologists, dermatologists, and others to help manage the emotional, social and spiritual aspects of living with a skin condition.
 

To use or not to use BSA; environmental counseling

“I think [assessing] body surface area [BSA] is very important in pediatrics and for adolescents [especially in those with moderate to severe disease] because it quantifies the disease for the family,” said Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

University of California, San Diego

“Families live with the disease, but quantification really matters” for understanding the extent and impact of the disease and for motivating families to treat, said Dr. Eichenfield.

(When the disease is markedly diminished in follow-up, knowing the BSA then “helps families to register the improvement and gives positive reinforcement,” Dr. Eichenfeld said after the meeting.)

Young patients can participate, he noted at the meeting. “When I do telemedicine visits, kids can tell me how many hands of eczema they have.”

Dr. Eichenfield also said that he now routinely counsels on the environmental impacts on eczema. For example, “I explain to people that we’re probably going to have a bad wildfire season in California, and it’s the kind of environmental perturbation that may impact some eczema patients,” he said, noting the 2021 study documenting an association of wildfire air pollution from the 2018 California Camp fire with an increase in dermatology clinic visits for AD and itch in San Francisco.

“It helps to keep an eye out for that, and also to be aware of some of the environmental changes,” he said.

Dr. Chovatiya reported ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others. Dr. Sidbury reported ties with Regeneron, UCB, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, and Lilly, among others. Dr. Rosmarin reported ties with AbbVie, Incyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others. Dr. Siegfried reported ties with Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, AbbVie, Incyte, Leo, and Pfizer, among others. Dr. De Benedetto reported ties with Incyte, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Sanofi Advent, among others. Dr. Gooderham reported ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, among others. Dr. Eichenfield disclosed ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others.

WASHINGTON – What does shared decision-making about atopic dermatitis (AD) treatment mean at a time of increasing treatment options and patient concerns about drug safety and the potentially lifelong need for systemic treatment?

The question was top of mind for experts who shared their advice during a “Tips and Tricks” session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting. Dupilumab dosing and dupilumab-associated facial redness and ocular disease, self-image issues, topical regimen adherence, and the quantification of disease were among the other topics raised by the experts.

Here are some of their practice pearls.
 

Treatment decisions, safety concerns

Deciding on a treatment is “kind of confusing ... particularly in the last year ... and it will only get more complicated,” said Raj J. Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “We’re all about some version of shared decision-making, but if all else is equal, sometimes it pays to explicitly ask the patient, what do you want to do?”

Questions about how long a systemic treatment should be tried, both initially and in the long run, are common. “I think that oftentimes we all get antsy about making changes when we’re not getting to the endpoint we want to. And at least in my real-world experience, late responders are a real thing. Sometimes 3-4 months ... isn’t enough,” he said.

Trial extension data show that patients who were nonresponders for various endpoints at 16 weeks are “captured continuously as you go further and further out,” Dr. Chovatiya said. Regarding the long term, “realistically, there’s no perfect time to call it quits.”

Addressing fears about Janus kinase inhibitors can be challenging, he said. “When you’ve identified the right patient and labs are done ... have them take the medication in front of you and hang out,” he advised. “It may sound ridiculous, but for the extremely anxious person it can be a big stress reducer for everyone involved.”

Regarding treatment fears more generally, “asking patients ‘what is the biggest risk of not treating your disease?’ sometimes gets people thinking,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

For parents of children with AD, said Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, risks of not treating can become apparent once treatments are started and benefits are realized. “It’s so easy to focus on the risks of any treatment because they’re right there in black and white, and the risks of not treating are not always as apparent, even though – or maybe because – they live with them every day.”

When treatment is underway, “they see [how] everyone sleeps better, how school performance gets better, how concentration gets better,” said Dr. Sidbury, professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington. Seattle, and chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

“Always contextualize,” he advised. “As dermatologists, we’re savvy with navigating boxed warnings.”

David Rosmarin, MD, chair of dermatology, at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and formerly vice chair for research and education at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, said he addresses questions about the length of systemic treatment by advising patients: “Why don’t we start taking [the medication] for 3 months and then we’ll take it from there.”

In some pediatric cases, Dr. Rosmarin said, having the child express “what their AD means to them – how it affects them,” and then acknowledging and validating what the child says, is helpful to parents who are concerned about systemic treatments.
 

Dupilumab in the real world

Some patients on dupilumab do not have a complete response with dosing every 2 weeks and may benefit from more frequent dosing, said Dr. Rosmarin.

“We know from the SOLO-1 and SOLO-2 studies that dupilumab weekly dosing was evaluated. It was only the every-other-week dosing that was approved, and we can see why – in terms of the changes in EASI [Eczema Area and Severity Index] score they’re close to overlapping,” he said.

In real life, however, “some patients benefit from different dosing. It’s important to realize that. I think we all have some patients who may dose more frequently and some who may dose less frequently,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

For a patient who “gets absolutely no response from dupilumab after 3-4 months, I’d switch them to something else. But for those who are partial responders, particularly those who tell me they’re getting itchy before their next dose, they’re the ones who benefit most from doubling the dose to dupilumab weekly,” he said.

For patients who experience dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis, itraconazole may help, Dr. Rosmarin added. “We’re using 200 mg daily for 2 weeks and weekly thereafter, and it helps some of our patients.” The average self-reported improvement was 52% for patients with dupilumab-associated facial redness treated with itraconazole in a retrospective medical record review that he and his colleagues published in 2022.

Dr. Rosmarin pointed to a multicenter prospective cohort study also published in 2022 showing that baseline/pretreatment levels of Malassezia-specific IgE were associated with the development of dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis. The median levels of Malassezia-specific IgE were 32 kUL^–1 versus 2.3 kUL^–1 in patients who experienced dupilumab-associated facial redness, compared with those who did not.

He said that, while there “may be multiple reasons” for dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis and that “plenty of patients” who don’t have Malassezia-specific IgE develop head and neck dermatitis, “this could be one cause.”

Itraconazole has been shown in his practice to be superior to fluconazole, likely because it has greater anti-inflammatory effects and provides better coverage of Malassezia because it is more lipophilic, said Dr. Rosmarin, who does not test for Malassezia-specific IgE before trying itraconazole.

Topical adherence with diffuse xerosis and mild-moderate AD

For patients with diffuse xerosis and mild-moderate AD, especially those who are older and having difficulty with topical regimens, Anna De Benedetto, MD, said she tries to enhance adherence by simplifying the regimen. She asks patients to buy a pound jar of base cream (ceramide base) – “whatever emollient they like” – and mixes into it a high-potency steroid solution. They’re instructed to apply the combined cream once daily for 1-2 weeks, and then three times a week alternating with a nonmedicated cream.

“This way they’re using one [cream] to target the immune system and the skin barrier,” said Dr. De Benedetto, associate professor of dermatology and director of the dermatology clinical trial unit at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
 

‘Wet wrap’ pajamas; self-image for children, teens

Dermatologist Melinda Gooderham, MSc, MD, assistant professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology, said that, for widespread and troublesome AD, she advises patients or parents to wet a thin cotton pajama top and bottom and spin it in the dryer “so it’s almost dry but still moist.” Dry, looser pajamas or a light track suit can then be worn over the damp pajamas. “I usually tell [patients] to buy one size up,” she said.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Body dysmorphia is common with skin disease, and its incidence is six times higher in people with eczema than those without the disease, said Dr. Siegfried. “I’ve found that, for patients subjected to AD for a long time,” this is still an issue, “even when you clear their skin.”

For children, teens and their families, the nonprofit organization Made a Masterpiece can be valuable, Dr. Siegfried said. It offers resources from parents, children, psychologists, dermatologists, and others to help manage the emotional, social and spiritual aspects of living with a skin condition.
 

To use or not to use BSA; environmental counseling

“I think [assessing] body surface area [BSA] is very important in pediatrics and for adolescents [especially in those with moderate to severe disease] because it quantifies the disease for the family,” said Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

University of California, San Diego

“Families live with the disease, but quantification really matters” for understanding the extent and impact of the disease and for motivating families to treat, said Dr. Eichenfield.

(When the disease is markedly diminished in follow-up, knowing the BSA then “helps families to register the improvement and gives positive reinforcement,” Dr. Eichenfeld said after the meeting.)

Young patients can participate, he noted at the meeting. “When I do telemedicine visits, kids can tell me how many hands of eczema they have.”

Dr. Eichenfield also said that he now routinely counsels on the environmental impacts on eczema. For example, “I explain to people that we’re probably going to have a bad wildfire season in California, and it’s the kind of environmental perturbation that may impact some eczema patients,” he said, noting the 2021 study documenting an association of wildfire air pollution from the 2018 California Camp fire with an increase in dermatology clinic visits for AD and itch in San Francisco.

