TBD Meeting (2884-24)

SAN DIEGO — Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were more likely to correctly classify and grade dermatologic adverse events from cancer therapies, results from a multicenter survey showed.

“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.

The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”

To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.

Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).

“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”

Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”

Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.

“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”

Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
 

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

SAN DIEGO — Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were more likely to correctly classify and grade dermatologic adverse events from cancer therapies, results from a multicenter survey showed.

“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.

The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”

To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.

Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).

“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”

Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”

Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.

“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”

Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
 

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

SAN DIEGO — Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were more likely to correctly classify and grade dermatologic adverse events from cancer therapies, results from a multicenter survey showed.

“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.

The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”

To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.

Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).

“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”

Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”

Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.

“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”

Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
 

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

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical experience of Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, many pediatric dermatology encounters involve shared decision-making (SDM): a collaborative model in which physicians and patients work together to make health care decisions based on the best evidence and on the patient’s values, priorities, and preferences.

“SDM is a cornerstone of person-centered care,” Dr. Cordoro, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “We do it all the time. It can be patient-led, clinician-led, or a patient/family dyad approach. If we do it well, it can improve outcomes. Patients report more satisfying interactions with their care team. It brings adolescent patients especially a sense of independence and they adapt faster to their illness.”

AHRQ’s Five-Step Approach

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed a five-step approach to SDM known as SHARE: Seek your patient’s participation; Help your patient explore and compare treatment options; Assess your patient’s values and preferences; Reach a decision with your patient, and Evaluate your patient’s decision. “We do this all the time in practice with adult patients, but may not label it as SDM,” said Dr. Cordoro, chief and fellowship director of pediatric dermatology at UCSF.

“Where it gets a little murkier is in pediatric decision-making, which is a complex type of surrogate decision-making.” In this situation the patient — a minor — does not have full autonomy. The challenge for caregivers is that giving or withholding permission for interventions is a difficult role. “Their job is to protect the patient’s well-being while empowering them toward independence,” she said. “It can be hard for caregivers to understand complex information.” The challenge for clinicians, she continued, is to know when to invite SDM. This requires relational and sharp communication skills. “We must consider our patient’s/family’s health literacy and be sure the information we share is understood,” she said. “What are the social and structural determinants of health that are going to influence decision-making? You want to move into a relationship like this with cultural humility so you can understand what their preferences are and how they’re seeing the problem. Because there’s no universal agreement on the age at which minors should be deemed decision-making competent in health care, the approach is nuanced and depends on each individual patient and family.”

[embed:render:related:node:263508]

Dr. Cordoro proposed the following four-step approach to SDM to use in pediatric dermatology:

Step 1: Share relevant information about the condition and treatment options in a clear and understandable manner. The average US resident is at the seventh-to eighth-grade level, “so we have to avoid medical jargon and use plain language,” Dr. Cordoro said. Then, use the teach-back approach to assess their understanding. “Ask, ‘What is your understanding of the most important points that we talked about?’ Or, ‘Please share with me what you heard so I’m sure we all understand the plan.’ Using these techniques will reduce the barriers to care such as health literacy.”

Step 2: Solicit and understand patient/patient family perspectives, preferences and priorities. The goal here is to uncover their beliefs, concerns, and assumptions that may influence their decisions. “Be mindful of power asymmetry,” she noted. “Many families still believe the doctor is the boss and they are there to be told what to do. Be clear that the patient has a say. Talk directly to the patient about their interests if developmentally appropriate.”

Step 3: Invite patients/family into a shared decision-making conversation. Consider statements like, “There are many reasonable options here. Let’s work together to come up with the decision that’s right for you.” Or, “Let’s start by exploring your specific goals and concerns. As you think about the options I just talked to you about, what’s important to you?” Or, “Do you want to think about this decision with anyone else?”

Step 4: Check back in frequently. Pause between significant points and check in. “See how they’re doing during the conversation,” she said. “At future appointments, remember to solicit their input on additional decisions.”

In Dr. Cordoro’s opinion, one potential pitfall of SDM is an over-reliance on patient decision aids. “Very few are available in dermatology,” she said. “Some are relevant but none specifically to pediatric dermatology. They are often complex and require a high reading comprehension level. This disadvantages patients and families with low health literacy. Keep it clear and simple. Your patients will appreciate it.”

Dr. Cordoro reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical experience of Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, many pediatric dermatology encounters involve shared decision-making (SDM): a collaborative model in which physicians and patients work together to make health care decisions based on the best evidence and on the patient’s values, priorities, and preferences.

“SDM is a cornerstone of person-centered care,” Dr. Cordoro, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “We do it all the time. It can be patient-led, clinician-led, or a patient/family dyad approach. If we do it well, it can improve outcomes. Patients report more satisfying interactions with their care team. It brings adolescent patients especially a sense of independence and they adapt faster to their illness.”

AHRQ’s Five-Step Approach

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed a five-step approach to SDM known as SHARE: Seek your patient’s participation; Help your patient explore and compare treatment options; Assess your patient’s values and preferences; Reach a decision with your patient, and Evaluate your patient’s decision. “We do this all the time in practice with adult patients, but may not label it as SDM,” said Dr. Cordoro, chief and fellowship director of pediatric dermatology at UCSF.

“Where it gets a little murkier is in pediatric decision-making, which is a complex type of surrogate decision-making.” In this situation the patient — a minor — does not have full autonomy. The challenge for caregivers is that giving or withholding permission for interventions is a difficult role. “Their job is to protect the patient’s well-being while empowering them toward independence,” she said. “It can be hard for caregivers to understand complex information.” The challenge for clinicians, she continued, is to know when to invite SDM. This requires relational and sharp communication skills. “We must consider our patient’s/family’s health literacy and be sure the information we share is understood,” she said. “What are the social and structural determinants of health that are going to influence decision-making? You want to move into a relationship like this with cultural humility so you can understand what their preferences are and how they’re seeing the problem. Because there’s no universal agreement on the age at which minors should be deemed decision-making competent in health care, the approach is nuanced and depends on each individual patient and family.”

[embed:render:related:node:263508]

Dr. Cordoro proposed the following four-step approach to SDM to use in pediatric dermatology:

Step 1: Share relevant information about the condition and treatment options in a clear and understandable manner. The average US resident is at the seventh-to eighth-grade level, “so we have to avoid medical jargon and use plain language,” Dr. Cordoro said. Then, use the teach-back approach to assess their understanding. “Ask, ‘What is your understanding of the most important points that we talked about?’ Or, ‘Please share with me what you heard so I’m sure we all understand the plan.’ Using these techniques will reduce the barriers to care such as health literacy.”

Step 2: Solicit and understand patient/patient family perspectives, preferences and priorities. The goal here is to uncover their beliefs, concerns, and assumptions that may influence their decisions. “Be mindful of power asymmetry,” she noted. “Many families still believe the doctor is the boss and they are there to be told what to do. Be clear that the patient has a say. Talk directly to the patient about their interests if developmentally appropriate.”

Step 3: Invite patients/family into a shared decision-making conversation. Consider statements like, “There are many reasonable options here. Let’s work together to come up with the decision that’s right for you.” Or, “Let’s start by exploring your specific goals and concerns. As you think about the options I just talked to you about, what’s important to you?” Or, “Do you want to think about this decision with anyone else?”

Step 4: Check back in frequently. Pause between significant points and check in. “See how they’re doing during the conversation,” she said. “At future appointments, remember to solicit their input on additional decisions.”

In Dr. Cordoro’s opinion, one potential pitfall of SDM is an over-reliance on patient decision aids. “Very few are available in dermatology,” she said. “Some are relevant but none specifically to pediatric dermatology. They are often complex and require a high reading comprehension level. This disadvantages patients and families with low health literacy. Keep it clear and simple. Your patients will appreciate it.”

Dr. Cordoro reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical experience of Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, many pediatric dermatology encounters involve shared decision-making (SDM): a collaborative model in which physicians and patients work together to make health care decisions based on the best evidence and on the patient’s values, priorities, and preferences.

“SDM is a cornerstone of person-centered care,” Dr. Cordoro, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “We do it all the time. It can be patient-led, clinician-led, or a patient/family dyad approach. If we do it well, it can improve outcomes. Patients report more satisfying interactions with their care team. It brings adolescent patients especially a sense of independence and they adapt faster to their illness.”

AHRQ’s Five-Step Approach

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed a five-step approach to SDM known as SHARE: Seek your patient’s participation; Help your patient explore and compare treatment options; Assess your patient’s values and preferences; Reach a decision with your patient, and Evaluate your patient’s decision. “We do this all the time in practice with adult patients, but may not label it as SDM,” said Dr. Cordoro, chief and fellowship director of pediatric dermatology at UCSF.

“Where it gets a little murkier is in pediatric decision-making, which is a complex type of surrogate decision-making.” In this situation the patient — a minor — does not have full autonomy. The challenge for caregivers is that giving or withholding permission for interventions is a difficult role. “Their job is to protect the patient’s well-being while empowering them toward independence,” she said. “It can be hard for caregivers to understand complex information.” The challenge for clinicians, she continued, is to know when to invite SDM. This requires relational and sharp communication skills. “We must consider our patient’s/family’s health literacy and be sure the information we share is understood,” she said. “What are the social and structural determinants of health that are going to influence decision-making? You want to move into a relationship like this with cultural humility so you can understand what their preferences are and how they’re seeing the problem. Because there’s no universal agreement on the age at which minors should be deemed decision-making competent in health care, the approach is nuanced and depends on each individual patient and family.”

[embed:render:related:node:263508]

Dr. Cordoro proposed the following four-step approach to SDM to use in pediatric dermatology:

Step 1: Share relevant information about the condition and treatment options in a clear and understandable manner. The average US resident is at the seventh-to eighth-grade level, “so we have to avoid medical jargon and use plain language,” Dr. Cordoro said. Then, use the teach-back approach to assess their understanding. “Ask, ‘What is your understanding of the most important points that we talked about?’ Or, ‘Please share with me what you heard so I’m sure we all understand the plan.’ Using these techniques will reduce the barriers to care such as health literacy.”

Step 2: Solicit and understand patient/patient family perspectives, preferences and priorities. The goal here is to uncover their beliefs, concerns, and assumptions that may influence their decisions. “Be mindful of power asymmetry,” she noted. “Many families still believe the doctor is the boss and they are there to be told what to do. Be clear that the patient has a say. Talk directly to the patient about their interests if developmentally appropriate.”

Step 3: Invite patients/family into a shared decision-making conversation. Consider statements like, “There are many reasonable options here. Let’s work together to come up with the decision that’s right for you.” Or, “Let’s start by exploring your specific goals and concerns. As you think about the options I just talked to you about, what’s important to you?” Or, “Do you want to think about this decision with anyone else?”

Step 4: Check back in frequently. Pause between significant points and check in. “See how they’re doing during the conversation,” she said. “At future appointments, remember to solicit their input on additional decisions.”

In Dr. Cordoro’s opinion, one potential pitfall of SDM is an over-reliance on patient decision aids. “Very few are available in dermatology,” she said. “Some are relevant but none specifically to pediatric dermatology. They are often complex and require a high reading comprehension level. This disadvantages patients and families with low health literacy. Keep it clear and simple. Your patients will appreciate it.”

Dr. Cordoro reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Approximately 10 years ago in France, high throughput screening in a series of cases suggested that vaccine-derived rubella virus was the surprising cause of persistent cutaneous granulomas, but an update at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology suggests this phenomenon is not as rare as once supposed.

Based on accumulating evidence, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through collaborations with others also recognized this in pediatric patients with inborn errors of immunity, and it is now appropriate for clinicians to consider this etiology when no other infectious agents can be identified, according to Karolyn A. Wanat, MD, professor of dermatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who spoke about rubella as a trigger in granulomatous disease at the meeting. “This is a huge evolving area of interest,” said Dr. Wanat, who has been the first author or coauthor on several published papers, including a review article published earlier this year.

In the earliest cases, including those reported in 2014, the cutaneous granulomas presumed to be causally related to vaccine-derived rubella virus were found only in those with a primary immunodeficiency. This is no longer the case. In a collaboration among US clinics, granulomas that had persisted for years in immunocompetent adults were identified, according to Dr. Wanat, the first author of a report on these findings in four adults in 2022. In addition, it now appears that wild-type rubella virus, like vaccine-derived rubella virus, can be the source of the antigenic response that underlies the development of rubella-associated cutaneous granulomas.

[embed:render:related:node:267247]
The phenotype of these granulomas is comparable to granulomas associated with other infectious agents. On dermatopathology, these commonly feature a robust granulomatous inflammation with multinucleated giant cells and lymphocytic infiltrate. Necrosis and fibrosis are also common.

“These are the types of granulomas that we would be thinking infection. If tissue cultures are negative, we would probably repeat them,” she said, suggesting that suspicion of an infectious etiology would probably remain high even after multiple negative tests.

Of the cases accruing in the United States and elsewhere, most but not all have been linked to inborn errors of immunity. In a 2020 CDC review, the risk of granulomas caused by compromised immunity, such as defects in T cell function, was estimated to be in the range of 0.6% to 2.5%, Dr. Wanat said.

It is now known that primary immunodeficiency is not a prerequisite, but this should not change the perception that the rubella vaccine, which was introduced in 1979, is effective and safe, according to Dr. Wanat. The vaccine is associated with few serious adverse events and is so effective that rubella was eliminated from the United States in 2004 and from the Americas in 2015.

