AAD: American Academy of Dermatology

NEW ORLEANS – All but one Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor with dermatologic indications carries a boxed warning that lists multiple risks for drugs in this class, including the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), even though the basis for all the risks is a rheumatoid arthritis study, according to a critical review at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.  

Given the fact that the postmarketing RA study was specifically enriched with high-risk patients by requiring an age at enrollment of at least 50 years and the presence of at least one cardiovascular risk factor, the extrapolation of these risks to dermatologic indications is “not necessarily data-driven,” said Brett A. King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The recently approved deucravacitinib is the only JAK inhibitor that has so far been exempt from these warnings. Instead, based on the ORAL Surveillance study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration requires a boxed warning in nearly identical language for all the other JAK inhibitors. Relative to tofacitinib, the JAK inhibitor tested in ORAL Surveillance, many of these drugs differ by JAK selectivity and other characteristics that are likely relevant to risk of adverse events, Dr. King said. The same language has even been applied to topical ruxolitinib cream. 
 

Basis of boxed warnings

In ORAL Surveillance, about 4,300 high-risk patients with RA were randomized to one of two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg or 10 mg) twice daily or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. All patients in the trial were taking methotrexate, and almost 60% were taking concomitant corticosteroids. The average body mass index of the study population was about 30 kg/m².

After a median 4 years of follow-up (about 5,000 patient-years), the incidence of many of the adverse events tracked in the study were higher in the tofacitinib groups, including serious infections, MACE, thromboembolic events, and cancer. Dr. King did not challenge the importance of these data, but he questioned whether they are reasonably extrapolated to dermatologic indications, particularly as many of those treated are younger than those common to an RA population.

In fact, despite a study enriched for a higher risk of many events tracked, most adverse events were only slightly elevated, Dr. King pointed out. For example, the incidence of MACE over the 4 years of follow-up was 3.4% among those taking any dose of tofacitinib versus 2.5% of those randomized to TNF inhibitor. Rates of cancer were 4.2% versus 2.9%, respectively. There were also absolute increases in the number of serious infections and thromboembolic events for tofacitinib relative to TNF inhibitor.

Dr. King acknowledged that the numbers in ORAL Surveillance associated tofacitinib with a higher risk of serious events than TNF inhibitor in patients with RA, but he believes that “JAK inhibitor safety is almost certainly not the same in dermatology as it is in rheumatology patients.”
 

Evidence of difference in dermatology

There is some evidence to back this up. Dr. King cited a recently published study in RMD Open that evaluated the safety profile of the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib in nearly 7,000 patients over 15,000 patient-years of follow-up. Drug safety data were evaluated with up to 5.5 years of follow-up from 12 clinical trials of the four diseases for which upadacitinib is now indicated. Three were rheumatologic (RA, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis), and the fourth was atopic dermatitis (AD). Fourteen outcomes, including numerous types of infection, MACE, hepatic complications, and malignancy, were compared with methotrexate and the TNF inhibitor adalimumab.

For the RA diseases, upadacitinib was associated with a greater risk than comparators for several outcomes, including serious infections. But in AD, there was a smaller increased risk of adverse outcomes for the JAK inhibitor relative to comparators.

When evaluated by risk of adverse events across indications, for MACE, the exposure-adjusted event rates for upadacitinib were less than 0.1 in patients treated for AD over the observation period versus 0.3 and 0.4 for RA and psoriatic arthritis, respectively. Similarly, for venous thromboembolism, the rates for upadacitinib were again less than 0.1 in patients with AD versus 0.4 and 0.2 in RA and psoriatic arthritis, respectively.

Referring back to the postmarketing study, Dr. King emphasized that it is essential to consider how the boxed warning for JAK inhibitors was generated before applying them to dermatologic indications.

“Is a 30-year-old patient with a dermatologic disorder possibly at the same risk as the patients in the study from which we got the boxed warning? The answer is simply no,” he said.

Like the tofacitinib data in the ORAL Surveillance study, the upadacitinib clinical trial data are not necessarily relevant to other JAK inhibitors. In fact, Dr. King pointed out that the safety profiles of the available JAK inhibitors are not identical, an observation that is consistent with differences in JAK inhibitor selectivity that has implications for off-target events.  

Dr. King does not dismiss the potential risks outlined in the current regulatory cautions about the use of JAK inhibitors, but he believes that dermatologists should be cognizant of “where the black box warning comes from.”

“We need to think carefully about the risk-to-benefit ratio in older patients or patients with risk factors, such as obesity and diabetes,” he said. But the safety profile of JAK inhibitors “is almost certainly better” than the profile suggested in boxed warnings applied to JAK inhibitors for dermatologic indications, he advised.
 

Risk-benefit considerations in dermatology

This position was supported by numerous other experts when asked for their perspectives. “I fully agree,” said Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, system chair of dermatology and immunology, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York.

Like Dr. King, Dr. Guttman-Yassky did not dismiss the potential risks of JAK inhibitors when treating dermatologic diseases.

“While JAK inhibitors need monitoring as advised, adopting a boxed warning from an RA study for patients who are older [is problematic],” she commented. A study with the nonselective tofacitinib in this population “cannot be compared to more selective inhibitors in a much younger population, such as those treated [for] alopecia areata or atopic dermatitis.”

George Z. Han, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology, Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra, Northwell Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, also agreed but added some caveats.

“The comments about the ORAL Surveillance study are salient,” he said in an interview. “This kind of data should not directly be extrapolated to other patient types or to other medications.” However, one of Dr. Han’s most important caveats involves long-term use.

“JAK inhibitors are still relatively narrow-therapeutic-window drugs that in a dose-dependent fashion could lead to negative effects, including thromboembolic events, abnormalities in red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and lipids,” he said. While doses used in dermatology “are generally below the level of any major concern,” Dr. Han cautioned that “we lack definitive data” on long-term use, and this is important for understanding “any potential small risk of rare events, such as malignancy or thromboembolism.”

Saakshi Khattri, MD, a colleague of Dr. Guttman-Yassky at Mount Sinai, said the risks of JAK inhibitors should not be underestimated, but she also agreed that risk “needs to be delivered in the right context.” Dr. Khattri, who is board certified in both dermatology and rheumatology, noted the safety profiles of available JAK inhibitors differ and that extrapolating safety from an RA study to dermatologic indications does not make sense. “Different diseases, different age groups,” she said.

Dr. King has reported financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Guttman-Yassky has reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Han reports financial relationships with Amgen, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bond Avillion, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, PellePharm, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Khattri has reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

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

NEW ORLEANS – All but one Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor with dermatologic indications carries a boxed warning that lists multiple risks for drugs in this class, including the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), even though the basis for all the risks is a rheumatoid arthritis study, according to a critical review at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.  

Given the fact that the postmarketing RA study was specifically enriched with high-risk patients by requiring an age at enrollment of at least 50 years and the presence of at least one cardiovascular risk factor, the extrapolation of these risks to dermatologic indications is “not necessarily data-driven,” said Brett A. King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The recently approved deucravacitinib is the only JAK inhibitor that has so far been exempt from these warnings. Instead, based on the ORAL Surveillance study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration requires a boxed warning in nearly identical language for all the other JAK inhibitors. Relative to tofacitinib, the JAK inhibitor tested in ORAL Surveillance, many of these drugs differ by JAK selectivity and other characteristics that are likely relevant to risk of adverse events, Dr. King said. The same language has even been applied to topical ruxolitinib cream. 
 

Basis of boxed warnings

In ORAL Surveillance, about 4,300 high-risk patients with RA were randomized to one of two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg or 10 mg) twice daily or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. All patients in the trial were taking methotrexate, and almost 60% were taking concomitant corticosteroids. The average body mass index of the study population was about 30 kg/m².

After a median 4 years of follow-up (about 5,000 patient-years), the incidence of many of the adverse events tracked in the study were higher in the tofacitinib groups, including serious infections, MACE, thromboembolic events, and cancer. Dr. King did not challenge the importance of these data, but he questioned whether they are reasonably extrapolated to dermatologic indications, particularly as many of those treated are younger than those common to an RA population.

In fact, despite a study enriched for a higher risk of many events tracked, most adverse events were only slightly elevated, Dr. King pointed out. For example, the incidence of MACE over the 4 years of follow-up was 3.4% among those taking any dose of tofacitinib versus 2.5% of those randomized to TNF inhibitor. Rates of cancer were 4.2% versus 2.9%, respectively. There were also absolute increases in the number of serious infections and thromboembolic events for tofacitinib relative to TNF inhibitor.

Dr. King acknowledged that the numbers in ORAL Surveillance associated tofacitinib with a higher risk of serious events than TNF inhibitor in patients with RA, but he believes that “JAK inhibitor safety is almost certainly not the same in dermatology as it is in rheumatology patients.”
 

