User login
Dupilumab outcomes stable at end of open label atopic dermatitis study
WASHINGTON – The and no new emergent side effects, Lisa Beck, MD, reported during a late-breaking session at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.
Other recent research on the biologic has shown that it improves lesional skin barrier function and rapidly reduces the abundance of Staphylococcus aureus on lesional skin, Dr. Beck, professor of dermatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), said during another session at the meeting on long-term control of AD. Dr. Beck directs a laboratory at the University of Rochester Medical Center that focuses on understanding AD and is involved in the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)-funded Atopic Dermatitis Research Network (ADRN).
The LIBERTY AD open-label extension (OLE) study was a phase 3 trial of 2,677 adults with moderate to severe AD who had participated in previous dupilumab clinical trials and were treated with 300 mg dupilumab weekly or every other week. Concomitant treatments were permitted, including topical corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors. (The proportion of patients dosed on an every-other-week or weekly dosing schedule was not available.)
Of 334 patients (12.5%) who remained in the trial at week 260, or 5 years, 88.9% achieved at least a 75% improvement in lesion extent and severity (Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI]-75), and 76.2% achieved an EASI-90. The proportion achieving at least a 4-point reduction in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) or a score of 0 was 66.5%. At 5 years, improvements “seem very stable,” with “no loss in efficacy,” Dr. Beck said.
The majority of patients who withdrew from the open-label extension trial did so because the study was terminated at their site or because of the drug’s approval and commercialization – not for a medical reason, Dr. Beck said. Over the course of the extension trial, 4% of those enrolled withdrew because of adverse events and about 2% withdrew because of lack of efficacy.
Safety of dupilumab
The extension trial lacked a control arm, so Dr. Beck and her colleagues compared safety results to those in the final data set for patients in the LIBERTY AD CHRONOS study who received dupilumab 300 mg weekly with concomitant corticosteroids. The CHRONOS study was a 1-year randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.
The exposure-adjusted incidence rate of severe treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) was lower at the close of the extension trial (5 patients/100 patient years [PY]) than at the end of the CHRONOS study (5.9 patients/100 PY). The incidence of serious adverse events related to treatment was 0.6 patients/100 PY in the final open label extension study data set, compared with 0.7 patients/100 PY in the CHRONOS final data set.
Adverse event rates “are really, if anything, slightly less in the OLE study versus the CHRONOS study, which was 1 year of treatment,” Dr. Beck said. And “no new adverse events have emerged.”
During a question and answer period, Dr. Beck pointed out that existing and future “real world” registries of patients on dupilumab and other new therapies will better inform dermatologists of adverse events than clinical trials have done.
Ocular surface disease
In a separate presentation on the safety of biologics, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said that in routine care, ocular surface disease is the most predominant side effect associated with dupilumab. “We don’t know the mechanism of action. But it’s not infectious, it’s not pink eye, and importantly, it’s not allergic conjunctivitis,” he said, noting that the spectrum of disease ranges from dry eye and eye itching to “frank conjunctivitis” and keratitis.
Most cases are mild to moderate and can often be managed with lubricating eye drops and periodic use of corticosteroid eye drops. Co-management with an ophthalmologist is often advisable, he said.
Dupilumab-associated erythema/eczema of the face was “not seen much” in clinical trials but is also being reported in the literature, largely by European researchers, Dr. Blauvelt said. “We hear a lot about red face, but I don’t think it’s much of an issue,” he said. “Most of the time, in my experience, it will [reflect] breakthrough residual AD, and I like to treat it with non-steroidal topicals.”
Occasionally, the withdrawal of steroids or allergic contact dermatitis are at play, Dr. Blauvelt said. “If you see red face in a person on dupilumab, use your clinical prowess, do a differential diagnosis, and treat accordingly.”
Effect on S. aureus
The vast majority of adults with moderate to severe AD have skin colonization with S. aureus, Dr. Beck said during the session on long-term control of AD. The presence of S. aureus in skin cultures correlates strongly with AD severity, type 2 immunity polarization, skin barrier disruption, and allergen sensitization, she said.
“So if we could do something to get rid of the staph and keep it away, one might imagine that would help” control the AD disease process, she said.
An ADRN study evaluated S. aureus in the skin of 71 patients who were randomized to receive dupilumab or placebo and found a “profound” effect of the biologic. “We were truly shocked by how quickly we saw a reduction in Staph aureus ... in lesional skin as early as 3 days” into treatment with dupilumab, she said of the unpublished findings. “And there is a pretty nice association with improvement in disease severity.”
Dr. Beck reported consultancy/advisory board work with Regeneron, Sanofi/Genzyme, among other disclosures. Dr. Blauvelt reported consultancy/advisory board work for Regeneron and Sanofi Genzyme and has received speakers bureau/honoraria for non-CME work for Regeneron and Sanofi, among other disclosures.
WASHINGTON – The and no new emergent side effects, Lisa Beck, MD, reported during a late-breaking session at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.
Other recent research on the biologic has shown that it improves lesional skin barrier function and rapidly reduces the abundance of Staphylococcus aureus on lesional skin, Dr. Beck, professor of dermatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), said during another session at the meeting on long-term control of AD. Dr. Beck directs a laboratory at the University of Rochester Medical Center that focuses on understanding AD and is involved in the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)-funded Atopic Dermatitis Research Network (ADRN).
The LIBERTY AD open-label extension (OLE) study was a phase 3 trial of 2,677 adults with moderate to severe AD who had participated in previous dupilumab clinical trials and were treated with 300 mg dupilumab weekly or every other week. Concomitant treatments were permitted, including topical corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors. (The proportion of patients dosed on an every-other-week or weekly dosing schedule was not available.)
Of 334 patients (12.5%) who remained in the trial at week 260, or 5 years, 88.9% achieved at least a 75% improvement in lesion extent and severity (Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI]-75), and 76.2% achieved an EASI-90. The proportion achieving at least a 4-point reduction in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) or a score of 0 was 66.5%. At 5 years, improvements “seem very stable,” with “no loss in efficacy,” Dr. Beck said.
The majority of patients who withdrew from the open-label extension trial did so because the study was terminated at their site or because of the drug’s approval and commercialization – not for a medical reason, Dr. Beck said. Over the course of the extension trial, 4% of those enrolled withdrew because of adverse events and about 2% withdrew because of lack of efficacy.
Safety of dupilumab
The extension trial lacked a control arm, so Dr. Beck and her colleagues compared safety results to those in the final data set for patients in the LIBERTY AD CHRONOS study who received dupilumab 300 mg weekly with concomitant corticosteroids. The CHRONOS study was a 1-year randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.
The exposure-adjusted incidence rate of severe treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) was lower at the close of the extension trial (5 patients/100 patient years [PY]) than at the end of the CHRONOS study (5.9 patients/100 PY). The incidence of serious adverse events related to treatment was 0.6 patients/100 PY in the final open label extension study data set, compared with 0.7 patients/100 PY in the CHRONOS final data set.
Adverse event rates “are really, if anything, slightly less in the OLE study versus the CHRONOS study, which was 1 year of treatment,” Dr. Beck said. And “no new adverse events have emerged.”
During a question and answer period, Dr. Beck pointed out that existing and future “real world” registries of patients on dupilumab and other new therapies will better inform dermatologists of adverse events than clinical trials have done.
Ocular surface disease
In a separate presentation on the safety of biologics, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said that in routine care, ocular surface disease is the most predominant side effect associated with dupilumab. “We don’t know the mechanism of action. But it’s not infectious, it’s not pink eye, and importantly, it’s not allergic conjunctivitis,” he said, noting that the spectrum of disease ranges from dry eye and eye itching to “frank conjunctivitis” and keratitis.
Most cases are mild to moderate and can often be managed with lubricating eye drops and periodic use of corticosteroid eye drops. Co-management with an ophthalmologist is often advisable, he said.
Dupilumab-associated erythema/eczema of the face was “not seen much” in clinical trials but is also being reported in the literature, largely by European researchers, Dr. Blauvelt said. “We hear a lot about red face, but I don’t think it’s much of an issue,” he said. “Most of the time, in my experience, it will [reflect] breakthrough residual AD, and I like to treat it with non-steroidal topicals.”
Occasionally, the withdrawal of steroids or allergic contact dermatitis are at play, Dr. Blauvelt said. “If you see red face in a person on dupilumab, use your clinical prowess, do a differential diagnosis, and treat accordingly.”
Effect on S. aureus
The vast majority of adults with moderate to severe AD have skin colonization with S. aureus, Dr. Beck said during the session on long-term control of AD. The presence of S. aureus in skin cultures correlates strongly with AD severity, type 2 immunity polarization, skin barrier disruption, and allergen sensitization, she said.
“So if we could do something to get rid of the staph and keep it away, one might imagine that would help” control the AD disease process, she said.
An ADRN study evaluated S. aureus in the skin of 71 patients who were randomized to receive dupilumab or placebo and found a “profound” effect of the biologic. “We were truly shocked by how quickly we saw a reduction in Staph aureus ... in lesional skin as early as 3 days” into treatment with dupilumab, she said of the unpublished findings. “And there is a pretty nice association with improvement in disease severity.”
Dr. Beck reported consultancy/advisory board work with Regeneron, Sanofi/Genzyme, among other disclosures. Dr. Blauvelt reported consultancy/advisory board work for Regeneron and Sanofi Genzyme and has received speakers bureau/honoraria for non-CME work for Regeneron and Sanofi, among other disclosures.
WASHINGTON – The and no new emergent side effects, Lisa Beck, MD, reported during a late-breaking session at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.
Other recent research on the biologic has shown that it improves lesional skin barrier function and rapidly reduces the abundance of Staphylococcus aureus on lesional skin, Dr. Beck, professor of dermatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), said during another session at the meeting on long-term control of AD. Dr. Beck directs a laboratory at the University of Rochester Medical Center that focuses on understanding AD and is involved in the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)-funded Atopic Dermatitis Research Network (ADRN).
The LIBERTY AD open-label extension (OLE) study was a phase 3 trial of 2,677 adults with moderate to severe AD who had participated in previous dupilumab clinical trials and were treated with 300 mg dupilumab weekly or every other week. Concomitant treatments were permitted, including topical corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors. (The proportion of patients dosed on an every-other-week or weekly dosing schedule was not available.)
Of 334 patients (12.5%) who remained in the trial at week 260, or 5 years, 88.9% achieved at least a 75% improvement in lesion extent and severity (Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI]-75), and 76.2% achieved an EASI-90. The proportion achieving at least a 4-point reduction in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) or a score of 0 was 66.5%. At 5 years, improvements “seem very stable,” with “no loss in efficacy,” Dr. Beck said.
The majority of patients who withdrew from the open-label extension trial did so because the study was terminated at their site or because of the drug’s approval and commercialization – not for a medical reason, Dr. Beck said. Over the course of the extension trial, 4% of those enrolled withdrew because of adverse events and about 2% withdrew because of lack of efficacy.