This makes cases of granuloma associated with wild-type rubella virus surprising, but they appear to be exceedingly rare. Whether caused by vaccine exposure or another source, the mechanism of latent development of cutaneous granulomas is consistent with other infectious sources, and is not well understood.

“Rubella is a sneaky virus that can persist in some immunoprivileged sites indefinitely,” Dr. Wanat said. These sites include the eyes, joints, and placenta.

Many initial cases of rubella-associated granulomas occurred on the arms, presumably where the vaccine was administered, despite long intervals between exposure and lesion growth. This interval is often measured in years.

With more cases, it is now understood that involvement of other organs does occur even if the skin is the most common site of antigenic response in patients with immunodeficiency. The liver and lymph nodes represent other tissues that have been affected. Even lesions in the brain have been seen on autopsy.

Based on the benefit-to-risk ratio of a highly effective and successful vaccine, however, the association with a risk of granulomas “should not raise questions” about the value of the vaccine itself, Dr. Wanat noted.

“The proportion of patients who develop these granulomas is very, very low. Yet, the vaccine provides life-long immunity,” she said.

The discovery of granulomas associated with wild type rubella infection was “shocking” based on the supposition that the rubella virus had been eliminated, but this is just one of the unexpected discoveries as the still-evolving science has traced the story of rubella-associated granulomas over the past 10 years.

Cases now include children and adults through advanced ages.

Shedding of the virus and risk of infection to others has been studied but so far, the risk — if it exists — is very low. The evidence includes the many patients who have lived with the granulomas for years, even decades, without any known spread to others.

As for ongoing work in this area, Dr. Wanat said that a histopathological case definition for rubella-associated granulomas is being developed, and she and other investigators are actively seeking new cases to better characterize the disease.

So far, optimal treatment is not well defined. A number of strategies have had limited success or are considered impractical for routine use. One example is a stem cell transplant. In a case Dr. Wanat cited, complete resolution of the skin lesions was achieved with a transplant.

“I am not suggesting that those with localized disease in the skin should undergo a transplant, but it does support the role of the immune system and the potential for a reboot to clear the skin,” she said.

Other therapies associated with benefit in at least some patients include tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors with dapsone and ribavirin. The risk of adverse events for the latter might again limit its use, Dr. Wanat said.

With awareness, the number of granulomas found to be associated with rubella virus is expected to grow. Dr. Wanat speculated that those areas of the country that not yet have documented a case will do so over time. For idiopathic cases of cutaneous granulomas, rubella should be kept in mind, she said.

Characterizing rubella-associated cutaneous granulomas as “a public health concern,” Dr. Wanat urged clinicians to consider this etiology in lesions that match the phenotype, particularly when other more common infectious agents cannot be identified.

Asked for his perspective, Jeffrey P. North, MD, managing director of the UCSF Dermatopathology, and professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that rubella should be considered as a source of granulomas with a suspected infectious etiology when a pathogen cannot be found.

“It is likely much more common than we know as it has only been recently described and testing for it is limited. I suspected there are a lot of undiagnosed patients suffering from this disease,” Dr. North said in an interview.

“One of the important points for clinicians to consider is that while this has been reported mostly in patients with some form of immunodeficiency, there have also been patients reported to have this condition with no immunodeficiency,” he added. Even though the association between rubella and granulomas was made 10 years ago, awareness is only now spreading, which means the frequency with which rubella leads to granulomas remains uncertain.

“I think we will start to get a better idea of how common this is as more people learn about and testing for it expands,” Dr. North said.

Dr. Wanat reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. North reports financial relationships with AdviNow and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals.

SAN DIEGO — Approximately 10 years ago in France, high throughput screening in a series of cases suggested that vaccine-derived rubella virus was the surprising cause of persistent cutaneous granulomas, but an update at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology suggests this phenomenon is not as rare as once supposed.

Based on accumulating evidence, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through collaborations with others also recognized this in pediatric patients with inborn errors of immunity, and it is now appropriate for clinicians to consider this etiology when no other infectious agents can be identified, according to Karolyn A. Wanat, MD, professor of dermatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who spoke about rubella as a trigger in granulomatous disease at the meeting. “This is a huge evolving area of interest,” said Dr. Wanat, who has been the first author or coauthor on several published papers, including a review article published earlier this year.

In the earliest cases, including those reported in 2014, the cutaneous granulomas presumed to be causally related to vaccine-derived rubella virus were found only in those with a primary immunodeficiency. This is no longer the case. In a collaboration among US clinics, granulomas that had persisted for years in immunocompetent adults were identified, according to Dr. Wanat, the first author of a report on these findings in four adults in 2022. In addition, it now appears that wild-type rubella virus, like vaccine-derived rubella virus, can be the source of the antigenic response that underlies the development of rubella-associated cutaneous granulomas.

[embed:render:related:node:267247]
The phenotype of these granulomas is comparable to granulomas associated with other infectious agents. On dermatopathology, these commonly feature a robust granulomatous inflammation with multinucleated giant cells and lymphocytic infiltrate. Necrosis and fibrosis are also common.

“These are the types of granulomas that we would be thinking infection. If tissue cultures are negative, we would probably repeat them,” she said, suggesting that suspicion of an infectious etiology would probably remain high even after multiple negative tests.

Of the cases accruing in the United States and elsewhere, most but not all have been linked to inborn errors of immunity. In a 2020 CDC review, the risk of granulomas caused by compromised immunity, such as defects in T cell function, was estimated to be in the range of 0.6% to 2.5%, Dr. Wanat said.

It is now known that primary immunodeficiency is not a prerequisite, but this should not change the perception that the rubella vaccine, which was introduced in 1979, is effective and safe, according to Dr. Wanat. The vaccine is associated with few serious adverse events and is so effective that rubella was eliminated from the United States in 2004 and from the Americas in 2015.

This makes cases of granuloma associated with wild-type rubella virus surprising, but they appear to be exceedingly rare. Whether caused by vaccine exposure or another source, the mechanism of latent development of cutaneous granulomas is consistent with other infectious sources, and is not well understood.

“Rubella is a sneaky virus that can persist in some immunoprivileged sites indefinitely,” Dr. Wanat said. These sites include the eyes, joints, and placenta.

Many initial cases of rubella-associated granulomas occurred on the arms, presumably where the vaccine was administered, despite long intervals between exposure and lesion growth. This interval is often measured in years.

With more cases, it is now understood that involvement of other organs does occur even if the skin is the most common site of antigenic response in patients with immunodeficiency. The liver and lymph nodes represent other tissues that have been affected. Even lesions in the brain have been seen on autopsy.

Based on the benefit-to-risk ratio of a highly effective and successful vaccine, however, the association with a risk of granulomas “should not raise questions” about the value of the vaccine itself, Dr. Wanat noted.

“The proportion of patients who develop these granulomas is very, very low. Yet, the vaccine provides life-long immunity,” she said.

The discovery of granulomas associated with wild type rubella infection was “shocking” based on the supposition that the rubella virus had been eliminated, but this is just one of the unexpected discoveries as the still-evolving science has traced the story of rubella-associated granulomas over the past 10 years.

Cases now include children and adults through advanced ages.

Shedding of the virus and risk of infection to others has been studied but so far, the risk — if it exists — is very low. The evidence includes the many patients who have lived with the granulomas for years, even decades, without any known spread to others.

As for ongoing work in this area, Dr. Wanat said that a histopathological case definition for rubella-associated granulomas is being developed, and she and other investigators are actively seeking new cases to better characterize the disease.

So far, optimal treatment is not well defined. A number of strategies have had limited success or are considered impractical for routine use. One example is a stem cell transplant. In a case Dr. Wanat cited, complete resolution of the skin lesions was achieved with a transplant.

“I am not suggesting that those with localized disease in the skin should undergo a transplant, but it does support the role of the immune system and the potential for a reboot to clear the skin,” she said.

Other therapies associated with benefit in at least some patients include tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors with dapsone and ribavirin. The risk of adverse events for the latter might again limit its use, Dr. Wanat said.

With awareness, the number of granulomas found to be associated with rubella virus is expected to grow. Dr. Wanat speculated that those areas of the country that not yet have documented a case will do so over time. For idiopathic cases of cutaneous granulomas, rubella should be kept in mind, she said.

Characterizing rubella-associated cutaneous granulomas as “a public health concern,” Dr. Wanat urged clinicians to consider this etiology in lesions that match the phenotype, particularly when other more common infectious agents cannot be identified.

Asked for his perspective, Jeffrey P. North, MD, managing director of the UCSF Dermatopathology, and professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that rubella should be considered as a source of granulomas with a suspected infectious etiology when a pathogen cannot be found.

“It is likely much more common than we know as it has only been recently described and testing for it is limited. I suspected there are a lot of undiagnosed patients suffering from this disease,” Dr. North said in an interview.

“One of the important points for clinicians to consider is that while this has been reported mostly in patients with some form of immunodeficiency, there have also been patients reported to have this condition with no immunodeficiency,” he added. Even though the association between rubella and granulomas was made 10 years ago, awareness is only now spreading, which means the frequency with which rubella leads to granulomas remains uncertain.

“I think we will start to get a better idea of how common this is as more people learn about and testing for it expands,” Dr. North said.

Dr. Wanat reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. North reports financial relationships with AdviNow and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals.

SAN DIEGO — Approximately 10 years ago in France, high throughput screening in a series of cases suggested that vaccine-derived rubella virus was the surprising cause of persistent cutaneous granulomas, but an update at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology suggests this phenomenon is not as rare as once supposed.

Based on accumulating evidence, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through collaborations with others also recognized this in pediatric patients with inborn errors of immunity, and it is now appropriate for clinicians to consider this etiology when no other infectious agents can be identified, according to Karolyn A. Wanat, MD, professor of dermatology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who spoke about rubella as a trigger in granulomatous disease at the meeting. “This is a huge evolving area of interest,” said Dr. Wanat, who has been the first author or coauthor on several published papers, including a review article published earlier this year.

In the earliest cases, including those reported in 2014, the cutaneous granulomas presumed to be causally related to vaccine-derived rubella virus were found only in those with a primary immunodeficiency. This is no longer the case. In a collaboration among US clinics, granulomas that had persisted for years in immunocompetent adults were identified, according to Dr. Wanat, the first author of a report on these findings in four adults in 2022. In addition, it now appears that wild-type rubella virus, like vaccine-derived rubella virus, can be the source of the antigenic response that underlies the development of rubella-associated cutaneous granulomas.

[embed:render:related:node:267247]
The phenotype of these granulomas is comparable to granulomas associated with other infectious agents. On dermatopathology, these commonly feature a robust granulomatous inflammation with multinucleated giant cells and lymphocytic infiltrate. Necrosis and fibrosis are also common.

“These are the types of granulomas that we would be thinking infection. If tissue cultures are negative, we would probably repeat them,” she said, suggesting that suspicion of an infectious etiology would probably remain high even after multiple negative tests.

Of the cases accruing in the United States and elsewhere, most but not all have been linked to inborn errors of immunity. In a 2020 CDC review, the risk of granulomas caused by compromised immunity, such as defects in T cell function, was estimated to be in the range of 0.6% to 2.5%, Dr. Wanat said.

It is now known that primary immunodeficiency is not a prerequisite, but this should not change the perception that the rubella vaccine, which was introduced in 1979, is effective and safe, according to Dr. Wanat. The vaccine is associated with few serious adverse events and is so effective that rubella was eliminated from the United States in 2004 and from the Americas in 2015.

This makes cases of granuloma associated with wild-type rubella virus surprising, but they appear to be exceedingly rare. Whether caused by vaccine exposure or another source, the mechanism of latent development of cutaneous granulomas is consistent with other infectious sources, and is not well understood.

“Rubella is a sneaky virus that can persist in some immunoprivileged sites indefinitely,” Dr. Wanat said. These sites include the eyes, joints, and placenta.

Many initial cases of rubella-associated granulomas occurred on the arms, presumably where the vaccine was administered, despite long intervals between exposure and lesion growth. This interval is often measured in years.

With more cases, it is now understood that involvement of other organs does occur even if the skin is the most common site of antigenic response in patients with immunodeficiency. The liver and lymph nodes represent other tissues that have been affected. Even lesions in the brain have been seen on autopsy.

Based on the benefit-to-risk ratio of a highly effective and successful vaccine, however, the association with a risk of granulomas “should not raise questions” about the value of the vaccine itself, Dr. Wanat noted.

“The proportion of patients who develop these granulomas is very, very low. Yet, the vaccine provides life-long immunity,” she said.

The discovery of granulomas associated with wild type rubella infection was “shocking” based on the supposition that the rubella virus had been eliminated, but this is just one of the unexpected discoveries as the still-evolving science has traced the story of rubella-associated granulomas over the past 10 years.

Cases now include children and adults through advanced ages.

Shedding of the virus and risk of infection to others has been studied but so far, the risk — if it exists — is very low. The evidence includes the many patients who have lived with the granulomas for years, even decades, without any known spread to others.

As for ongoing work in this area, Dr. Wanat said that a histopathological case definition for rubella-associated granulomas is being developed, and she and other investigators are actively seeking new cases to better characterize the disease.

So far, optimal treatment is not well defined. A number of strategies have had limited success or are considered impractical for routine use. One example is a stem cell transplant. In a case Dr. Wanat cited, complete resolution of the skin lesions was achieved with a transplant.