Evidence of difference in dermatology

There is some evidence to back this up. Dr. King cited a recently published study in RMD Open that evaluated the safety profile of the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib in nearly 7,000 patients over 15,000 patient-years of follow-up. Drug safety data were evaluated with up to 5.5 years of follow-up from 12 clinical trials of the four diseases for which upadacitinib is now indicated. Three were rheumatologic (RA, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis), and the fourth was atopic dermatitis (AD). Fourteen outcomes, including numerous types of infection, MACE, hepatic complications, and malignancy, were compared with methotrexate and the TNF inhibitor adalimumab.

For the RA diseases, upadacitinib was associated with a greater risk than comparators for several outcomes, including serious infections. But in AD, there was a smaller increased risk of adverse outcomes for the JAK inhibitor relative to comparators.

When evaluated by risk of adverse events across indications, for MACE, the exposure-adjusted event rates for upadacitinib were less than 0.1 in patients treated for AD over the observation period versus 0.3 and 0.4 for RA and psoriatic arthritis, respectively. Similarly, for venous thromboembolism, the rates for upadacitinib were again less than 0.1 in patients with AD versus 0.4 and 0.2 in RA and psoriatic arthritis, respectively.

Referring back to the postmarketing study, Dr. King emphasized that it is essential to consider how the boxed warning for JAK inhibitors was generated before applying them to dermatologic indications.

“Is a 30-year-old patient with a dermatologic disorder possibly at the same risk as the patients in the study from which we got the boxed warning? The answer is simply no,” he said.

Like the tofacitinib data in the ORAL Surveillance study, the upadacitinib clinical trial data are not necessarily relevant to other JAK inhibitors. In fact, Dr. King pointed out that the safety profiles of the available JAK inhibitors are not identical, an observation that is consistent with differences in JAK inhibitor selectivity that has implications for off-target events.  

Dr. King does not dismiss the potential risks outlined in the current regulatory cautions about the use of JAK inhibitors, but he believes that dermatologists should be cognizant of “where the black box warning comes from.”

“We need to think carefully about the risk-to-benefit ratio in older patients or patients with risk factors, such as obesity and diabetes,” he said. But the safety profile of JAK inhibitors “is almost certainly better” than the profile suggested in boxed warnings applied to JAK inhibitors for dermatologic indications, he advised.
 

Risk-benefit considerations in dermatology

This position was supported by numerous other experts when asked for their perspectives. “I fully agree,” said Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, system chair of dermatology and immunology, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York.

Like Dr. King, Dr. Guttman-Yassky did not dismiss the potential risks of JAK inhibitors when treating dermatologic diseases.

“While JAK inhibitors need monitoring as advised, adopting a boxed warning from an RA study for patients who are older [is problematic],” she commented. A study with the nonselective tofacitinib in this population “cannot be compared to more selective inhibitors in a much younger population, such as those treated [for] alopecia areata or atopic dermatitis.”

George Z. Han, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology, Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra, Northwell Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, also agreed but added some caveats.

“The comments about the ORAL Surveillance study are salient,” he said in an interview. “This kind of data should not directly be extrapolated to other patient types or to other medications.” However, one of Dr. Han’s most important caveats involves long-term use.

“JAK inhibitors are still relatively narrow-therapeutic-window drugs that in a dose-dependent fashion could lead to negative effects, including thromboembolic events, abnormalities in red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and lipids,” he said. While doses used in dermatology “are generally below the level of any major concern,” Dr. Han cautioned that “we lack definitive data” on long-term use, and this is important for understanding “any potential small risk of rare events, such as malignancy or thromboembolism.”

Saakshi Khattri, MD, a colleague of Dr. Guttman-Yassky at Mount Sinai, said the risks of JAK inhibitors should not be underestimated, but she also agreed that risk “needs to be delivered in the right context.” Dr. Khattri, who is board certified in both dermatology and rheumatology, noted the safety profiles of available JAK inhibitors differ and that extrapolating safety from an RA study to dermatologic indications does not make sense. “Different diseases, different age groups,” she said.

Dr. King has reported financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Guttman-Yassky has reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Han reports financial relationships with Amgen, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bond Avillion, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, PellePharm, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Khattri has reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

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

NEW ORLEANS – All but one Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor with dermatologic indications carries a boxed warning that lists multiple risks for drugs in this class, including the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), even though the basis for all the risks is a rheumatoid arthritis study, according to a critical review at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.  

Given the fact that the postmarketing RA study was specifically enriched with high-risk patients by requiring an age at enrollment of at least 50 years and the presence of at least one cardiovascular risk factor, the extrapolation of these risks to dermatologic indications is “not necessarily data-driven,” said Brett A. King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The recently approved deucravacitinib is the only JAK inhibitor that has so far been exempt from these warnings. Instead, based on the ORAL Surveillance study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration requires a boxed warning in nearly identical language for all the other JAK inhibitors. Relative to tofacitinib, the JAK inhibitor tested in ORAL Surveillance, many of these drugs differ by JAK selectivity and other characteristics that are likely relevant to risk of adverse events, Dr. King said. The same language has even been applied to topical ruxolitinib cream. 
 

Basis of boxed warnings

In ORAL Surveillance, about 4,300 high-risk patients with RA were randomized to one of two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg or 10 mg) twice daily or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. All patients in the trial were taking methotrexate, and almost 60% were taking concomitant corticosteroids. The average body mass index of the study population was about 30 kg/m².

After a median 4 years of follow-up (about 5,000 patient-years), the incidence of many of the adverse events tracked in the study were higher in the tofacitinib groups, including serious infections, MACE, thromboembolic events, and cancer. Dr. King did not challenge the importance of these data, but he questioned whether they are reasonably extrapolated to dermatologic indications, particularly as many of those treated are younger than those common to an RA population.

In fact, despite a study enriched for a higher risk of many events tracked, most adverse events were only slightly elevated, Dr. King pointed out. For example, the incidence of MACE over the 4 years of follow-up was 3.4% among those taking any dose of tofacitinib versus 2.5% of those randomized to TNF inhibitor. Rates of cancer were 4.2% versus 2.9%, respectively. There were also absolute increases in the number of serious infections and thromboembolic events for tofacitinib relative to TNF inhibitor.

Dr. King acknowledged that the numbers in ORAL Surveillance associated tofacitinib with a higher risk of serious events than TNF inhibitor in patients with RA, but he believes that “JAK inhibitor safety is almost certainly not the same in dermatology as it is in rheumatology patients.”
 

Evidence of difference in dermatology

There is some evidence to back this up. Dr. King cited a recently published study in RMD Open that evaluated the safety profile of the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib in nearly 7,000 patients over 15,000 patient-years of follow-up. Drug safety data were evaluated with up to 5.5 years of follow-up from 12 clinical trials of the four diseases for which upadacitinib is now indicated. Three were rheumatologic (RA, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis), and the fourth was atopic dermatitis (AD). Fourteen outcomes, including numerous types of infection, MACE, hepatic complications, and malignancy, were compared with methotrexate and the TNF inhibitor adalimumab.

For the RA diseases, upadacitinib was associated with a greater risk than comparators for several outcomes, including serious infections. But in AD, there was a smaller increased risk of adverse outcomes for the JAK inhibitor relative to comparators.

When evaluated by risk of adverse events across indications, for MACE, the exposure-adjusted event rates for upadacitinib were less than 0.1 in patients treated for AD over the observation period versus 0.3 and 0.4 for RA and psoriatic arthritis, respectively. Similarly, for venous thromboembolism, the rates for upadacitinib were again less than 0.1 in patients with AD versus 0.4 and 0.2 in RA and psoriatic arthritis, respectively.

Referring back to the postmarketing study, Dr. King emphasized that it is essential to consider how the boxed warning for JAK inhibitors was generated before applying them to dermatologic indications.

“Is a 30-year-old patient with a dermatologic disorder possibly at the same risk as the patients in the study from which we got the boxed warning? The answer is simply no,” he said.

Like the tofacitinib data in the ORAL Surveillance study, the upadacitinib clinical trial data are not necessarily relevant to other JAK inhibitors. In fact, Dr. King pointed out that the safety profiles of the available JAK inhibitors are not identical, an observation that is consistent with differences in JAK inhibitor selectivity that has implications for off-target events.  

Dr. King does not dismiss the potential risks outlined in the current regulatory cautions about the use of JAK inhibitors, but he believes that dermatologists should be cognizant of “where the black box warning comes from.”

“We need to think carefully about the risk-to-benefit ratio in older patients or patients with risk factors, such as obesity and diabetes,” he said. But the safety profile of JAK inhibitors “is almost certainly better” than the profile suggested in boxed warnings applied to JAK inhibitors for dermatologic indications, he advised.
 

Risk-benefit considerations in dermatology

This position was supported by numerous other experts when asked for their perspectives. “I fully agree,” said Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, system chair of dermatology and immunology, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York.

Like Dr. King, Dr. Guttman-Yassky did not dismiss the potential risks of JAK inhibitors when treating dermatologic diseases.

“While JAK inhibitors need monitoring as advised, adopting a boxed warning from an RA study for patients who are older [is problematic],” she commented. A study with the nonselective tofacitinib in this population “cannot be compared to more selective inhibitors in a much younger population, such as those treated [for] alopecia areata or atopic dermatitis.”

George Z. Han, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology, Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra, Northwell Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, also agreed but added some caveats.