Safety of dupilumab
The extension trial lacked a control arm, so Dr. Beck and her colleagues compared safety results to those in the final data set for patients in the LIBERTY AD CHRONOS study who received dupilumab 300 mg weekly with concomitant corticosteroids. The CHRONOS study was a 1-year randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.
The exposure-adjusted incidence rate of severe treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) was lower at the close of the extension trial (5 patients/100 patient years [PY]) than at the end of the CHRONOS study (5.9 patients/100 PY). The incidence of serious adverse events related to treatment was 0.6 patients/100 PY in the final open label extension study data set, compared with 0.7 patients/100 PY in the CHRONOS final data set.
Adverse event rates “are really, if anything, slightly less in the OLE study versus the CHRONOS study, which was 1 year of treatment,” Dr. Beck said. And “no new adverse events have emerged.”
During a question and answer period, Dr. Beck pointed out that existing and future “real world” registries of patients on dupilumab and other new therapies will better inform dermatologists of adverse events than clinical trials have done.
Ocular surface disease
In a separate presentation on the safety of biologics, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said that in routine care, ocular surface disease is the most predominant side effect associated with dupilumab. “We don’t know the mechanism of action. But it’s not infectious, it’s not pink eye, and importantly, it’s not allergic conjunctivitis,” he said, noting that the spectrum of disease ranges from dry eye and eye itching to “frank conjunctivitis” and keratitis.
Most cases are mild to moderate and can often be managed with lubricating eye drops and periodic use of corticosteroid eye drops. Co-management with an ophthalmologist is often advisable, he said.
Dupilumab-associated erythema/eczema of the face was “not seen much” in clinical trials but is also being reported in the literature, largely by European researchers, Dr. Blauvelt said. “We hear a lot about red face, but I don’t think it’s much of an issue,” he said. “Most of the time, in my experience, it will [reflect] breakthrough residual AD, and I like to treat it with non-steroidal topicals.”
Occasionally, the withdrawal of steroids or allergic contact dermatitis are at play, Dr. Blauvelt said. “If you see red face in a person on dupilumab, use your clinical prowess, do a differential diagnosis, and treat accordingly.”
Effect on S. aureus
The vast majority of adults with moderate to severe AD have skin colonization with S. aureus, Dr. Beck said during the session on long-term control of AD. The presence of S. aureus in skin cultures correlates strongly with AD severity, type 2 immunity polarization, skin barrier disruption, and allergen sensitization, she said.
“So if we could do something to get rid of the staph and keep it away, one might imagine that would help” control the AD disease process, she said.
An ADRN study evaluated S. aureus in the skin of 71 patients who were randomized to receive dupilumab or placebo and found a “profound” effect of the biologic. “We were truly shocked by how quickly we saw a reduction in Staph aureus ... in lesional skin as early as 3 days” into treatment with dupilumab, she said of the unpublished findings. “And there is a pretty nice association with improvement in disease severity.”
Dr. Beck reported consultancy/advisory board work with Regeneron, Sanofi/Genzyme, among other disclosures. Dr. Blauvelt reported consultancy/advisory board work for Regeneron and Sanofi Genzyme and has received speakers bureau/honoraria for non-CME work for Regeneron and Sanofi, among other disclosures.
AT RAD 2023
JAK-inhibitor safety in adolescents with AD: Long-term analyses reported
WASHINGTON – and over 1,000 patient-years of exposure, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, reported at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.
In March 2023, the oral Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adolescents aged 12-17 with refractory moderate to severe AD – an expanded indication from the approval in adults in 2022.
The new analysis evaluated data from patients who participated in the phase 3 JADE clinical trials – MONO-1, MONO-2, TEEN, and REGIMEN – and were subsequently enrolled in the ongoing phase 3 extension trial JADE EXTEND. Compared with a previous post hoc analysis in which adolescent patients had approximately 1 year of exposure, this updated analysis includes a sizable portion of patients with more than 96 weeks of exposure.
“We’re starting to get good numbers of [adolescents] who’ve had about 2 years of exposure,” said Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, during a late-breaking research session.
With a data cut for this analysis of September 2021, “we haven’t seen additive long-term [adverse] effects” with longer exposures, he said. In addition, “there were no unique safety concerns related to adolescents compared to the findings observed [in an] integrated safety analysis using the same data cut in which most patients were adults.”
(The analysis in adults covered 3,802 patients with over 5,000 patient-years of exposure, and was presented at the annual American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March 2023.)
Also presented in the late-breaking abstract session at RAD 2023 was a long-term safety study of upadacitinib (Rinvoq), the other JAK1 inhibitor approved for adolescents with AD – approved by the FDA for both adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD in 2022. The new analysis captures exposure of up to 4 years and shows no “worsening or accumulation of events,” compared with 1-year data, reported Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and the program in translational biomedicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Abrocitinib in adolescents
For the safety analysis of abrocitinib (Cibinqo), data were pooled into two cohorts: A consistent-dose cohort of 490 adolescents who received the same dose (200 mg or 100 mg) during the entire duration of the qualifying JADE trials, and a variable-dose cohort of 145 adolescents who received different doses (200 mg or 100 mg) during the JADE REGIMEN qualifying trial.
Duration of exposure was 96 weeks or more in 37%-38% of the consistent-dose cohort and 68% of the variable-dose cohort.
In the consistent-dose cohort, adverse events occurred in 243 (84%) and 153 (76%) of patients receiving 200-mg doses and 100-mg doses, respectively. Incidence rates for severe adverse events were 5.87 per 100 patient-years at both doses, and rates for adverse events leading to study discontinuation were 6.96/100 patient-years at 200 mg and 5.13/100 patient-years at 100 mg.
“No meaningful dose-response relationship was observed for serious adverse events, or adverse events leading to discontinuation, or adverse events of special interest,” said Dr. Eichenfield, also chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.
The IRs of adverse events of special interest were 1.84/100 patient-years and 1.28/100 patient-years for serious infection; 2.11/100 patient-years, and 1.62/100 patient-years for all herpes zoster infections; and 0.69/100 patient-years and 0.32/100 patient-years for opportunistic herpes zoster infections in the 200-mg and 100-mg arms, respectively.
“Other than herpes zoster, there were no opportunistic infections observed and no tuberculosis cases,” he said. “There was one nonfatal venous thromboembolism in an adolescent who had a very strong family history of [pulmonary embolism], one retinal detachment [with a concurrent diagnosis of cataracts and of left eyebrow folliculitis], and no events of nonmelanoma skin cancer or other malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, or deaths.” The thromboembolism case was reported in the previous post hoc analysis.
In the variable-dose cohort, data were similar, Dr. Eichenfield said. The IRs for severe adverse events, adverse events leading to study withdrawal, and adverse events of special interest were consistent with those in the other cohort. And similarly, there were no reports of tuberculosis or other opportunistic infections (excluding herpes zoster), and no reports of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) or other malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), or death. In this cohort, there were no venous thromboembolism (VTE) reports.
Upadacitinib in adolescents, adults
The new analysis looked at up to 4 years of upadacitinib treatment in almost 2,700 adolescents and adults– and over 6,200 patient-years – using integrated data from three ongoing pivotal phase 3 studies: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. (Of these patients, 539 were adolescents, Dr. Bunick said after the meeting.)
In the Measure Up studies, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a 15-mg dose, a 30-mg dose, or placebo once daily. In AD Up, patients in each arm received concomitant topical corticosteroids. At week 16, patients receiving the drug continued their assigned treatment during the ongoing blinded extension period, and those receiving placebo were rerandomized to upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg.
The exposure-adjusted event rates for any adverse event leading to discontinuation were 4.1/100 patient-years and 4.7/100 patient-years in patients receiving 15 mg and 30 mg, respectively, and the rates of any serious adverse event were 6.5/100 patient-years and 7.5/100 patient-years, Dr. Bunick reported. Three deaths occurred in the 30-mg group; all deaths were related to COVID infection and occurred in adults with cardiovascular risk factors.
Incidence rates of adverse events of special interest were similar to those in a previous 1-year analysis. The rate of serious infections per 100 patient years, for instance, was 2.3 and 2.8 in the 15-mg and 30-mg groups, respectively, compared with 2.2 and 2.8 in the 1-year analysis.
The rate of opportunistic infections, including eczema herpeticum (and excluding TB and herpes zoster), saw a slight bump in the new analysis to 2.4/100 patient-years with the 30-mg dose. Other event rates, across both dosages and durations, were less than 0.1/100 patient-years for active TB; 0.3-0.4/100 patient-years for NMSC, and 0.1/100 patient-years or below for other malignancies, MACE, and VTE. Herpes zoster had the highest event rate in both the 1- and 4-year analyses of between 3.1/100 patient-years and 5.8/100 patient-years, Dr. Bunick reported.
The adverse event rates for adolescents and adults “show consistency and are very low,” Dr. Bunick said. At 4 years, no new safety risks were identified.
‘The more data ... the better’
Data on the safety of new medications in children and adolescents is always important, and with systemic JAK inhibitors in particular, “the more data we can accumulate in [younger] patients with AD ... the better,” said Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, who was asked to comment on the two studies.
Dermatologists have taken comfort in the fact that the “daunting” boxed warning on JAK inhibitors “was generated in a very different population than we generally propose to treat, certainly when talking about children and adolescents,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved in either of the new safety analyses.
The JAK inhibitor boxed warning “reflects a study of tofacitinib – a different JAK inhibitor with arguably more risk of adverse effects – in adults over the age of 50 with rheumatoid arthritis and multiple risk factors for comorbidities included in the boxed warning,” he said.
“This allows dermatologists to reasonably conclude that the boxed warning – while critical to discuss and consider in every patient – is likely less concerning than might otherwise by implied.”
With more patient experience, “the more our assessment of risk, and of the ‘legitimacy’ of the boxed warning in our patient population, becomes evidence-based as opposed to extrapolation,” Dr. Sidbury said.
The two studies reported, he said, “detail an experience that is not adverse effect free –I have yet to find that medication – but is a reasonable profile considering the robust efficacy results they accompany.”
The abrocitinib safety analysis was sponsored by Pfizer. Regarding the study of upadacitinib, AbbVie contributed to the design of the safety analysis and participated in data collection. No honoria or payments were made to the authors, according to the study abstract. Dr. Eichenfield is a consultant/advisory board member for Pfizer and other companies, and has served on the speakers bureau/received honoria for Pfizer and other companies. Dr. Bunick is a consultant for AbbVie and other companies, and has served as an speaker/received honoraria or served as an investigator for several companies. Dr. Sidbury disclosed being a consultant/advisory board member for Lilly and Leo and serving on the speakers bureau/honoraria for Beiersdorf. All reported receiving grant/research support from various companies.
WASHINGTON – and over 1,000 patient-years of exposure, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, reported at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.
In March 2023, the oral Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adolescents aged 12-17 with refractory moderate to severe AD – an expanded indication from the approval in adults in 2022.
The new analysis evaluated data from patients who participated in the phase 3 JADE clinical trials – MONO-1, MONO-2, TEEN, and REGIMEN – and were subsequently enrolled in the ongoing phase 3 extension trial JADE EXTEND. Compared with a previous post hoc analysis in which adolescent patients had approximately 1 year of exposure, this updated analysis includes a sizable portion of patients with more than 96 weeks of exposure.