“It helps to keep an eye out for that, and also to be aware of some of the environmental changes,” he said.

Dr. Chovatiya reported ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others. Dr. Sidbury reported ties with Regeneron, UCB, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, and Lilly, among others. Dr. Rosmarin reported ties with AbbVie, Incyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others. Dr. Siegfried reported ties with Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, AbbVie, Incyte, Leo, and Pfizer, among others. Dr. De Benedetto reported ties with Incyte, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Sanofi Advent, among others. Dr. Gooderham reported ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, among others. Dr. Eichenfield disclosed ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others.

WASHINGTON – What does shared decision-making about atopic dermatitis (AD) treatment mean at a time of increasing treatment options and patient concerns about drug safety and the potentially lifelong need for systemic treatment?

The question was top of mind for experts who shared their advice during a “Tips and Tricks” session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting. Dupilumab dosing and dupilumab-associated facial redness and ocular disease, self-image issues, topical regimen adherence, and the quantification of disease were among the other topics raised by the experts.

Here are some of their practice pearls.
 

Treatment decisions, safety concerns

Deciding on a treatment is “kind of confusing ... particularly in the last year ... and it will only get more complicated,” said Raj J. Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “We’re all about some version of shared decision-making, but if all else is equal, sometimes it pays to explicitly ask the patient, what do you want to do?”

Questions about how long a systemic treatment should be tried, both initially and in the long run, are common. “I think that oftentimes we all get antsy about making changes when we’re not getting to the endpoint we want to. And at least in my real-world experience, late responders are a real thing. Sometimes 3-4 months ... isn’t enough,” he said.

Trial extension data show that patients who were nonresponders for various endpoints at 16 weeks are “captured continuously as you go further and further out,” Dr. Chovatiya said. Regarding the long term, “realistically, there’s no perfect time to call it quits.”

Addressing fears about Janus kinase inhibitors can be challenging, he said. “When you’ve identified the right patient and labs are done ... have them take the medication in front of you and hang out,” he advised. “It may sound ridiculous, but for the extremely anxious person it can be a big stress reducer for everyone involved.”

Regarding treatment fears more generally, “asking patients ‘what is the biggest risk of not treating your disease?’ sometimes gets people thinking,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

For parents of children with AD, said Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, risks of not treating can become apparent once treatments are started and benefits are realized. “It’s so easy to focus on the risks of any treatment because they’re right there in black and white, and the risks of not treating are not always as apparent, even though – or maybe because – they live with them every day.”

When treatment is underway, “they see [how] everyone sleeps better, how school performance gets better, how concentration gets better,” said Dr. Sidbury, professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington. Seattle, and chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

“Always contextualize,” he advised. “As dermatologists, we’re savvy with navigating boxed warnings.”

David Rosmarin, MD, chair of dermatology, at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and formerly vice chair for research and education at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, said he addresses questions about the length of systemic treatment by advising patients: “Why don’t we start taking [the medication] for 3 months and then we’ll take it from there.”

In some pediatric cases, Dr. Rosmarin said, having the child express “what their AD means to them – how it affects them,” and then acknowledging and validating what the child says, is helpful to parents who are concerned about systemic treatments.
 

Dupilumab in the real world

Some patients on dupilumab do not have a complete response with dosing every 2 weeks and may benefit from more frequent dosing, said Dr. Rosmarin.

“We know from the SOLO-1 and SOLO-2 studies that dupilumab weekly dosing was evaluated. It was only the every-other-week dosing that was approved, and we can see why – in terms of the changes in EASI [Eczema Area and Severity Index] score they’re close to overlapping,” he said.

In real life, however, “some patients benefit from different dosing. It’s important to realize that. I think we all have some patients who may dose more frequently and some who may dose less frequently,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

For a patient who “gets absolutely no response from dupilumab after 3-4 months, I’d switch them to something else. But for those who are partial responders, particularly those who tell me they’re getting itchy before their next dose, they’re the ones who benefit most from doubling the dose to dupilumab weekly,” he said.

For patients who experience dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis, itraconazole may help, Dr. Rosmarin added. “We’re using 200 mg daily for 2 weeks and weekly thereafter, and it helps some of our patients.” The average self-reported improvement was 52% for patients with dupilumab-associated facial redness treated with itraconazole in a retrospective medical record review that he and his colleagues published in 2022.

Dr. Rosmarin pointed to a multicenter prospective cohort study also published in 2022 showing that baseline/pretreatment levels of Malassezia-specific IgE were associated with the development of dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis. The median levels of Malassezia-specific IgE were 32 kUL^–1 versus 2.3 kUL^–1 in patients who experienced dupilumab-associated facial redness, compared with those who did not.

He said that, while there “may be multiple reasons” for dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis and that “plenty of patients” who don’t have Malassezia-specific IgE develop head and neck dermatitis, “this could be one cause.”

Itraconazole has been shown in his practice to be superior to fluconazole, likely because it has greater anti-inflammatory effects and provides better coverage of Malassezia because it is more lipophilic, said Dr. Rosmarin, who does not test for Malassezia-specific IgE before trying itraconazole.

Topical adherence with diffuse xerosis and mild-moderate AD

For patients with diffuse xerosis and mild-moderate AD, especially those who are older and having difficulty with topical regimens, Anna De Benedetto, MD, said she tries to enhance adherence by simplifying the regimen. She asks patients to buy a pound jar of base cream (ceramide base) – “whatever emollient they like” – and mixes into it a high-potency steroid solution. They’re instructed to apply the combined cream once daily for 1-2 weeks, and then three times a week alternating with a nonmedicated cream.

“This way they’re using one [cream] to target the immune system and the skin barrier,” said Dr. De Benedetto, associate professor of dermatology and director of the dermatology clinical trial unit at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
 

‘Wet wrap’ pajamas; self-image for children, teens

Dermatologist Melinda Gooderham, MSc, MD, assistant professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology, said that, for widespread and troublesome AD, she advises patients or parents to wet a thin cotton pajama top and bottom and spin it in the dryer “so it’s almost dry but still moist.” Dry, looser pajamas or a light track suit can then be worn over the damp pajamas. “I usually tell [patients] to buy one size up,” she said.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Body dysmorphia is common with skin disease, and its incidence is six times higher in people with eczema than those without the disease, said Dr. Siegfried. “I’ve found that, for patients subjected to AD for a long time,” this is still an issue, “even when you clear their skin.”

For children, teens and their families, the nonprofit organization Made a Masterpiece can be valuable, Dr. Siegfried said. It offers resources from parents, children, psychologists, dermatologists, and others to help manage the emotional, social and spiritual aspects of living with a skin condition.
 

To use or not to use BSA; environmental counseling

“I think [assessing] body surface area [BSA] is very important in pediatrics and for adolescents [especially in those with moderate to severe disease] because it quantifies the disease for the family,” said Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

University of California, San Diego

“Families live with the disease, but quantification really matters” for understanding the extent and impact of the disease and for motivating families to treat, said Dr. Eichenfield.

(When the disease is markedly diminished in follow-up, knowing the BSA then “helps families to register the improvement and gives positive reinforcement,” Dr. Eichenfeld said after the meeting.)

Young patients can participate, he noted at the meeting. “When I do telemedicine visits, kids can tell me how many hands of eczema they have.”

Dr. Eichenfield also said that he now routinely counsels on the environmental impacts on eczema. For example, “I explain to people that we’re probably going to have a bad wildfire season in California, and it’s the kind of environmental perturbation that may impact some eczema patients,” he said, noting the 2021 study documenting an association of wildfire air pollution from the 2018 California Camp fire with an increase in dermatology clinic visits for AD and itch in San Francisco.

“It helps to keep an eye out for that, and also to be aware of some of the environmental changes,” he said.

Dr. Chovatiya reported ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others. Dr. Sidbury reported ties with Regeneron, UCB, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, and Lilly, among others. Dr. Rosmarin reported ties with AbbVie, Incyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others. Dr. Siegfried reported ties with Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, AbbVie, Incyte, Leo, and Pfizer, among others. Dr. De Benedetto reported ties with Incyte, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Sanofi Advent, among others. Dr. Gooderham reported ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, among others. Dr. Eichenfield disclosed ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others.

The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the late 1990s revolutionized treatment of rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), providing patients with another treatment option when conventional therapies were ineffective. However, when these diseases don’t respond to anti-TNF therapy, it is still difficult to determine the next best course of action.

“One of the big challenges we have in treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and I would say rheumatoid arthritis was well, is how to handle patients who have failed their first biologic therapy,” Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, professor of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), told this news organization. “In the case of both RA and PsA, that’s quite frequently an anti-TNF agent.”