“I am not suggesting that those with localized disease in the skin should undergo a transplant, but it does support the role of the immune system and the potential for a reboot to clear the skin,” she said.

Other therapies associated with benefit in at least some patients include tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors with dapsone and ribavirin. The risk of adverse events for the latter might again limit its use, Dr. Wanat said.

With awareness, the number of granulomas found to be associated with rubella virus is expected to grow. Dr. Wanat speculated that those areas of the country that not yet have documented a case will do so over time. For idiopathic cases of cutaneous granulomas, rubella should be kept in mind, she said.

Characterizing rubella-associated cutaneous granulomas as “a public health concern,” Dr. Wanat urged clinicians to consider this etiology in lesions that match the phenotype, particularly when other more common infectious agents cannot be identified.

Asked for his perspective, Jeffrey P. North, MD, managing director of the UCSF Dermatopathology, and professor of dermatology and pathology at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that rubella should be considered as a source of granulomas with a suspected infectious etiology when a pathogen cannot be found.

“It is likely much more common than we know as it has only been recently described and testing for it is limited. I suspected there are a lot of undiagnosed patients suffering from this disease,” Dr. North said in an interview.

“One of the important points for clinicians to consider is that while this has been reported mostly in patients with some form of immunodeficiency, there have also been patients reported to have this condition with no immunodeficiency,” he added. Even though the association between rubella and granulomas was made 10 years ago, awareness is only now spreading, which means the frequency with which rubella leads to granulomas remains uncertain.

“I think we will start to get a better idea of how common this is as more people learn about and testing for it expands,” Dr. North said.

Dr. Wanat reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. North reports financial relationships with AdviNow and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals.

In an extension study of patients with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB) treated with the topical gene therapy beremagene geperpavec, wound closure rates and adverse events were similar to those seen in the phase 3 study and no new safety signals were identified.

The results were presented by Amy S. Paller, MD, during a late-breaking session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In May 2023, beremagene geperpavec, marketed as Vyjuvek (formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of wounds in patients 6 months of age and older with DEB, a rare genetic blistering disorder caused by COL7A1 gene variants. The therapy uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure. It is designed to be used repetitively, to heal a single wound, or on more than one wound.

In the pivotal study of patients with DEB, the gene therapy, delivered in a topical gel, was administered once a week for 6 months to one wound and placebo was applied to another wound for each participant. The proportion of wounds treated with beremagene geperpavec that healed was significantly higher than among placebo-treated wounds at 3 and 6 months (68% vs. 23% at 3 months, P = .003) and 65% vs. 26% at 6 months (P = .012), with no serious adverse events related to treatment.

The prospective, open label, uncontrolled extension study included 24 patients from the phase 3 study and 23 treatment-naive patients from five US sites. Their mean age was 16 years (range, 6 months to 46 years).

Of the 47 patients, 29 (62%) were on treatment for more than 1 year (the longest was about 2 years), and the mean duration of treatment was 475 days; 5 patients withdrew from the study for reasons not related to treatment.

Their types of adverse events (AEs) were similar to those seen in the phase 3 study and were consistent with what would be expected in patients with DEB, said Dr. Paller, professor and chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago. One patient experienced two wound hemorrhages that were possibly related to treatment, but there were no treatment-related AEs, no deaths or treatment discontinuations because of an AE, and no serious AEs thought to be related to treatment.

Wounds that were evaluated in the phase 3 study showed “a high durability of closure with continued treatment,” according to Dr. Paller. There were enough data on 19 of the 24 patients who had been in the phase 3 trial to evaluate wound closure, defined as “complete wound closure based on comparison to the exact wound area selected at baseline” at the beginning of the phase 3 study.

In the extension study, wound closure rates were almost 90% at baseline, 84.2% at 3 months, 61.1% at 6 months, 82.4% at 9 months, and 62.5% at 12 months, which was comparable to the rates observed in the third (86.4%) and sixth (73.7%) months of the phase 3 study, Dr. Paller said.

Patient-reported outcomes indicated that quality of life and satisfaction with treatment were preserved with continued treatment.The extension study was terminated in July 2023, after FDA approval, when patients could be transitioned to the commercially available treatment.Dr. Paller disclosed being an investigator (funds to institution) for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including the manufacturer of beremagene geperpavec, Krystal Biotech, which funded the study.

In an extension study of patients with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB) treated with the topical gene therapy beremagene geperpavec, wound closure rates and adverse events were similar to those seen in the phase 3 study and no new safety signals were identified.

The results were presented by Amy S. Paller, MD, during a late-breaking session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In May 2023, beremagene geperpavec, marketed as Vyjuvek (formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of wounds in patients 6 months of age and older with DEB, a rare genetic blistering disorder caused by COL7A1 gene variants. The therapy uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure. It is designed to be used repetitively, to heal a single wound, or on more than one wound.

In the pivotal study of patients with DEB, the gene therapy, delivered in a topical gel, was administered once a week for 6 months to one wound and placebo was applied to another wound for each participant. The proportion of wounds treated with beremagene geperpavec that healed was significantly higher than among placebo-treated wounds at 3 and 6 months (68% vs. 23% at 3 months, P = .003) and 65% vs. 26% at 6 months (P = .012), with no serious adverse events related to treatment.

The prospective, open label, uncontrolled extension study included 24 patients from the phase 3 study and 23 treatment-naive patients from five US sites. Their mean age was 16 years (range, 6 months to 46 years).

Of the 47 patients, 29 (62%) were on treatment for more than 1 year (the longest was about 2 years), and the mean duration of treatment was 475 days; 5 patients withdrew from the study for reasons not related to treatment.

Their types of adverse events (AEs) were similar to those seen in the phase 3 study and were consistent with what would be expected in patients with DEB, said Dr. Paller, professor and chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago. One patient experienced two wound hemorrhages that were possibly related to treatment, but there were no treatment-related AEs, no deaths or treatment discontinuations because of an AE, and no serious AEs thought to be related to treatment.

Wounds that were evaluated in the phase 3 study showed “a high durability of closure with continued treatment,” according to Dr. Paller. There were enough data on 19 of the 24 patients who had been in the phase 3 trial to evaluate wound closure, defined as “complete wound closure based on comparison to the exact wound area selected at baseline” at the beginning of the phase 3 study.

In the extension study, wound closure rates were almost 90% at baseline, 84.2% at 3 months, 61.1% at 6 months, 82.4% at 9 months, and 62.5% at 12 months, which was comparable to the rates observed in the third (86.4%) and sixth (73.7%) months of the phase 3 study, Dr. Paller said.

Patient-reported outcomes indicated that quality of life and satisfaction with treatment were preserved with continued treatment.The extension study was terminated in July 2023, after FDA approval, when patients could be transitioned to the commercially available treatment.Dr. Paller disclosed being an investigator (funds to institution) for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including the manufacturer of beremagene geperpavec, Krystal Biotech, which funded the study.

In an extension study of patients with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB) treated with the topical gene therapy beremagene geperpavec, wound closure rates and adverse events were similar to those seen in the phase 3 study and no new safety signals were identified.

The results were presented by Amy S. Paller, MD, during a late-breaking session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

In May 2023, beremagene geperpavec, marketed as Vyjuvek (formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of wounds in patients 6 months of age and older with DEB, a rare genetic blistering disorder caused by COL7A1 gene variants. The therapy uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure. It is designed to be used repetitively, to heal a single wound, or on more than one wound.

In the pivotal study of patients with DEB, the gene therapy, delivered in a topical gel, was administered once a week for 6 months to one wound and placebo was applied to another wound for each participant. The proportion of wounds treated with beremagene geperpavec that healed was significantly higher than among placebo-treated wounds at 3 and 6 months (68% vs. 23% at 3 months, P = .003) and 65% vs. 26% at 6 months (P = .012), with no serious adverse events related to treatment.

The prospective, open label, uncontrolled extension study included 24 patients from the phase 3 study and 23 treatment-naive patients from five US sites. Their mean age was 16 years (range, 6 months to 46 years).

Of the 47 patients, 29 (62%) were on treatment for more than 1 year (the longest was about 2 years), and the mean duration of treatment was 475 days; 5 patients withdrew from the study for reasons not related to treatment.

Their types of adverse events (AEs) were similar to those seen in the phase 3 study and were consistent with what would be expected in patients with DEB, said Dr. Paller, professor and chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago. One patient experienced two wound hemorrhages that were possibly related to treatment, but there were no treatment-related AEs, no deaths or treatment discontinuations because of an AE, and no serious AEs thought to be related to treatment.

Wounds that were evaluated in the phase 3 study showed “a high durability of closure with continued treatment,” according to Dr. Paller. There were enough data on 19 of the 24 patients who had been in the phase 3 trial to evaluate wound closure, defined as “complete wound closure based on comparison to the exact wound area selected at baseline” at the beginning of the phase 3 study.

In the extension study, wound closure rates were almost 90% at baseline, 84.2% at 3 months, 61.1% at 6 months, 82.4% at 9 months, and 62.5% at 12 months, which was comparable to the rates observed in the third (86.4%) and sixth (73.7%) months of the phase 3 study, Dr. Paller said.

Patient-reported outcomes indicated that quality of life and satisfaction with treatment were preserved with continued treatment.The extension study was terminated in July 2023, after FDA approval, when patients could be transitioned to the commercially available treatment.Dr. Paller disclosed being an investigator (funds to institution) for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including the manufacturer of beremagene geperpavec, Krystal Biotech, which funded the study.

A significant proportion of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis achieved at least a 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Score (PASI 75) compared with those on placebo after 12 weeks of treatment with an investigational oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, in a phase 2 study presented during a late breaker presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

ESK-001 is a highly-selective TYK2 inhibitor that “reduces signaling through several cytokine receptors including receptors for interleukin (IL)-12, IL-23, and interferon (IFN)-alpha,” according to Alumis, the company developing ESK-001.

The STRIDE trial enrolled 228 adults (mean age, 48 years) with a mean PASI score of 17.8 at baseline, randomized to one of five doses of ESK-001, or placebo. Nearly 70% of those enrolled were men, 82.5% were White, nearly 6% were Asian, and about 4% were Black.

The proportion of patients achieving at least a PASI-75 at 12 weeks, the primary endpoint, ranged from 19.4% among those on the lower dose (10 mg a day) to 56.4% among those on 20 mg twice a day and those on 40 mg once a day, and 64.1% among those on 40 mg twice a day, the highest dose evaluated, compared with 0% of those on placebo.

In addition, 38.5% and 15.4% of those on the highest dose achieved a PASI 90 and PASI 100, respectively, at 12 weeks, according to results presented at the meeting by Kim A. Papp, MD.

Improvements in static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) scores, a secondary endpoint, at 12 weeks were also observed; including 59% of those on the highest dose (40 mg twice a day) achieving an sPGA of 0/1 at 12 weeks, according to Dr. Papp, president of Probity Medical Research, in Waterloo, Ontario, and a study investigator.

[embed:render:related:node:268326]

Treatment was “generally safe and well tolerated” at all doses, and most treatment-emergent adverse events were “mild to moderate” and self-limited, he said.

The most frequent treatment emergent adverse events included headache and nasopharyngitis (also reported in the placebo group), and upper respiratory tract infections. No cases of treatment-related serious adverse events were reported, and there were no cases of MACE (major adverse cardiovascular events), serious infections, thromboses related to treatment, or lab or ECG findings of concern.

In an ongoing open label extension study, 165 patients on 40 mg once a day and those on 40 mg twice a day are continuing to be evaluated, and at week 16, have continued to show significant efficacy, with a favorable risk-benefit profile to date, according to Dr. Papp.

ESK-001 is also being evaluated in a phase 2b study of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, and a phase 2 proof-of-concept study of patients with non-infectious uveitis, according to Alumis.

In addition to being an investigator for Alumis, Dr. Papp disclosed serving as an adviser, consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

A significant proportion of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis achieved at least a 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Score (PASI 75) compared with those on placebo after 12 weeks of treatment with an investigational oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, in a phase 2 study presented during a late breaker presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

ESK-001 is a highly-selective TYK2 inhibitor that “reduces signaling through several cytokine receptors including receptors for interleukin (IL)-12, IL-23, and interferon (IFN)-alpha,” according to Alumis, the company developing ESK-001.

The STRIDE trial enrolled 228 adults (mean age, 48 years) with a mean PASI score of 17.8 at baseline, randomized to one of five doses of ESK-001, or placebo. Nearly 70% of those enrolled were men, 82.5% were White, nearly 6% were Asian, and about 4% were Black.

The proportion of patients achieving at least a PASI-75 at 12 weeks, the primary endpoint, ranged from 19.4% among those on the lower dose (10 mg a day) to 56.4% among those on 20 mg twice a day and those on 40 mg once a day, and 64.1% among those on 40 mg twice a day, the highest dose evaluated, compared with 0% of those on placebo.

In addition, 38.5% and 15.4% of those on the highest dose achieved a PASI 90 and PASI 100, respectively, at 12 weeks, according to results presented at the meeting by Kim A. Papp, MD.

Improvements in static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) scores, a secondary endpoint, at 12 weeks were also observed; including 59% of those on the highest dose (40 mg twice a day) achieving an sPGA of 0/1 at 12 weeks, according to Dr. Papp, president of Probity Medical Research, in Waterloo, Ontario, and a study investigator.