“We’re starting to get good numbers of [adolescents] who’ve had about 2 years of exposure,” said Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, during a late-breaking research session.
With a data cut for this analysis of September 2021, “we haven’t seen additive long-term [adverse] effects” with longer exposures, he said. In addition, “there were no unique safety concerns related to adolescents compared to the findings observed [in an] integrated safety analysis using the same data cut in which most patients were adults.”
(The analysis in adults covered 3,802 patients with over 5,000 patient-years of exposure, and was presented at the annual American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March 2023.)
Also presented in the late-breaking abstract session at RAD 2023 was a long-term safety study of upadacitinib (Rinvoq), the other JAK1 inhibitor approved for adolescents with AD – approved by the FDA for both adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD in 2022. The new analysis captures exposure of up to 4 years and shows no “worsening or accumulation of events,” compared with 1-year data, reported Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and the program in translational biomedicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Abrocitinib in adolescents
For the safety analysis of abrocitinib (Cibinqo), data were pooled into two cohorts: A consistent-dose cohort of 490 adolescents who received the same dose (200 mg or 100 mg) during the entire duration of the qualifying JADE trials, and a variable-dose cohort of 145 adolescents who received different doses (200 mg or 100 mg) during the JADE REGIMEN qualifying trial.
Duration of exposure was 96 weeks or more in 37%-38% of the consistent-dose cohort and 68% of the variable-dose cohort.
In the consistent-dose cohort, adverse events occurred in 243 (84%) and 153 (76%) of patients receiving 200-mg doses and 100-mg doses, respectively. Incidence rates for severe adverse events were 5.87 per 100 patient-years at both doses, and rates for adverse events leading to study discontinuation were 6.96/100 patient-years at 200 mg and 5.13/100 patient-years at 100 mg.
“No meaningful dose-response relationship was observed for serious adverse events, or adverse events leading to discontinuation, or adverse events of special interest,” said Dr. Eichenfield, also chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.
The IRs of adverse events of special interest were 1.84/100 patient-years and 1.28/100 patient-years for serious infection; 2.11/100 patient-years, and 1.62/100 patient-years for all herpes zoster infections; and 0.69/100 patient-years and 0.32/100 patient-years for opportunistic herpes zoster infections in the 200-mg and 100-mg arms, respectively.
“Other than herpes zoster, there were no opportunistic infections observed and no tuberculosis cases,” he said. “There was one nonfatal venous thromboembolism in an adolescent who had a very strong family history of [pulmonary embolism], one retinal detachment [with a concurrent diagnosis of cataracts and of left eyebrow folliculitis], and no events of nonmelanoma skin cancer or other malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, or deaths.” The thromboembolism case was reported in the previous post hoc analysis.
In the variable-dose cohort, data were similar, Dr. Eichenfield said. The IRs for severe adverse events, adverse events leading to study withdrawal, and adverse events of special interest were consistent with those in the other cohort. And similarly, there were no reports of tuberculosis or other opportunistic infections (excluding herpes zoster), and no reports of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) or other malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), or death. In this cohort, there were no venous thromboembolism (VTE) reports.
Upadacitinib in adolescents, adults
The new analysis looked at up to 4 years of upadacitinib treatment in almost 2,700 adolescents and adults– and over 6,200 patient-years – using integrated data from three ongoing pivotal phase 3 studies: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. (Of these patients, 539 were adolescents, Dr. Bunick said after the meeting.)
In the Measure Up studies, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a 15-mg dose, a 30-mg dose, or placebo once daily. In AD Up, patients in each arm received concomitant topical corticosteroids. At week 16, patients receiving the drug continued their assigned treatment during the ongoing blinded extension period, and those receiving placebo were rerandomized to upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg.
The exposure-adjusted event rates for any adverse event leading to discontinuation were 4.1/100 patient-years and 4.7/100 patient-years in patients receiving 15 mg and 30 mg, respectively, and the rates of any serious adverse event were 6.5/100 patient-years and 7.5/100 patient-years, Dr. Bunick reported. Three deaths occurred in the 30-mg group; all deaths were related to COVID infection and occurred in adults with cardiovascular risk factors.
Incidence rates of adverse events of special interest were similar to those in a previous 1-year analysis. The rate of serious infections per 100 patient years, for instance, was 2.3 and 2.8 in the 15-mg and 30-mg groups, respectively, compared with 2.2 and 2.8 in the 1-year analysis.
The rate of opportunistic infections, including eczema herpeticum (and excluding TB and herpes zoster), saw a slight bump in the new analysis to 2.4/100 patient-years with the 30-mg dose. Other event rates, across both dosages and durations, were less than 0.1/100 patient-years for active TB; 0.3-0.4/100 patient-years for NMSC, and 0.1/100 patient-years or below for other malignancies, MACE, and VTE. Herpes zoster had the highest event rate in both the 1- and 4-year analyses of between 3.1/100 patient-years and 5.8/100 patient-years, Dr. Bunick reported.
The adverse event rates for adolescents and adults “show consistency and are very low,” Dr. Bunick said. At 4 years, no new safety risks were identified.
‘The more data ... the better’
Data on the safety of new medications in children and adolescents is always important, and with systemic JAK inhibitors in particular, “the more data we can accumulate in [younger] patients with AD ... the better,” said Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, who was asked to comment on the two studies.
Dermatologists have taken comfort in the fact that the “daunting” boxed warning on JAK inhibitors “was generated in a very different population than we generally propose to treat, certainly when talking about children and adolescents,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved in either of the new safety analyses.
The JAK inhibitor boxed warning “reflects a study of tofacitinib – a different JAK inhibitor with arguably more risk of adverse effects – in adults over the age of 50 with rheumatoid arthritis and multiple risk factors for comorbidities included in the boxed warning,” he said.
“This allows dermatologists to reasonably conclude that the boxed warning – while critical to discuss and consider in every patient – is likely less concerning than might otherwise by implied.”
With more patient experience, “the more our assessment of risk, and of the ‘legitimacy’ of the boxed warning in our patient population, becomes evidence-based as opposed to extrapolation,” Dr. Sidbury said.
The two studies reported, he said, “detail an experience that is not adverse effect free –I have yet to find that medication – but is a reasonable profile considering the robust efficacy results they accompany.”
The abrocitinib safety analysis was sponsored by Pfizer. Regarding the study of upadacitinib, AbbVie contributed to the design of the safety analysis and participated in data collection. No honoria or payments were made to the authors, according to the study abstract. Dr. Eichenfield is a consultant/advisory board member for Pfizer and other companies, and has served on the speakers bureau/received honoria for Pfizer and other companies. Dr. Bunick is a consultant for AbbVie and other companies, and has served as an speaker/received honoraria or served as an investigator for several companies. Dr. Sidbury disclosed being a consultant/advisory board member for Lilly and Leo and serving on the speakers bureau/honoraria for Beiersdorf. All reported receiving grant/research support from various companies.
WASHINGTON – and over 1,000 patient-years of exposure, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, reported at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.
In March 2023, the oral Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adolescents aged 12-17 with refractory moderate to severe AD – an expanded indication from the approval in adults in 2022.
The new analysis evaluated data from patients who participated in the phase 3 JADE clinical trials – MONO-1, MONO-2, TEEN, and REGIMEN – and were subsequently enrolled in the ongoing phase 3 extension trial JADE EXTEND. Compared with a previous post hoc analysis in which adolescent patients had approximately 1 year of exposure, this updated analysis includes a sizable portion of patients with more than 96 weeks of exposure.
“We’re starting to get good numbers of [adolescents] who’ve had about 2 years of exposure,” said Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, during a late-breaking research session.
With a data cut for this analysis of September 2021, “we haven’t seen additive long-term [adverse] effects” with longer exposures, he said. In addition, “there were no unique safety concerns related to adolescents compared to the findings observed [in an] integrated safety analysis using the same data cut in which most patients were adults.”
(The analysis in adults covered 3,802 patients with over 5,000 patient-years of exposure, and was presented at the annual American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March 2023.)
Also presented in the late-breaking abstract session at RAD 2023 was a long-term safety study of upadacitinib (Rinvoq), the other JAK1 inhibitor approved for adolescents with AD – approved by the FDA for both adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD in 2022. The new analysis captures exposure of up to 4 years and shows no “worsening or accumulation of events,” compared with 1-year data, reported Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology and the program in translational biomedicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Abrocitinib in adolescents
For the safety analysis of abrocitinib (Cibinqo), data were pooled into two cohorts: A consistent-dose cohort of 490 adolescents who received the same dose (200 mg or 100 mg) during the entire duration of the qualifying JADE trials, and a variable-dose cohort of 145 adolescents who received different doses (200 mg or 100 mg) during the JADE REGIMEN qualifying trial.
Duration of exposure was 96 weeks or more in 37%-38% of the consistent-dose cohort and 68% of the variable-dose cohort.
In the consistent-dose cohort, adverse events occurred in 243 (84%) and 153 (76%) of patients receiving 200-mg doses and 100-mg doses, respectively. Incidence rates for severe adverse events were 5.87 per 100 patient-years at both doses, and rates for adverse events leading to study discontinuation were 6.96/100 patient-years at 200 mg and 5.13/100 patient-years at 100 mg.
“No meaningful dose-response relationship was observed for serious adverse events, or adverse events leading to discontinuation, or adverse events of special interest,” said Dr. Eichenfield, also chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.
The IRs of adverse events of special interest were 1.84/100 patient-years and 1.28/100 patient-years for serious infection; 2.11/100 patient-years, and 1.62/100 patient-years for all herpes zoster infections; and 0.69/100 patient-years and 0.32/100 patient-years for opportunistic herpes zoster infections in the 200-mg and 100-mg arms, respectively.
“Other than herpes zoster, there were no opportunistic infections observed and no tuberculosis cases,” he said. “There was one nonfatal venous thromboembolism in an adolescent who had a very strong family history of [pulmonary embolism], one retinal detachment [with a concurrent diagnosis of cataracts and of left eyebrow folliculitis], and no events of nonmelanoma skin cancer or other malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, or deaths.” The thromboembolism case was reported in the previous post hoc analysis.
In the variable-dose cohort, data were similar, Dr. Eichenfield said. The IRs for severe adverse events, adverse events leading to study withdrawal, and adverse events of special interest were consistent with those in the other cohort. And similarly, there were no reports of tuberculosis or other opportunistic infections (excluding herpes zoster), and no reports of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) or other malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), or death. In this cohort, there were no venous thromboembolism (VTE) reports.
Upadacitinib in adolescents, adults
The new analysis looked at up to 4 years of upadacitinib treatment in almost 2,700 adolescents and adults– and over 6,200 patient-years – using integrated data from three ongoing pivotal phase 3 studies: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. (Of these patients, 539 were adolescents, Dr. Bunick said after the meeting.)