For an estimated 30% to 40% of patients, TNF inhibitor therapy is discontinued because of nonresponse or intolerance. Clinicians can switch to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or add another conventional DMARD, such as methotrexate. Now, several case studies as well as promising findings from phase 2 clinical trials suggest that combining two biologics could be an alternative strategy to improve patient response to treatment. However, concerns about safety and higher costs remain.
 

Targeting multiple mechanisms of action

Rheumatic conditions affect multiple areas of the body and involve different signaling pathways, said Dr. Ritchlin, who heads the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester. PsA, for example, affects the skin, peripheral joints, the axial skeleton, and the entheses.

“The question is, Are these various manifestations – of which multiple [ones] are often seen in one patient – likely to respond to one therapy that targets one single pathway?” he said.

Combination therapies have been effective in treating leukemia and lymphoma as well as infection with HIV, Melek Yalçin Mutlu, MD, and colleagues from Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and the University Clinic Erlangen (Germany), wrote in a review about combining biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA and PsA. The review was published in Joint Bone Spine.

“Cumulative evidence on the success of combination therapies in various diseases supports an akin approach in rheumatology, and simultaneous or sequential blockade of multiple mechanisms that generate or propagate arthritis could theoretically enhance efficacy,” the authors wrote. “On the other hand, intervening on multiple targets in the immune system brings about a risk of adverse events, among which infection is a major concern.”
 

Failed clinical trials

Clinical trials of combination biologic therapies for rheumatic disease have been tried before, but these combinations did not show superior efficacy, and they increased patients’ risk for infection. One study published in 2004 compared monotherapy with the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) to the combination of etanercept and anakinra (Kineret), an interleukin-1 (IL-1) antagonist, in 244 patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), ACR50, or ACR70 between the groups that received etanercept and anakinra and those that received etanercept alone. There were nine serious infections among patients given etanercept and anakinra, including one death due to pneumonia. There were no serious infections in the etanercept monotherapy group.

In another RA trial, 121 patients were given etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and were randomly assigned to also receive a placebo or low-dose abatacept (Orencia), a T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor. There was no significant difference in disease improvement between the two groups, although the rate of serious adverse events was nearly six times higher in the etanercept-abatacept group (16.5% vs. 2.8%).

These studies had a “chilling effect on the whole field for some years,” Brian G. Feagan, MD, the senior scientific director of the gastrointestinal contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, told this news organization. People were reluctant to try new biologic combinations, owing to the fear that these safety issues would plague subsequent trials.

University of Western Ontario, London

Promising combinations

But a recent phase 2 trial, led by Dr. Feagan, suggests that certain combinations can be effective. In the Janssen-sponsored VEGA trial, researchers found that a combination of guselkumab (Tremfya), an IL-23 inhibitor, and golimumab (Simponi), an anti-TNF agent, was more effective than either drug used as monotherapy for initial induction treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Importantly, there was no difference in adverse events between any of the groups. This same combination therapy is now being tried for patients with active PsA in Janssen’s AFFINITY trial, for which Dr. Ritchlin is one of the lead investigators.

Other trials have also delivered promising results. One study enrolled 51 adults with active RA who were all receiving stable doses of both a TNF inhibitor – either etanercept or adalimumab (Humira) – and methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one course of rituximab (Rituxan) or placebo. The researchers found that the safety profile of this TNF inhibitor/methotrexate/rituximab combination was “consistent” with the safety profiles of previous studies of methotrexate/rituximab dual combinations with no TNF inhibitor; there were no new safety signals. At 24 weeks, 30% of the group that received rituximab reached ACR20, compared with 17% of the group that was given placebo. Twelve percent of the rituximab group achieved ACR50, compared with 6% of the group that received placebo.

“B-cell depletion is fundamentally different from cytokine inhibition and even from co-stimulation blockade, making an additive effect more likely,” Dr. Mutlu and colleagues wrote in their review. Reports have also suggested possible benefits of combining a TNF inhibitor and an IL-17 inhibitor in the treatment of RA and PsA, as well as the combination of a TNF inhibitor and an IL-23 antagonist for PsA.

While these combinations require controlled clinical trials, “there’s some smoke signals out there that this might be an effective strategy for some patients,” Dr. Ritchlin said.

In addition to the AFFINITY trial, two clinical trials are underway in France. The first, CRI-RA, is evaluating the combination of baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and adalimumab. Although baricitinib is not a biologic, as a targeted synthetic DMARD, the therapy is more potent than conventional DMARDs, and the same potential safety concerns apply. However, use of a combination of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and different biologics for RA patients has been reported; no serious side effects were reported over 11 months of therapy. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial began in July 2021 and will enroll 178 patients. The estimated study completion date is July 2025.

“Of note, baricitinib does not directly block signaling downstream of TNF, even if an indirect effect on TNF production is likely to occur,” the CRI-RA entry on clinicaltrials.gov reads. “Targeting multiple inflammatory cytokines in combination may lead to more effective treatment and enhanced clinical responses in patients with RA compared to the current second-line strategies.”

The second trial, SEQUENS-RA, is evaluating the use of TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept for patients with RA who test positive for anticitrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPAs). In the past, the combination of a TNF inhibitor and abatacept did not lead to promising results, but in this trial, the drugs will be administered sequentially.

“Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs [biologic DMARDs], rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors,” according to the clinical trial’s description. “Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors, followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission, would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA-positive patients with RA.”

The randomized trial of 220 participants began in November 2022. The estimated completion date for the study is November 2025.
 

Finding the right patients

Though these studies have had some promising results, the difference in efficacy between biologic monotherapy and dual therapy has been mostly moderate, Dr. Mutlu and coauthors wrote. Identifying disease subtypes for which there might be a higher likelihood of response to dual biologic treatment, especially multidrug-resistant types, could improve efficacies in future trials, they argued. “The good effects of bDMARD combinations in resistant patients in fact point into this direction, though they were observed in uncontrolled studies,” the authors noted.

Insurance coverage remains a “huge challenge” for these dual therapies because of the higher expense, noted Dr. Ritchlin. Better targeting therapies could help convince these companies to pay for these therapies.

“I would say that if we were able to demonstrate a phenotype of a patient that would respond to biologics and not monotherapies, [then] many companies would be amenable to this kind of approach,” he said.

Dr. Ritchlin reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Feagan reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

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

The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the late 1990s revolutionized treatment of rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), providing patients with another treatment option when conventional therapies were ineffective. However, when these diseases don’t respond to anti-TNF therapy, it is still difficult to determine the next best course of action.

“One of the big challenges we have in treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and I would say rheumatoid arthritis was well, is how to handle patients who have failed their first biologic therapy,” Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, professor of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), told this news organization. “In the case of both RA and PsA, that’s quite frequently an anti-TNF agent.”

For an estimated 30% to 40% of patients, TNF inhibitor therapy is discontinued because of nonresponse or intolerance. Clinicians can switch to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or add another conventional DMARD, such as methotrexate. Now, several case studies as well as promising findings from phase 2 clinical trials suggest that combining two biologics could be an alternative strategy to improve patient response to treatment. However, concerns about safety and higher costs remain.
 

Targeting multiple mechanisms of action

Rheumatic conditions affect multiple areas of the body and involve different signaling pathways, said Dr. Ritchlin, who heads the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester. PsA, for example, affects the skin, peripheral joints, the axial skeleton, and the entheses.

“The question is, Are these various manifestations – of which multiple [ones] are often seen in one patient – likely to respond to one therapy that targets one single pathway?” he said.

Combination therapies have been effective in treating leukemia and lymphoma as well as infection with HIV, Melek Yalçin Mutlu, MD, and colleagues from Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and the University Clinic Erlangen (Germany), wrote in a review about combining biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA and PsA. The review was published in Joint Bone Spine.

“Cumulative evidence on the success of combination therapies in various diseases supports an akin approach in rheumatology, and simultaneous or sequential blockade of multiple mechanisms that generate or propagate arthritis could theoretically enhance efficacy,” the authors wrote. “On the other hand, intervening on multiple targets in the immune system brings about a risk of adverse events, among which infection is a major concern.”
 

Failed clinical trials

Clinical trials of combination biologic therapies for rheumatic disease have been tried before, but these combinations did not show superior efficacy, and they increased patients’ risk for infection. One study published in 2004 compared monotherapy with the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) to the combination of etanercept and anakinra (Kineret), an interleukin-1 (IL-1) antagonist, in 244 patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), ACR50, or ACR70 between the groups that received etanercept and anakinra and those that received etanercept alone. There were nine serious infections among patients given etanercept and anakinra, including one death due to pneumonia. There were no serious infections in the etanercept monotherapy group.