[embed:render:related:node:268326]

Treatment was “generally safe and well tolerated” at all doses, and most treatment-emergent adverse events were “mild to moderate” and self-limited, he said.

The most frequent treatment emergent adverse events included headache and nasopharyngitis (also reported in the placebo group), and upper respiratory tract infections. No cases of treatment-related serious adverse events were reported, and there were no cases of MACE (major adverse cardiovascular events), serious infections, thromboses related to treatment, or lab or ECG findings of concern.

In an ongoing open label extension study, 165 patients on 40 mg once a day and those on 40 mg twice a day are continuing to be evaluated, and at week 16, have continued to show significant efficacy, with a favorable risk-benefit profile to date, according to Dr. Papp.

ESK-001 is also being evaluated in a phase 2b study of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, and a phase 2 proof-of-concept study of patients with non-infectious uveitis, according to Alumis.

In addition to being an investigator for Alumis, Dr. Papp disclosed serving as an adviser, consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

A significant proportion of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis achieved at least a 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Score (PASI 75) compared with those on placebo after 12 weeks of treatment with an investigational oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, in a phase 2 study presented during a late breaker presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

ESK-001 is a highly-selective TYK2 inhibitor that “reduces signaling through several cytokine receptors including receptors for interleukin (IL)-12, IL-23, and interferon (IFN)-alpha,” according to Alumis, the company developing ESK-001.

The STRIDE trial enrolled 228 adults (mean age, 48 years) with a mean PASI score of 17.8 at baseline, randomized to one of five doses of ESK-001, or placebo. Nearly 70% of those enrolled were men, 82.5% were White, nearly 6% were Asian, and about 4% were Black.

The proportion of patients achieving at least a PASI-75 at 12 weeks, the primary endpoint, ranged from 19.4% among those on the lower dose (10 mg a day) to 56.4% among those on 20 mg twice a day and those on 40 mg once a day, and 64.1% among those on 40 mg twice a day, the highest dose evaluated, compared with 0% of those on placebo.

In addition, 38.5% and 15.4% of those on the highest dose achieved a PASI 90 and PASI 100, respectively, at 12 weeks, according to results presented at the meeting by Kim A. Papp, MD.

Improvements in static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) scores, a secondary endpoint, at 12 weeks were also observed; including 59% of those on the highest dose (40 mg twice a day) achieving an sPGA of 0/1 at 12 weeks, according to Dr. Papp, president of Probity Medical Research, in Waterloo, Ontario, and a study investigator.

[embed:render:related:node:268326]

Treatment was “generally safe and well tolerated” at all doses, and most treatment-emergent adverse events were “mild to moderate” and self-limited, he said.

The most frequent treatment emergent adverse events included headache and nasopharyngitis (also reported in the placebo group), and upper respiratory tract infections. No cases of treatment-related serious adverse events were reported, and there were no cases of MACE (major adverse cardiovascular events), serious infections, thromboses related to treatment, or lab or ECG findings of concern.

In an ongoing open label extension study, 165 patients on 40 mg once a day and those on 40 mg twice a day are continuing to be evaluated, and at week 16, have continued to show significant efficacy, with a favorable risk-benefit profile to date, according to Dr. Papp.

ESK-001 is also being evaluated in a phase 2b study of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, and a phase 2 proof-of-concept study of patients with non-infectious uveitis, according to Alumis.

In addition to being an investigator for Alumis, Dr. Papp disclosed serving as an adviser, consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for multiple other pharmaceutical companies.

FROM AAD 2024

SAN DIEGO — Moderate to severe atopic dermatitis reduces linear growth in children younger than 12 years, results from an ongoing 10-year observational study showed.

“We need to sort out whether this is reversed by newer treatments, especially in the 6- to 11-year-olds, as well as the factors that underlie it in atopic dermatitis,” said the study’s first author Amy S. Paller, MD, chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session.
 

Atopic Dermatitis Impacts Growth

In the ongoing international study called PEDISTAD, researchers enrolled 1326 children younger than 12 years with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled by topical therapies who were candidates to receive systemic medications. They assessed the percentage of patients above the 50th percentile and the mean percentiles for height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) at baseline against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Learning Management System reference healthy population, by age in months, and compared results to the CDC’s standardized growth curves for healthy children aged 0-12 years.

The investigators found that at baseline, compared with the age-specific population norms, 50% of men and 51% of women in the PEDISTAD study were above the 50th percentile for weight, but only 38% and 52%, respectively, were above the 50th percentile for height. Among patients aged 5-12 years, only 28% of men and 47% of women were above the 50th percentile for height, while 69% of men and 71% of women were above the 50th percentile for BMI.

Dr. Paller said that she was “not really surprised by the reduction in linear growth, since there are so many factors that may contribute,” including chronic inflammation, poor sleep, and the use of topical and systemic steroids. “But [it’s] good to have this data as an opportunity to see if our improved therapies can reverse this.”

She said that she was “a bit surprised by the increase in weight and body mass index, but this could reflect less physical activity/sports [participation and] deserves more investigation,” and added that the findings “mesh nicely with new attention on bone growth with good control of atopic dermatitis in this age group.”

Dr. Paller acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that those enrolled are a heterogeneous cohort with variable treatment regimens.
 

Some Answers, More Questions

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that atopic dermatitis “should be considered the cutaneous manifestations of a systemic inflammatory disease, though even if it were not, the impact on daily and nightly activities [such as sleep] could indirectly have systemic medical consequences.”

The data presented “highlights that children with moderate to severe disease have higher BMIs and shorter height than matched counterparts, likely owing to the treasure trove of direct and indirect consequences of uncontrolled type 2 inflammation,” he said. “What I would like to know, and as the authors astutely noted, could treatment, and especially early intervention, prevent or even alter this impact?”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi and Regeneron, the study sponsor. She is also an investigator for AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Krystal, LEO Pharma, and UCB and is a member of the data monitoring safety board for AbbVie, Abeona, Catawba, Galderma, and InMed. Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study, had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FROM AAD 2024

SAN DIEGO — Moderate to severe atopic dermatitis reduces linear growth in children younger than 12 years, results from an ongoing 10-year observational study showed.

“We need to sort out whether this is reversed by newer treatments, especially in the 6- to 11-year-olds, as well as the factors that underlie it in atopic dermatitis,” said the study’s first author Amy S. Paller, MD, chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session.
 

Atopic Dermatitis Impacts Growth

In the ongoing international study called PEDISTAD, researchers enrolled 1326 children younger than 12 years with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled by topical therapies who were candidates to receive systemic medications. They assessed the percentage of patients above the 50th percentile and the mean percentiles for height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) at baseline against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Learning Management System reference healthy population, by age in months, and compared results to the CDC’s standardized growth curves for healthy children aged 0-12 years.

The investigators found that at baseline, compared with the age-specific population norms, 50% of men and 51% of women in the PEDISTAD study were above the 50th percentile for weight, but only 38% and 52%, respectively, were above the 50th percentile for height. Among patients aged 5-12 years, only 28% of men and 47% of women were above the 50th percentile for height, while 69% of men and 71% of women were above the 50th percentile for BMI.

Dr. Paller said that she was “not really surprised by the reduction in linear growth, since there are so many factors that may contribute,” including chronic inflammation, poor sleep, and the use of topical and systemic steroids. “But [it’s] good to have this data as an opportunity to see if our improved therapies can reverse this.”

She said that she was “a bit surprised by the increase in weight and body mass index, but this could reflect less physical activity/sports [participation and] deserves more investigation,” and added that the findings “mesh nicely with new attention on bone growth with good control of atopic dermatitis in this age group.”

Dr. Paller acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that those enrolled are a heterogeneous cohort with variable treatment regimens.
 

Some Answers, More Questions

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that atopic dermatitis “should be considered the cutaneous manifestations of a systemic inflammatory disease, though even if it were not, the impact on daily and nightly activities [such as sleep] could indirectly have systemic medical consequences.”

The data presented “highlights that children with moderate to severe disease have higher BMIs and shorter height than matched counterparts, likely owing to the treasure trove of direct and indirect consequences of uncontrolled type 2 inflammation,” he said. “What I would like to know, and as the authors astutely noted, could treatment, and especially early intervention, prevent or even alter this impact?”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi and Regeneron, the study sponsor. She is also an investigator for AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Krystal, LEO Pharma, and UCB and is a member of the data monitoring safety board for AbbVie, Abeona, Catawba, Galderma, and InMed. Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study, had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FROM AAD 2024

SAN DIEGO — Moderate to severe atopic dermatitis reduces linear growth in children younger than 12 years, results from an ongoing 10-year observational study showed.

“We need to sort out whether this is reversed by newer treatments, especially in the 6- to 11-year-olds, as well as the factors that underlie it in atopic dermatitis,” said the study’s first author Amy S. Paller, MD, chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session.
 

Atopic Dermatitis Impacts Growth

In the ongoing international study called PEDISTAD, researchers enrolled 1326 children younger than 12 years with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled by topical therapies who were candidates to receive systemic medications. They assessed the percentage of patients above the 50th percentile and the mean percentiles for height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) at baseline against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Learning Management System reference healthy population, by age in months, and compared results to the CDC’s standardized growth curves for healthy children aged 0-12 years.

The investigators found that at baseline, compared with the age-specific population norms, 50% of men and 51% of women in the PEDISTAD study were above the 50th percentile for weight, but only 38% and 52%, respectively, were above the 50th percentile for height. Among patients aged 5-12 years, only 28% of men and 47% of women were above the 50th percentile for height, while 69% of men and 71% of women were above the 50th percentile for BMI.

Dr. Paller said that she was “not really surprised by the reduction in linear growth, since there are so many factors that may contribute,” including chronic inflammation, poor sleep, and the use of topical and systemic steroids. “But [it’s] good to have this data as an opportunity to see if our improved therapies can reverse this.”

She said that she was “a bit surprised by the increase in weight and body mass index, but this could reflect less physical activity/sports [participation and] deserves more investigation,” and added that the findings “mesh nicely with new attention on bone growth with good control of atopic dermatitis in this age group.”

Dr. Paller acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that those enrolled are a heterogeneous cohort with variable treatment regimens.
 

Some Answers, More Questions

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that atopic dermatitis “should be considered the cutaneous manifestations of a systemic inflammatory disease, though even if it were not, the impact on daily and nightly activities [such as sleep] could indirectly have systemic medical consequences.”

The data presented “highlights that children with moderate to severe disease have higher BMIs and shorter height than matched counterparts, likely owing to the treasure trove of direct and indirect consequences of uncontrolled type 2 inflammation,” he said. “What I would like to know, and as the authors astutely noted, could treatment, and especially early intervention, prevent or even alter this impact?”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi and Regeneron, the study sponsor. She is also an investigator for AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Krystal, LEO Pharma, and UCB and is a member of the data monitoring safety board for AbbVie, Abeona, Catawba, Galderma, and InMed. Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study, had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Whether you completed your dermatology residency training 20 years ago or 2 years ago, recent advances in treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) have likely influenced your “go to” interventions when treating children with AD, according to Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD.

“There have been many changes in the understanding of AD and recognition of the variable courses of the disease, and the associated allergic and nonallergic comorbidities,” Dr. Eichenfield, chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego in California, said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, held the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “With our revolutionary systemic and evolving topical therapies, we are in a new day of pediatric management.”

Eczema_foot_baby_web.jpg

Drawing from 2023 American Academy of Dermatology guidelines of care on topical treatments of AD and his own clinical experience, he shared his perspective on “what’s tried and true” in care for patients with persistent eczema:

Both bathing and moisturizing leave skin moist. It’s well established that the use of moisturizers/emollients minimizes xerosis and the amount of prescription anti-inflammatory medications, but limited evidence exists to recommend a particular ingredient and formulation, said Dr. Eichenfield, also professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. “Future studies may tell us whether specific moisturizers work better than others, and/or if early interventions may prevent AD, but that remains a big question mark,” he noted. In addition, applications may sometimes “mobilize” topical prescriptive residual absorption and activity.

As for baths, he said, “avoidance of bathing to avoid drying out skin is a practice without evidence basis. Bathing also may have many benefits in active eczema.”

Bleach baths may enhance skin barrier function, reduce itch, and improve eczema, but the practice remains controversial, he continued. Authors of a systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that while bleach baths are effective in reducing the severity of AD, they do not appear to be more effective than water bath alone. Authors of a more recent study found that bleach baths did not normalize dysbiosis, “but that study did not compare outcomes to bathing without bleach,” Dr. Eichenfield noted.“My sense is there is some benefit to regular bathing, especially in children with moderate to severe AD, especially those with colonized or infected eczema.”

He advises clinicians to be aware of other “standard AD interventions” from around the world, including black tea wet dressings and green tea bath therapy.


 

Eichenfield_Lawrence_CA_web.jpg

Topical corticosteroids. These are “tried and true” for their anti-inflammatory properties and rapid response, relatively low cost, and large range of potency, he said. Potential problems include the burden of topical application and the potential for stinging/burning, atrophy, telangiectasias, adrenal axis suppression, and concerns about withdrawal phenomena. “Being a proponent of topical corticosteroids, but explaining reasonable and appropriate use can be challenging,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Social media has influenced concerns about topical corticosteroids, with steroid addiction and withdrawal being concerns influencing discomfort with therapies.”