In the Measure Up studies, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a 15-mg dose, a 30-mg dose, or placebo once daily. In AD Up, patients in each arm received concomitant topical corticosteroids. At week 16, patients receiving the drug continued their assigned treatment during the ongoing blinded extension period, and those receiving placebo were rerandomized to upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg.
The exposure-adjusted event rates for any adverse event leading to discontinuation were 4.1/100 patient-years and 4.7/100 patient-years in patients receiving 15 mg and 30 mg, respectively, and the rates of any serious adverse event were 6.5/100 patient-years and 7.5/100 patient-years, Dr. Bunick reported. Three deaths occurred in the 30-mg group; all deaths were related to COVID infection and occurred in adults with cardiovascular risk factors.
Incidence rates of adverse events of special interest were similar to those in a previous 1-year analysis. The rate of serious infections per 100 patient years, for instance, was 2.3 and 2.8 in the 15-mg and 30-mg groups, respectively, compared with 2.2 and 2.8 in the 1-year analysis.
The rate of opportunistic infections, including eczema herpeticum (and excluding TB and herpes zoster), saw a slight bump in the new analysis to 2.4/100 patient-years with the 30-mg dose. Other event rates, across both dosages and durations, were less than 0.1/100 patient-years for active TB; 0.3-0.4/100 patient-years for NMSC, and 0.1/100 patient-years or below for other malignancies, MACE, and VTE. Herpes zoster had the highest event rate in both the 1- and 4-year analyses of between 3.1/100 patient-years and 5.8/100 patient-years, Dr. Bunick reported.
The adverse event rates for adolescents and adults “show consistency and are very low,” Dr. Bunick said. At 4 years, no new safety risks were identified.
‘The more data ... the better’
Data on the safety of new medications in children and adolescents is always important, and with systemic JAK inhibitors in particular, “the more data we can accumulate in [younger] patients with AD ... the better,” said Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, who was asked to comment on the two studies.
Dermatologists have taken comfort in the fact that the “daunting” boxed warning on JAK inhibitors “was generated in a very different population than we generally propose to treat, certainly when talking about children and adolescents,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved in either of the new safety analyses.
The JAK inhibitor boxed warning “reflects a study of tofacitinib – a different JAK inhibitor with arguably more risk of adverse effects – in adults over the age of 50 with rheumatoid arthritis and multiple risk factors for comorbidities included in the boxed warning,” he said.
“This allows dermatologists to reasonably conclude that the boxed warning – while critical to discuss and consider in every patient – is likely less concerning than might otherwise by implied.”
With more patient experience, “the more our assessment of risk, and of the ‘legitimacy’ of the boxed warning in our patient population, becomes evidence-based as opposed to extrapolation,” Dr. Sidbury said.
The two studies reported, he said, “detail an experience that is not adverse effect free –I have yet to find that medication – but is a reasonable profile considering the robust efficacy results they accompany.”
The abrocitinib safety analysis was sponsored by Pfizer. Regarding the study of upadacitinib, AbbVie contributed to the design of the safety analysis and participated in data collection. No honoria or payments were made to the authors, according to the study abstract. Dr. Eichenfield is a consultant/advisory board member for Pfizer and other companies, and has served on the speakers bureau/received honoria for Pfizer and other companies. Dr. Bunick is a consultant for AbbVie and other companies, and has served as an speaker/received honoraria or served as an investigator for several companies. Dr. Sidbury disclosed being a consultant/advisory board member for Lilly and Leo and serving on the speakers bureau/honoraria for Beiersdorf. All reported receiving grant/research support from various companies.
AT RAD 2023
AD in infancy: Diagnostic advice and treatment tips
WASHINGTON – mean it is often “woefully undertreated,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, said at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.
Identifying and mitigating triggers – such as irritation, contact allergy, and infection – is a cornerstone of treatment in infants, but tailored therapy with topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), and topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors also have roles to play, said Dr. Sidbury, chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital and professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Views on the use of dupilumab as a systemic agent for severe infantile AD, meanwhile, have shifted significantly in the past year with the Food and Drug Administration approval of the biologic for children aged 6 months to 5 years and with extended experience with the biologic in all ages, including children, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said at the meeting.
The pediatric dermatologists spoke during a session devoted to AD in infants, during which the diagnosis of AD and the role – and risks – of food allergy testing were also discussed. Diagnosis, said Elaine C. Siegfried, MD, who also spoke during the session, requires careful consideration of mimicking conditions and a broader list of differential diagnoses in those infants with poor growth or frequent infections.
Here are some of the experts’ pearls for practice.
Diagnosing AD in infants
Among infants who are growing well and otherwise healthy, the infantile eczema phenotype encompasses AD, seborrheic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, psoriasis – and overlap of more than one of these conditions. “Overlap is common,” said Dr. Siegfried, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Saint Louis University, and director of the division of pediatric dermatology at Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital.
(Initial topical treatment for all these conditions is similar, but optimal treatment may differ for young children with moderate to severe disease that requires systemic treatment, she said in an interview after the meeting.)
Sparing of the diaper area that reflects skin barrier integrity is a classic feature of AD in infants and can be a useful diagnostic sign. In addition, “hypopigmentation is more characteristic of psoriasis” than AD, whereas AD tends to be hyperpigmented, which is most obvious in skin-of-color patients, Dr. Siegfried said.
Disease-specific pigment changes may be related to microbial colonization – such as Malassezia-associated hypopigmentation – or cell turnover, which is faster in psoriasis and slower in AD – with corresponding differences in pigment retention, and may be more obvious in children than adults, she said.
A less common scenario is dermatitis in infants who are not growing well. For these patients, she noted, the differential diagnosis includes metabolic or immune deficiency dermatitis as well as a variety of genodermatoses.
Generalized redness and scaling present on the first day of life is suggestive of non-atopic dermatitis. “If you’re born with red scaly skin, that’s very different than if you develop red skin in the first month or two of life,” Dr. Siegfried said.
When there is diaper area involvement with AD, contact dermatitis, impetigo, and Candida may be complicating factors. And in infants with other morbidities – especially those who are not growing well – diaper area involvement suggests a broader differential diagnosis. “I implore you, if you see children, make sure you weigh and measure them at every appointment,” she said.
Dr. Siegfried has seen infants with Netherton syndrome, and those with cystic fibrosis with zinc deficiency, for instance, presenting with “an eczematous-like picture,” diaper-area involvement, and other morbidities.
For infants with AD, she maintains a high index of suspicion for secondary infections such as molluscum, herpes simplex virus (HSV) with or without streptococci, scabies, tinea, and group A streptococci. “Secondary infections ... may be incognito,” she said. “Look for subtle signs. Even molluscum can be very subtle.”
Secondary allergic contact dermatitis is also common although it’s “technically difficult to confirm the diagnosis,” she said. Patch testing in infants is technically challenging, sensitivity is low, and monosensitization is uncommon. “So I do initial empiric topical allergen avoidance,” she said, keeping in mind ubiquitous and avoidable topical allergens such as Kathon, cocamidopropyl betaine, propylene glycol, disperse blue, and adhesives.
Treating AD in infancy
Irritation “is probably one of the biggest triggers” of AD in infants, and the often “pristine” diaper area compared with inflamed eczema elsewhere can demonstrate the importance of moisturization for healthy skin in atopic infants, Dr. Sidbury said.
Among treatments that “punch above their weight” for AD in infants is an ointment-based barrier applied around the mouth, chin, and chest – where the wet/dry impact of drooling is maximal – before and after meals, he said.
Another is hydrocortisone 2.5% mixed 1:1 with mupirocin for those infants who have secondary infections and “that exudative, weepy-looking appearance on the face,” he said. The topical antibiotic in the combination cream “lessens the potency of the steroid and oftentimes by synergy, makes it more effective” by simultaneously treating inflammation, he said. He cautions against products containing neomycin, which can be an allergen.
A combination antibiotic-steroid-emollient cream (the Aron Regimen) can also “sometimes punch above its weight,” Dr. Sidbury said.
Infections typically involve Staphylococcus aureus, but in up to 16% of cases Streptococcus is involved. And notably, lurking underneath the honey-colored crusting of S. aureus infections may be the grouped vesicles that characterize eczema herpeticum, Dr. Sidbury said.
“Counsel [parents] preemptively to treat cold sores immediately [in order to] decrease HSV shedding and minimize risk to their baby,” Dr. Sidbury said.
For treating AD-associated inflammation in skin not affected by secondary infections, over-the-counter 1% hydrocortisone cream is often sufficient, and “for very young babies and preemies in particular, I generally don’t use anything stronger because their skin barrier isn’t fully complete yet, so they absorb more than an older child does,” he said, referring to ages 2 months corrected as a marker for considering a stronger formulation if needed.
Many parents are “very concerned” about topical corticosteroid (TCS) use and pediatricians are also “often concerned,” Dr. Sidbury said. Addressing this concern, he tries to provide context and promote adherence by pointing out that infants have an easily visible vein at the temple area where the skin is naturally thin. If parents were to see this appearance for the first time in other areas while using topical steroids, he tells them, it may be the first sign of skin thinning, but “it’s entirely reversible at that stage.”
He also stressed the cost of not treating. It’s unknown whether “treating aggressively early on prevents any future development or manifestation of eczema, or future comorbidities, but we don’t know that it doesn’t,” Dr. Sidbury said. “And we certainly know how miserable that baby with eczema can be in the short term. So we need to use these medicines.”
Dr. Sidbury utilizes tacrolimus 0.03% ointment, a topical calcineurin inhibitor (TCI), only if he is worried about overuse of steroids, and uses a regimen that alternates the TCI (used in infants off-label because it is approved for ages 2 years and older) with TCS in periods of similar duration (for example, treatment with TCS for 1 week and TCI for 1 week, or rotations of 2 weeks each or 3 days each). “And these rotations may be dynamic depending on severity of the flare at any given time,” he said after the meeting.
Preapproval data from the pivotal trials of tacrolimus are reassuring and can be shared with parents. “Two-year-olds had 90% of BSA [body surface area] treated for 12 weeks” with no signs of systemic risks, Dr. Sidbury said at the meeting.
Crisaborole, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor approved for AD down to age 3 months, does not, like tacrolimus, have a boxed warning about a possible risk for cancer, and may also be alternated with TCSs. It will cause stinging in some children, but TCSs and TCIs can also sting in some children, he said, noting that samples can be helpful to predict what will or won’t sting each infant.
Systemic treatment in infants
The Liberty AD PRESCHOOL phase 3 trial that supported the FDA’s approval of dupilumab down to 6 months of age, published in 2022 in The Lancet, covered ages 6 months to 5 years but included only six children under the age of 2, “leaving us with a very limited dataset in this age group,” Dr. Eichenfield said at the meeting.
Other data and analyses that have provided reassurance, such as a laboratory safety analysis published online in 2022 showing no meaningful changes in laboratory safety parameters in children as young as 6 months, and pediatric data (not including infants) presented at a RAD meeting in 2022 showing that dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, may have positive effects on bone mineral density.
Data from the Liberty AD PRESCHOOL open-label extension study presented at the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in 2023, meanwhile, show that “the adverse event profile is not looking much different than what we see in older children,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “There are low rates of severe adverse events and a very low rate of discontinuations.”