In another RA trial, 121 patients were given etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and were randomly assigned to also receive a placebo or low-dose abatacept (Orencia), a T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor. There was no significant difference in disease improvement between the two groups, although the rate of serious adverse events was nearly six times higher in the etanercept-abatacept group (16.5% vs. 2.8%).

These studies had a “chilling effect on the whole field for some years,” Brian G. Feagan, MD, the senior scientific director of the gastrointestinal contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, told this news organization. People were reluctant to try new biologic combinations, owing to the fear that these safety issues would plague subsequent trials.

University of Western Ontario, London

Promising combinations

But a recent phase 2 trial, led by Dr. Feagan, suggests that certain combinations can be effective. In the Janssen-sponsored VEGA trial, researchers found that a combination of guselkumab (Tremfya), an IL-23 inhibitor, and golimumab (Simponi), an anti-TNF agent, was more effective than either drug used as monotherapy for initial induction treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Importantly, there was no difference in adverse events between any of the groups. This same combination therapy is now being tried for patients with active PsA in Janssen’s AFFINITY trial, for which Dr. Ritchlin is one of the lead investigators.

Other trials have also delivered promising results. One study enrolled 51 adults with active RA who were all receiving stable doses of both a TNF inhibitor – either etanercept or adalimumab (Humira) – and methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one course of rituximab (Rituxan) or placebo. The researchers found that the safety profile of this TNF inhibitor/methotrexate/rituximab combination was “consistent” with the safety profiles of previous studies of methotrexate/rituximab dual combinations with no TNF inhibitor; there were no new safety signals. At 24 weeks, 30% of the group that received rituximab reached ACR20, compared with 17% of the group that was given placebo. Twelve percent of the rituximab group achieved ACR50, compared with 6% of the group that received placebo.

“B-cell depletion is fundamentally different from cytokine inhibition and even from co-stimulation blockade, making an additive effect more likely,” Dr. Mutlu and colleagues wrote in their review. Reports have also suggested possible benefits of combining a TNF inhibitor and an IL-17 inhibitor in the treatment of RA and PsA, as well as the combination of a TNF inhibitor and an IL-23 antagonist for PsA.

While these combinations require controlled clinical trials, “there’s some smoke signals out there that this might be an effective strategy for some patients,” Dr. Ritchlin said.

In addition to the AFFINITY trial, two clinical trials are underway in France. The first, CRI-RA, is evaluating the combination of baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and adalimumab. Although baricitinib is not a biologic, as a targeted synthetic DMARD, the therapy is more potent than conventional DMARDs, and the same potential safety concerns apply. However, use of a combination of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and different biologics for RA patients has been reported; no serious side effects were reported over 11 months of therapy. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial began in July 2021 and will enroll 178 patients. The estimated study completion date is July 2025.

“Of note, baricitinib does not directly block signaling downstream of TNF, even if an indirect effect on TNF production is likely to occur,” the CRI-RA entry on clinicaltrials.gov reads. “Targeting multiple inflammatory cytokines in combination may lead to more effective treatment and enhanced clinical responses in patients with RA compared to the current second-line strategies.”

The second trial, SEQUENS-RA, is evaluating the use of TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept for patients with RA who test positive for anticitrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPAs). In the past, the combination of a TNF inhibitor and abatacept did not lead to promising results, but in this trial, the drugs will be administered sequentially.

“Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs [biologic DMARDs], rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors,” according to the clinical trial’s description. “Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors, followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission, would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA-positive patients with RA.”

The randomized trial of 220 participants began in November 2022. The estimated completion date for the study is November 2025.
 

Finding the right patients

Though these studies have had some promising results, the difference in efficacy between biologic monotherapy and dual therapy has been mostly moderate, Dr. Mutlu and coauthors wrote. Identifying disease subtypes for which there might be a higher likelihood of response to dual biologic treatment, especially multidrug-resistant types, could improve efficacies in future trials, they argued. “The good effects of bDMARD combinations in resistant patients in fact point into this direction, though they were observed in uncontrolled studies,” the authors noted.

Insurance coverage remains a “huge challenge” for these dual therapies because of the higher expense, noted Dr. Ritchlin. Better targeting therapies could help convince these companies to pay for these therapies.

“I would say that if we were able to demonstrate a phenotype of a patient that would respond to biologics and not monotherapies, [then] many companies would be amenable to this kind of approach,” he said.

Dr. Ritchlin reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Feagan reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

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

The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the late 1990s revolutionized treatment of rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), providing patients with another treatment option when conventional therapies were ineffective. However, when these diseases don’t respond to anti-TNF therapy, it is still difficult to determine the next best course of action.

“One of the big challenges we have in treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and I would say rheumatoid arthritis was well, is how to handle patients who have failed their first biologic therapy,” Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, professor of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), told this news organization. “In the case of both RA and PsA, that’s quite frequently an anti-TNF agent.”

For an estimated 30% to 40% of patients, TNF inhibitor therapy is discontinued because of nonresponse or intolerance. Clinicians can switch to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or add another conventional DMARD, such as methotrexate. Now, several case studies as well as promising findings from phase 2 clinical trials suggest that combining two biologics could be an alternative strategy to improve patient response to treatment. However, concerns about safety and higher costs remain.
 

Targeting multiple mechanisms of action

Rheumatic conditions affect multiple areas of the body and involve different signaling pathways, said Dr. Ritchlin, who heads the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester. PsA, for example, affects the skin, peripheral joints, the axial skeleton, and the entheses.

“The question is, Are these various manifestations – of which multiple [ones] are often seen in one patient – likely to respond to one therapy that targets one single pathway?” he said.

Combination therapies have been effective in treating leukemia and lymphoma as well as infection with HIV, Melek Yalçin Mutlu, MD, and colleagues from Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and the University Clinic Erlangen (Germany), wrote in a review about combining biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA and PsA. The review was published in Joint Bone Spine.

“Cumulative evidence on the success of combination therapies in various diseases supports an akin approach in rheumatology, and simultaneous or sequential blockade of multiple mechanisms that generate or propagate arthritis could theoretically enhance efficacy,” the authors wrote. “On the other hand, intervening on multiple targets in the immune system brings about a risk of adverse events, among which infection is a major concern.”
 

Failed clinical trials

Clinical trials of combination biologic therapies for rheumatic disease have been tried before, but these combinations did not show superior efficacy, and they increased patients’ risk for infection. One study published in 2004 compared monotherapy with the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) to the combination of etanercept and anakinra (Kineret), an interleukin-1 (IL-1) antagonist, in 244 patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), ACR50, or ACR70 between the groups that received etanercept and anakinra and those that received etanercept alone. There were nine serious infections among patients given etanercept and anakinra, including one death due to pneumonia. There were no serious infections in the etanercept monotherapy group.

In another RA trial, 121 patients were given etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and were randomly assigned to also receive a placebo or low-dose abatacept (Orencia), a T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor. There was no significant difference in disease improvement between the two groups, although the rate of serious adverse events was nearly six times higher in the etanercept-abatacept group (16.5% vs. 2.8%).

These studies had a “chilling effect on the whole field for some years,” Brian G. Feagan, MD, the senior scientific director of the gastrointestinal contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, told this news organization. People were reluctant to try new biologic combinations, owing to the fear that these safety issues would plague subsequent trials.

University of Western Ontario, London

Promising combinations

But a recent phase 2 trial, led by Dr. Feagan, suggests that certain combinations can be effective. In the Janssen-sponsored VEGA trial, researchers found that a combination of guselkumab (Tremfya), an IL-23 inhibitor, and golimumab (Simponi), an anti-TNF agent, was more effective than either drug used as monotherapy for initial induction treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Importantly, there was no difference in adverse events between any of the groups. This same combination therapy is now being tried for patients with active PsA in Janssen’s AFFINITY trial, for which Dr. Ritchlin is one of the lead investigators.

Other trials have also delivered promising results. One study enrolled 51 adults with active RA who were all receiving stable doses of both a TNF inhibitor – either etanercept or adalimumab (Humira) – and methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one course of rituximab (Rituxan) or placebo. The researchers found that the safety profile of this TNF inhibitor/methotrexate/rituximab combination was “consistent” with the safety profiles of previous studies of methotrexate/rituximab dual combinations with no TNF inhibitor; there were no new safety signals. At 24 weeks, 30% of the group that received rituximab reached ACR20, compared with 17% of the group that was given placebo. Twelve percent of the rituximab group achieved ACR50, compared with 6% of the group that received placebo.

“B-cell depletion is fundamentally different from cytokine inhibition and even from co-stimulation blockade, making an additive effect more likely,” Dr. Mutlu and colleagues wrote in their review. Reports have also suggested possible benefits of combining a TNF inhibitor and an IL-17 inhibitor in the treatment of RA and PsA, as well as the combination of a TNF inhibitor and an IL-23 antagonist for PsA.