Make sure to measure outcomes. The suggested core outcome measure for recording clinical signs in AD clinical trials is the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, he said. In clinical practice, Dr. Eichenfield favors body surface area (BSA) and the Validated Global Assessment scale (v-IGA) to measure signs of moderate to severe AD. “Documenting extent of disease makes a big difference in families understanding how severe their child’s disease is and how it is doing over time.” Alternatively, he recommends the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) or the Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP) as tools assessing long-term disease control.

Familiarize yourself with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications for care regimens. Options include topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus; phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE-4) inhibitors such as crisaborole and roflumilast; the aryl-hydrocarbon receptor agonist tapinarof; and topical Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors such as delgocitinib and ruxolitinib as well as others in development. “There is variable status around the world in terms of whether these nonsteroidal options are approved or not,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Issues of use include cost, availability, side effects, and concerns about potential absorption. I think there’s an evolution in how much we rely on these instead of topical corticosteroids. They’re more commonly used in maintenance regimens rather than for remission induction.”

Dr. Eichenfield encouraged dermatologists to share information about and experiences with evolving treatment options for AD, “because when the studies are done, they are done as monotherapy. We must translate that into clinical practice and figure out how they fit in. Our exchange of information is critical.”

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed conflicts of interest from many pharmaceutical companies, including those with AD treatments.

SAN DIEGO — Whether you completed your dermatology residency training 20 years ago or 2 years ago, recent advances in treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) have likely influenced your “go to” interventions when treating children with AD, according to Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD.

“There have been many changes in the understanding of AD and recognition of the variable courses of the disease, and the associated allergic and nonallergic comorbidities,” Dr. Eichenfield, chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego in California, said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, held the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “With our revolutionary systemic and evolving topical therapies, we are in a new day of pediatric management.”

Eczema_foot_baby_web.jpg

Drawing from 2023 American Academy of Dermatology guidelines of care on topical treatments of AD and his own clinical experience, he shared his perspective on “what’s tried and true” in care for patients with persistent eczema:

Both bathing and moisturizing leave skin moist. It’s well established that the use of moisturizers/emollients minimizes xerosis and the amount of prescription anti-inflammatory medications, but limited evidence exists to recommend a particular ingredient and formulation, said Dr. Eichenfield, also professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. “Future studies may tell us whether specific moisturizers work better than others, and/or if early interventions may prevent AD, but that remains a big question mark,” he noted. In addition, applications may sometimes “mobilize” topical prescriptive residual absorption and activity.

As for baths, he said, “avoidance of bathing to avoid drying out skin is a practice without evidence basis. Bathing also may have many benefits in active eczema.”

Bleach baths may enhance skin barrier function, reduce itch, and improve eczema, but the practice remains controversial, he continued. Authors of a systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that while bleach baths are effective in reducing the severity of AD, they do not appear to be more effective than water bath alone. Authors of a more recent study found that bleach baths did not normalize dysbiosis, “but that study did not compare outcomes to bathing without bleach,” Dr. Eichenfield noted.“My sense is there is some benefit to regular bathing, especially in children with moderate to severe AD, especially those with colonized or infected eczema.”

He advises clinicians to be aware of other “standard AD interventions” from around the world, including black tea wet dressings and green tea bath therapy.


 

Eichenfield_Lawrence_CA_web.jpg

Topical corticosteroids. These are “tried and true” for their anti-inflammatory properties and rapid response, relatively low cost, and large range of potency, he said. Potential problems include the burden of topical application and the potential for stinging/burning, atrophy, telangiectasias, adrenal axis suppression, and concerns about withdrawal phenomena. “Being a proponent of topical corticosteroids, but explaining reasonable and appropriate use can be challenging,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Social media has influenced concerns about topical corticosteroids, with steroid addiction and withdrawal being concerns influencing discomfort with therapies.”

Make sure to measure outcomes. The suggested core outcome measure for recording clinical signs in AD clinical trials is the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, he said. In clinical practice, Dr. Eichenfield favors body surface area (BSA) and the Validated Global Assessment scale (v-IGA) to measure signs of moderate to severe AD. “Documenting extent of disease makes a big difference in families understanding how severe their child’s disease is and how it is doing over time.” Alternatively, he recommends the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) or the Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP) as tools assessing long-term disease control.

Familiarize yourself with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications for care regimens. Options include topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus; phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE-4) inhibitors such as crisaborole and roflumilast; the aryl-hydrocarbon receptor agonist tapinarof; and topical Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors such as delgocitinib and ruxolitinib as well as others in development. “There is variable status around the world in terms of whether these nonsteroidal options are approved or not,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Issues of use include cost, availability, side effects, and concerns about potential absorption. I think there’s an evolution in how much we rely on these instead of topical corticosteroids. They’re more commonly used in maintenance regimens rather than for remission induction.”

Dr. Eichenfield encouraged dermatologists to share information about and experiences with evolving treatment options for AD, “because when the studies are done, they are done as monotherapy. We must translate that into clinical practice and figure out how they fit in. Our exchange of information is critical.”

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed conflicts of interest from many pharmaceutical companies, including those with AD treatments.

SAN DIEGO — Whether you completed your dermatology residency training 20 years ago or 2 years ago, recent advances in treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) have likely influenced your “go to” interventions when treating children with AD, according to Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD.

“There have been many changes in the understanding of AD and recognition of the variable courses of the disease, and the associated allergic and nonallergic comorbidities,” Dr. Eichenfield, chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego in California, said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, held the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “With our revolutionary systemic and evolving topical therapies, we are in a new day of pediatric management.”

Eczema_foot_baby_web.jpg

Drawing from 2023 American Academy of Dermatology guidelines of care on topical treatments of AD and his own clinical experience, he shared his perspective on “what’s tried and true” in care for patients with persistent eczema:

Both bathing and moisturizing leave skin moist. It’s well established that the use of moisturizers/emollients minimizes xerosis and the amount of prescription anti-inflammatory medications, but limited evidence exists to recommend a particular ingredient and formulation, said Dr. Eichenfield, also professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. “Future studies may tell us whether specific moisturizers work better than others, and/or if early interventions may prevent AD, but that remains a big question mark,” he noted. In addition, applications may sometimes “mobilize” topical prescriptive residual absorption and activity.

As for baths, he said, “avoidance of bathing to avoid drying out skin is a practice without evidence basis. Bathing also may have many benefits in active eczema.”

Bleach baths may enhance skin barrier function, reduce itch, and improve eczema, but the practice remains controversial, he continued. Authors of a systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that while bleach baths are effective in reducing the severity of AD, they do not appear to be more effective than water bath alone. Authors of a more recent study found that bleach baths did not normalize dysbiosis, “but that study did not compare outcomes to bathing without bleach,” Dr. Eichenfield noted.“My sense is there is some benefit to regular bathing, especially in children with moderate to severe AD, especially those with colonized or infected eczema.”

He advises clinicians to be aware of other “standard AD interventions” from around the world, including black tea wet dressings and green tea bath therapy.


 

Eichenfield_Lawrence_CA_web.jpg

Topical corticosteroids. These are “tried and true” for their anti-inflammatory properties and rapid response, relatively low cost, and large range of potency, he said. Potential problems include the burden of topical application and the potential for stinging/burning, atrophy, telangiectasias, adrenal axis suppression, and concerns about withdrawal phenomena. “Being a proponent of topical corticosteroids, but explaining reasonable and appropriate use can be challenging,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Social media has influenced concerns about topical corticosteroids, with steroid addiction and withdrawal being concerns influencing discomfort with therapies.”

Make sure to measure outcomes. The suggested core outcome measure for recording clinical signs in AD clinical trials is the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, he said. In clinical practice, Dr. Eichenfield favors body surface area (BSA) and the Validated Global Assessment scale (v-IGA) to measure signs of moderate to severe AD. “Documenting extent of disease makes a big difference in families understanding how severe their child’s disease is and how it is doing over time.” Alternatively, he recommends the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) or the Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP) as tools assessing long-term disease control.

Familiarize yourself with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications for care regimens. Options include topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus; phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE-4) inhibitors such as crisaborole and roflumilast; the aryl-hydrocarbon receptor agonist tapinarof; and topical Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors such as delgocitinib and ruxolitinib as well as others in development. “There is variable status around the world in terms of whether these nonsteroidal options are approved or not,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Issues of use include cost, availability, side effects, and concerns about potential absorption. I think there’s an evolution in how much we rely on these instead of topical corticosteroids. They’re more commonly used in maintenance regimens rather than for remission induction.”

Dr. Eichenfield encouraged dermatologists to share information about and experiences with evolving treatment options for AD, “because when the studies are done, they are done as monotherapy. We must translate that into clinical practice and figure out how they fit in. Our exchange of information is critical.”

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed conflicts of interest from many pharmaceutical companies, including those with AD treatments.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with the use of topical minoxidil for hair loss, the used of low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) can be considered when topical minoxidil is more expensive or logistically challenging, has plateaued in efficacy, leaves unwanted product residue, causes skin irritation, or exacerbates the inflammatory process.

Those are among the key recommendations that resulted from a modified eDelphi consensus of experts who convened to develop guidelines for LDOM prescribing and monitoring.

“Topical minoxidil is safe, effective, over-the-counter, and FDA-approved to treat the most common form of hair loss, androgenetic alopecia,” one of the study authors, Jennifer Fu, MD, a dermatologist who directs the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The results of the expert consensus were presented during a poster session at the meeting. “It is often used off label for other types of hair loss, yet clinicians who treat hair loss know that patient compliance with topical minoxidil can be poor for a variety of reasons,” she said. “Patients report that it can be difficult to apply and complicate hair styling. For many patients, topical minoxidil can be drying or cause irritant or allergic contact reactions.”

Fu_Jennifer_CA_web.jpg

LDOM has become a popular alternative for patients for whom topical minoxidil is logistically challenging, irritating, or ineffective, she continued. Although oral minoxidil is no longer a first-line antihypertensive agent given the risk of cardiovascular adverse effects at higher antihypertensive dosing (10-40 mg daily), a growing number of small studies have documented the use of LDOM at doses ranging from 0.25 mg to 5 mg daily as a safe, effective option for various types of hair loss.

“Given the current absence of larger trials on this topic, our research group identified a need for expert-based guidelines for prescribing and monitoring LDOM use in hair loss patients,” Dr. Fu said. “Our goal was to provide clinicians who treat hair loss patients a road map for using LDOM effectively, maximizing hair growth, and minimizing potential cardiovascular adverse effects.”


 

Arriving at a Consensus

The process involved 43 hair loss specialists from 12 countries with an average of 6.29 years of experience with LDOM for hair loss, who participated in a multi-round modified Delphi process. They considered questions that addressed LDOM safety, efficacy, dosing, and monitoring for hair loss, and consensus was reached if at least 70% of participants indicated “agree” or “strongly agree” on a five-point Likert scale. Round 1 consisted of 180 open-ended, multiple-choice, or Likert-scale questions, while round 2 involved 121 Likert-scale questions, round 3 consisted of 16 Likert-scale questions, and round 4 included 11 Likert-scale questions. In all, 94 items achieved Likert-scale consensus.

Specifically, experts on the panel found a direct benefit of LDOM for androgenetic alopecia, age-related patterned thinning, alopecia areata, telogen effluvium, traction alopecia, persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia, and endocrine therapy-induced alopecia. They found a supportive benefit of LDOM for lichen planopilaris, frontal fibrosing alopecia, central centrifugal alopecia, and fibrosing alopecia in a patterned distribution.

“LDOM can be considered when topical minoxidil is more expensive, logistically challenging, has plateaued in efficacy, results in undesirable product residue/skin irritation,” or exacerbates inflammatory processes (ie eczema, psoriasis), they added.

Contraindications to LDOM listed in the consensus recommendations include hypersensitivity to minoxidil, significant drug-drug interactions with LDOM, a history of pericardial effusion/tamponade, pericarditis, heart failure, pulmonary hypertension associated with mitral stenosis, pheochromocytoma, and pregnancy/breastfeeding. Cited precautions of LDOM use include a history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, renal impairment, and being on dialysis.

Dr. Fu and colleagues noted that the earliest time point at which LDOM should be expected to demonstrate efficacy is 3-6 months. “Baseline testing is not routine but may be considered in case of identified precautions,” they wrote. They also noted that LDOM can possibly be co-administered with beta-blockers with a specialty consultation, and with spironolactone in biologic female or transgender female patients with hirsutism, acne, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and with lower extremity and facial edema.

According to the consensus statement, the most frequently prescribed LDOM dosing regimen in adult females aged 18 years and older includes a starting dose of 1.25 mg daily, with a dosing range between 0.625 mg and 5 mg daily. For adult males, the most frequently prescribed dosing regimen is a starting dose of 2.5 daily, with a dosing range between 1.25 mg and 5 mg daily. The most frequently prescribed LDOM dosing regimen in adolescent females aged 12-17 years is a starting dose of 0.625 mg daily, with a dosing range of 0.625 to 2.5 mg daily. For adolescent males, the recommended regimen is a starting dose of 1.25 mg daily, with a dosing range of 1.25 mg to 5 mg daily.