At Rady Children’s Hospital, where Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, dupilumab has become a first-line systemic agent for severe infantile AD, supplanting prior traditional but little used systemic agents such as oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate, he said after the meeting.
The decision to use systemics in the first 2 years of life is “a comprehensive one,” requiring knowledge of the child’s history, disease course, and assessment of response to prior therapies, comorbidities and severity, he said.
Food allergy in infants with AD
Food allergy is common in children with moderate to severe AD, but true food-triggered AD, with AD being the only symptom of food allergy, is rare, said Anne Marie Singh, MD, associate professor in the division of allergy and immunology and rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who focuses on pediatrics.
Over the years, studies of double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge tests in children with AD have tended to conflate immediate IgE hypersensitivity (and skin symptoms like urticaria) with AD, said Dr. Singh, who directs the university’s Food Allergy Research and Education Center of Excellence. In a recently published study she led involving 374 children with AD referred to allergy and/or dermatology subspecialty clinics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, 55% had a food allergy but only 2% had food-triggered AD “where eczema is the only symptom and removal of the food cleared up the eczema and its return brought it back,” Dr. Singh said at the meeting. Another 4% had combined IgE-mediated food allergy and food-triggered AD. Almost half of the children with food-triggered AD were under 1 year of age, and egg was the most common trigger, she noted.
Food should be implicated largely by history, Dr. Singh emphasized.
Food allergy testing in the context of AD can be done but is challenging, with the clinical relevance of skin prick testing and food-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) difficult to predict. Predictive values of sIgE levels are established for immediate IgE mediated food allergy, but “cut-offs” for food-triggered AD are not established, she explained, noting that “cut-offs are likely higher for our children with AD.”
Elimination diets, moreover, pose significant risks of future oral tolerance and risks of nutritional deficiencies and poor growth, Dr. Singh said. New and immediate reactions to foods that are reintroduced after an elimination diet are common, and research has shown that 20% or more of such reactions involve anaphylaxis. “If an elimination diet is undertaken, you need emergency action plans, injectable epinephrine, and nutrition counseling,” she said.
A recent systematic review and meta-analysis conditionally recommended against elimination diets for the treatment of AD, Dr. Singh noted.
Asked by Dr. Sidbury whether there “is a sweet spot where you can eliminate [foods] without going all the way,” Dr. Singh said she will sometimes do a “diagnostic elimination trial” with food elimination for 2-4 weeks only – a time period after which “I’ll feel really comfortable reintroducing the food.”
Dr. Singh urged dermatologists to “know your allergist” because “patients respond best with a consistent message.”
Dr. Sidbury reported ties with Regeneron, UCB, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, Lilly, and Beiersdorf. Dr. Siegfried reported ties with Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Pfizer, UCB, Novan and Leo Pharma. Dr. Singh reported ties with Incyte and Siolta Therapeutics. Dr. Eichenfield reported ties with Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Incyte, and Pfizer.
WASHINGTON – mean it is often “woefully undertreated,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, said at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.
Identifying and mitigating triggers – such as irritation, contact allergy, and infection – is a cornerstone of treatment in infants, but tailored therapy with topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), and topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors also have roles to play, said Dr. Sidbury, chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital and professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Views on the use of dupilumab as a systemic agent for severe infantile AD, meanwhile, have shifted significantly in the past year with the Food and Drug Administration approval of the biologic for children aged 6 months to 5 years and with extended experience with the biologic in all ages, including children, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said at the meeting.
The pediatric dermatologists spoke during a session devoted to AD in infants, during which the diagnosis of AD and the role – and risks – of food allergy testing were also discussed. Diagnosis, said Elaine C. Siegfried, MD, who also spoke during the session, requires careful consideration of mimicking conditions and a broader list of differential diagnoses in those infants with poor growth or frequent infections.
Here are some of the experts’ pearls for practice.
Diagnosing AD in infants
Among infants who are growing well and otherwise healthy, the infantile eczema phenotype encompasses AD, seborrheic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, psoriasis – and overlap of more than one of these conditions. “Overlap is common,” said Dr. Siegfried, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Saint Louis University, and director of the division of pediatric dermatology at Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital.
(Initial topical treatment for all these conditions is similar, but optimal treatment may differ for young children with moderate to severe disease that requires systemic treatment, she said in an interview after the meeting.)
Sparing of the diaper area that reflects skin barrier integrity is a classic feature of AD in infants and can be a useful diagnostic sign. In addition, “hypopigmentation is more characteristic of psoriasis” than AD, whereas AD tends to be hyperpigmented, which is most obvious in skin-of-color patients, Dr. Siegfried said.
Disease-specific pigment changes may be related to microbial colonization – such as Malassezia-associated hypopigmentation – or cell turnover, which is faster in psoriasis and slower in AD – with corresponding differences in pigment retention, and may be more obvious in children than adults, she said.
A less common scenario is dermatitis in infants who are not growing well. For these patients, she noted, the differential diagnosis includes metabolic or immune deficiency dermatitis as well as a variety of genodermatoses.
Generalized redness and scaling present on the first day of life is suggestive of non-atopic dermatitis. “If you’re born with red scaly skin, that’s very different than if you develop red skin in the first month or two of life,” Dr. Siegfried said.
When there is diaper area involvement with AD, contact dermatitis, impetigo, and Candida may be complicating factors. And in infants with other morbidities – especially those who are not growing well – diaper area involvement suggests a broader differential diagnosis. “I implore you, if you see children, make sure you weigh and measure them at every appointment,” she said.
Dr. Siegfried has seen infants with Netherton syndrome, and those with cystic fibrosis with zinc deficiency, for instance, presenting with “an eczematous-like picture,” diaper-area involvement, and other morbidities.
For infants with AD, she maintains a high index of suspicion for secondary infections such as molluscum, herpes simplex virus (HSV) with or without streptococci, scabies, tinea, and group A streptococci. “Secondary infections ... may be incognito,” she said. “Look for subtle signs. Even molluscum can be very subtle.”
Secondary allergic contact dermatitis is also common although it’s “technically difficult to confirm the diagnosis,” she said. Patch testing in infants is technically challenging, sensitivity is low, and monosensitization is uncommon. “So I do initial empiric topical allergen avoidance,” she said, keeping in mind ubiquitous and avoidable topical allergens such as Kathon, cocamidopropyl betaine, propylene glycol, disperse blue, and adhesives.
Treating AD in infancy
Irritation “is probably one of the biggest triggers” of AD in infants, and the often “pristine” diaper area compared with inflamed eczema elsewhere can demonstrate the importance of moisturization for healthy skin in atopic infants, Dr. Sidbury said.
Among treatments that “punch above their weight” for AD in infants is an ointment-based barrier applied around the mouth, chin, and chest – where the wet/dry impact of drooling is maximal – before and after meals, he said.
Another is hydrocortisone 2.5% mixed 1:1 with mupirocin for those infants who have secondary infections and “that exudative, weepy-looking appearance on the face,” he said. The topical antibiotic in the combination cream “lessens the potency of the steroid and oftentimes by synergy, makes it more effective” by simultaneously treating inflammation, he said. He cautions against products containing neomycin, which can be an allergen.
A combination antibiotic-steroid-emollient cream (the Aron Regimen) can also “sometimes punch above its weight,” Dr. Sidbury said.
Infections typically involve Staphylococcus aureus, but in up to 16% of cases Streptococcus is involved. And notably, lurking underneath the honey-colored crusting of S. aureus infections may be the grouped vesicles that characterize eczema herpeticum, Dr. Sidbury said.
“Counsel [parents] preemptively to treat cold sores immediately [in order to] decrease HSV shedding and minimize risk to their baby,” Dr. Sidbury said.
For treating AD-associated inflammation in skin not affected by secondary infections, over-the-counter 1% hydrocortisone cream is often sufficient, and “for very young babies and preemies in particular, I generally don’t use anything stronger because their skin barrier isn’t fully complete yet, so they absorb more than an older child does,” he said, referring to ages 2 months corrected as a marker for considering a stronger formulation if needed.
Many parents are “very concerned” about topical corticosteroid (TCS) use and pediatricians are also “often concerned,” Dr. Sidbury said. Addressing this concern, he tries to provide context and promote adherence by pointing out that infants have an easily visible vein at the temple area where the skin is naturally thin. If parents were to see this appearance for the first time in other areas while using topical steroids, he tells them, it may be the first sign of skin thinning, but “it’s entirely reversible at that stage.”
He also stressed the cost of not treating. It’s unknown whether “treating aggressively early on prevents any future development or manifestation of eczema, or future comorbidities, but we don’t know that it doesn’t,” Dr. Sidbury said. “And we certainly know how miserable that baby with eczema can be in the short term. So we need to use these medicines.”
Dr. Sidbury utilizes tacrolimus 0.03% ointment, a topical calcineurin inhibitor (TCI), only if he is worried about overuse of steroids, and uses a regimen that alternates the TCI (used in infants off-label because it is approved for ages 2 years and older) with TCS in periods of similar duration (for example, treatment with TCS for 1 week and TCI for 1 week, or rotations of 2 weeks each or 3 days each). “And these rotations may be dynamic depending on severity of the flare at any given time,” he said after the meeting.
Preapproval data from the pivotal trials of tacrolimus are reassuring and can be shared with parents. “Two-year-olds had 90% of BSA [body surface area] treated for 12 weeks” with no signs of systemic risks, Dr. Sidbury said at the meeting.
Crisaborole, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor approved for AD down to age 3 months, does not, like tacrolimus, have a boxed warning about a possible risk for cancer, and may also be alternated with TCSs. It will cause stinging in some children, but TCSs and TCIs can also sting in some children, he said, noting that samples can be helpful to predict what will or won’t sting each infant.
Systemic treatment in infants
The Liberty AD PRESCHOOL phase 3 trial that supported the FDA’s approval of dupilumab down to 6 months of age, published in 2022 in The Lancet, covered ages 6 months to 5 years but included only six children under the age of 2, “leaving us with a very limited dataset in this age group,” Dr. Eichenfield said at the meeting.
Other data and analyses that have provided reassurance, such as a laboratory safety analysis published online in 2022 showing no meaningful changes in laboratory safety parameters in children as young as 6 months, and pediatric data (not including infants) presented at a RAD meeting in 2022 showing that dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, may have positive effects on bone mineral density.
Data from the Liberty AD PRESCHOOL open-label extension study presented at the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in 2023, meanwhile, show that “the adverse event profile is not looking much different than what we see in older children,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “There are low rates of severe adverse events and a very low rate of discontinuations.”
At Rady Children’s Hospital, where Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, dupilumab has become a first-line systemic agent for severe infantile AD, supplanting prior traditional but little used systemic agents such as oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate, he said after the meeting.
The decision to use systemics in the first 2 years of life is “a comprehensive one,” requiring knowledge of the child’s history, disease course, and assessment of response to prior therapies, comorbidities and severity, he said.