While these combinations require controlled clinical trials, “there’s some smoke signals out there that this might be an effective strategy for some patients,” Dr. Ritchlin said.

In addition to the AFFINITY trial, two clinical trials are underway in France. The first, CRI-RA, is evaluating the combination of baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and adalimumab. Although baricitinib is not a biologic, as a targeted synthetic DMARD, the therapy is more potent than conventional DMARDs, and the same potential safety concerns apply. However, use of a combination of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and different biologics for RA patients has been reported; no serious side effects were reported over 11 months of therapy. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial began in July 2021 and will enroll 178 patients. The estimated study completion date is July 2025.

“Of note, baricitinib does not directly block signaling downstream of TNF, even if an indirect effect on TNF production is likely to occur,” the CRI-RA entry on clinicaltrials.gov reads. “Targeting multiple inflammatory cytokines in combination may lead to more effective treatment and enhanced clinical responses in patients with RA compared to the current second-line strategies.”

The second trial, SEQUENS-RA, is evaluating the use of TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept for patients with RA who test positive for anticitrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPAs). In the past, the combination of a TNF inhibitor and abatacept did not lead to promising results, but in this trial, the drugs will be administered sequentially.

“Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs [biologic DMARDs], rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors,” according to the clinical trial’s description. “Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors, followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission, would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA-positive patients with RA.”

The randomized trial of 220 participants began in November 2022. The estimated completion date for the study is November 2025.
 

Finding the right patients

Though these studies have had some promising results, the difference in efficacy between biologic monotherapy and dual therapy has been mostly moderate, Dr. Mutlu and coauthors wrote. Identifying disease subtypes for which there might be a higher likelihood of response to dual biologic treatment, especially multidrug-resistant types, could improve efficacies in future trials, they argued. “The good effects of bDMARD combinations in resistant patients in fact point into this direction, though they were observed in uncontrolled studies,” the authors noted.

Insurance coverage remains a “huge challenge” for these dual therapies because of the higher expense, noted Dr. Ritchlin. Better targeting therapies could help convince these companies to pay for these therapies.

“I would say that if we were able to demonstrate a phenotype of a patient that would respond to biologics and not monotherapies, [then] many companies would be amenable to this kind of approach,” he said.

Dr. Ritchlin reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Feagan reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

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

Women with moderate to severe psoriasis had a lower fertility rate, compared with age-matched peers without psoriasis, and overall, those with psoriasis had a slightly higher risk of pregnancy loss, compared with those who did not have the disease, in a U.K. cohort study.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be one of the largest studies to investigate fertility and obstetric outcomes in patients with psoriasis.

“Studies that have examined fertility and pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis have reported conflicting findings,” lead author Teng-Chou Chen, PhD, of the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety at the University of Manchester (England), and colleagues from the Global Psoriasis Atlas wrote in the study, published in JAMA Dermatology. Most of the studies were small, with under 100 women, “and are thus likely underpowered to detect a difference in pregnancy outcomes. The majority of those studies used disease registry data or lacked a matched comparison group and hence were unable to estimate the association of fertility and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis when compared with the general population.”

To determine fertility rates and birth outcomes in female patients with psoriasis, compared with age- and practice-matched patients without psoriasis, the researchers evaluated EHR data from a large U.K. primary care database, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, from 1998 to 2019. They limited the analysis to patients aged 15-44 years and used relevant codes from clinical consultations to identify those with psoriasis. Then, for each patient with psoriasis, the researchers selected five comparators without psoriasis from the same primary care practice and matched for year of birth.

Both sets of patients were followed from the index date to age 45 years, death, transfer out of practice, last date of data collection, or end of the study period (Dec. 31, 2019), whichever came first. Pregnancy records were extracted for both sets of patients, and birth outcomes were categorized as pregnancy loss, live birth, stillbirth, and preterm birth. Adverse pregnancy outcomes were also collected. Finally, Dr. Chen and colleagues used a negative binomial model to examine the association between psoriasis and the fertility rate, and they applied logistic regression to compare the association between psoriasis and obstetric outcomes.

The analysis included 63,681 patients with psoriasis and 318,405 comparators whose median age on the index date was 30 years and who were followed for a median of 4.1 years. Among patients with psoriasis, 5.1% met criteria for moderate to severe disease in the follow-up period. The researchers observed that, compared with their age- and practice-matched counterparts, patients with psoriasis were more likely to be current smokers, alcohol drinkers, or overweight on the index date. They were also more often diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, thyroid disorders, and respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Fertility, birth outcomes

When they looked at fertility outcomes, the researchers found that, compared with their matched peers without psoriasis, those with psoriasis had higher rates of fertility (risk ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.33; P < .001). But after the researchers stratified patients based on psoriasis severity, those with moderate to severe disease had significantly lower rates of fertility (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83; P < .001), compared those who did not have psoriasis.

As for adverse birth outcomes, compared with their matched comparators, pregnancies in patients with psoriasis were less likely to end in a live birth (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93; P < .001). They also had a higher risk of pregnancy loss (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10; P < .001), most during the first trimester, at a gestation period of under 91 days.

In addition to psoriasis, patients younger than age 20 (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.94-2.15; P < .011) and those aged between 20 and 24 years (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.31-1.40; P < .001) had a higher risk of pregnancy loss, compared with those aged between 25 and 34 years.

However, no increases in the risks of antenatal hemorrhage, preeclampsia, or gestational diabetes were observed in patients with psoriasis, and no statistically significant differences in the odds of stillbirth and preterm birth were found between patients with psoriasis and matched comparators who did not have psoriasis.

“The mechanism to link the higher risk of pregnancy loss in patients with psoriasis is not clear, but there might be potential explanations,” the researchers wrote. “Psoriasis is characterized by the increased activity of [interleukin]-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Those proinflammatory cytokines may negatively affect the placenta and cause impaired fetal growth.”

They recommended that further studies “evaluate the effects of better management of psoriasis and close monitoring during pregnancy on pregnancy loss.” In particular, “patients with psoriasis were more likely to have comorbidities that may be related to poor pregnancy outcomes, and hence increased emphasis of managing comorbidities as part of the routine management plan is also warranted.”

Asked to comment on the study, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, who has been involved with research on this topic, said that she and other investigators had observed some years ago that fertility rates for women with moderate to severe psoriasis might be lower than expected.

This trend was observed in some psoriasis registries, some pregnancy registries, and in clinical practice, Dr. Kimball, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “This study clearly demonstrates that lower fertility rates in the moderate to severe psoriasis population occurs and compels further exploration of the reason why.” The reasons could be biologic, she continued, including difficulty conceiving or an increased risk of miscarriage, sociobehavioral issues, or a combination.

“Behavioral examples could include that some women with moderate to severe psoriasis can flare during pregnancy, which might affect their choice” to become pregnant, Dr. Kimball said. “Stigma may also play a role in how women with moderate to severe psoriasis form relationships. Now that there are much better treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis and better knowledge about managing psoriasis during pregnancy, it will also be important to explore whether these trends change over time.”

The study was funded by the International League of Dermatological Societies on behalf of the Global Psoriasis Atlas. Two of the study authors reported receiving consulting fees and grant support from many pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kimball disclosed that she serves or has served on several Organization of Teratology Information Specialists advisory board pregnancy registries, is a consultant and investigator for Abbvie, Janssen, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Moonlake, UCB, and Amgen; has fellowship funding from Janssen; and serves on the board of Almirall.

Women with moderate to severe psoriasis had a lower fertility rate, compared with age-matched peers without psoriasis, and overall, those with psoriasis had a slightly higher risk of pregnancy loss, compared with those who did not have the disease, in a U.K. cohort study.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be one of the largest studies to investigate fertility and obstetric outcomes in patients with psoriasis.

“Studies that have examined fertility and pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis have reported conflicting findings,” lead author Teng-Chou Chen, PhD, of the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety at the University of Manchester (England), and colleagues from the Global Psoriasis Atlas wrote in the study, published in JAMA Dermatology. Most of the studies were small, with under 100 women, “and are thus likely underpowered to detect a difference in pregnancy outcomes. The majority of those studies used disease registry data or lacked a matched comparison group and hence were unable to estimate the association of fertility and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis when compared with the general population.”

To determine fertility rates and birth outcomes in female patients with psoriasis, compared with age- and practice-matched patients without psoriasis, the researchers evaluated EHR data from a large U.K. primary care database, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, from 1998 to 2019. They limited the analysis to patients aged 15-44 years and used relevant codes from clinical consultations to identify those with psoriasis. Then, for each patient with psoriasis, the researchers selected five comparators without psoriasis from the same primary care practice and matched for year of birth.