“The comments about the ORAL Surveillance study are salient,” he said in an interview. “This kind of data should not directly be extrapolated to other patient types or to other medications.” However, one of Dr. Han’s most important caveats involves long-term use.

“JAK inhibitors are still relatively narrow-therapeutic-window drugs that in a dose-dependent fashion could lead to negative effects, including thromboembolic events, abnormalities in red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and lipids,” he said. While doses used in dermatology “are generally below the level of any major concern,” Dr. Han cautioned that “we lack definitive data” on long-term use, and this is important for understanding “any potential small risk of rare events, such as malignancy or thromboembolism.”

Saakshi Khattri, MD, a colleague of Dr. Guttman-Yassky at Mount Sinai, said the risks of JAK inhibitors should not be underestimated, but she also agreed that risk “needs to be delivered in the right context.” Dr. Khattri, who is board certified in both dermatology and rheumatology, noted the safety profiles of available JAK inhibitors differ and that extrapolating safety from an RA study to dermatologic indications does not make sense. “Different diseases, different age groups,” she said.

Dr. King has reported financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Guttman-Yassky has reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Han reports financial relationships with Amgen, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bond Avillion, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, PellePharm, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Khattri has reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

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

Researchers are reporting impressive results in a small, open-label trial of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib in cutaneous sarcoidosis: 6 of 10 patients improved so much that they reached a disease activity level of zero, and all patients improved by an average of 83% via a scoring system.

“Not only did patients get better, but they were in many cases able to come off their baseline immunosuppressive regimen, including prednisone and methotrexate. They’d get off prednisone entirely or, in some cases, decrease it substantially,” study investigator William Damsky, MD, PhD, reported at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

Sarcoidosis is a common disease that affects an estimated 1 in 25 Black women and is believed to contribute to the deaths of about 4,000 people in the United States each year, noted Dr. Damsky of the department of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. One famous patient is comedian Bernie Mac, who died from the condition in 2008.

“Approximately one third of patients have cutaneous involvement,” Dr. Damsky said, and skin may be the only manifestation of the disease. There is no Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy for cutaneous sarcoidosis, he added. Prednisone, the first-line therapy in skin manifestations, is approved only for pulmonary sarcoidosis.


“Oftentimes, there’s an attempt to transition either partially or fully to other therapies, including methotrexate and TNF-alpha blockers. But there’s been mixed success in doing that,” he said. This is not always possible, “so a lot of patients end up on prednisone.”

Earlier, a team at Yale prescribed 5 mg tofacitinib (Xeljanz) for several patients with severe cutaneous sarcoidosis and saw impressive results, Dr. Damsky said, including a patient with pulmonary sarcoidosis that also improved. He noted that there are case reports in the medical literature with similar findings.

Those positive results inspired the new study. Researchers recruited 10 patients with cutaneous sarcoidosis (9 with internal organ involvement) with a Cutaneous Sarcoidosis Activity and Morphology Instrument ( CSAMI ) score of 10 or higher. Nine patients were in their 50s, one was aged 63 years, and five were men. Skin colors of the patients ranged from Fitzpatrick skin types I to VI, and all had been taking at least two medications, typically methotrexate and prednisone.

The patients received 5 mg of tofacitinib twice a day for 6 months. “Everyone got better during the study, and six patients had a complete response, which we defined as a CSAMI score of zero activity,” Dr. Damsky said. “It’s really quite remarkable to see that.” Overall, the patients saw an 83% improvement in CSAMI scores.

In regard to safety, “all patients completed the study,” he said. “Tofacitinib was well tolerated, and there were no serious adverse effects or events.”

Tofacitinib is approved for treating rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

A month’s supply of twice-daily 5 mg tofacitinib pills would cost $4,900-$5,100 with free coupons, according to information accessed on April 24, 2021, on GoodRx.com. Generics are not available.

In an interview, Sotonye Imadojemu, MD, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, praised the study, and said “tofacitinib is a reasonable treatment for treatment-refractory or extensive cutaneous sarcoidosis,” although it will be helpful to get results from randomized-controlled trials.

She cautioned that the drug “is a powerful immunosuppressant, so the risk of infection must be discussed with patients before prescribing. Screening for chronic infections such as viral hepatitis, tuberculosis, and HIV should be completed prior to treatment initiation. Blood counts, liver function, and lipid panels should be regularly monitored. The vaccines necessary for those who are immunosuppressed should be administered as able, and age-appropriate cancer screening must be kept up to date.”

The study was funded by Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, and the Yale Department of Dermatology. Dr. Damsky disclosed research support (Pfizer), consulting fees (Eli Lilly, Pfizer, TWi Biotechnology), and licensing fees (EMD Millipore/MillporeSigma). Dr. Imadojemu has no disclosures.

This article was updated 5/5/21.

Researchers are reporting impressive results in a small, open-label trial of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib in cutaneous sarcoidosis: 6 of 10 patients improved so much that they reached a disease activity level of zero, and all patients improved by an average of 83% via a scoring system.

“Not only did patients get better, but they were in many cases able to come off their baseline immunosuppressive regimen, including prednisone and methotrexate. They’d get off prednisone entirely or, in some cases, decrease it substantially,” study investigator William Damsky, MD, PhD, reported at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

Sarcoidosis is a common disease that affects an estimated 1 in 25 Black women and is believed to contribute to the deaths of about 4,000 people in the United States each year, noted Dr. Damsky of the department of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. One famous patient is comedian Bernie Mac, who died from the condition in 2008.

“Approximately one third of patients have cutaneous involvement,” Dr. Damsky said, and skin may be the only manifestation of the disease. There is no Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy for cutaneous sarcoidosis, he added. Prednisone, the first-line therapy in skin manifestations, is approved only for pulmonary sarcoidosis.


“Oftentimes, there’s an attempt to transition either partially or fully to other therapies, including methotrexate and TNF-alpha blockers. But there’s been mixed success in doing that,” he said. This is not always possible, “so a lot of patients end up on prednisone.”

Earlier, a team at Yale prescribed 5 mg tofacitinib (Xeljanz) for several patients with severe cutaneous sarcoidosis and saw impressive results, Dr. Damsky said, including a patient with pulmonary sarcoidosis that also improved. He noted that there are case reports in the medical literature with similar findings.

Those positive results inspired the new study. Researchers recruited 10 patients with cutaneous sarcoidosis (9 with internal organ involvement) with a Cutaneous Sarcoidosis Activity and Morphology Instrument ( CSAMI ) score of 10 or higher. Nine patients were in their 50s, one was aged 63 years, and five were men. Skin colors of the patients ranged from Fitzpatrick skin types I to VI, and all had been taking at least two medications, typically methotrexate and prednisone.

The patients received 5 mg of tofacitinib twice a day for 6 months. “Everyone got better during the study, and six patients had a complete response, which we defined as a CSAMI score of zero activity,” Dr. Damsky said. “It’s really quite remarkable to see that.” Overall, the patients saw an 83% improvement in CSAMI scores.

In regard to safety, “all patients completed the study,” he said. “Tofacitinib was well tolerated, and there were no serious adverse effects or events.”

Tofacitinib is approved for treating rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

A month’s supply of twice-daily 5 mg tofacitinib pills would cost $4,900-$5,100 with free coupons, according to information accessed on April 24, 2021, on GoodRx.com. Generics are not available.

In an interview, Sotonye Imadojemu, MD, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, praised the study, and said “tofacitinib is a reasonable treatment for treatment-refractory or extensive cutaneous sarcoidosis,” although it will be helpful to get results from randomized-controlled trials.

She cautioned that the drug “is a powerful immunosuppressant, so the risk of infection must be discussed with patients before prescribing. Screening for chronic infections such as viral hepatitis, tuberculosis, and HIV should be completed prior to treatment initiation. Blood counts, liver function, and lipid panels should be regularly monitored. The vaccines necessary for those who are immunosuppressed should be administered as able, and age-appropriate cancer screening must be kept up to date.”

The study was funded by Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, and the Yale Department of Dermatology. Dr. Damsky disclosed research support (Pfizer), consulting fees (Eli Lilly, Pfizer, TWi Biotechnology), and licensing fees (EMD Millipore/MillporeSigma). Dr. Imadojemu has no disclosures.

This article was updated 5/5/21.

Researchers are reporting impressive results in a small, open-label trial of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib in cutaneous sarcoidosis: 6 of 10 patients improved so much that they reached a disease activity level of zero, and all patients improved by an average of 83% via a scoring system.

“Not only did patients get better, but they were in many cases able to come off their baseline immunosuppressive regimen, including prednisone and methotrexate. They’d get off prednisone entirely or, in some cases, decrease it substantially,” study investigator William Damsky, MD, PhD, reported at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

Sarcoidosis is a common disease that affects an estimated 1 in 25 Black women and is believed to contribute to the deaths of about 4,000 people in the United States each year, noted Dr. Damsky of the department of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. One famous patient is comedian Bernie Mac, who died from the condition in 2008.