Food allergy in infants with AD
Food allergy is common in children with moderate to severe AD, but true food-triggered AD, with AD being the only symptom of food allergy, is rare, said Anne Marie Singh, MD, associate professor in the division of allergy and immunology and rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who focuses on pediatrics.
Over the years, studies of double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge tests in children with AD have tended to conflate immediate IgE hypersensitivity (and skin symptoms like urticaria) with AD, said Dr. Singh, who directs the university’s Food Allergy Research and Education Center of Excellence. In a recently published study she led involving 374 children with AD referred to allergy and/or dermatology subspecialty clinics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, 55% had a food allergy but only 2% had food-triggered AD “where eczema is the only symptom and removal of the food cleared up the eczema and its return brought it back,” Dr. Singh said at the meeting. Another 4% had combined IgE-mediated food allergy and food-triggered AD. Almost half of the children with food-triggered AD were under 1 year of age, and egg was the most common trigger, she noted.
Food should be implicated largely by history, Dr. Singh emphasized.
Food allergy testing in the context of AD can be done but is challenging, with the clinical relevance of skin prick testing and food-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) difficult to predict. Predictive values of sIgE levels are established for immediate IgE mediated food allergy, but “cut-offs” for food-triggered AD are not established, she explained, noting that “cut-offs are likely higher for our children with AD.”
Elimination diets, moreover, pose significant risks of future oral tolerance and risks of nutritional deficiencies and poor growth, Dr. Singh said. New and immediate reactions to foods that are reintroduced after an elimination diet are common, and research has shown that 20% or more of such reactions involve anaphylaxis. “If an elimination diet is undertaken, you need emergency action plans, injectable epinephrine, and nutrition counseling,” she said.
A recent systematic review and meta-analysis conditionally recommended against elimination diets for the treatment of AD, Dr. Singh noted.
Asked by Dr. Sidbury whether there “is a sweet spot where you can eliminate [foods] without going all the way,” Dr. Singh said she will sometimes do a “diagnostic elimination trial” with food elimination for 2-4 weeks only – a time period after which “I’ll feel really comfortable reintroducing the food.”
Dr. Singh urged dermatologists to “know your allergist” because “patients respond best with a consistent message.”
Dr. Sidbury reported ties with Regeneron, UCB, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, Lilly, and Beiersdorf. Dr. Siegfried reported ties with Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Pfizer, UCB, Novan and Leo Pharma. Dr. Singh reported ties with Incyte and Siolta Therapeutics. Dr. Eichenfield reported ties with Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Incyte, and Pfizer.
WASHINGTON – mean it is often “woefully undertreated,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, said at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.
Identifying and mitigating triggers – such as irritation, contact allergy, and infection – is a cornerstone of treatment in infants, but tailored therapy with topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), and topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors also have roles to play, said Dr. Sidbury, chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital and professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Views on the use of dupilumab as a systemic agent for severe infantile AD, meanwhile, have shifted significantly in the past year with the Food and Drug Administration approval of the biologic for children aged 6 months to 5 years and with extended experience with the biologic in all ages, including children, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said at the meeting.
The pediatric dermatologists spoke during a session devoted to AD in infants, during which the diagnosis of AD and the role – and risks – of food allergy testing were also discussed. Diagnosis, said Elaine C. Siegfried, MD, who also spoke during the session, requires careful consideration of mimicking conditions and a broader list of differential diagnoses in those infants with poor growth or frequent infections.
Here are some of the experts’ pearls for practice.
Diagnosing AD in infants
Among infants who are growing well and otherwise healthy, the infantile eczema phenotype encompasses AD, seborrheic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, psoriasis – and overlap of more than one of these conditions. “Overlap is common,” said Dr. Siegfried, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Saint Louis University, and director of the division of pediatric dermatology at Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital.
(Initial topical treatment for all these conditions is similar, but optimal treatment may differ for young children with moderate to severe disease that requires systemic treatment, she said in an interview after the meeting.)
Sparing of the diaper area that reflects skin barrier integrity is a classic feature of AD in infants and can be a useful diagnostic sign. In addition, “hypopigmentation is more characteristic of psoriasis” than AD, whereas AD tends to be hyperpigmented, which is most obvious in skin-of-color patients, Dr. Siegfried said.
Disease-specific pigment changes may be related to microbial colonization – such as Malassezia-associated hypopigmentation – or cell turnover, which is faster in psoriasis and slower in AD – with corresponding differences in pigment retention, and may be more obvious in children than adults, she said.
A less common scenario is dermatitis in infants who are not growing well. For these patients, she noted, the differential diagnosis includes metabolic or immune deficiency dermatitis as well as a variety of genodermatoses.
Generalized redness and scaling present on the first day of life is suggestive of non-atopic dermatitis. “If you’re born with red scaly skin, that’s very different than if you develop red skin in the first month or two of life,” Dr. Siegfried said.
When there is diaper area involvement with AD, contact dermatitis, impetigo, and Candida may be complicating factors. And in infants with other morbidities – especially those who are not growing well – diaper area involvement suggests a broader differential diagnosis. “I implore you, if you see children, make sure you weigh and measure them at every appointment,” she said.
Dr. Siegfried has seen infants with Netherton syndrome, and those with cystic fibrosis with zinc deficiency, for instance, presenting with “an eczematous-like picture,” diaper-area involvement, and other morbidities.
For infants with AD, she maintains a high index of suspicion for secondary infections such as molluscum, herpes simplex virus (HSV) with or without streptococci, scabies, tinea, and group A streptococci. “Secondary infections ... may be incognito,” she said. “Look for subtle signs. Even molluscum can be very subtle.”
Secondary allergic contact dermatitis is also common although it’s “technically difficult to confirm the diagnosis,” she said. Patch testing in infants is technically challenging, sensitivity is low, and monosensitization is uncommon. “So I do initial empiric topical allergen avoidance,” she said, keeping in mind ubiquitous and avoidable topical allergens such as Kathon, cocamidopropyl betaine, propylene glycol, disperse blue, and adhesives.
Treating AD in infancy
Irritation “is probably one of the biggest triggers” of AD in infants, and the often “pristine” diaper area compared with inflamed eczema elsewhere can demonstrate the importance of moisturization for healthy skin in atopic infants, Dr. Sidbury said.
Among treatments that “punch above their weight” for AD in infants is an ointment-based barrier applied around the mouth, chin, and chest – where the wet/dry impact of drooling is maximal – before and after meals, he said.
Another is hydrocortisone 2.5% mixed 1:1 with mupirocin for those infants who have secondary infections and “that exudative, weepy-looking appearance on the face,” he said. The topical antibiotic in the combination cream “lessens the potency of the steroid and oftentimes by synergy, makes it more effective” by simultaneously treating inflammation, he said. He cautions against products containing neomycin, which can be an allergen.
A combination antibiotic-steroid-emollient cream (the Aron Regimen) can also “sometimes punch above its weight,” Dr. Sidbury said.
Infections typically involve Staphylococcus aureus, but in up to 16% of cases Streptococcus is involved. And notably, lurking underneath the honey-colored crusting of S. aureus infections may be the grouped vesicles that characterize eczema herpeticum, Dr. Sidbury said.
“Counsel [parents] preemptively to treat cold sores immediately [in order to] decrease HSV shedding and minimize risk to their baby,” Dr. Sidbury said.
For treating AD-associated inflammation in skin not affected by secondary infections, over-the-counter 1% hydrocortisone cream is often sufficient, and “for very young babies and preemies in particular, I generally don’t use anything stronger because their skin barrier isn’t fully complete yet, so they absorb more than an older child does,” he said, referring to ages 2 months corrected as a marker for considering a stronger formulation if needed.
Many parents are “very concerned” about topical corticosteroid (TCS) use and pediatricians are also “often concerned,” Dr. Sidbury said. Addressing this concern, he tries to provide context and promote adherence by pointing out that infants have an easily visible vein at the temple area where the skin is naturally thin. If parents were to see this appearance for the first time in other areas while using topical steroids, he tells them, it may be the first sign of skin thinning, but “it’s entirely reversible at that stage.”
He also stressed the cost of not treating. It’s unknown whether “treating aggressively early on prevents any future development or manifestation of eczema, or future comorbidities, but we don’t know that it doesn’t,” Dr. Sidbury said. “And we certainly know how miserable that baby with eczema can be in the short term. So we need to use these medicines.”
Dr. Sidbury utilizes tacrolimus 0.03% ointment, a topical calcineurin inhibitor (TCI), only if he is worried about overuse of steroids, and uses a regimen that alternates the TCI (used in infants off-label because it is approved for ages 2 years and older) with TCS in periods of similar duration (for example, treatment with TCS for 1 week and TCI for 1 week, or rotations of 2 weeks each or 3 days each). “And these rotations may be dynamic depending on severity of the flare at any given time,” he said after the meeting.
Preapproval data from the pivotal trials of tacrolimus are reassuring and can be shared with parents. “Two-year-olds had 90% of BSA [body surface area] treated for 12 weeks” with no signs of systemic risks, Dr. Sidbury said at the meeting.
Crisaborole, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor approved for AD down to age 3 months, does not, like tacrolimus, have a boxed warning about a possible risk for cancer, and may also be alternated with TCSs. It will cause stinging in some children, but TCSs and TCIs can also sting in some children, he said, noting that samples can be helpful to predict what will or won’t sting each infant.
Systemic treatment in infants
The Liberty AD PRESCHOOL phase 3 trial that supported the FDA’s approval of dupilumab down to 6 months of age, published in 2022 in The Lancet, covered ages 6 months to 5 years but included only six children under the age of 2, “leaving us with a very limited dataset in this age group,” Dr. Eichenfield said at the meeting.
Other data and analyses that have provided reassurance, such as a laboratory safety analysis published online in 2022 showing no meaningful changes in laboratory safety parameters in children as young as 6 months, and pediatric data (not including infants) presented at a RAD meeting in 2022 showing that dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, may have positive effects on bone mineral density.
Data from the Liberty AD PRESCHOOL open-label extension study presented at the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in 2023, meanwhile, show that “the adverse event profile is not looking much different than what we see in older children,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “There are low rates of severe adverse events and a very low rate of discontinuations.”
At Rady Children’s Hospital, where Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, dupilumab has become a first-line systemic agent for severe infantile AD, supplanting prior traditional but little used systemic agents such as oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate, he said after the meeting.
The decision to use systemics in the first 2 years of life is “a comprehensive one,” requiring knowledge of the child’s history, disease course, and assessment of response to prior therapies, comorbidities and severity, he said.
Food allergy in infants with AD
Food allergy is common in children with moderate to severe AD, but true food-triggered AD, with AD being the only symptom of food allergy, is rare, said Anne Marie Singh, MD, associate professor in the division of allergy and immunology and rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who focuses on pediatrics.