“We hope that this consensus statement will guide our colleagues who would like to use LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patients,” Dr. Fu told this news organization. “These recommendations may be used to inform clinical practice until additional evidence-based data becomes available.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the effort, including the fact that the expert panel was underrepresented in treating hair loss in pediatric patients, “and therefore failed to reach consensus on LDOM pediatric use and dosing,” she said. “We encourage our pediatric dermatology colleagues to further research LDOM in pediatric patients.”

In an interview, Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment, but was not involved with the work, characterized the consensus as a “helpful, concise reference guide for dermatologists.”

Lipner_Shari_R_NY_web.jpg

The advantages of the study are the standardized methods used, “and the experience of the panel,” she said. “Study limitations include the response rate, which was less than 60%, and the risk of potential side effects are not stratified by age, sex, or comorbidities,” she added.

Dr. Fu disclosed that she is a consultant to Pfizer. Dr. Lipner reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with the use of topical minoxidil for hair loss, the used of low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) can be considered when topical minoxidil is more expensive or logistically challenging, has plateaued in efficacy, leaves unwanted product residue, causes skin irritation, or exacerbates the inflammatory process.

Those are among the key recommendations that resulted from a modified eDelphi consensus of experts who convened to develop guidelines for LDOM prescribing and monitoring.

“Topical minoxidil is safe, effective, over-the-counter, and FDA-approved to treat the most common form of hair loss, androgenetic alopecia,” one of the study authors, Jennifer Fu, MD, a dermatologist who directs the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The results of the expert consensus were presented during a poster session at the meeting. “It is often used off label for other types of hair loss, yet clinicians who treat hair loss know that patient compliance with topical minoxidil can be poor for a variety of reasons,” she said. “Patients report that it can be difficult to apply and complicate hair styling. For many patients, topical minoxidil can be drying or cause irritant or allergic contact reactions.”

Fu_Jennifer_CA_web.jpg

LDOM has become a popular alternative for patients for whom topical minoxidil is logistically challenging, irritating, or ineffective, she continued. Although oral minoxidil is no longer a first-line antihypertensive agent given the risk of cardiovascular adverse effects at higher antihypertensive dosing (10-40 mg daily), a growing number of small studies have documented the use of LDOM at doses ranging from 0.25 mg to 5 mg daily as a safe, effective option for various types of hair loss.

“Given the current absence of larger trials on this topic, our research group identified a need for expert-based guidelines for prescribing and monitoring LDOM use in hair loss patients,” Dr. Fu said. “Our goal was to provide clinicians who treat hair loss patients a road map for using LDOM effectively, maximizing hair growth, and minimizing potential cardiovascular adverse effects.”


 

Arriving at a Consensus

The process involved 43 hair loss specialists from 12 countries with an average of 6.29 years of experience with LDOM for hair loss, who participated in a multi-round modified Delphi process. They considered questions that addressed LDOM safety, efficacy, dosing, and monitoring for hair loss, and consensus was reached if at least 70% of participants indicated “agree” or “strongly agree” on a five-point Likert scale. Round 1 consisted of 180 open-ended, multiple-choice, or Likert-scale questions, while round 2 involved 121 Likert-scale questions, round 3 consisted of 16 Likert-scale questions, and round 4 included 11 Likert-scale questions. In all, 94 items achieved Likert-scale consensus.

Specifically, experts on the panel found a direct benefit of LDOM for androgenetic alopecia, age-related patterned thinning, alopecia areata, telogen effluvium, traction alopecia, persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia, and endocrine therapy-induced alopecia. They found a supportive benefit of LDOM for lichen planopilaris, frontal fibrosing alopecia, central centrifugal alopecia, and fibrosing alopecia in a patterned distribution.

“LDOM can be considered when topical minoxidil is more expensive, logistically challenging, has plateaued in efficacy, results in undesirable product residue/skin irritation,” or exacerbates inflammatory processes (ie eczema, psoriasis), they added.

Contraindications to LDOM listed in the consensus recommendations include hypersensitivity to minoxidil, significant drug-drug interactions with LDOM, a history of pericardial effusion/tamponade, pericarditis, heart failure, pulmonary hypertension associated with mitral stenosis, pheochromocytoma, and pregnancy/breastfeeding. Cited precautions of LDOM use include a history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, renal impairment, and being on dialysis.

Dr. Fu and colleagues noted that the earliest time point at which LDOM should be expected to demonstrate efficacy is 3-6 months. “Baseline testing is not routine but may be considered in case of identified precautions,” they wrote. They also noted that LDOM can possibly be co-administered with beta-blockers with a specialty consultation, and with spironolactone in biologic female or transgender female patients with hirsutism, acne, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and with lower extremity and facial edema.

According to the consensus statement, the most frequently prescribed LDOM dosing regimen in adult females aged 18 years and older includes a starting dose of 1.25 mg daily, with a dosing range between 0.625 mg and 5 mg daily. For adult males, the most frequently prescribed dosing regimen is a starting dose of 2.5 daily, with a dosing range between 1.25 mg and 5 mg daily. The most frequently prescribed LDOM dosing regimen in adolescent females aged 12-17 years is a starting dose of 0.625 mg daily, with a dosing range of 0.625 to 2.5 mg daily. For adolescent males, the recommended regimen is a starting dose of 1.25 mg daily, with a dosing range of 1.25 mg to 5 mg daily.

“We hope that this consensus statement will guide our colleagues who would like to use LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patients,” Dr. Fu told this news organization. “These recommendations may be used to inform clinical practice until additional evidence-based data becomes available.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the effort, including the fact that the expert panel was underrepresented in treating hair loss in pediatric patients, “and therefore failed to reach consensus on LDOM pediatric use and dosing,” she said. “We encourage our pediatric dermatology colleagues to further research LDOM in pediatric patients.”

In an interview, Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment, but was not involved with the work, characterized the consensus as a “helpful, concise reference guide for dermatologists.”

Lipner_Shari_R_NY_web.jpg

The advantages of the study are the standardized methods used, “and the experience of the panel,” she said. “Study limitations include the response rate, which was less than 60%, and the risk of potential side effects are not stratified by age, sex, or comorbidities,” she added.

Dr. Fu disclosed that she is a consultant to Pfizer. Dr. Lipner reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with the use of topical minoxidil for hair loss, the used of low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) can be considered when topical minoxidil is more expensive or logistically challenging, has plateaued in efficacy, leaves unwanted product residue, causes skin irritation, or exacerbates the inflammatory process.

Those are among the key recommendations that resulted from a modified eDelphi consensus of experts who convened to develop guidelines for LDOM prescribing and monitoring.

“Topical minoxidil is safe, effective, over-the-counter, and FDA-approved to treat the most common form of hair loss, androgenetic alopecia,” one of the study authors, Jennifer Fu, MD, a dermatologist who directs the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The results of the expert consensus were presented during a poster session at the meeting. “It is often used off label for other types of hair loss, yet clinicians who treat hair loss know that patient compliance with topical minoxidil can be poor for a variety of reasons,” she said. “Patients report that it can be difficult to apply and complicate hair styling. For many patients, topical minoxidil can be drying or cause irritant or allergic contact reactions.”

Fu_Jennifer_CA_web.jpg

LDOM has become a popular alternative for patients for whom topical minoxidil is logistically challenging, irritating, or ineffective, she continued. Although oral minoxidil is no longer a first-line antihypertensive agent given the risk of cardiovascular adverse effects at higher antihypertensive dosing (10-40 mg daily), a growing number of small studies have documented the use of LDOM at doses ranging from 0.25 mg to 5 mg daily as a safe, effective option for various types of hair loss.

“Given the current absence of larger trials on this topic, our research group identified a need for expert-based guidelines for prescribing and monitoring LDOM use in hair loss patients,” Dr. Fu said. “Our goal was to provide clinicians who treat hair loss patients a road map for using LDOM effectively, maximizing hair growth, and minimizing potential cardiovascular adverse effects.”


 

Arriving at a Consensus

The process involved 43 hair loss specialists from 12 countries with an average of 6.29 years of experience with LDOM for hair loss, who participated in a multi-round modified Delphi process. They considered questions that addressed LDOM safety, efficacy, dosing, and monitoring for hair loss, and consensus was reached if at least 70% of participants indicated “agree” or “strongly agree” on a five-point Likert scale. Round 1 consisted of 180 open-ended, multiple-choice, or Likert-scale questions, while round 2 involved 121 Likert-scale questions, round 3 consisted of 16 Likert-scale questions, and round 4 included 11 Likert-scale questions. In all, 94 items achieved Likert-scale consensus.

Specifically, experts on the panel found a direct benefit of LDOM for androgenetic alopecia, age-related patterned thinning, alopecia areata, telogen effluvium, traction alopecia, persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia, and endocrine therapy-induced alopecia. They found a supportive benefit of LDOM for lichen planopilaris, frontal fibrosing alopecia, central centrifugal alopecia, and fibrosing alopecia in a patterned distribution.

“LDOM can be considered when topical minoxidil is more expensive, logistically challenging, has plateaued in efficacy, results in undesirable product residue/skin irritation,” or exacerbates inflammatory processes (ie eczema, psoriasis), they added.

Contraindications to LDOM listed in the consensus recommendations include hypersensitivity to minoxidil, significant drug-drug interactions with LDOM, a history of pericardial effusion/tamponade, pericarditis, heart failure, pulmonary hypertension associated with mitral stenosis, pheochromocytoma, and pregnancy/breastfeeding. Cited precautions of LDOM use include a history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, renal impairment, and being on dialysis.

Dr. Fu and colleagues noted that the earliest time point at which LDOM should be expected to demonstrate efficacy is 3-6 months. “Baseline testing is not routine but may be considered in case of identified precautions,” they wrote. They also noted that LDOM can possibly be co-administered with beta-blockers with a specialty consultation, and with spironolactone in biologic female or transgender female patients with hirsutism, acne, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and with lower extremity and facial edema.

According to the consensus statement, the most frequently prescribed LDOM dosing regimen in adult females aged 18 years and older includes a starting dose of 1.25 mg daily, with a dosing range between 0.625 mg and 5 mg daily. For adult males, the most frequently prescribed dosing regimen is a starting dose of 2.5 daily, with a dosing range between 1.25 mg and 5 mg daily. The most frequently prescribed LDOM dosing regimen in adolescent females aged 12-17 years is a starting dose of 0.625 mg daily, with a dosing range of 0.625 to 2.5 mg daily. For adolescent males, the recommended regimen is a starting dose of 1.25 mg daily, with a dosing range of 1.25 mg to 5 mg daily.

“We hope that this consensus statement will guide our colleagues who would like to use LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patients,” Dr. Fu told this news organization. “These recommendations may be used to inform clinical practice until additional evidence-based data becomes available.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the effort, including the fact that the expert panel was underrepresented in treating hair loss in pediatric patients, “and therefore failed to reach consensus on LDOM pediatric use and dosing,” she said. “We encourage our pediatric dermatology colleagues to further research LDOM in pediatric patients.”

In an interview, Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment, but was not involved with the work, characterized the consensus as a “helpful, concise reference guide for dermatologists.”

Lipner_Shari_R_NY_web.jpg

The advantages of the study are the standardized methods used, “and the experience of the panel,” she said. “Study limitations include the response rate, which was less than 60%, and the risk of potential side effects are not stratified by age, sex, or comorbidities,” she added.

Dr. Fu disclosed that she is a consultant to Pfizer. Dr. Lipner reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — The number of solid organ transplant survivors is on the rise, a dermatologist told colleagues, and they face unique challenges from higher risks for skin cancer and skin infections because of their suppressed immune systems.

“There are over 450,000 people with a solid organ transplant living in the United States. If you do the math, that works out to about 40 organ transplant recipients for every dermatologist, so there’s a lot of them out there for us to take care of,” Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD). “If we expand that umbrella to include all types of immunosuppression, that’s over 4 million adults in the US.”

Dr. Christensen encouraged dermatologists to be aware of the varying risks for immunosuppressive drugs and best screening practices for these patients, and to take advantage of a validated skin cancer risk assessment tool for transplant patients.

During his presentation, he highlighted five classes of immunosuppressive drugs and their associated skin cancer risks:

• Calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus or cyclosporine), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk. They may also cause gingival hyperplasia and sebaceous hyperplasia.
• Antimetabolites (mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine), which cause moderate to severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk.
• Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus or everolimus), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a moderate skin cancer risk. They also impair wound healing.
• Corticosteroids (prednisone), which cause mild to severe immune suppression and pose a minimal skin cancer risk.
• A decoy receptor protein (belatacept), which causes severe immune suppression and poses a mild skin cancer risk.

“Most of our solid-organ transplant recipients will be on both a calcineurin inhibitor and an antimetabolite,” Dr. Christensen said. “In addition to the skin cancer risk associated with immunosuppression, there is an additive risk” that is a direct effect of these medications on the skin. “That means our transplant recipients have a severely and disproportionate increase in skin cancer,” he noted.

Up to half of solid-organ transplant recipients will develop skin cancer, Dr. Christensen said. These patients have a sixfold to 10-fold increased risk for basal cell carcinoma (BCC), a 35- to 65-fold increased risk for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), a twofold to sevenfold increased risk for melanoma, and a 16- to 100-fold increased risk for Merkel cell carcinoma.

Transplant recipients with SCC, he said, have a twofold to threefold higher risk for metastasis (4%-8% nodal metastasis) and twofold to fivefold higher risk for death (2%-7% mortality) from SCC.