“Approximately one third of patients have cutaneous involvement,” Dr. Damsky said, and skin may be the only manifestation of the disease. There is no Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy for cutaneous sarcoidosis, he added. Prednisone, the first-line therapy in skin manifestations, is approved only for pulmonary sarcoidosis.


“Oftentimes, there’s an attempt to transition either partially or fully to other therapies, including methotrexate and TNF-alpha blockers. But there’s been mixed success in doing that,” he said. This is not always possible, “so a lot of patients end up on prednisone.”

Earlier, a team at Yale prescribed 5 mg tofacitinib (Xeljanz) for several patients with severe cutaneous sarcoidosis and saw impressive results, Dr. Damsky said, including a patient with pulmonary sarcoidosis that also improved. He noted that there are case reports in the medical literature with similar findings.

Those positive results inspired the new study. Researchers recruited 10 patients with cutaneous sarcoidosis (9 with internal organ involvement) with a Cutaneous Sarcoidosis Activity and Morphology Instrument ( CSAMI ) score of 10 or higher. Nine patients were in their 50s, one was aged 63 years, and five were men. Skin colors of the patients ranged from Fitzpatrick skin types I to VI, and all had been taking at least two medications, typically methotrexate and prednisone.

The patients received 5 mg of tofacitinib twice a day for 6 months. “Everyone got better during the study, and six patients had a complete response, which we defined as a CSAMI score of zero activity,” Dr. Damsky said. “It’s really quite remarkable to see that.” Overall, the patients saw an 83% improvement in CSAMI scores.

In regard to safety, “all patients completed the study,” he said. “Tofacitinib was well tolerated, and there were no serious adverse effects or events.”

Tofacitinib is approved for treating rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

A month’s supply of twice-daily 5 mg tofacitinib pills would cost $4,900-$5,100 with free coupons, according to information accessed on April 24, 2021, on GoodRx.com. Generics are not available.

In an interview, Sotonye Imadojemu, MD, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, praised the study, and said “tofacitinib is a reasonable treatment for treatment-refractory or extensive cutaneous sarcoidosis,” although it will be helpful to get results from randomized-controlled trials.

She cautioned that the drug “is a powerful immunosuppressant, so the risk of infection must be discussed with patients before prescribing. Screening for chronic infections such as viral hepatitis, tuberculosis, and HIV should be completed prior to treatment initiation. Blood counts, liver function, and lipid panels should be regularly monitored. The vaccines necessary for those who are immunosuppressed should be administered as able, and age-appropriate cancer screening must be kept up to date.”

The study was funded by Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, and the Yale Department of Dermatology. Dr. Damsky disclosed research support (Pfizer), consulting fees (Eli Lilly, Pfizer, TWi Biotechnology), and licensing fees (EMD Millipore/MillporeSigma). Dr. Imadojemu has no disclosures.

This article was updated 5/5/21.

Secukinumab is the latest adult plaque psoriasis treatment to be bested by a newcomer, the interleukin 17A and 17F blocker bimekizumab.

Rates of complete clearance were substantially higher with bimekizumab in a phase 3 trial with 743 patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, but oral candidiasis (oral thrush) again emerged as a particular issue with the agent.

Clinical improvements seen with bimekizumab have exceeded those with two standard options for adult plaque psoriasis — the tumor necrosis factor blocker adalimumab and the interleukin (IL) 12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab

 — in phase 3 trials from manufacturer UCB Pharma, and it›s under review for the indication by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

The biologic is also being evaluated in phase 3 trials for treating psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and hidradenitis suppurativa.

Results of the trial comparing bimekizumab to secukinumab, dubbed BE RADIANT, were presented at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience and published online concurrently April 23 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results “suggest that inhibition of both interleukin-17A and interleukin-17F with bimekizumab may provide greater clinical benefit for patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis than inhibition of interleukin-17A alone,” as with secukinumab, said the investigators, led by Kristian Reich, MD,  professor of dermatology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany.

The trial randomly assigned 373 adults to bimekizumab 320 mg every 4 weeks to week 16, then rerandomized them to maintenance dosing either every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks to week 48; another 370 adults were randomly assigned to secukinumab 300 mg weekly for the first 4 weeks, then every 4 weeks to week 48. Baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores were about 20 points in both treatment groups.

At the 1-month point, 71% in the bimekizumab group, vs 47.3% on secukinumab, had a 75% or greater reduction from their baseline PASI score. At 4 months, 61.7% of those on bimekizumab but 48.9% in the secukinumab group had complete clearance with a PASI score of 100.

At 48 weeks, 67% of those on bimekizumab had a PASI 100 response — which was numerically similar between the two bimekizumab dosing regimens after week 16 — vs 46.2% of the secukinumab group (P for all < .001).

The incidence of serious adverse events was just under 6% in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation in 3.5% of bimekizumab and 2.7% of secukinumab subjects. The rate of serious infections was similar in both groups.

However, as in past trials, oral candidiasis was an issue, occurring in 19.3% of bimekizumab subjects vs 3% on secukinumab. Half of the 72 bimekizumab cases were classified as mild, and all but two of the rest as moderate. Over 40% of affected subjects reported more than one case, but none led to treatment discontinuation.

More than 85% of oral candidiasis cases in the study were treated with antifungal therapy and resolved during the trial. Inflammatory bowel disease is a concern with IL-17 blockade, but this hasn’t emerged as a particular issue with bimekizumab. There was one case each of ulcerative colitis in both the bimekizumab and secukinumab groups, and just one case of ulcerative colitis in three previous phase 3 bimekizumab trials, according to the investigators.

Among the trial limitations: Patients who had been on bimekizumab or secukinumab previously were excluded, as were patients who had no response to an IL-17 biologic or more than one biologic agent of any other class within the previous 12 weeks. The limitations could reduce generalizability, the investigators said.

Patients in the trial were about 45 years old, on average, and about two thirds were men; over 90% were White.

The study was funded by UCB Pharma. The investigators had numerous disclosures, including Reich who reported grants and personal fees from companies including UCB Pharma. The full list of disclosures can be found with the New England Journal of Medicine article.

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

Secukinumab is the latest adult plaque psoriasis treatment to be bested by a newcomer, the interleukin 17A and 17F blocker bimekizumab.

Rates of complete clearance were substantially higher with bimekizumab in a phase 3 trial with 743 patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, but oral candidiasis (oral thrush) again emerged as a particular issue with the agent.

Clinical improvements seen with bimekizumab have exceeded those with two standard options for adult plaque psoriasis — the tumor necrosis factor blocker adalimumab and the interleukin (IL) 12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab

 — in phase 3 trials from manufacturer UCB Pharma, and it›s under review for the indication by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

The biologic is also being evaluated in phase 3 trials for treating psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and hidradenitis suppurativa.

Results of the trial comparing bimekizumab to secukinumab, dubbed BE RADIANT, were presented at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience and published online concurrently April 23 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results “suggest that inhibition of both interleukin-17A and interleukin-17F with bimekizumab may provide greater clinical benefit for patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis than inhibition of interleukin-17A alone,” as with secukinumab, said the investigators, led by Kristian Reich, MD,  professor of dermatology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany.

The trial randomly assigned 373 adults to bimekizumab 320 mg every 4 weeks to week 16, then rerandomized them to maintenance dosing either every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks to week 48; another 370 adults were randomly assigned to secukinumab 300 mg weekly for the first 4 weeks, then every 4 weeks to week 48. Baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores were about 20 points in both treatment groups.

At the 1-month point, 71% in the bimekizumab group, vs 47.3% on secukinumab, had a 75% or greater reduction from their baseline PASI score. At 4 months, 61.7% of those on bimekizumab but 48.9% in the secukinumab group had complete clearance with a PASI score of 100.

At 48 weeks, 67% of those on bimekizumab had a PASI 100 response — which was numerically similar between the two bimekizumab dosing regimens after week 16 — vs 46.2% of the secukinumab group (P for all < .001).

The incidence of serious adverse events was just under 6% in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation in 3.5% of bimekizumab and 2.7% of secukinumab subjects. The rate of serious infections was similar in both groups.

However, as in past trials, oral candidiasis was an issue, occurring in 19.3% of bimekizumab subjects vs 3% on secukinumab. Half of the 72 bimekizumab cases were classified as mild, and all but two of the rest as moderate. Over 40% of affected subjects reported more than one case, but none led to treatment discontinuation.

More than 85% of oral candidiasis cases in the study were treated with antifungal therapy and resolved during the trial. Inflammatory bowel disease is a concern with IL-17 blockade, but this hasn’t emerged as a particular issue with bimekizumab. There was one case each of ulcerative colitis in both the bimekizumab and secukinumab groups, and just one case of ulcerative colitis in three previous phase 3 bimekizumab trials, according to the investigators.

Among the trial limitations: Patients who had been on bimekizumab or secukinumab previously were excluded, as were patients who had no response to an IL-17 biologic or more than one biologic agent of any other class within the previous 12 weeks. The limitations could reduce generalizability, the investigators said.

Patients in the trial were about 45 years old, on average, and about two thirds were men; over 90% were White.