Over the years, studies of double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge tests in children with AD have tended to conflate immediate IgE hypersensitivity (and skin symptoms like urticaria) with AD, said Dr. Singh, who directs the university’s Food Allergy Research and Education Center of Excellence. In a recently published study she led involving 374 children with AD referred to allergy and/or dermatology subspecialty clinics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, 55% had a food allergy but only 2% had food-triggered AD “where eczema is the only symptom and removal of the food cleared up the eczema and its return brought it back,” Dr. Singh said at the meeting. Another 4% had combined IgE-mediated food allergy and food-triggered AD. Almost half of the children with food-triggered AD were under 1 year of age, and egg was the most common trigger, she noted.
Food should be implicated largely by history, Dr. Singh emphasized.
Food allergy testing in the context of AD can be done but is challenging, with the clinical relevance of skin prick testing and food-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) difficult to predict. Predictive values of sIgE levels are established for immediate IgE mediated food allergy, but “cut-offs” for food-triggered AD are not established, she explained, noting that “cut-offs are likely higher for our children with AD.”
Elimination diets, moreover, pose significant risks of future oral tolerance and risks of nutritional deficiencies and poor growth, Dr. Singh said. New and immediate reactions to foods that are reintroduced after an elimination diet are common, and research has shown that 20% or more of such reactions involve anaphylaxis. “If an elimination diet is undertaken, you need emergency action plans, injectable epinephrine, and nutrition counseling,” she said.
A recent systematic review and meta-analysis conditionally recommended against elimination diets for the treatment of AD, Dr. Singh noted.
Asked by Dr. Sidbury whether there “is a sweet spot where you can eliminate [foods] without going all the way,” Dr. Singh said she will sometimes do a “diagnostic elimination trial” with food elimination for 2-4 weeks only – a time period after which “I’ll feel really comfortable reintroducing the food.”
Dr. Singh urged dermatologists to “know your allergist” because “patients respond best with a consistent message.”
Dr. Sidbury reported ties with Regeneron, UCB, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, Lilly, and Beiersdorf. Dr. Siegfried reported ties with Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Pfizer, UCB, Novan and Leo Pharma. Dr. Singh reported ties with Incyte and Siolta Therapeutics. Dr. Eichenfield reported ties with Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Incyte, and Pfizer.
AT RAD 2023
Facial, hand, and foot dermatitis: Lebrikizumab and dupilumab show efficacy in new studies
in a secondary analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials of the drug, Jenny E. Murase, MD, reported at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.
At week 16 in the ADvocate 1, ADvocate 2, and ADhere trials, with and without concomitant topical corticosteroid (TCS) use, at least 58% of treated patients experienced improvement in facial dermatitis, and 62% or more experienced improvement in hand dermatitis – statistically significant differences over placebo.
“Lebrikizumab was efficacious in clearing and improving facial and hand dermatitis, burdensome and difficult-to-treat areas, in most patients with moderate to severe AD,” said Dr. Murase, of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of medical dermatology consultative services and patch testing for the Palo Alto (Calf.) Foundation Medical Group.
In another late-breaking abstract presented at the RAD conference, the injectable biologic dupilumab – now in its 6th year on the market – was reported by Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, to “rapidly and significantly” improve the signs, symptoms, and quality of life in some adults and adolescents with moderate to severe hand and foot AD in a recently completed phase 3 trial of dupilumab.
Lebrikizumab results for facial, hand dermatitis
The ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2 trials evaluated lebrikizumab monotherapy and randomized patients to receive 250 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks (after a 500-mg loading dose at baseline and week 2) or placebo. (Patients who received any corticosteroid as a rescue medication were considered nonresponders.) The ADhere trial compared low to mid–potency TCS plus lebrikizumab, using the same dosing of lebrikizumab as in the ADvocate studies, versus TCS plus placebo.
In all three trials, with a total of more than 1,000 participants, clinicians assessed for the presence or absence of facial or hand dermatitis at baseline. At week 16, they then assessed the change from baseline based on a 4-point scale of cleared, improved, no change, and worsened. “Improvement” was defined as cleared or improved.
Both facial and hand dermatitis were identified in a majority of patients at baseline. For instance, in ADvocate 1, facial dermatitis was identified in 71.4% of patients in the lebrikizumab group and 80.9% of those in the placebo group. Hand dermatitis was identified in 72% and 73% of the treatment and placebo groups, respectively.
Across the trials, at 16 weeks, 58%-69% of adult and adolescent patients receiving lebrikizumab had improvement in facial dermatitis, compared with 22%-46% on placebo. For hand dermatitis, 62%-73% experienced improvement, compared with 19%-43% on placebo, respectively. Proportions of improved patients in both the lebrikizumab and placebo groups were highest in the ADhere trial, Dr. Murase reported.
In the ADvocate trials, 16 weeks marked the end of the induction phase and the start of a 36-week maintenance period. The ADhere trial was a 16-week study. Overall results from ADhere were published in January in JAMA Dermatology, and results from the 16-week induction period of the ADvocate trials were published in March in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Lebrikizumab received fast-track designation for AD by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019. Regulatory decisions in the United States and the European Union are expected later this year, according to a press release from Eli Lilly, the drug’s developer.
Asked to comment on the study results, Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the post-hoc results promising. “While newer, more targeted treatments for AD offer the possibility of overall improvement and long-term disease control, we do not have sufficient data to help guide us when it comes to selecting treatment based on which area of the body is affected,” she explained. Most published findings have used “overall scores and not scores stratified by body region.”
The new findings, “help expand our current understanding of how the drug works for different areas of the body,” which can help inform treatment discussions with patients, she added.
AD can be especially challenging to treat when it involves “what are considered to be more sensitive areas such as the face or hands,” said Dr. Chiesa Fuxench. Challenges may include poor tolerance to topical medications, concerns for safety with long-term use, and the need for constant reapplication.
“Those of us who treat a large number of AD patients suspect that the impact and/or burden of AD may be different depending on what areas of the body are affected,” but more data are needed, she added. Limitations of the study, she noted, include “that the study may not have been adequately powered and that the sample size was small.”
Dupilumab result for hand, foot dermatitis
The phase 3 LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial randomized 133 patients with moderate to severe atopic hand and/or foot dermatitis to a 16-week course of dupilumab (Dupixent) monotherapy, 300 mg every 2 weeks in adults and 200 or 300 mg every 2 weeks in adolescents, or placebo. Patients were then followed during a 12-week safety follow-up period.
Significantly more patients in the dupilumab group achieved the primary endpoint of a hand and foot Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0/1 at 16 weeks: 40.3% vs. 16.7% in the placebo group (P = .003). Statistical significance was reached at week 8, reported Dr. Silverberg, professor of dermatology and director of clinical research at George Washington University, Washington. Dupilumab, a human monoclonal IgG4 antibody that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, is FDA approved for treating moderate to severe AD in patients age 6 months and older, among other indications.
In addition, the proportion of patients achieving a 4-point or greater improvement in the weekly average of daily hand and foot Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PPNRS), the key secondary endpoint, was about fourfold greater with dupilumab: 52.2%, compared with 13.6% on placebo (P < .0001). This reduction in itch reached statistical significance by week 1. Dupilumab-treated patients also experienced significant improvement in other lesion measures and in Quality of Life in Hand Eczema Questionnaire scores, Dr. Silverberg noted.
The patients had a mean age in their 30s and a mean duration of atopic hand and/or foot dermatitis of 15-16 years. For more than one-quarter of patients, morphology was hyperkeratotic, which “has to be one of the toughest subsets to affect positive change in,” he said.
About 40% of patients had lesions on the hands only, and more than half had lesions on both hands and feet. “This is pretty realistic – we generally don’t see much isolated foot dermatitis in the AD population,” Dr. Silverberg said.
About 70%-75% had concomitant AD outside of the hands and feet, mostly of moderate severity. Patients with positive patch tests or whose hand and foot eczema was believed to be driven by irritants were excluded from the trial, as were patients who had used TCS or other topical treatments within 2 weeks of the baseline visit.
Rescue medication use was low (3% with dupilumab vs. 21% with placebo), and adverse events were “pretty consistent with everything we’ve seen with dupilumab,” said Dr. Silverberg.
Commenting on this study, Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said she was “excited to see [the findings], as hand and foot AD can often be quite challenging to treat in clinic.” The improvements in overall disease scores, itch, and quality of life scores – with fairly good tolerance – are “reassuring and what we would expect based on our current experience with dupilumab,” she said.
The lebrikizumab study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. The dupilumab study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Some of the data were also reported by lead investigator Eric Simpson, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in March 2023.
Dr. Murase reported consulting/advising for Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma, UCB, Sanofi-Genzyme, and non-CME speaking/honoraria for UCB and Regeneron. Dr. Silverberg reported consulting fees and fees for non-CME services from Sanofi Genzyme, Regeneron, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench, who was a speaker at the RAD meeting but was not involved in the studies, disclosed receiving honoraria for CME work in AD sponsored by education grants from Regeneron/Sanofi, and grant/research support from Lilly, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among other disclosures.
in a secondary analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials of the drug, Jenny E. Murase, MD, reported at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.
At week 16 in the ADvocate 1, ADvocate 2, and ADhere trials, with and without concomitant topical corticosteroid (TCS) use, at least 58% of treated patients experienced improvement in facial dermatitis, and 62% or more experienced improvement in hand dermatitis – statistically significant differences over placebo.
“Lebrikizumab was efficacious in clearing and improving facial and hand dermatitis, burdensome and difficult-to-treat areas, in most patients with moderate to severe AD,” said Dr. Murase, of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of medical dermatology consultative services and patch testing for the Palo Alto (Calf.) Foundation Medical Group.
In another late-breaking abstract presented at the RAD conference, the injectable biologic dupilumab – now in its 6th year on the market – was reported by Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, to “rapidly and significantly” improve the signs, symptoms, and quality of life in some adults and adolescents with moderate to severe hand and foot AD in a recently completed phase 3 trial of dupilumab.
Lebrikizumab results for facial, hand dermatitis
The ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2 trials evaluated lebrikizumab monotherapy and randomized patients to receive 250 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks (after a 500-mg loading dose at baseline and week 2) or placebo. (Patients who received any corticosteroid as a rescue medication were considered nonresponders.) The ADhere trial compared low to mid–potency TCS plus lebrikizumab, using the same dosing of lebrikizumab as in the ADvocate studies, versus TCS plus placebo.
In all three trials, with a total of more than 1,000 participants, clinicians assessed for the presence or absence of facial or hand dermatitis at baseline. At week 16, they then assessed the change from baseline based on a 4-point scale of cleared, improved, no change, and worsened. “Improvement” was defined as cleared or improved.
Both facial and hand dermatitis were identified in a majority of patients at baseline. For instance, in ADvocate 1, facial dermatitis was identified in 71.4% of patients in the lebrikizumab group and 80.9% of those in the placebo group. Hand dermatitis was identified in 72% and 73% of the treatment and placebo groups, respectively.
Across the trials, at 16 weeks, 58%-69% of adult and adolescent patients receiving lebrikizumab had improvement in facial dermatitis, compared with 22%-46% on placebo. For hand dermatitis, 62%-73% experienced improvement, compared with 19%-43% on placebo, respectively. Proportions of improved patients in both the lebrikizumab and placebo groups were highest in the ADhere trial, Dr. Murase reported.