Both sets of patients were followed from the index date to age 45 years, death, transfer out of practice, last date of data collection, or end of the study period (Dec. 31, 2019), whichever came first. Pregnancy records were extracted for both sets of patients, and birth outcomes were categorized as pregnancy loss, live birth, stillbirth, and preterm birth. Adverse pregnancy outcomes were also collected. Finally, Dr. Chen and colleagues used a negative binomial model to examine the association between psoriasis and the fertility rate, and they applied logistic regression to compare the association between psoriasis and obstetric outcomes.

The analysis included 63,681 patients with psoriasis and 318,405 comparators whose median age on the index date was 30 years and who were followed for a median of 4.1 years. Among patients with psoriasis, 5.1% met criteria for moderate to severe disease in the follow-up period. The researchers observed that, compared with their age- and practice-matched counterparts, patients with psoriasis were more likely to be current smokers, alcohol drinkers, or overweight on the index date. They were also more often diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, thyroid disorders, and respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Fertility, birth outcomes

When they looked at fertility outcomes, the researchers found that, compared with their matched peers without psoriasis, those with psoriasis had higher rates of fertility (risk ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.33; P < .001). But after the researchers stratified patients based on psoriasis severity, those with moderate to severe disease had significantly lower rates of fertility (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83; P < .001), compared those who did not have psoriasis.

As for adverse birth outcomes, compared with their matched comparators, pregnancies in patients with psoriasis were less likely to end in a live birth (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93; P < .001). They also had a higher risk of pregnancy loss (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10; P < .001), most during the first trimester, at a gestation period of under 91 days.

In addition to psoriasis, patients younger than age 20 (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.94-2.15; P < .011) and those aged between 20 and 24 years (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.31-1.40; P < .001) had a higher risk of pregnancy loss, compared with those aged between 25 and 34 years.

However, no increases in the risks of antenatal hemorrhage, preeclampsia, or gestational diabetes were observed in patients with psoriasis, and no statistically significant differences in the odds of stillbirth and preterm birth were found between patients with psoriasis and matched comparators who did not have psoriasis.

“The mechanism to link the higher risk of pregnancy loss in patients with psoriasis is not clear, but there might be potential explanations,” the researchers wrote. “Psoriasis is characterized by the increased activity of [interleukin]-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Those proinflammatory cytokines may negatively affect the placenta and cause impaired fetal growth.”

They recommended that further studies “evaluate the effects of better management of psoriasis and close monitoring during pregnancy on pregnancy loss.” In particular, “patients with psoriasis were more likely to have comorbidities that may be related to poor pregnancy outcomes, and hence increased emphasis of managing comorbidities as part of the routine management plan is also warranted.”

Asked to comment on the study, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, who has been involved with research on this topic, said that she and other investigators had observed some years ago that fertility rates for women with moderate to severe psoriasis might be lower than expected.

This trend was observed in some psoriasis registries, some pregnancy registries, and in clinical practice, Dr. Kimball, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “This study clearly demonstrates that lower fertility rates in the moderate to severe psoriasis population occurs and compels further exploration of the reason why.” The reasons could be biologic, she continued, including difficulty conceiving or an increased risk of miscarriage, sociobehavioral issues, or a combination.

“Behavioral examples could include that some women with moderate to severe psoriasis can flare during pregnancy, which might affect their choice” to become pregnant, Dr. Kimball said. “Stigma may also play a role in how women with moderate to severe psoriasis form relationships. Now that there are much better treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis and better knowledge about managing psoriasis during pregnancy, it will also be important to explore whether these trends change over time.”

The study was funded by the International League of Dermatological Societies on behalf of the Global Psoriasis Atlas. Two of the study authors reported receiving consulting fees and grant support from many pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kimball disclosed that she serves or has served on several Organization of Teratology Information Specialists advisory board pregnancy registries, is a consultant and investigator for Abbvie, Janssen, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Moonlake, UCB, and Amgen; has fellowship funding from Janssen; and serves on the board of Almirall.

Women with moderate to severe psoriasis had a lower fertility rate, compared with age-matched peers without psoriasis, and overall, those with psoriasis had a slightly higher risk of pregnancy loss, compared with those who did not have the disease, in a U.K. cohort study.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be one of the largest studies to investigate fertility and obstetric outcomes in patients with psoriasis.

“Studies that have examined fertility and pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis have reported conflicting findings,” lead author Teng-Chou Chen, PhD, of the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety at the University of Manchester (England), and colleagues from the Global Psoriasis Atlas wrote in the study, published in JAMA Dermatology. Most of the studies were small, with under 100 women, “and are thus likely underpowered to detect a difference in pregnancy outcomes. The majority of those studies used disease registry data or lacked a matched comparison group and hence were unable to estimate the association of fertility and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis when compared with the general population.”

To determine fertility rates and birth outcomes in female patients with psoriasis, compared with age- and practice-matched patients without psoriasis, the researchers evaluated EHR data from a large U.K. primary care database, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, from 1998 to 2019. They limited the analysis to patients aged 15-44 years and used relevant codes from clinical consultations to identify those with psoriasis. Then, for each patient with psoriasis, the researchers selected five comparators without psoriasis from the same primary care practice and matched for year of birth.

Both sets of patients were followed from the index date to age 45 years, death, transfer out of practice, last date of data collection, or end of the study period (Dec. 31, 2019), whichever came first. Pregnancy records were extracted for both sets of patients, and birth outcomes were categorized as pregnancy loss, live birth, stillbirth, and preterm birth. Adverse pregnancy outcomes were also collected. Finally, Dr. Chen and colleagues used a negative binomial model to examine the association between psoriasis and the fertility rate, and they applied logistic regression to compare the association between psoriasis and obstetric outcomes.

The analysis included 63,681 patients with psoriasis and 318,405 comparators whose median age on the index date was 30 years and who were followed for a median of 4.1 years. Among patients with psoriasis, 5.1% met criteria for moderate to severe disease in the follow-up period. The researchers observed that, compared with their age- and practice-matched counterparts, patients with psoriasis were more likely to be current smokers, alcohol drinkers, or overweight on the index date. They were also more often diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, thyroid disorders, and respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Fertility, birth outcomes

When they looked at fertility outcomes, the researchers found that, compared with their matched peers without psoriasis, those with psoriasis had higher rates of fertility (risk ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.33; P < .001). But after the researchers stratified patients based on psoriasis severity, those with moderate to severe disease had significantly lower rates of fertility (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83; P < .001), compared those who did not have psoriasis.

As for adverse birth outcomes, compared with their matched comparators, pregnancies in patients with psoriasis were less likely to end in a live birth (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93; P < .001). They also had a higher risk of pregnancy loss (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10; P < .001), most during the first trimester, at a gestation period of under 91 days.

In addition to psoriasis, patients younger than age 20 (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.94-2.15; P < .011) and those aged between 20 and 24 years (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.31-1.40; P < .001) had a higher risk of pregnancy loss, compared with those aged between 25 and 34 years.

However, no increases in the risks of antenatal hemorrhage, preeclampsia, or gestational diabetes were observed in patients with psoriasis, and no statistically significant differences in the odds of stillbirth and preterm birth were found between patients with psoriasis and matched comparators who did not have psoriasis.

“The mechanism to link the higher risk of pregnancy loss in patients with psoriasis is not clear, but there might be potential explanations,” the researchers wrote. “Psoriasis is characterized by the increased activity of [interleukin]-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Those proinflammatory cytokines may negatively affect the placenta and cause impaired fetal growth.”

They recommended that further studies “evaluate the effects of better management of psoriasis and close monitoring during pregnancy on pregnancy loss.” In particular, “patients with psoriasis were more likely to have comorbidities that may be related to poor pregnancy outcomes, and hence increased emphasis of managing comorbidities as part of the routine management plan is also warranted.”

Asked to comment on the study, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, who has been involved with research on this topic, said that she and other investigators had observed some years ago that fertility rates for women with moderate to severe psoriasis might be lower than expected.

This trend was observed in some psoriasis registries, some pregnancy registries, and in clinical practice, Dr. Kimball, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “This study clearly demonstrates that lower fertility rates in the moderate to severe psoriasis population occurs and compels further exploration of the reason why.” The reasons could be biologic, she continued, including difficulty conceiving or an increased risk of miscarriage, sociobehavioral issues, or a combination.

“Behavioral examples could include that some women with moderate to severe psoriasis can flare during pregnancy, which might affect their choice” to become pregnant, Dr. Kimball said. “Stigma may also play a role in how women with moderate to severe psoriasis form relationships. Now that there are much better treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis and better knowledge about managing psoriasis during pregnancy, it will also be important to explore whether these trends change over time.”

