Key clinical point: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with a lower risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) than several rheumatologic and gastrointestinal immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID).

Major finding: Patients with AD vs AD-matched control individuals did not have a higher risk for VTE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.96; 95% CI 0.90-1.02). Compared with patients having AD, those with Crohn’s disease (aHR 1.71; 95% CI 1.47-1.99), rheumatoid arthritis (aHR 1.57; 95% CI 1.43-1.72), ulcerative colitis (aHR 1.84; 95% CI 1.63-2.09), and ankylosing spondylitis (aHR 1.45; 95% CI 1.03-2.03) had higher risks for VTE.

Study details: This retrospective observational cohort study analyzed 2,061,222 adult patients with IMID, including 1,098,633 patients with AD who were matched with 1,098,633 control individuals without IMID.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie Inc. JF Merola declared being a consultant or investigator for AbbVie and others. The other authors declared being current or former employees of or owning stocks or stock options in AbbVie.

Source: Merola JF et al. Venous thromboembolism risk is lower in patients with atopic dermatitis than other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: A retrospective, observational, comparative cohort study using US claims data. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023 (Dec 23). doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.12.027

Key clinical point: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with a lower risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) than several rheumatologic and gastrointestinal immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID).

Major finding: Patients with AD vs AD-matched control individuals did not have a higher risk for VTE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.96; 95% CI 0.90-1.02). Compared with patients having AD, those with Crohn’s disease (aHR 1.71; 95% CI 1.47-1.99), rheumatoid arthritis (aHR 1.57; 95% CI 1.43-1.72), ulcerative colitis (aHR 1.84; 95% CI 1.63-2.09), and ankylosing spondylitis (aHR 1.45; 95% CI 1.03-2.03) had higher risks for VTE.

Study details: This retrospective observational cohort study analyzed 2,061,222 adult patients with IMID, including 1,098,633 patients with AD who were matched with 1,098,633 control individuals without IMID.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie Inc. JF Merola declared being a consultant or investigator for AbbVie and others. The other authors declared being current or former employees of or owning stocks or stock options in AbbVie.

Source: Merola JF et al. Venous thromboembolism risk is lower in patients with atopic dermatitis than other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: A retrospective, observational, comparative cohort study using US claims data. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023 (Dec 23). doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.12.027

Key clinical point: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with a lower risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) than several rheumatologic and gastrointestinal immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID).

Major finding: Patients with AD vs AD-matched control individuals did not have a higher risk for VTE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.96; 95% CI 0.90-1.02). Compared with patients having AD, those with Crohn’s disease (aHR 1.71; 95% CI 1.47-1.99), rheumatoid arthritis (aHR 1.57; 95% CI 1.43-1.72), ulcerative colitis (aHR 1.84; 95% CI 1.63-2.09), and ankylosing spondylitis (aHR 1.45; 95% CI 1.03-2.03) had higher risks for VTE.

Study details: This retrospective observational cohort study analyzed 2,061,222 adult patients with IMID, including 1,098,633 patients with AD who were matched with 1,098,633 control individuals without IMID.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie Inc. JF Merola declared being a consultant or investigator for AbbVie and others. The other authors declared being current or former employees of or owning stocks or stock options in AbbVie.

Source: Merola JF et al. Venous thromboembolism risk is lower in patients with atopic dermatitis than other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: A retrospective, observational, comparative cohort study using US claims data. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023 (Dec 23). doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.12.027

Evidence-based guidelines for managing atopic dermatitis (AD) issued by The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters (JTFPP) incorporate a decade of new treatments and new methodological standards for making recommendations. The new guidelines update 2012 recommendations.

The JTFPP AD guidelines represent “an evolution” in trustworthy allergy guidelines and provide systematic reviews of the evidence with multidisciplinary panelist engagement, adherence to a rigorous guideline development process, the involvement of the patient and caregiver voice from start to finish, clear translation of evidence to clinically actionable and contextual recommendations, and novel approaches to facilitate knowledge translation, task force cochair Derek K. Chu, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Chu, director of the Evidence in Allergy research group at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, cochaired the task force with Lynda Schneider, MD, section chief of the allergy and asthma program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

The new guidelines were published online on December 17, 2023, in Annals of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology. They include 25 recommendations and address optimal use of topical treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical JAK inhibitors, topical crisaborole, and topical antimicrobials; dilute bleach baths; dietary elimination; allergen immunotherapy by subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) routes; and systemic treatments with dupilumab and tralokinumab, cyclosporine, azathioprine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, oral JAK inhibitors, systemic corticosteroids; and phototherapy.

“There’s something in here for all clinicians — from primary care to AD experts— and patients may benefit as well, so the key individual recommendations will vary,” Dr. Chu told this news organization.

“Throughout the guideline, we emphasize shared decision-making, key factors to consider for each recommendation, and the specific evidence behind each recommendation,” he said. “There is a major focus on addressing equity, diversity, inclusiveness; and addressing health disparities, and key gaps to address in future research.”