As for other kinds of immunosuppression, HIV positivity, treatment with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine (for inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis), and antitumor necrosis factor agents (for psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, and rheumatoid arthritis) have been linked in studies to a higher risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer.

Dr. Christensen also highlighted graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). “It does look like there is a disproportionate and increased risk of SCC of the oropharynx and of the skin in patients who have chronic GVHD. This is probably due to a combination of both the immunosuppressive medications that are required but also from chronic and ongoing inflammation in the skin.”

[embed:render:related:node:263749]

Chronic GVHD has been linked to a 5.3-fold increase in the risk for SCC and a twofold increase in the risk for BCC, he added.

Moreover, new medications for treating GVHD have been linked to an increased risk for SCC, including a 3.2-fold increased risk for SCC associated with ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2 inhibitor, in a study of patients with polycythemia vera and myelofibrosis; and a case report of SCC in a patient treated with belumosudil, a rho-associated coiled-coil-containing protein kinase-2 kinase inhibitor, for chronic GVHD. Risk for SCC appears to increase based on duration of use with voriconazole, an antifungal, which, he said, is a potent photosynthesizer.

Dr. Christensen also noted the higher risk for infections in immunocompromised patients and added that these patients can develop inflammatory disease despite immunosuppression:

Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Dermatophytes are the most common skin pathogens in these patients. There’s a significantly increased risk for reactivation of herpes simplex, varicella-zoster viruses, and cytomegalovirus. Opportunistic and disseminated fungal infections, such as mycobacteria, Candida, histoplasma, cryptococcus, aspergillus, and mucormycosis, can also appear.

More than 80% of transplant recipients develop molluscum and verruca vulgaris/human papillomavirus infection. They may also develop noninfectious inflammatory dermatoses.

Risk Calculator

What can dermatologists do to help transplant patients? Dr. Christensen highlighted the Skin and UV Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator, which predicts skin cancer risk based on points given for race, gender, skin cancer history, age at transplant, and site of transplant.

The tool, validated in a 2023 study of transplant recipients in Europe, is available online and as an app. It makes recommendations to users about when patients should have initial skin screening exams. Those with the most risk — 45% at 5 years — should be screened within 6 months. “We can use [the tool] to triage these cases when we first meet them and get them plugged into the appropriate care,” Dr. Christensen said.

He recommended seeing high-risk patients at least annually. Patients with a prior SCC and a heavy burden of actinic keratosis should be followed more frequently, he said.

In regard to SCC, he highlighted a 2024 study of solid organ transplant recipients that found the risk for a second SCC after a first SCC was 74%, the risk for a third SCC after a second SCC was 83%, and the risk for another SCC after five SCCs was 92%.

Dr. Christensen disclosed relationships with Canfield Scientific Inc. (consulting), Inhibitor Therapeutics (advisory board), and Sol-Gel Technologies Ltd. (grants/research funding).

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

SAN DIEGO — The number of solid organ transplant survivors is on the rise, a dermatologist told colleagues, and they face unique challenges from higher risks for skin cancer and skin infections because of their suppressed immune systems.

“There are over 450,000 people with a solid organ transplant living in the United States. If you do the math, that works out to about 40 organ transplant recipients for every dermatologist, so there’s a lot of them out there for us to take care of,” Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD). “If we expand that umbrella to include all types of immunosuppression, that’s over 4 million adults in the US.”

Dr. Christensen encouraged dermatologists to be aware of the varying risks for immunosuppressive drugs and best screening practices for these patients, and to take advantage of a validated skin cancer risk assessment tool for transplant patients.

During his presentation, he highlighted five classes of immunosuppressive drugs and their associated skin cancer risks:

• Calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus or cyclosporine), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk. They may also cause gingival hyperplasia and sebaceous hyperplasia.
• Antimetabolites (mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine), which cause moderate to severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk.
• Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus or everolimus), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a moderate skin cancer risk. They also impair wound healing.
• Corticosteroids (prednisone), which cause mild to severe immune suppression and pose a minimal skin cancer risk.
• A decoy receptor protein (belatacept), which causes severe immune suppression and poses a mild skin cancer risk.

“Most of our solid-organ transplant recipients will be on both a calcineurin inhibitor and an antimetabolite,” Dr. Christensen said. “In addition to the skin cancer risk associated with immunosuppression, there is an additive risk” that is a direct effect of these medications on the skin. “That means our transplant recipients have a severely and disproportionate increase in skin cancer,” he noted.

Up to half of solid-organ transplant recipients will develop skin cancer, Dr. Christensen said. These patients have a sixfold to 10-fold increased risk for basal cell carcinoma (BCC), a 35- to 65-fold increased risk for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), a twofold to sevenfold increased risk for melanoma, and a 16- to 100-fold increased risk for Merkel cell carcinoma.

Transplant recipients with SCC, he said, have a twofold to threefold higher risk for metastasis (4%-8% nodal metastasis) and twofold to fivefold higher risk for death (2%-7% mortality) from SCC.

As for other kinds of immunosuppression, HIV positivity, treatment with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine (for inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis), and antitumor necrosis factor agents (for psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, and rheumatoid arthritis) have been linked in studies to a higher risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer.

Dr. Christensen also highlighted graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). “It does look like there is a disproportionate and increased risk of SCC of the oropharynx and of the skin in patients who have chronic GVHD. This is probably due to a combination of both the immunosuppressive medications that are required but also from chronic and ongoing inflammation in the skin.”

[embed:render:related:node:263749]

Chronic GVHD has been linked to a 5.3-fold increase in the risk for SCC and a twofold increase in the risk for BCC, he added.

Moreover, new medications for treating GVHD have been linked to an increased risk for SCC, including a 3.2-fold increased risk for SCC associated with ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2 inhibitor, in a study of patients with polycythemia vera and myelofibrosis; and a case report of SCC in a patient treated with belumosudil, a rho-associated coiled-coil-containing protein kinase-2 kinase inhibitor, for chronic GVHD. Risk for SCC appears to increase based on duration of use with voriconazole, an antifungal, which, he said, is a potent photosynthesizer.

Dr. Christensen also noted the higher risk for infections in immunocompromised patients and added that these patients can develop inflammatory disease despite immunosuppression:

Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Dermatophytes are the most common skin pathogens in these patients. There’s a significantly increased risk for reactivation of herpes simplex, varicella-zoster viruses, and cytomegalovirus. Opportunistic and disseminated fungal infections, such as mycobacteria, Candida, histoplasma, cryptococcus, aspergillus, and mucormycosis, can also appear.

More than 80% of transplant recipients develop molluscum and verruca vulgaris/human papillomavirus infection. They may also develop noninfectious inflammatory dermatoses.

Risk Calculator

What can dermatologists do to help transplant patients? Dr. Christensen highlighted the Skin and UV Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator, which predicts skin cancer risk based on points given for race, gender, skin cancer history, age at transplant, and site of transplant.

The tool, validated in a 2023 study of transplant recipients in Europe, is available online and as an app. It makes recommendations to users about when patients should have initial skin screening exams. Those with the most risk — 45% at 5 years — should be screened within 6 months. “We can use [the tool] to triage these cases when we first meet them and get them plugged into the appropriate care,” Dr. Christensen said.

He recommended seeing high-risk patients at least annually. Patients with a prior SCC and a heavy burden of actinic keratosis should be followed more frequently, he said.

In regard to SCC, he highlighted a 2024 study of solid organ transplant recipients that found the risk for a second SCC after a first SCC was 74%, the risk for a third SCC after a second SCC was 83%, and the risk for another SCC after five SCCs was 92%.

Dr. Christensen disclosed relationships with Canfield Scientific Inc. (consulting), Inhibitor Therapeutics (advisory board), and Sol-Gel Technologies Ltd. (grants/research funding).

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

SAN DIEGO — The number of solid organ transplant survivors is on the rise, a dermatologist told colleagues, and they face unique challenges from higher risks for skin cancer and skin infections because of their suppressed immune systems.

“There are over 450,000 people with a solid organ transplant living in the United States. If you do the math, that works out to about 40 organ transplant recipients for every dermatologist, so there’s a lot of them out there for us to take care of,” Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD). “If we expand that umbrella to include all types of immunosuppression, that’s over 4 million adults in the US.”

Dr. Christensen encouraged dermatologists to be aware of the varying risks for immunosuppressive drugs and best screening practices for these patients, and to take advantage of a validated skin cancer risk assessment tool for transplant patients.

During his presentation, he highlighted five classes of immunosuppressive drugs and their associated skin cancer risks:

• Calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus or cyclosporine), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk. They may also cause gingival hyperplasia and sebaceous hyperplasia.
• Antimetabolites (mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine), which cause moderate to severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk.
• Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus or everolimus), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a moderate skin cancer risk. They also impair wound healing.
• Corticosteroids (prednisone), which cause mild to severe immune suppression and pose a minimal skin cancer risk.
• A decoy receptor protein (belatacept), which causes severe immune suppression and poses a mild skin cancer risk.

“Most of our solid-organ transplant recipients will be on both a calcineurin inhibitor and an antimetabolite,” Dr. Christensen said. “In addition to the skin cancer risk associated with immunosuppression, there is an additive risk” that is a direct effect of these medications on the skin. “That means our transplant recipients have a severely and disproportionate increase in skin cancer,” he noted.

Up to half of solid-organ transplant recipients will develop skin cancer, Dr. Christensen said. These patients have a sixfold to 10-fold increased risk for basal cell carcinoma (BCC), a 35- to 65-fold increased risk for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), a twofold to sevenfold increased risk for melanoma, and a 16- to 100-fold increased risk for Merkel cell carcinoma.

Transplant recipients with SCC, he said, have a twofold to threefold higher risk for metastasis (4%-8% nodal metastasis) and twofold to fivefold higher risk for death (2%-7% mortality) from SCC.

As for other kinds of immunosuppression, HIV positivity, treatment with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine (for inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis), and antitumor necrosis factor agents (for psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, and rheumatoid arthritis) have been linked in studies to a higher risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer.

Dr. Christensen also highlighted graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). “It does look like there is a disproportionate and increased risk of SCC of the oropharynx and of the skin in patients who have chronic GVHD. This is probably due to a combination of both the immunosuppressive medications that are required but also from chronic and ongoing inflammation in the skin.”

[embed:render:related:node:263749]

Chronic GVHD has been linked to a 5.3-fold increase in the risk for SCC and a twofold increase in the risk for BCC, he added.

Moreover, new medications for treating GVHD have been linked to an increased risk for SCC, including a 3.2-fold increased risk for SCC associated with ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2 inhibitor, in a study of patients with polycythemia vera and myelofibrosis; and a case report of SCC in a patient treated with belumosudil, a rho-associated coiled-coil-containing protein kinase-2 kinase inhibitor, for chronic GVHD. Risk for SCC appears to increase based on duration of use with voriconazole, an antifungal, which, he said, is a potent photosynthesizer.

Dr. Christensen also noted the higher risk for infections in immunocompromised patients and added that these patients can develop inflammatory disease despite immunosuppression:

Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Dermatophytes are the most common skin pathogens in these patients. There’s a significantly increased risk for reactivation of herpes simplex, varicella-zoster viruses, and cytomegalovirus. Opportunistic and disseminated fungal infections, such as mycobacteria, Candida, histoplasma, cryptococcus, aspergillus, and mucormycosis, can also appear.

More than 80% of transplant recipients develop molluscum and verruca vulgaris/human papillomavirus infection. They may also develop noninfectious inflammatory dermatoses.

Risk Calculator

What can dermatologists do to help transplant patients? Dr. Christensen highlighted the Skin and UV Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator, which predicts skin cancer risk based on points given for race, gender, skin cancer history, age at transplant, and site of transplant.

The tool, validated in a 2023 study of transplant recipients in Europe, is available online and as an app. It makes recommendations to users about when patients should have initial skin screening exams. Those with the most risk — 45% at 5 years — should be screened within 6 months. “We can use [the tool] to triage these cases when we first meet them and get them plugged into the appropriate care,” Dr. Christensen said.

He recommended seeing high-risk patients at least annually. Patients with a prior SCC and a heavy burden of actinic keratosis should be followed more frequently, he said.

In regard to SCC, he highlighted a 2024 study of solid organ transplant recipients that found the risk for a second SCC after a first SCC was 74%, the risk for a third SCC after a second SCC was 83%, and the risk for another SCC after five SCCs was 92%.

Dr. Christensen disclosed relationships with Canfield Scientific Inc. (consulting), Inhibitor Therapeutics (advisory board), and Sol-Gel Technologies Ltd. (grants/research funding).

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

SAN DIEGO — In patients with alopecia areata (AA), the decision of when to give up on JAK inhibitors because of an inadequate response is being complicated by long-term follow-up showing that some patients accrue hair very slowly, according to late breaker data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Although the majority respond within months, response curves have so far climbed for as long as patients are followed, allowing many with disappointing early results to catch up, according to Rodney D. Sinclair, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Melbourne, Australia.

His remarks were derived specifically from new long-term follow-up with baricitinib, the first JAK inhibitor approved for AA, but the pattern appears to be similar with ritlecitinib, the only other JAK inhibitor approved for AA, and for several if not all JAK inhibitors in phase 3 AA trials.