In the ADvocate trials, 16 weeks marked the end of the induction phase and the start of a 36-week maintenance period. The ADhere trial was a 16-week study. Overall results from ADhere were published in January in JAMA Dermatology, and results from the 16-week induction period of the ADvocate trials were published in March in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Lebrikizumab received fast-track designation for AD by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019. Regulatory decisions in the United States and the European Union are expected later this year, according to a press release from Eli Lilly, the drug’s developer.
Asked to comment on the study results, Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the post-hoc results promising. “While newer, more targeted treatments for AD offer the possibility of overall improvement and long-term disease control, we do not have sufficient data to help guide us when it comes to selecting treatment based on which area of the body is affected,” she explained. Most published findings have used “overall scores and not scores stratified by body region.”
The new findings, “help expand our current understanding of how the drug works for different areas of the body,” which can help inform treatment discussions with patients, she added.
AD can be especially challenging to treat when it involves “what are considered to be more sensitive areas such as the face or hands,” said Dr. Chiesa Fuxench. Challenges may include poor tolerance to topical medications, concerns for safety with long-term use, and the need for constant reapplication.
“Those of us who treat a large number of AD patients suspect that the impact and/or burden of AD may be different depending on what areas of the body are affected,” but more data are needed, she added. Limitations of the study, she noted, include “that the study may not have been adequately powered and that the sample size was small.”
Dupilumab result for hand, foot dermatitis
The phase 3 LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial randomized 133 patients with moderate to severe atopic hand and/or foot dermatitis to a 16-week course of dupilumab (Dupixent) monotherapy, 300 mg every 2 weeks in adults and 200 or 300 mg every 2 weeks in adolescents, or placebo. Patients were then followed during a 12-week safety follow-up period.
Significantly more patients in the dupilumab group achieved the primary endpoint of a hand and foot Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0/1 at 16 weeks: 40.3% vs. 16.7% in the placebo group (P = .003). Statistical significance was reached at week 8, reported Dr. Silverberg, professor of dermatology and director of clinical research at George Washington University, Washington. Dupilumab, a human monoclonal IgG4 antibody that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, is FDA approved for treating moderate to severe AD in patients age 6 months and older, among other indications.
In addition, the proportion of patients achieving a 4-point or greater improvement in the weekly average of daily hand and foot Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PPNRS), the key secondary endpoint, was about fourfold greater with dupilumab: 52.2%, compared with 13.6% on placebo (P < .0001). This reduction in itch reached statistical significance by week 1. Dupilumab-treated patients also experienced significant improvement in other lesion measures and in Quality of Life in Hand Eczema Questionnaire scores, Dr. Silverberg noted.
The patients had a mean age in their 30s and a mean duration of atopic hand and/or foot dermatitis of 15-16 years. For more than one-quarter of patients, morphology was hyperkeratotic, which “has to be one of the toughest subsets to affect positive change in,” he said.
About 40% of patients had lesions on the hands only, and more than half had lesions on both hands and feet. “This is pretty realistic – we generally don’t see much isolated foot dermatitis in the AD population,” Dr. Silverberg said.
About 70%-75% had concomitant AD outside of the hands and feet, mostly of moderate severity. Patients with positive patch tests or whose hand and foot eczema was believed to be driven by irritants were excluded from the trial, as were patients who had used TCS or other topical treatments within 2 weeks of the baseline visit.
Rescue medication use was low (3% with dupilumab vs. 21% with placebo), and adverse events were “pretty consistent with everything we’ve seen with dupilumab,” said Dr. Silverberg.
Commenting on this study, Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said she was “excited to see [the findings], as hand and foot AD can often be quite challenging to treat in clinic.” The improvements in overall disease scores, itch, and quality of life scores – with fairly good tolerance – are “reassuring and what we would expect based on our current experience with dupilumab,” she said.
The lebrikizumab study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. The dupilumab study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Some of the data were also reported by lead investigator Eric Simpson, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in March 2023.
Dr. Murase reported consulting/advising for Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma, UCB, Sanofi-Genzyme, and non-CME speaking/honoraria for UCB and Regeneron. Dr. Silverberg reported consulting fees and fees for non-CME services from Sanofi Genzyme, Regeneron, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench, who was a speaker at the RAD meeting but was not involved in the studies, disclosed receiving honoraria for CME work in AD sponsored by education grants from Regeneron/Sanofi, and grant/research support from Lilly, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among other disclosures.
in a secondary analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials of the drug, Jenny E. Murase, MD, reported at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.
At week 16 in the ADvocate 1, ADvocate 2, and ADhere trials, with and without concomitant topical corticosteroid (TCS) use, at least 58% of treated patients experienced improvement in facial dermatitis, and 62% or more experienced improvement in hand dermatitis – statistically significant differences over placebo.
“Lebrikizumab was efficacious in clearing and improving facial and hand dermatitis, burdensome and difficult-to-treat areas, in most patients with moderate to severe AD,” said Dr. Murase, of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of medical dermatology consultative services and patch testing for the Palo Alto (Calf.) Foundation Medical Group.
In another late-breaking abstract presented at the RAD conference, the injectable biologic dupilumab – now in its 6th year on the market – was reported by Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, to “rapidly and significantly” improve the signs, symptoms, and quality of life in some adults and adolescents with moderate to severe hand and foot AD in a recently completed phase 3 trial of dupilumab.
Lebrikizumab results for facial, hand dermatitis
The ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2 trials evaluated lebrikizumab monotherapy and randomized patients to receive 250 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks (after a 500-mg loading dose at baseline and week 2) or placebo. (Patients who received any corticosteroid as a rescue medication were considered nonresponders.) The ADhere trial compared low to mid–potency TCS plus lebrikizumab, using the same dosing of lebrikizumab as in the ADvocate studies, versus TCS plus placebo.
In all three trials, with a total of more than 1,000 participants, clinicians assessed for the presence or absence of facial or hand dermatitis at baseline. At week 16, they then assessed the change from baseline based on a 4-point scale of cleared, improved, no change, and worsened. “Improvement” was defined as cleared or improved.
Both facial and hand dermatitis were identified in a majority of patients at baseline. For instance, in ADvocate 1, facial dermatitis was identified in 71.4% of patients in the lebrikizumab group and 80.9% of those in the placebo group. Hand dermatitis was identified in 72% and 73% of the treatment and placebo groups, respectively.
Across the trials, at 16 weeks, 58%-69% of adult and adolescent patients receiving lebrikizumab had improvement in facial dermatitis, compared with 22%-46% on placebo. For hand dermatitis, 62%-73% experienced improvement, compared with 19%-43% on placebo, respectively. Proportions of improved patients in both the lebrikizumab and placebo groups were highest in the ADhere trial, Dr. Murase reported.
In the ADvocate trials, 16 weeks marked the end of the induction phase and the start of a 36-week maintenance period. The ADhere trial was a 16-week study. Overall results from ADhere were published in January in JAMA Dermatology, and results from the 16-week induction period of the ADvocate trials were published in March in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Lebrikizumab received fast-track designation for AD by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019. Regulatory decisions in the United States and the European Union are expected later this year, according to a press release from Eli Lilly, the drug’s developer.
Asked to comment on the study results, Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the post-hoc results promising. “While newer, more targeted treatments for AD offer the possibility of overall improvement and long-term disease control, we do not have sufficient data to help guide us when it comes to selecting treatment based on which area of the body is affected,” she explained. Most published findings have used “overall scores and not scores stratified by body region.”
The new findings, “help expand our current understanding of how the drug works for different areas of the body,” which can help inform treatment discussions with patients, she added.
AD can be especially challenging to treat when it involves “what are considered to be more sensitive areas such as the face or hands,” said Dr. Chiesa Fuxench. Challenges may include poor tolerance to topical medications, concerns for safety with long-term use, and the need for constant reapplication.
“Those of us who treat a large number of AD patients suspect that the impact and/or burden of AD may be different depending on what areas of the body are affected,” but more data are needed, she added. Limitations of the study, she noted, include “that the study may not have been adequately powered and that the sample size was small.”
Dupilumab result for hand, foot dermatitis
The phase 3 LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial randomized 133 patients with moderate to severe atopic hand and/or foot dermatitis to a 16-week course of dupilumab (Dupixent) monotherapy, 300 mg every 2 weeks in adults and 200 or 300 mg every 2 weeks in adolescents, or placebo. Patients were then followed during a 12-week safety follow-up period.
Significantly more patients in the dupilumab group achieved the primary endpoint of a hand and foot Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0/1 at 16 weeks: 40.3% vs. 16.7% in the placebo group (P = .003). Statistical significance was reached at week 8, reported Dr. Silverberg, professor of dermatology and director of clinical research at George Washington University, Washington. Dupilumab, a human monoclonal IgG4 antibody that inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, is FDA approved for treating moderate to severe AD in patients age 6 months and older, among other indications.
In addition, the proportion of patients achieving a 4-point or greater improvement in the weekly average of daily hand and foot Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PPNRS), the key secondary endpoint, was about fourfold greater with dupilumab: 52.2%, compared with 13.6% on placebo (P < .0001). This reduction in itch reached statistical significance by week 1. Dupilumab-treated patients also experienced significant improvement in other lesion measures and in Quality of Life in Hand Eczema Questionnaire scores, Dr. Silverberg noted.
The patients had a mean age in their 30s and a mean duration of atopic hand and/or foot dermatitis of 15-16 years. For more than one-quarter of patients, morphology was hyperkeratotic, which “has to be one of the toughest subsets to affect positive change in,” he said.
About 40% of patients had lesions on the hands only, and more than half had lesions on both hands and feet. “This is pretty realistic – we generally don’t see much isolated foot dermatitis in the AD population,” Dr. Silverberg said.
About 70%-75% had concomitant AD outside of the hands and feet, mostly of moderate severity. Patients with positive patch tests or whose hand and foot eczema was believed to be driven by irritants were excluded from the trial, as were patients who had used TCS or other topical treatments within 2 weeks of the baseline visit.
Rescue medication use was low (3% with dupilumab vs. 21% with placebo), and adverse events were “pretty consistent with everything we’ve seen with dupilumab,” said Dr. Silverberg.
Commenting on this study, Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said she was “excited to see [the findings], as hand and foot AD can often be quite challenging to treat in clinic.” The improvements in overall disease scores, itch, and quality of life scores – with fairly good tolerance – are “reassuring and what we would expect based on our current experience with dupilumab,” she said.
The lebrikizumab study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. The dupilumab study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Some of the data were also reported by lead investigator Eric Simpson, MD, of Oregon Health and Science University at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in March 2023.
Dr. Murase reported consulting/advising for Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma, UCB, Sanofi-Genzyme, and non-CME speaking/honoraria for UCB and Regeneron. Dr. Silverberg reported consulting fees and fees for non-CME services from Sanofi Genzyme, Regeneron, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench, who was a speaker at the RAD meeting but was not involved in the studies, disclosed receiving honoraria for CME work in AD sponsored by education grants from Regeneron/Sanofi, and grant/research support from Lilly, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among other disclosures.
AT RAD 2023