The study was funded by UCB Pharma. The investigators had numerous disclosures, including Reich who reported grants and personal fees from companies including UCB Pharma. The full list of disclosures can be found with the New England Journal of Medicine article.

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

Secukinumab is the latest adult plaque psoriasis treatment to be bested by a newcomer, the interleukin 17A and 17F blocker bimekizumab.

Rates of complete clearance were substantially higher with bimekizumab in a phase 3 trial with 743 patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, but oral candidiasis (oral thrush) again emerged as a particular issue with the agent.

Clinical improvements seen with bimekizumab have exceeded those with two standard options for adult plaque psoriasis — the tumor necrosis factor blocker adalimumab and the interleukin (IL) 12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab

 — in phase 3 trials from manufacturer UCB Pharma, and it›s under review for the indication by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

The biologic is also being evaluated in phase 3 trials for treating psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and hidradenitis suppurativa.

Results of the trial comparing bimekizumab to secukinumab, dubbed BE RADIANT, were presented at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience and published online concurrently April 23 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results “suggest that inhibition of both interleukin-17A and interleukin-17F with bimekizumab may provide greater clinical benefit for patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis than inhibition of interleukin-17A alone,” as with secukinumab, said the investigators, led by Kristian Reich, MD,  professor of dermatology at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany.

The trial randomly assigned 373 adults to bimekizumab 320 mg every 4 weeks to week 16, then rerandomized them to maintenance dosing either every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks to week 48; another 370 adults were randomly assigned to secukinumab 300 mg weekly for the first 4 weeks, then every 4 weeks to week 48. Baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores were about 20 points in both treatment groups.

At the 1-month point, 71% in the bimekizumab group, vs 47.3% on secukinumab, had a 75% or greater reduction from their baseline PASI score. At 4 months, 61.7% of those on bimekizumab but 48.9% in the secukinumab group had complete clearance with a PASI score of 100.

At 48 weeks, 67% of those on bimekizumab had a PASI 100 response — which was numerically similar between the two bimekizumab dosing regimens after week 16 — vs 46.2% of the secukinumab group (P for all < .001).

The incidence of serious adverse events was just under 6% in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation in 3.5% of bimekizumab and 2.7% of secukinumab subjects. The rate of serious infections was similar in both groups.

However, as in past trials, oral candidiasis was an issue, occurring in 19.3% of bimekizumab subjects vs 3% on secukinumab. Half of the 72 bimekizumab cases were classified as mild, and all but two of the rest as moderate. Over 40% of affected subjects reported more than one case, but none led to treatment discontinuation.

More than 85% of oral candidiasis cases in the study were treated with antifungal therapy and resolved during the trial. Inflammatory bowel disease is a concern with IL-17 blockade, but this hasn’t emerged as a particular issue with bimekizumab. There was one case each of ulcerative colitis in both the bimekizumab and secukinumab groups, and just one case of ulcerative colitis in three previous phase 3 bimekizumab trials, according to the investigators.

Among the trial limitations: Patients who had been on bimekizumab or secukinumab previously were excluded, as were patients who had no response to an IL-17 biologic or more than one biologic agent of any other class within the previous 12 weeks. The limitations could reduce generalizability, the investigators said.

Patients in the trial were about 45 years old, on average, and about two thirds were men; over 90% were White.

The study was funded by UCB Pharma. The investigators had numerous disclosures, including Reich who reported grants and personal fees from companies including UCB Pharma. The full list of disclosures can be found with the New England Journal of Medicine article.

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

For pain related to skin disorders, dermatologists should generally consider management as their direct responsibility without referrals, according to an expert who outlined his strategies at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

The exceptions relate primarily to patients with issues complicating pain control, such as those with psychosocial problems exacerbating the pain response, drug-seeking behavior, or both, according to Robert G. Micheletti, MD, chief of hospital dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

To stay out of trouble, Dr. Micheletti advocated a systematic approach to the control of pain that includes documentation, clear expectations, and a sparing use of opioids only at the lowest acceptable dose for periods measured in days.

Using a case of pyoderma gangrenosum to make several points, he recognized that some patients do have a level of pain that warrants a short course of opioids, but this is not his first step. Rather, the initial focus, after administering standard therapies for this disease, is wound care, which often attenuates symptoms. He adds non-pharmacologic treatments, such as ice, heat, and rest when appropriate. The initial pharmacologic approach is alternating doses of an NSAID and acetaminophen.

“If necessary, a short course of opioids is reasonable for patients with acute pain,” he acknowledged. But he wants to avoid providing more opioids than needed to address the initial period of acute pain. In the case of pyoderma gangrenosum, he suggested a typical prescription might be 12 pills of 5 mg oxycodone taken every six hours. A followup appointment within a week provides the opportunity to reassess.

“Set clear expectations,” Dr. Micheletti said. This includes explaining that the goal is manageable pain, not complete pain relief, which is often unobtainable. For painful conditions such as pyoderma gangrenosum, hidradenitis suppurativa, or vasculitis, a short course will generally be sufficient to get past the most significant discomfort.

There are several reasons that Dr. Micheletti encourages dermatologists to take responsibility for pain related to skin diseases. One is the potential for inefficiencies and delays common to referrals, but another is the value of the dermatologist’s expertise in judging pain as a symptom of the disorder. With effective treatment, pain should self-resolve.

“If the patient is not getting better medically, then change therapies,” Dr. Micheletti said. When referred to a non-dermatologist, the pain expert might not recognize what persistent pain is revealing about the underlying condition.

Repeatedly, Dr. Micheletti made the point that dermatologists should manage pain related to skin disorders because of their ability to assess complaints in the context of the disease.

“We are the experts. We should understand when what we are seeing should or should not be painful,” he said. He added that dermatologists are also in the best position to judge “when analgesia is no longer needed.”

With this same logic, dermatologists are in a good position to distinguish nociceptive from neuropathic pain. Some conditions are likely to have both, and this should influence choice of pain relief. Citing a patient with calciphylaxis as an example, Dr. Micheletti suggested that drugs with efficacy against neuropathic pain, such as gabapentin, should be one of the options to consider before moving to opioids. In those with sufficient pain to warrant an opioid, however, Dr. Micheletti would consider tramadol, which acts on both types of pain.

Treating pain is not always straightforward, Dr. Micheletti acknowledged. For example, depression and mood disorders are known to exacerbate pain and are reasonable targets of pain control. The stress related to disruptive psychosocial problems can be another factor in risk of pain.

“Be prepared to acknowledge and address these types of issues,” Dr. Micheletti said. Although these are the types of patients some dermatologists might prefer to refer to a pain specialist, he said that the contribution of factors outside of skin disease should not be allowed to obscure a dermatologic source of pain.

“Just because a patient has psychosocial issues does not mean that there is no pain,” he said.

A systematic approach to the assessment and treatment of pain will help sort out these issues, but Dr. Micheletti also said, “Know your comfort zone.” When patients require opioids, there are several appropriate steps important or mandatory to provide adequate protection for the patient and the physician. In addition to documentation, it is reasonable to verify that the patient is not obtaining opioids from other prescribers, a step that is mandatory in some states.

When opioids are needed, Dr. Micheletti suggested a standard approach that includes short courses without refills. He recommended avoiding long-acting opioids and drugs not commonly used by non-pain specialists, such as codeine, hydrocodone, or fentanyl.

“This is not a prescribe and walk away situation,” he said.

Although the same general approach is employed by Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, he is a little less reluctant to refer patients to pain specialists.

“For complex situations, you need complex solutions. In the case of significant pain and even itch, I will collaborate with the GW Pain Center,” he said. For severe pain, the solutions might include nerve blocks or even intravenous ketamine for in-patients.

He also made the point that dermatologists, even if they are uncomfortable prescribing opioids, “should be equipped to use relevant medications such as topical anesthetics, gabapentinoids, and SSRIs” to control pain related to skin conditions.

Dr. Micheletti reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Friedman has consulting relationships with several pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Valeant.

For pain related to skin disorders, dermatologists should generally consider management as their direct responsibility without referrals, according to an expert who outlined his strategies at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

The exceptions relate primarily to patients with issues complicating pain control, such as those with psychosocial problems exacerbating the pain response, drug-seeking behavior, or both, according to Robert G. Micheletti, MD, chief of hospital dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

To stay out of trouble, Dr. Micheletti advocated a systematic approach to the control of pain that includes documentation, clear expectations, and a sparing use of opioids only at the lowest acceptable dose for periods measured in days.

Using a case of pyoderma gangrenosum to make several points, he recognized that some patients do have a level of pain that warrants a short course of opioids, but this is not his first step. Rather, the initial focus, after administering standard therapies for this disease, is wound care, which often attenuates symptoms. He adds non-pharmacologic treatments, such as ice, heat, and rest when appropriate. The initial pharmacologic approach is alternating doses of an NSAID and acetaminophen.

“If necessary, a short course of opioids is reasonable for patients with acute pain,” he acknowledged. But he wants to avoid providing more opioids than needed to address the initial period of acute pain. In the case of pyoderma gangrenosum, he suggested a typical prescription might be 12 pills of 5 mg oxycodone taken every six hours. A followup appointment within a week provides the opportunity to reassess.