The study was funded by the International League of Dermatological Societies on behalf of the Global Psoriasis Atlas. Two of the study authors reported receiving consulting fees and grant support from many pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kimball disclosed that she serves or has served on several Organization of Teratology Information Specialists advisory board pregnancy registries, is a consultant and investigator for Abbvie, Janssen, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Moonlake, UCB, and Amgen; has fellowship funding from Janssen; and serves on the board of Almirall.

AT EULAR 2023

MILAN – Safety considerations, particularly regarding the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are of utmost importance in the 2023 update to recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Additionally, the selection of therapy should now take into account the complete clinical presentation, explicitly considering nonmusculoskeletal manifestations.

Safety considerations with JAK inhibitors

Expanding on the existing six overarching principles from the 2019 recommendations, the PsA EULAR recommendations now introduce a seventh principle: “The choice of treatment should consider safety considerations regarding individual modes of action to optimize the benefit-risk profile.”

This addition was prompted by recent safety data on JAK inhibitors, which revealed serious potential side effects, such as heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and severe infections, that recently prompted the European Medicines Agency to restrict their use. As indicated by the new principle, safety considerations have been incorporated into several recommendations.

For instance, in the context of peripheral arthritis, JAK inhibitors may now be considered if there is an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide, and at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD).

Alternatively, JAK inhibitors may be utilized when bDMARDs are not suitable for other reasons. However, EULAR now emphasizes caution whenever JAK inhibitors are mentioned. Specifically, “careful consideration is necessary for patients aged 65 or above, current or past long-time smokers, individuals with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors, those with other malignancy risk factors, or individuals with a known risk for venous thromboembolism.”
 

Consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations in treatment decisions

In another significant update, EULAR now recommends that the choice of therapy should also consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations associated with PsA. “There is a notable shift in perspective here,” Dr. Gossec told this news organization. Clinically relevant skin involvement should prompt the use of IL-17A or IL-17A/F or IL-23 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, while uveitis should be treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

In the case of inflammatory bowel disease, EULAR advises the use of anti-TNF agents, IL-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors, or a JAK inhibitor. The recommended course of action within each treatment category is not ranked in order of preference, but EULAR emphasizes the importance of following EMA recommendations and considering safety.
 

Systemic glucocorticoids removed

Certain medications have been removed from the recommendations, reflecting the heightened focus on treatment safety. The use of systemic glucocorticoids as adjunctive therapy is no longer recommended. “We always had reservations about their use, and now we have eliminated them. We are aware that they are still utilized, with 30% of patients in Germany, for instance, receiving low doses of glucocorticoids. However, the long-term efficacy/safety balance of glucocorticoids is unfavorable in any disease, particularly in patients with psoriatic arthritis and multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Gossec explained.

NSAIDs and local glucocorticoids are now limited to specific patient populations, namely those affected by oligoarthritis without poor prognostic factors, entheseal disease, or predominant axial disease. Their use should be short-term, generally no longer than 4 weeks. Polyarthritis or oligoarthritis with poor prognostic factors should instead be treated directly with csDMARDs.
 

No specific biologic treatment order recommended for peripheral arthritis

Regarding patients with peripheral arthritis, recent efficacy data have led EULAR to refrain from recommending any specific order of preference for the use of bDMARDs, which encompass TNF inhibitors and drugs targeting the IL-17 and IL-12/23 pathways. “We lack the data to propose an order of preference in patients with peripheral arthritis. Different classes of molecules exhibit efficacy in joint inflammation, generally resulting in a 50% response rate and similar overall effects,” said Dr. Gossec, referencing head-to-head trials between biologics that yielded very comparable results, such as the EXCEED trial or SPIRIT-H2H trial.

The updated recommendations now consider two IL-23p19 inhibitors, guselkumab (Tremfya) and risankizumab (Skyrizi), the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and the very recently EMA-approved bimekizumab (Bimzelx), an IL-17A/F double inhibitor.

The recommendation for patients with mono- or oligoarthritis and poor prognostic factors now aligns with the previous recommendations for polyarthritis: A csDMARD should be initiated promptly, with a preference for methotrexate if significant skin involvement is present. New data suggest that methotrexate may be beneficial for enthesitis, achieving resolution in approximately 30% of patients. When considering treatment options, JAK inhibitors may also be taken into account, with safety considerations in mind.

In cases of clinically relevant axial disease and an inadequate response to NSAIDs, therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor, a TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A/F inhibitor, or a JAK inhibitor may be considered. This approach now aligns with the most recent axial spondyloarthritis recommendation from EULAR and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).
 

Which disease manifestation to treat first?

During the discussion, chairwoman Uta Kiltz, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Rheumatism Center Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and clinical lecturer at Ruhr University Bochum, inquired about identifying the primary manifestation to guide the course of action.

“Psoriatic arthritis is highly heterogeneous, and determining the predominant manifestation is sometimes challenging,” Dr. Gossec said. “However, we believe that a certain order of preference is necessary when making treatment decisions. Starting with peripheral arthritis, which can lead to structural damage, allows for treatment selection based on that aspect. If peripheral arthritis is not present, attention should be directed towards axial disease, ensuring the presence of actual inflammation rather than solely axial pain, as mechanical origin axial pain can occur due to the patient’s age.”

David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, commented on the update to this news organization: “We are fortunate to have a wide range of targeted therapy options for psoriatic arthritis, and these guidelines reflect this abundance of choices. They emphasize the importance of selecting therapies based on specific disease manifestations and tailoring care to each patient’s unique type of psoriatic arthritis. It’s worth noting that some changes in these guidelines were influenced by regulatory changes following ORAL Surveillance. In an era of numerous options, we can afford to be selective at times.”

Regarding safety concerns and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Liew added: “It is not surprising to see these guidelines impose certain restrictions on the use of JAK inhibitors, especially in psoriatic arthritis, where other therapies offer distinct advantages. Until high-quality evidence convincingly points away from a class effect, we can expect to see similar provisions in many more guidelines.”

Many of the recommendations’ authors report financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies. These include AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and Viatris.

EULAR funded the development of the recommendations.

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

AT EULAR 2023

MILAN – Safety considerations, particularly regarding the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are of utmost importance in the 2023 update to recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Additionally, the selection of therapy should now take into account the complete clinical presentation, explicitly considering nonmusculoskeletal manifestations.

Safety considerations with JAK inhibitors

Expanding on the existing six overarching principles from the 2019 recommendations, the PsA EULAR recommendations now introduce a seventh principle: “The choice of treatment should consider safety considerations regarding individual modes of action to optimize the benefit-risk profile.”

This addition was prompted by recent safety data on JAK inhibitors, which revealed serious potential side effects, such as heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and severe infections, that recently prompted the European Medicines Agency to restrict their use. As indicated by the new principle, safety considerations have been incorporated into several recommendations.

For instance, in the context of peripheral arthritis, JAK inhibitors may now be considered if there is an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide, and at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD).

Alternatively, JAK inhibitors may be utilized when bDMARDs are not suitable for other reasons. However, EULAR now emphasizes caution whenever JAK inhibitors are mentioned. Specifically, “careful consideration is necessary for patients aged 65 or above, current or past long-time smokers, individuals with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors, those with other malignancy risk factors, or individuals with a known risk for venous thromboembolism.”
 

Consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations in treatment decisions

In another significant update, EULAR now recommends that the choice of therapy should also consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations associated with PsA. “There is a notable shift in perspective here,” Dr. Gossec told this news organization. Clinically relevant skin involvement should prompt the use of IL-17A or IL-17A/F or IL-23 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, while uveitis should be treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

In the case of inflammatory bowel disease, EULAR advises the use of anti-TNF agents, IL-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors, or a JAK inhibitor. The recommended course of action within each treatment category is not ranked in order of preference, but EULAR emphasizes the importance of following EMA recommendations and considering safety.
 

Systemic glucocorticoids removed

Certain medications have been removed from the recommendations, reflecting the heightened focus on treatment safety. The use of systemic glucocorticoids as adjunctive therapy is no longer recommended. “We always had reservations about their use, and now we have eliminated them. We are aware that they are still utilized, with 30% of patients in Germany, for instance, receiving low doses of glucocorticoids. However, the long-term efficacy/safety balance of glucocorticoids is unfavorable in any disease, particularly in patients with psoriatic arthritis and multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Gossec explained.

NSAIDs and local glucocorticoids are now limited to specific patient populations, namely those affected by oligoarthritis without poor prognostic factors, entheseal disease, or predominant axial disease. Their use should be short-term, generally no longer than 4 weeks. Polyarthritis or oligoarthritis with poor prognostic factors should instead be treated directly with csDMARDs.
 