“We have had patients on baricitinib where not much was happening at 18 months, but now, at 4 years, they have a SALT score of zero,” Dr. Sinclair reported

A Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of 0 signifies complete hair regrowth. On a scale with a maximum score of 100 (complete hair loss), a SALT score of 20 or less, signaling clinical success, has been a primary endpoint in many JAK inhibitor trials, including those conducted with baricitinib.

Providing the most recent analysis in patients with severe AA participating in the phase 3 BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials of baricitinib, which were published together in 2022, Dr. Sinclair broke the data down into responders, mixed responders, and nonresponders at 52 weeks. The proportion of patients who responded with even longer follow-up were then tallied.

In the as-observed responses over time, the trajectory of response continued to climb through 76 weeks of follow-up in all three groups.

Relative to the 44.5% rate of overall response (SALT ≤ 20 ) at 52 weeks, there was some further growth in every group maintained on JAK inhibitor therapy over longer follow-up. In Dr. Sinclair’s late breaking analysis, this did not include nonresponders, who stopped therapy by week 52, but 78.4% of the combined responders and mixed responders who remained on treatment had reached treatment success at 76 weeks.
 

Response Curves Climb More Slowly With Severe Alopecia

While improvement in SALT scores was even seen in nonresponders over time as long as they remained on therapy, Dr. Sinclair reported that response curves tended to climb more slowly in those with more severe alopecia at baseline. Yet, they still climbed. For example, 28.1% of those with a baseline SALT score of 95 to 100 had reached treatment success at week 52, but the proportion had climbed to 35.4% by week 76.

The response curves climbed more quickly among those with a SALT score between 50 and 95 at baseline than among those with more severe alopecia, but the differences in SALT scores at 52 weeks and 76 weeks among patients in this range of baseline SALT scores were small.

Basically, “those with a SALT score of 94 did just as well as those with a SALT score of 51 when followed long-term,” he said, noting that this was among several findings that confounded expectations.

Duration of AA was found to be an important prognostic factor, with 4 years emerging as a general threshold separating those with a diminished likelihood of benefit relative to those with a shorter AA duration.

“When the duration of AA is more than 4 years, the response to any JAK inhibitor seems to fall off a cliff,” Dr. Sinclair said.

To clarify this observation, Dr. Sinclair made an analogy between acute and chronic urticaria. Chronicity appears to change the pathophysiology of both urticaria and AA, making durable remissions more difficult to achieve if the inflammatory response was persistently upregulated, he said.

The delayed responses in some patients “suggests that it is not enough to control inflammation for the hair to regrow. You actually have to activate the hair to grow as well as treat the inflammation,” Dr. Sinclair said.

This heterogeneity that has been observed in the speed of AA response to JAK inhibitors might be explained at least in part by the individual differences in hair growth activation. For ritlecitinib, the only other JAK inhibitor approved for AA to date, 62% were categorized as responders in the registration ALLEGRO trials, but only 44% were early responders, meaning SALT scores of ≤ 20 by week 24, according to a summary published last year. Of the remaining 16%, 11% were middle responders, meaning a SALT score of ≤ 20 reached at week 48, and 6% were late responders, meaning a SALT score of ≤ 20 reached at week 96.

In the context of late breaking 68-week data with deuruxolitinib, an oral JAK inhibitor currently under FDA review for treating moderate to severe AA, presented in the same AAD session as Dr. Sinclair’s baricitinib data, Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, described similar long-term response curves. At 24 weeks, the SALT ≤ 20 response was achieved in 34.9% of patients, but climbed to 62.8% with continuous therapy over 68 weeks.

King_Brett_CONN_web.jpg

Time Factor Is Important for Response

“What we are learning is that patients keep getting better over time,” Dr. Sinclair said. Asked specifically how long he would treat a patient before giving up, he acknowledged that he used to consider 6 months adequate, but that he has now changed his mind.

“It might be that even 2 years is too short,” he said, although he conceded that a trial of therapy for this long “might be an issue for third-part payers.”

Asked to comment, Melissa Piliang, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic, agreed with the principle that early responses are not necessarily predictive of complete response.

Piliang_Melissa_OHIO_web.jpg

SAN DIEGO — In patients with alopecia areata (AA), the decision of when to give up on JAK inhibitors because of an inadequate response is being complicated by long-term follow-up showing that some patients accrue hair very slowly, according to late breaker data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Although the majority respond within months, response curves have so far climbed for as long as patients are followed, allowing many with disappointing early results to catch up, according to Rodney D. Sinclair, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Melbourne, Australia.

His remarks were derived specifically from new long-term follow-up with baricitinib, the first JAK inhibitor approved for AA, but the pattern appears to be similar with ritlecitinib, the only other JAK inhibitor approved for AA, and for several if not all JAK inhibitors in phase 3 AA trials.

“We have had patients on baricitinib where not much was happening at 18 months, but now, at 4 years, they have a SALT score of zero,” Dr. Sinclair reported

A Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of 0 signifies complete hair regrowth. On a scale with a maximum score of 100 (complete hair loss), a SALT score of 20 or less, signaling clinical success, has been a primary endpoint in many JAK inhibitor trials, including those conducted with baricitinib.

Providing the most recent analysis in patients with severe AA participating in the phase 3 BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials of baricitinib, which were published together in 2022, Dr. Sinclair broke the data down into responders, mixed responders, and nonresponders at 52 weeks. The proportion of patients who responded with even longer follow-up were then tallied.

In the as-observed responses over time, the trajectory of response continued to climb through 76 weeks of follow-up in all three groups.

Relative to the 44.5% rate of overall response (SALT ≤ 20 ) at 52 weeks, there was some further growth in every group maintained on JAK inhibitor therapy over longer follow-up. In Dr. Sinclair’s late breaking analysis, this did not include nonresponders, who stopped therapy by week 52, but 78.4% of the combined responders and mixed responders who remained on treatment had reached treatment success at 76 weeks.
 

Response Curves Climb More Slowly With Severe Alopecia

While improvement in SALT scores was even seen in nonresponders over time as long as they remained on therapy, Dr. Sinclair reported that response curves tended to climb more slowly in those with more severe alopecia at baseline. Yet, they still climbed. For example, 28.1% of those with a baseline SALT score of 95 to 100 had reached treatment success at week 52, but the proportion had climbed to 35.4% by week 76.

The response curves climbed more quickly among those with a SALT score between 50 and 95 at baseline than among those with more severe alopecia, but the differences in SALT scores at 52 weeks and 76 weeks among patients in this range of baseline SALT scores were small.

Basically, “those with a SALT score of 94 did just as well as those with a SALT score of 51 when followed long-term,” he said, noting that this was among several findings that confounded expectations.

Duration of AA was found to be an important prognostic factor, with 4 years emerging as a general threshold separating those with a diminished likelihood of benefit relative to those with a shorter AA duration.

“When the duration of AA is more than 4 years, the response to any JAK inhibitor seems to fall off a cliff,” Dr. Sinclair said.

To clarify this observation, Dr. Sinclair made an analogy between acute and chronic urticaria. Chronicity appears to change the pathophysiology of both urticaria and AA, making durable remissions more difficult to achieve if the inflammatory response was persistently upregulated, he said.

The delayed responses in some patients “suggests that it is not enough to control inflammation for the hair to regrow. You actually have to activate the hair to grow as well as treat the inflammation,” Dr. Sinclair said.

This heterogeneity that has been observed in the speed of AA response to JAK inhibitors might be explained at least in part by the individual differences in hair growth activation. For ritlecitinib, the only other JAK inhibitor approved for AA to date, 62% were categorized as responders in the registration ALLEGRO trials, but only 44% were early responders, meaning SALT scores of ≤ 20 by week 24, according to a summary published last year. Of the remaining 16%, 11% were middle responders, meaning a SALT score of ≤ 20 reached at week 48, and 6% were late responders, meaning a SALT score of ≤ 20 reached at week 96.

In the context of late breaking 68-week data with deuruxolitinib, an oral JAK inhibitor currently under FDA review for treating moderate to severe AA, presented in the same AAD session as Dr. Sinclair’s baricitinib data, Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, described similar long-term response curves. At 24 weeks, the SALT ≤ 20 response was achieved in 34.9% of patients, but climbed to 62.8% with continuous therapy over 68 weeks.

King_Brett_CONN_web.jpg

Time Factor Is Important for Response

“What we are learning is that patients keep getting better over time,” Dr. Sinclair said. Asked specifically how long he would treat a patient before giving up, he acknowledged that he used to consider 6 months adequate, but that he has now changed his mind.

“It might be that even 2 years is too short,” he said, although he conceded that a trial of therapy for this long “might be an issue for third-part payers.”

Asked to comment, Melissa Piliang, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic, agreed with the principle that early responses are not necessarily predictive of complete response.

Piliang_Melissa_OHIO_web.jpg

SAN DIEGO — In patients with alopecia areata (AA), the decision of when to give up on JAK inhibitors because of an inadequate response is being complicated by long-term follow-up showing that some patients accrue hair very slowly, according to late breaker data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Although the majority respond within months, response curves have so far climbed for as long as patients are followed, allowing many with disappointing early results to catch up, according to Rodney D. Sinclair, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Melbourne, Australia.

His remarks were derived specifically from new long-term follow-up with baricitinib, the first JAK inhibitor approved for AA, but the pattern appears to be similar with ritlecitinib, the only other JAK inhibitor approved for AA, and for several if not all JAK inhibitors in phase 3 AA trials.

“We have had patients on baricitinib where not much was happening at 18 months, but now, at 4 years, they have a SALT score of zero,” Dr. Sinclair reported

A Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of 0 signifies complete hair regrowth. On a scale with a maximum score of 100 (complete hair loss), a SALT score of 20 or less, signaling clinical success, has been a primary endpoint in many JAK inhibitor trials, including those conducted with baricitinib.

Providing the most recent analysis in patients with severe AA participating in the phase 3 BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials of baricitinib, which were published together in 2022, Dr. Sinclair broke the data down into responders, mixed responders, and nonresponders at 52 weeks. The proportion of patients who responded with even longer follow-up were then tallied.

In the as-observed responses over time, the trajectory of response continued to climb through 76 weeks of follow-up in all three groups.

Relative to the 44.5% rate of overall response (SALT ≤ 20 ) at 52 weeks, there was some further growth in every group maintained on JAK inhibitor therapy over longer follow-up. In Dr. Sinclair’s late breaking analysis, this did not include nonresponders, who stopped therapy by week 52, but 78.4% of the combined responders and mixed responders who remained on treatment had reached treatment success at 76 weeks.
 

Response Curves Climb More Slowly With Severe Alopecia

While improvement in SALT scores was even seen in nonresponders over time as long as they remained on therapy, Dr. Sinclair reported that response curves tended to climb more slowly in those with more severe alopecia at baseline. Yet, they still climbed. For example, 28.1% of those with a baseline SALT score of 95 to 100 had reached treatment success at week 52, but the proportion had climbed to 35.4% by week 76.

The response curves climbed more quickly among those with a SALT score between 50 and 95 at baseline than among those with more severe alopecia, but the differences in SALT scores at 52 weeks and 76 weeks among patients in this range of baseline SALT scores were small.

Basically, “those with a SALT score of 94 did just as well as those with a SALT score of 51 when followed long-term,” he said, noting that this was among several findings that confounded expectations.

Duration of AA was found to be an important prognostic factor, with 4 years emerging as a general threshold separating those with a diminished likelihood of benefit relative to those with a shorter AA duration.

“When the duration of AA is more than 4 years, the response to any JAK inhibitor seems to fall off a cliff,” Dr. Sinclair said.

To clarify this observation, Dr. Sinclair made an analogy between acute and chronic urticaria. Chronicity appears to change the pathophysiology of both urticaria and AA, making durable remissions more difficult to achieve if the inflammatory response was persistently upregulated, he said.

The delayed responses in some patients “suggests that it is not enough to control inflammation for the hair to regrow. You actually have to activate the hair to grow as well as treat the inflammation,” Dr. Sinclair said.

This heterogeneity that has been observed in the speed of AA response to JAK inhibitors might be explained at least in part by the individual differences in hair growth activation. For ritlecitinib, the only other JAK inhibitor approved for AA to date, 62% were categorized as responders in the registration ALLEGRO trials, but only 44% were early responders, meaning SALT scores of ≤ 20 by week 24, according to a summary published last year. Of the remaining 16%, 11% were middle responders, meaning a SALT score of ≤ 20 reached at week 48, and 6% were late responders, meaning a SALT score of ≤ 20 reached at week 96.

In the context of late breaking 68-week data with deuruxolitinib, an oral JAK inhibitor currently under FDA review for treating moderate to severe AA, presented in the same AAD session as Dr. Sinclair’s baricitinib data, Brett King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, described similar long-term response curves. At 24 weeks, the SALT ≤ 20 response was achieved in 34.9% of patients, but climbed to 62.8% with continuous therapy over 68 weeks.

King_Brett_CONN_web.jpg

Time Factor Is Important for Response

“What we are learning is that patients keep getting better over time,” Dr. Sinclair said. Asked specifically how long he would treat a patient before giving up, he acknowledged that he used to consider 6 months adequate, but that he has now changed his mind.

“It might be that even 2 years is too short,” he said, although he conceded that a trial of therapy for this long “might be an issue for third-part payers.”

Asked to comment, Melissa Piliang, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic, agreed with the principle that early responses are not necessarily predictive of complete response.

Piliang_Melissa_OHIO_web.jpg