“Set clear expectations,” Dr. Micheletti said. This includes explaining that the goal is manageable pain, not complete pain relief, which is often unobtainable. For painful conditions such as pyoderma gangrenosum, hidradenitis suppurativa, or vasculitis, a short course will generally be sufficient to get past the most significant discomfort.

There are several reasons that Dr. Micheletti encourages dermatologists to take responsibility for pain related to skin diseases. One is the potential for inefficiencies and delays common to referrals, but another is the value of the dermatologist’s expertise in judging pain as a symptom of the disorder. With effective treatment, pain should self-resolve.

“If the patient is not getting better medically, then change therapies,” Dr. Micheletti said. When referred to a non-dermatologist, the pain expert might not recognize what persistent pain is revealing about the underlying condition.

Repeatedly, Dr. Micheletti made the point that dermatologists should manage pain related to skin disorders because of their ability to assess complaints in the context of the disease.

“We are the experts. We should understand when what we are seeing should or should not be painful,” he said. He added that dermatologists are also in the best position to judge “when analgesia is no longer needed.”

With this same logic, dermatologists are in a good position to distinguish nociceptive from neuropathic pain. Some conditions are likely to have both, and this should influence choice of pain relief. Citing a patient with calciphylaxis as an example, Dr. Micheletti suggested that drugs with efficacy against neuropathic pain, such as gabapentin, should be one of the options to consider before moving to opioids. In those with sufficient pain to warrant an opioid, however, Dr. Micheletti would consider tramadol, which acts on both types of pain.

Treating pain is not always straightforward, Dr. Micheletti acknowledged. For example, depression and mood disorders are known to exacerbate pain and are reasonable targets of pain control. The stress related to disruptive psychosocial problems can be another factor in risk of pain.

“Be prepared to acknowledge and address these types of issues,” Dr. Micheletti said. Although these are the types of patients some dermatologists might prefer to refer to a pain specialist, he said that the contribution of factors outside of skin disease should not be allowed to obscure a dermatologic source of pain.

“Just because a patient has psychosocial issues does not mean that there is no pain,” he said.

A systematic approach to the assessment and treatment of pain will help sort out these issues, but Dr. Micheletti also said, “Know your comfort zone.” When patients require opioids, there are several appropriate steps important or mandatory to provide adequate protection for the patient and the physician. In addition to documentation, it is reasonable to verify that the patient is not obtaining opioids from other prescribers, a step that is mandatory in some states.

When opioids are needed, Dr. Micheletti suggested a standard approach that includes short courses without refills. He recommended avoiding long-acting opioids and drugs not commonly used by non-pain specialists, such as codeine, hydrocodone, or fentanyl.

“This is not a prescribe and walk away situation,” he said.

Although the same general approach is employed by Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, he is a little less reluctant to refer patients to pain specialists.

“For complex situations, you need complex solutions. In the case of significant pain and even itch, I will collaborate with the GW Pain Center,” he said. For severe pain, the solutions might include nerve blocks or even intravenous ketamine for in-patients.

He also made the point that dermatologists, even if they are uncomfortable prescribing opioids, “should be equipped to use relevant medications such as topical anesthetics, gabapentinoids, and SSRIs” to control pain related to skin conditions.

Dr. Micheletti reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Friedman has consulting relationships with several pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Valeant.

For pain related to skin disorders, dermatologists should generally consider management as their direct responsibility without referrals, according to an expert who outlined his strategies at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

The exceptions relate primarily to patients with issues complicating pain control, such as those with psychosocial problems exacerbating the pain response, drug-seeking behavior, or both, according to Robert G. Micheletti, MD, chief of hospital dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

To stay out of trouble, Dr. Micheletti advocated a systematic approach to the control of pain that includes documentation, clear expectations, and a sparing use of opioids only at the lowest acceptable dose for periods measured in days.

Using a case of pyoderma gangrenosum to make several points, he recognized that some patients do have a level of pain that warrants a short course of opioids, but this is not his first step. Rather, the initial focus, after administering standard therapies for this disease, is wound care, which often attenuates symptoms. He adds non-pharmacologic treatments, such as ice, heat, and rest when appropriate. The initial pharmacologic approach is alternating doses of an NSAID and acetaminophen.

“If necessary, a short course of opioids is reasonable for patients with acute pain,” he acknowledged. But he wants to avoid providing more opioids than needed to address the initial period of acute pain. In the case of pyoderma gangrenosum, he suggested a typical prescription might be 12 pills of 5 mg oxycodone taken every six hours. A followup appointment within a week provides the opportunity to reassess.

“Set clear expectations,” Dr. Micheletti said. This includes explaining that the goal is manageable pain, not complete pain relief, which is often unobtainable. For painful conditions such as pyoderma gangrenosum, hidradenitis suppurativa, or vasculitis, a short course will generally be sufficient to get past the most significant discomfort.

There are several reasons that Dr. Micheletti encourages dermatologists to take responsibility for pain related to skin diseases. One is the potential for inefficiencies and delays common to referrals, but another is the value of the dermatologist’s expertise in judging pain as a symptom of the disorder. With effective treatment, pain should self-resolve.

“If the patient is not getting better medically, then change therapies,” Dr. Micheletti said. When referred to a non-dermatologist, the pain expert might not recognize what persistent pain is revealing about the underlying condition.

Repeatedly, Dr. Micheletti made the point that dermatologists should manage pain related to skin disorders because of their ability to assess complaints in the context of the disease.

“We are the experts. We should understand when what we are seeing should or should not be painful,” he said. He added that dermatologists are also in the best position to judge “when analgesia is no longer needed.”

With this same logic, dermatologists are in a good position to distinguish nociceptive from neuropathic pain. Some conditions are likely to have both, and this should influence choice of pain relief. Citing a patient with calciphylaxis as an example, Dr. Micheletti suggested that drugs with efficacy against neuropathic pain, such as gabapentin, should be one of the options to consider before moving to opioids. In those with sufficient pain to warrant an opioid, however, Dr. Micheletti would consider tramadol, which acts on both types of pain.

Treating pain is not always straightforward, Dr. Micheletti acknowledged. For example, depression and mood disorders are known to exacerbate pain and are reasonable targets of pain control. The stress related to disruptive psychosocial problems can be another factor in risk of pain.

“Be prepared to acknowledge and address these types of issues,” Dr. Micheletti said. Although these are the types of patients some dermatologists might prefer to refer to a pain specialist, he said that the contribution of factors outside of skin disease should not be allowed to obscure a dermatologic source of pain.

“Just because a patient has psychosocial issues does not mean that there is no pain,” he said.

A systematic approach to the assessment and treatment of pain will help sort out these issues, but Dr. Micheletti also said, “Know your comfort zone.” When patients require opioids, there are several appropriate steps important or mandatory to provide adequate protection for the patient and the physician. In addition to documentation, it is reasonable to verify that the patient is not obtaining opioids from other prescribers, a step that is mandatory in some states.

When opioids are needed, Dr. Micheletti suggested a standard approach that includes short courses without refills. He recommended avoiding long-acting opioids and drugs not commonly used by non-pain specialists, such as codeine, hydrocodone, or fentanyl.

“This is not a prescribe and walk away situation,” he said.

Although the same general approach is employed by Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, he is a little less reluctant to refer patients to pain specialists.

“For complex situations, you need complex solutions. In the case of significant pain and even itch, I will collaborate with the GW Pain Center,” he said. For severe pain, the solutions might include nerve blocks or even intravenous ketamine for in-patients.

He also made the point that dermatologists, even if they are uncomfortable prescribing opioids, “should be equipped to use relevant medications such as topical anesthetics, gabapentinoids, and SSRIs” to control pain related to skin conditions.

Dr. Micheletti reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Friedman has consulting relationships with several pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Valeant.

A novel, highly selective oral sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P)–receptor modulator showed promise as a treatment for atopic dermatitis (AD) in a 12-week phase 2b trial, according to researchers who released their findings at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

Courtesy Mount Sinai Health System

The drug, called etrasimod, did not meet the primary endpoint for improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index. However, nearly a third (29.8%) of those treated with a 2-mg dose daily reached “clear” or “almost clear” skin at 12 weeks vs. 13% for placebo as measured with clinician-reported Validated Investigator Global Assessment (vIGA) scores of 0 or 1 (P = .0450), study presenter Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, noted in an interview.

“This was a short proof-of-concept study to show this mechanism is valid. The results are promising,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said. “They tell us that this can be a valid treatment for atopic dermatitis, a completely new mechanism of action that has potential in improving and even modifying the disease.”

Arena Pharmaceuticals, which developed the drug, hopes to launch a phase 3 study of the medication.

The ADVISE study enrolled 140 people in the United States, Australia, and Canada with chronic, moderate to severe eczema lasting for at least a year. (Their average age was 43, 61% were female, and 60% were White). They were randomly assigned to cohorts who took 1 mg or 2 mg daily of etrasimod or placebo for 12 weeks.