No specific biologic treatment order recommended for peripheral arthritis

Regarding patients with peripheral arthritis, recent efficacy data have led EULAR to refrain from recommending any specific order of preference for the use of bDMARDs, which encompass TNF inhibitors and drugs targeting the IL-17 and IL-12/23 pathways. “We lack the data to propose an order of preference in patients with peripheral arthritis. Different classes of molecules exhibit efficacy in joint inflammation, generally resulting in a 50% response rate and similar overall effects,” said Dr. Gossec, referencing head-to-head trials between biologics that yielded very comparable results, such as the EXCEED trial or SPIRIT-H2H trial.

The updated recommendations now consider two IL-23p19 inhibitors, guselkumab (Tremfya) and risankizumab (Skyrizi), the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and the very recently EMA-approved bimekizumab (Bimzelx), an IL-17A/F double inhibitor.

The recommendation for patients with mono- or oligoarthritis and poor prognostic factors now aligns with the previous recommendations for polyarthritis: A csDMARD should be initiated promptly, with a preference for methotrexate if significant skin involvement is present. New data suggest that methotrexate may be beneficial for enthesitis, achieving resolution in approximately 30% of patients. When considering treatment options, JAK inhibitors may also be taken into account, with safety considerations in mind.

In cases of clinically relevant axial disease and an inadequate response to NSAIDs, therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor, a TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A/F inhibitor, or a JAK inhibitor may be considered. This approach now aligns with the most recent axial spondyloarthritis recommendation from EULAR and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).
 

Which disease manifestation to treat first?

During the discussion, chairwoman Uta Kiltz, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Rheumatism Center Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and clinical lecturer at Ruhr University Bochum, inquired about identifying the primary manifestation to guide the course of action.

“Psoriatic arthritis is highly heterogeneous, and determining the predominant manifestation is sometimes challenging,” Dr. Gossec said. “However, we believe that a certain order of preference is necessary when making treatment decisions. Starting with peripheral arthritis, which can lead to structural damage, allows for treatment selection based on that aspect. If peripheral arthritis is not present, attention should be directed towards axial disease, ensuring the presence of actual inflammation rather than solely axial pain, as mechanical origin axial pain can occur due to the patient’s age.”

David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, commented on the update to this news organization: “We are fortunate to have a wide range of targeted therapy options for psoriatic arthritis, and these guidelines reflect this abundance of choices. They emphasize the importance of selecting therapies based on specific disease manifestations and tailoring care to each patient’s unique type of psoriatic arthritis. It’s worth noting that some changes in these guidelines were influenced by regulatory changes following ORAL Surveillance. In an era of numerous options, we can afford to be selective at times.”

Regarding safety concerns and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Liew added: “It is not surprising to see these guidelines impose certain restrictions on the use of JAK inhibitors, especially in psoriatic arthritis, where other therapies offer distinct advantages. Until high-quality evidence convincingly points away from a class effect, we can expect to see similar provisions in many more guidelines.”

Many of the recommendations’ authors report financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies. These include AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and Viatris.

EULAR funded the development of the recommendations.

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

AT EULAR 2023

MILAN – Safety considerations, particularly regarding the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are of utmost importance in the 2023 update to recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Additionally, the selection of therapy should now take into account the complete clinical presentation, explicitly considering nonmusculoskeletal manifestations.

Safety considerations with JAK inhibitors

Expanding on the existing six overarching principles from the 2019 recommendations, the PsA EULAR recommendations now introduce a seventh principle: “The choice of treatment should consider safety considerations regarding individual modes of action to optimize the benefit-risk profile.”

This addition was prompted by recent safety data on JAK inhibitors, which revealed serious potential side effects, such as heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and severe infections, that recently prompted the European Medicines Agency to restrict their use. As indicated by the new principle, safety considerations have been incorporated into several recommendations.

For instance, in the context of peripheral arthritis, JAK inhibitors may now be considered if there is an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide, and at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD).

Alternatively, JAK inhibitors may be utilized when bDMARDs are not suitable for other reasons. However, EULAR now emphasizes caution whenever JAK inhibitors are mentioned. Specifically, “careful consideration is necessary for patients aged 65 or above, current or past long-time smokers, individuals with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors, those with other malignancy risk factors, or individuals with a known risk for venous thromboembolism.”
 

Consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations in treatment decisions

In another significant update, EULAR now recommends that the choice of therapy should also consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations associated with PsA. “There is a notable shift in perspective here,” Dr. Gossec told this news organization. Clinically relevant skin involvement should prompt the use of IL-17A or IL-17A/F or IL-23 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, while uveitis should be treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

In the case of inflammatory bowel disease, EULAR advises the use of anti-TNF agents, IL-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors, or a JAK inhibitor. The recommended course of action within each treatment category is not ranked in order of preference, but EULAR emphasizes the importance of following EMA recommendations and considering safety.
 

Systemic glucocorticoids removed

Certain medications have been removed from the recommendations, reflecting the heightened focus on treatment safety. The use of systemic glucocorticoids as adjunctive therapy is no longer recommended. “We always had reservations about their use, and now we have eliminated them. We are aware that they are still utilized, with 30% of patients in Germany, for instance, receiving low doses of glucocorticoids. However, the long-term efficacy/safety balance of glucocorticoids is unfavorable in any disease, particularly in patients with psoriatic arthritis and multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Gossec explained.

NSAIDs and local glucocorticoids are now limited to specific patient populations, namely those affected by oligoarthritis without poor prognostic factors, entheseal disease, or predominant axial disease. Their use should be short-term, generally no longer than 4 weeks. Polyarthritis or oligoarthritis with poor prognostic factors should instead be treated directly with csDMARDs.
 

No specific biologic treatment order recommended for peripheral arthritis

Regarding patients with peripheral arthritis, recent efficacy data have led EULAR to refrain from recommending any specific order of preference for the use of bDMARDs, which encompass TNF inhibitors and drugs targeting the IL-17 and IL-12/23 pathways. “We lack the data to propose an order of preference in patients with peripheral arthritis. Different classes of molecules exhibit efficacy in joint inflammation, generally resulting in a 50% response rate and similar overall effects,” said Dr. Gossec, referencing head-to-head trials between biologics that yielded very comparable results, such as the EXCEED trial or SPIRIT-H2H trial.

The updated recommendations now consider two IL-23p19 inhibitors, guselkumab (Tremfya) and risankizumab (Skyrizi), the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and the very recently EMA-approved bimekizumab (Bimzelx), an IL-17A/F double inhibitor.

The recommendation for patients with mono- or oligoarthritis and poor prognostic factors now aligns with the previous recommendations for polyarthritis: A csDMARD should be initiated promptly, with a preference for methotrexate if significant skin involvement is present. New data suggest that methotrexate may be beneficial for enthesitis, achieving resolution in approximately 30% of patients. When considering treatment options, JAK inhibitors may also be taken into account, with safety considerations in mind.

In cases of clinically relevant axial disease and an inadequate response to NSAIDs, therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor, a TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A/F inhibitor, or a JAK inhibitor may be considered. This approach now aligns with the most recent axial spondyloarthritis recommendation from EULAR and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).
 

Which disease manifestation to treat first?

During the discussion, chairwoman Uta Kiltz, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Rheumatism Center Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and clinical lecturer at Ruhr University Bochum, inquired about identifying the primary manifestation to guide the course of action.

“Psoriatic arthritis is highly heterogeneous, and determining the predominant manifestation is sometimes challenging,” Dr. Gossec said. “However, we believe that a certain order of preference is necessary when making treatment decisions. Starting with peripheral arthritis, which can lead to structural damage, allows for treatment selection based on that aspect. If peripheral arthritis is not present, attention should be directed towards axial disease, ensuring the presence of actual inflammation rather than solely axial pain, as mechanical origin axial pain can occur due to the patient’s age.”

David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, commented on the update to this news organization: “We are fortunate to have a wide range of targeted therapy options for psoriatic arthritis, and these guidelines reflect this abundance of choices. They emphasize the importance of selecting therapies based on specific disease manifestations and tailoring care to each patient’s unique type of psoriatic arthritis. It’s worth noting that some changes in these guidelines were influenced by regulatory changes following ORAL Surveillance. In an era of numerous options, we can afford to be selective at times.”

Regarding safety concerns and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Liew added: “It is not surprising to see these guidelines impose certain restrictions on the use of JAK inhibitors, especially in psoriatic arthritis, where other therapies offer distinct advantages. Until high-quality evidence convincingly points away from a class effect, we can expect to see similar provisions in many more guidelines.”

Many of the recommendations’ authors report financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies. These include AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and Viatris.

EULAR funded the development of the recommendations.

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