Among the changes to the 2012 JTFPP guidelines, the 2023 update suggests using dilute bleach baths for patients with AD with moderate to severe disease as an additive therapy and suggests using allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for moderate to severe AD.

In other changes, the 2023 update suggests against using elimination diets for AD; recommends against very low dose baricitinib (1 mg); suggests against azathioprine, methotrexate, and mycophenolate mofetil; and suggests against adding topical JAK inhibitors, such as ruxolitinib, for patients with mild to moderate AD refractory to moisturization alone.

The 38-page guidelines include an infographic that summarizes comparative effects of systemic treatments on patient-important outcomes for AD that are important to patients, and includes other key summary tables that can be used at the point of care.

In addition to addressing evidence underlying each recommendation, the guideline’s eAppendix contains 1- to 2-page handouts that address practical issues for each treatment and can be used to facilitate shared decision making.

Dr. Chu said that the updated guidelines “provide important changes to almost all aspects of AD care — my own and my colleagues’ — and I strongly recommend all clinicians treating AD to read the full guidelines and use them in clinical practice. We’re grateful to all our contributors, especially our patient and caregiver partners, for helping make these guidelines. We will continue to periodically update the guidelines as part of maintaining them as living guidelines.”

The guidelines incorporate the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence.

The work was funded by the AAAAI/ACAAI JTFPP. Dr. Chu disclosed that he has received a faculty development award from the AAAAI Foundation and research grants to McMaster from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ontario Ministry of Health, and the Ontario Medical Association.

Evidence-based guidelines for managing atopic dermatitis (AD) issued by The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters (JTFPP) incorporate a decade of new treatments and new methodological standards for making recommendations. The new guidelines update 2012 recommendations.

The JTFPP AD guidelines represent “an evolution” in trustworthy allergy guidelines and provide systematic reviews of the evidence with multidisciplinary panelist engagement, adherence to a rigorous guideline development process, the involvement of the patient and caregiver voice from start to finish, clear translation of evidence to clinically actionable and contextual recommendations, and novel approaches to facilitate knowledge translation, task force cochair Derek K. Chu, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Chu, director of the Evidence in Allergy research group at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, cochaired the task force with Lynda Schneider, MD, section chief of the allergy and asthma program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

The new guidelines were published online on December 17, 2023, in Annals of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology. They include 25 recommendations and address optimal use of topical treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical JAK inhibitors, topical crisaborole, and topical antimicrobials; dilute bleach baths; dietary elimination; allergen immunotherapy by subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) routes; and systemic treatments with dupilumab and tralokinumab, cyclosporine, azathioprine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, oral JAK inhibitors, systemic corticosteroids; and phototherapy.

“There’s something in here for all clinicians — from primary care to AD experts— and patients may benefit as well, so the key individual recommendations will vary,” Dr. Chu told this news organization.

“Throughout the guideline, we emphasize shared decision-making, key factors to consider for each recommendation, and the specific evidence behind each recommendation,” he said. “There is a major focus on addressing equity, diversity, inclusiveness; and addressing health disparities, and key gaps to address in future research.”

Among the changes to the 2012 JTFPP guidelines, the 2023 update suggests using dilute bleach baths for patients with AD with moderate to severe disease as an additive therapy and suggests using allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for moderate to severe AD.

In other changes, the 2023 update suggests against using elimination diets for AD; recommends against very low dose baricitinib (1 mg); suggests against azathioprine, methotrexate, and mycophenolate mofetil; and suggests against adding topical JAK inhibitors, such as ruxolitinib, for patients with mild to moderate AD refractory to moisturization alone.

The 38-page guidelines include an infographic that summarizes comparative effects of systemic treatments on patient-important outcomes for AD that are important to patients, and includes other key summary tables that can be used at the point of care.

In addition to addressing evidence underlying each recommendation, the guideline’s eAppendix contains 1- to 2-page handouts that address practical issues for each treatment and can be used to facilitate shared decision making.

Dr. Chu said that the updated guidelines “provide important changes to almost all aspects of AD care — my own and my colleagues’ — and I strongly recommend all clinicians treating AD to read the full guidelines and use them in clinical practice. We’re grateful to all our contributors, especially our patient and caregiver partners, for helping make these guidelines. We will continue to periodically update the guidelines as part of maintaining them as living guidelines.”

The guidelines incorporate the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence.

The work was funded by the AAAAI/ACAAI JTFPP. Dr. Chu disclosed that he has received a faculty development award from the AAAAI Foundation and research grants to McMaster from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ontario Ministry of Health, and the Ontario Medical Association.

Evidence-based guidelines for managing atopic dermatitis (AD) issued by The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters (JTFPP) incorporate a decade of new treatments and new methodological standards for making recommendations. The new guidelines update 2012 recommendations.