Those in the 2-mg cohort saw their scores on the peak pruritus numeric rating scale (PP-NRS) fall by 15.3% at week 4, compared with 1% for placebo (P = .0380); at week 12, the scores fell by 34.1% among those on 2 mg vs. 23.9% for placebo (P = .15 49). At 12 weeks, patients on the 2-mg dose also had more improvement in the Dermatology Life Quality Index or DLQI (a 7.6-point decline in degree of impairment vs. 4.2 points for placebo, P = .0122) and in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure or POEM (8.4-point reduction versus 4 points for placebo, P = .0045).

“Basically, there was a dose response. It doesn’t show a plateau,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said. “ I think the data will be even better in a longer study.”

In regards to adverse events, participants who took etrasimod reported nausea, constipation, back pain, and dizziness at levels above 5% and above the levels for the placebo.

The drug appears to work by preventing immune cells from entering the skin, Dr. Guttman-Yassky said, and may be able to treat existing lesions and prevent new ones from appearing. Etrasimod is also being explored as a treatment for ulcerative colitis, alopecia areata, and multiple sclerosis, she said.

Dr. Guttman-Yassky noted that 12 weeks is a short time in AD, and she said some participants left the study because it took place during the coronavirus pandemic.

“There’s a huge unmet need in atopic dermatitis,” she said. “We need more drugs and different classes of drugs to treat the disease in all patients.” While biologics are often helpful, she said, they don’t work in many cases. And “some patients just don’t want a biologic, no matter how much we tell them it’s safe, and they may want an oral medication,” she said.

Dr. Guttman-Yassky is a paid consultant and researcher for Arena.

A novel, highly selective oral sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P)–receptor modulator showed promise as a treatment for atopic dermatitis (AD) in a 12-week phase 2b trial, according to researchers who released their findings at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

Courtesy Mount Sinai Health System

The drug, called etrasimod, did not meet the primary endpoint for improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index. However, nearly a third (29.8%) of those treated with a 2-mg dose daily reached “clear” or “almost clear” skin at 12 weeks vs. 13% for placebo as measured with clinician-reported Validated Investigator Global Assessment (vIGA) scores of 0 or 1 (P = .0450), study presenter Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, noted in an interview.

“This was a short proof-of-concept study to show this mechanism is valid. The results are promising,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said. “They tell us that this can be a valid treatment for atopic dermatitis, a completely new mechanism of action that has potential in improving and even modifying the disease.”

Arena Pharmaceuticals, which developed the drug, hopes to launch a phase 3 study of the medication.

The ADVISE study enrolled 140 people in the United States, Australia, and Canada with chronic, moderate to severe eczema lasting for at least a year. (Their average age was 43, 61% were female, and 60% were White). They were randomly assigned to cohorts who took 1 mg or 2 mg daily of etrasimod or placebo for 12 weeks.

Those in the 2-mg cohort saw their scores on the peak pruritus numeric rating scale (PP-NRS) fall by 15.3% at week 4, compared with 1% for placebo (P = .0380); at week 12, the scores fell by 34.1% among those on 2 mg vs. 23.9% for placebo (P = .15 49). At 12 weeks, patients on the 2-mg dose also had more improvement in the Dermatology Life Quality Index or DLQI (a 7.6-point decline in degree of impairment vs. 4.2 points for placebo, P = .0122) and in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure or POEM (8.4-point reduction versus 4 points for placebo, P = .0045).

“Basically, there was a dose response. It doesn’t show a plateau,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said. “ I think the data will be even better in a longer study.”

In regards to adverse events, participants who took etrasimod reported nausea, constipation, back pain, and dizziness at levels above 5% and above the levels for the placebo.

The drug appears to work by preventing immune cells from entering the skin, Dr. Guttman-Yassky said, and may be able to treat existing lesions and prevent new ones from appearing. Etrasimod is also being explored as a treatment for ulcerative colitis, alopecia areata, and multiple sclerosis, she said.

Dr. Guttman-Yassky noted that 12 weeks is a short time in AD, and she said some participants left the study because it took place during the coronavirus pandemic.

“There’s a huge unmet need in atopic dermatitis,” she said. “We need more drugs and different classes of drugs to treat the disease in all patients.” While biologics are often helpful, she said, they don’t work in many cases. And “some patients just don’t want a biologic, no matter how much we tell them it’s safe, and they may want an oral medication,” she said.

Dr. Guttman-Yassky is a paid consultant and researcher for Arena.

A novel, highly selective oral sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P)–receptor modulator showed promise as a treatment for atopic dermatitis (AD) in a 12-week phase 2b trial, according to researchers who released their findings at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.

Courtesy Mount Sinai Health System

The drug, called etrasimod, did not meet the primary endpoint for improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index. However, nearly a third (29.8%) of those treated with a 2-mg dose daily reached “clear” or “almost clear” skin at 12 weeks vs. 13% for placebo as measured with clinician-reported Validated Investigator Global Assessment (vIGA) scores of 0 or 1 (P = .0450), study presenter Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, professor and chair, department of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, noted in an interview.

“This was a short proof-of-concept study to show this mechanism is valid. The results are promising,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said. “They tell us that this can be a valid treatment for atopic dermatitis, a completely new mechanism of action that has potential in improving and even modifying the disease.”

Arena Pharmaceuticals, which developed the drug, hopes to launch a phase 3 study of the medication.

The ADVISE study enrolled 140 people in the United States, Australia, and Canada with chronic, moderate to severe eczema lasting for at least a year. (Their average age was 43, 61% were female, and 60% were White). They were randomly assigned to cohorts who took 1 mg or 2 mg daily of etrasimod or placebo for 12 weeks.

Those in the 2-mg cohort saw their scores on the peak pruritus numeric rating scale (PP-NRS) fall by 15.3% at week 4, compared with 1% for placebo (P = .0380); at week 12, the scores fell by 34.1% among those on 2 mg vs. 23.9% for placebo (P = .15 49). At 12 weeks, patients on the 2-mg dose also had more improvement in the Dermatology Life Quality Index or DLQI (a 7.6-point decline in degree of impairment vs. 4.2 points for placebo, P = .0122) and in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure or POEM (8.4-point reduction versus 4 points for placebo, P = .0045).

“Basically, there was a dose response. It doesn’t show a plateau,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said. “ I think the data will be even better in a longer study.”

In regards to adverse events, participants who took etrasimod reported nausea, constipation, back pain, and dizziness at levels above 5% and above the levels for the placebo.

The drug appears to work by preventing immune cells from entering the skin, Dr. Guttman-Yassky said, and may be able to treat existing lesions and prevent new ones from appearing. Etrasimod is also being explored as a treatment for ulcerative colitis, alopecia areata, and multiple sclerosis, she said.

Dr. Guttman-Yassky noted that 12 weeks is a short time in AD, and she said some participants left the study because it took place during the coronavirus pandemic.

“There’s a huge unmet need in atopic dermatitis,” she said. “We need more drugs and different classes of drugs to treat the disease in all patients.” While biologics are often helpful, she said, they don’t work in many cases. And “some patients just don’t want a biologic, no matter how much we tell them it’s safe, and they may want an oral medication,” she said.

Dr. Guttman-Yassky is a paid consultant and researcher for Arena.

Bimekizumab bested adalimumab for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in a phase 3 trial of adults from the agent’s maker UCB Pharma.

The interleukin-17A and 17F blocker has also racked up significant wins against ustekinumab and secukinumab, other standard biologic options for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and is currently under review for the indication by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency.

In the adalimumab trial, dubbed BE SURE, bimekizumab had higher clinical response rates than the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker over the 24-week head-to-head phase of the 478-patient trial, with substantial improvements in both Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response and Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) scores of 0 or 1, which signifies clear or almost clear skin.

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine and scheduled to be presented at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience on April 24.

“The data look good,” said psoriasis specialist Steven Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, N.C., when asked for comment.

Bimekizumab “appears more effective than current options. The big question is safety. The 10%-20% rate of oral candidiasis is much higher than other treatments but should be entirely manageable, as long as there are no unknown worse candida issues.” In addition, that there were no cases of inflammatory bowel disease in BE SURE “is very encouraging, as that is one of the limitations for existing IL-17 blockers,” he said.

The trial was launched after previous reports suggested that IL-17A inhibition may be better than TNF blockade in controlling psoriasis, said investigators led by Richard Warren, MBChB, PhD, a dermatology professor at the University of Manchester (England).

Patients were assigned evenly to one of three regimens: subcutaneous bimekizumab at a dose of 320 mg every 4 weeks for 56 weeks; bimekizumab at 320 mg every 4 weeks for 16 weeks, then every 8 weeks out to 56 weeks; or subcutaneous adalimumab at a dose of 40 mg every 2 weeks for 24 weeks, followed by bimekizumab at a dose of 320 mg every 4 weeks to week 56.

At week 16, 86.2% of those in the bimekizumab group but just 47.2% in the adalimumab group had a PASI 90 response (P < .001), and 85.3% of the bimekizumab versus 57.2% in the adalimumab group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 (P < .001).

About 52% of the adalimumab group had a PASI 90 response at week 24, when they were switched to bimekizumab. By week 56, their PASI 90 response rate rose to 81.8%. Skin clearance was maintained through week 56 whether subjects were dosed every 4 or every 8 weeks with the interleukin blocker.

The incidence of oral candidiasis (9.5%-17.4% vs. 0% with adalimumab alone) was similar to other trials and likely because of the short circuiting of interleukin-17, which plays a role protecting against candida. Most cases were mild to moderate.

The increased risk of oral thrush with bimekizumab “may not be particularly clinically meaningful, especially if” it can be managed by an occasional fluconazole pill. It’s “reassuring … if that’s the biggest problem with the drug, or we may wonder if, in real life use, more severe, perhaps esophageal or systemic fungal infection may be observed,” Dr. Feldman said in a recent editorial.

“Not knowing the future may make some physicians reticent about using the drug when other options are available, at least until data are available on much larger numbers of exposed patients treated for longer periods of time,” he and his colleague William Huang, MD, also a dermatologist at Wake Forest, said.

One of the limits of the trial was that the head-to-head portion was only 24 weeks, “which was too brief for a comparison of safety between bimekizumab and adalimumab in a lifelong disease,” the investigators noted.

The mean age of the patients was 44.9 years, and the mean baseline PASI score was 19.8.

Although the initial dose of adalimumab in the study was 40 mg, labeling recommends an initial dose of 80 mg for the TNF blocker.

Bimekizumab is also being evaluated in phase 3 trials for psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and hidradenitis suppurativa, according to UCB Pharma.

The study was funded by UCB Pharma. The investigators had numerous disclosures, including Dr. Warren who reported grants and personal fees from the company. Dr. Feldman reported receiving research, speaking, and/or consulting support from UCB Pharma and other companies.

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

Bimekizumab bested adalimumab for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in a phase 3 trial of adults from the agent’s maker UCB Pharma.

The interleukin-17A and 17F blocker has also racked up significant wins against ustekinumab and secukinumab, other standard biologic options for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and is currently under review for the indication by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency.

In the adalimumab trial, dubbed BE SURE, bimekizumab had higher clinical response rates than the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker over the 24-week head-to-head phase of the 478-patient trial, with substantial improvements in both Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response and Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) scores of 0 or 1, which signifies clear or almost clear skin.

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine and scheduled to be presented at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience on April 24.

“The data look good,” said psoriasis specialist Steven Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, N.C., when asked for comment.

Bimekizumab “appears more effective than current options. The big question is safety. The 10%-20% rate of oral candidiasis is much higher than other treatments but should be entirely manageable, as long as there are no unknown worse candida issues.” In addition, that there were no cases of inflammatory bowel disease in BE SURE “is very encouraging, as that is one of the limitations for existing IL-17 blockers,” he said.

The trial was launched after previous reports suggested that IL-17A inhibition may be better than TNF blockade in controlling psoriasis, said investigators led by Richard Warren, MBChB, PhD, a dermatology professor at the University of Manchester (England).

Patients were assigned evenly to one of three regimens: subcutaneous bimekizumab at a dose of 320 mg every 4 weeks for 56 weeks; bimekizumab at 320 mg every 4 weeks for 16 weeks, then every 8 weeks out to 56 weeks; or subcutaneous adalimumab at a dose of 40 mg every 2 weeks for 24 weeks, followed by bimekizumab at a dose of 320 mg every 4 weeks to week 56.

At week 16, 86.2% of those in the bimekizumab group but just 47.2% in the adalimumab group had a PASI 90 response (P < .001), and 85.3% of the bimekizumab versus 57.2% in the adalimumab group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 (P < .001).

About 52% of the adalimumab group had a PASI 90 response at week 24, when they were switched to bimekizumab. By week 56, their PASI 90 response rate rose to 81.8%. Skin clearance was maintained through week 56 whether subjects were dosed every 4 or every 8 weeks with the interleukin blocker.

The incidence of oral candidiasis (9.5%-17.4% vs. 0% with adalimumab alone) was similar to other trials and likely because of the short circuiting of interleukin-17, which plays a role protecting against candida. Most cases were mild to moderate.

The increased risk of oral thrush with bimekizumab “may not be particularly clinically meaningful, especially if” it can be managed by an occasional fluconazole pill. It’s “reassuring … if that’s the biggest problem with the drug, or we may wonder if, in real life use, more severe, perhaps esophageal or systemic fungal infection may be observed,” Dr. Feldman said in a recent editorial.

“Not knowing the future may make some physicians reticent about using the drug when other options are available, at least until data are available on much larger numbers of exposed patients treated for longer periods of time,” he and his colleague William Huang, MD, also a dermatologist at Wake Forest, said.

One of the limits of the trial was that the head-to-head portion was only 24 weeks, “which was too brief for a comparison of safety between bimekizumab and adalimumab in a lifelong disease,” the investigators noted.

The mean age of the patients was 44.9 years, and the mean baseline PASI score was 19.8.

Although the initial dose of adalimumab in the study was 40 mg, labeling recommends an initial dose of 80 mg for the TNF blocker.

Bimekizumab is also being evaluated in phase 3 trials for psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and hidradenitis suppurativa, according to UCB Pharma.

The study was funded by UCB Pharma. The investigators had numerous disclosures, including Dr. Warren who reported grants and personal fees from the company. Dr. Feldman reported receiving research, speaking, and/or consulting support from UCB Pharma and other companies.

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

Bimekizumab bested adalimumab for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in a phase 3 trial of adults from the agent’s maker UCB Pharma.

The interleukin-17A and 17F blocker has also racked up significant wins against ustekinumab and secukinumab, other standard biologic options for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and is currently under review for the indication by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency.

In the adalimumab trial, dubbed BE SURE, bimekizumab had higher clinical response rates than the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker over the 24-week head-to-head phase of the 478-patient trial, with substantial improvements in both Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response and Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) scores of 0 or 1, which signifies clear or almost clear skin.

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine and scheduled to be presented at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience on April 24.

“The data look good,” said psoriasis specialist Steven Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, N.C., when asked for comment.

Bimekizumab “appears more effective than current options. The big question is safety. The 10%-20% rate of oral candidiasis is much higher than other treatments but should be entirely manageable, as long as there are no unknown worse candida issues.” In addition, that there were no cases of inflammatory bowel disease in BE SURE “is very encouraging, as that is one of the limitations for existing IL-17 blockers,” he said.

The trial was launched after previous reports suggested that IL-17A inhibition may be better than TNF blockade in controlling psoriasis, said investigators led by Richard Warren, MBChB, PhD, a dermatology professor at the University of Manchester (England).

Patients were assigned evenly to one of three regimens: subcutaneous bimekizumab at a dose of 320 mg every 4 weeks for 56 weeks; bimekizumab at 320 mg every 4 weeks for 16 weeks, then every 8 weeks out to 56 weeks; or subcutaneous adalimumab at a dose of 40 mg every 2 weeks for 24 weeks, followed by bimekizumab at a dose of 320 mg every 4 weeks to week 56.

At week 16, 86.2% of those in the bimekizumab group but just 47.2% in the adalimumab group had a PASI 90 response (P < .001), and 85.3% of the bimekizumab versus 57.2% in the adalimumab group had an IGA score of 0 or 1 (P < .001).

About 52% of the adalimumab group had a PASI 90 response at week 24, when they were switched to bimekizumab. By week 56, their PASI 90 response rate rose to 81.8%. Skin clearance was maintained through week 56 whether subjects were dosed every 4 or every 8 weeks with the interleukin blocker.

The incidence of oral candidiasis (9.5%-17.4% vs. 0% with adalimumab alone) was similar to other trials and likely because of the short circuiting of interleukin-17, which plays a role protecting against candida. Most cases were mild to moderate.

The increased risk of oral thrush with bimekizumab “may not be particularly clinically meaningful, especially if” it can be managed by an occasional fluconazole pill. It’s “reassuring … if that’s the biggest problem with the drug, or we may wonder if, in real life use, more severe, perhaps esophageal or systemic fungal infection may be observed,” Dr. Feldman said in a recent editorial.

“Not knowing the future may make some physicians reticent about using the drug when other options are available, at least until data are available on much larger numbers of exposed patients treated for longer periods of time,” he and his colleague William Huang, MD, also a dermatologist at Wake Forest, said.

One of the limits of the trial was that the head-to-head portion was only 24 weeks, “which was too brief for a comparison of safety between bimekizumab and adalimumab in a lifelong disease,” the investigators noted.

The mean age of the patients was 44.9 years, and the mean baseline PASI score was 19.8.

Although the initial dose of adalimumab in the study was 40 mg, labeling recommends an initial dose of 80 mg for the TNF blocker.

Bimekizumab is also being evaluated in phase 3 trials for psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and hidradenitis suppurativa, according to UCB Pharma.

The study was funded by UCB Pharma. The investigators had numerous disclosures, including Dr. Warren who reported grants and personal fees from the company. Dr. Feldman reported receiving research, speaking, and/or consulting support from UCB Pharma and other companies.

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