The JTFPP AD guidelines represent “an evolution” in trustworthy allergy guidelines and provide systematic reviews of the evidence with multidisciplinary panelist engagement, adherence to a rigorous guideline development process, the involvement of the patient and caregiver voice from start to finish, clear translation of evidence to clinically actionable and contextual recommendations, and novel approaches to facilitate knowledge translation, task force cochair Derek K. Chu, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Chu, director of the Evidence in Allergy research group at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, cochaired the task force with Lynda Schneider, MD, section chief of the allergy and asthma program at Boston Children’s Hospital.

The new guidelines were published online on December 17, 2023, in Annals of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology. They include 25 recommendations and address optimal use of topical treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical JAK inhibitors, topical crisaborole, and topical antimicrobials; dilute bleach baths; dietary elimination; allergen immunotherapy by subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) routes; and systemic treatments with dupilumab and tralokinumab, cyclosporine, azathioprine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, oral JAK inhibitors, systemic corticosteroids; and phototherapy.

“There’s something in here for all clinicians — from primary care to AD experts— and patients may benefit as well, so the key individual recommendations will vary,” Dr. Chu told this news organization.

“Throughout the guideline, we emphasize shared decision-making, key factors to consider for each recommendation, and the specific evidence behind each recommendation,” he said. “There is a major focus on addressing equity, diversity, inclusiveness; and addressing health disparities, and key gaps to address in future research.”

Among the changes to the 2012 JTFPP guidelines, the 2023 update suggests using dilute bleach baths for patients with AD with moderate to severe disease as an additive therapy and suggests using allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for moderate to severe AD.

In other changes, the 2023 update suggests against using elimination diets for AD; recommends against very low dose baricitinib (1 mg); suggests against azathioprine, methotrexate, and mycophenolate mofetil; and suggests against adding topical JAK inhibitors, such as ruxolitinib, for patients with mild to moderate AD refractory to moisturization alone.

The 38-page guidelines include an infographic that summarizes comparative effects of systemic treatments on patient-important outcomes for AD that are important to patients, and includes other key summary tables that can be used at the point of care.

In addition to addressing evidence underlying each recommendation, the guideline’s eAppendix contains 1- to 2-page handouts that address practical issues for each treatment and can be used to facilitate shared decision making.

Dr. Chu said that the updated guidelines “provide important changes to almost all aspects of AD care — my own and my colleagues’ — and I strongly recommend all clinicians treating AD to read the full guidelines and use them in clinical practice. We’re grateful to all our contributors, especially our patient and caregiver partners, for helping make these guidelines. We will continue to periodically update the guidelines as part of maintaining them as living guidelines.”

The guidelines incorporate the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence.

The work was funded by the AAAAI/ACAAI JTFPP. Dr. Chu disclosed that he has received a faculty development award from the AAAAI Foundation and research grants to McMaster from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ontario Ministry of Health, and the Ontario Medical Association.

In the opinion of David Rosmarin, MD, the approval of dupilumab in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe, resistant atopic dermatitis (AD) marked an inflection point in dermatology.

“Dupilumab has revolutionized AD, and the [interleukin] IL-4 receptor target isn’t going away,” Dr. Rosmarin, who chairs the department of dermatology at Indiana University, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference. “It’s truly an exciting time because we have a lot of different treatments in the pipeline that target IL-4 and other receptors.”

In a review of AD biologic therapies in development, he highlighted the following:

CM310 (Stapokibart): This IL-4 receptor alpha monoclonal antibody, which is being developed by Keymed Biosciences, inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling. In a phase 3 randomized study of patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) meeting, it showed results similar to those of dupilumab. Specifically, at week 16, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-75 scores were achieved in 66.9% of patients in the CM310 group and 25.8% of patients in the placebo group, while the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) with a reduction of greater than or equal to 2 points from baseline was 44.2% in the CM310 group, compared with 16.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001 for both associations). According to Dr. Rosmarin, other novel anti-IL-4 receptor antibodies for AD include AK120, which is being developed by Akeso Biopharma, and CBP-201 (rademikibart), which is being developed by Connect Biopharma.

Eblasakimab. Under development by ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, this biologic is a potential first-in-class, monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-13Ralpha1 with high affinity and blocks the signaling of IL-4 and IL-13 through the type-2 receptor. In the TREK-AD monotherapy phase 2b trial in patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, the primary endpoint of EASI percent change from baseline to week 16, was met for eblasakimab doses 600 mg Q4W, 300mg Q2W, and 400mg Q2W vs. placebo (73.0% [P = .001], 69.8% [P = .005], and 65.8% [P = .029] vs. 51.1%), respectively.

Nemolizumab. Under development by Galderma, nemolizumab is a first-in-class IL-31 receptor alpha antagonist. “Many people refer to IL-31 as the itch cytokine,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “That’s probably a little oversimplified, but it’s certainly a powerful medication in development for prurigo nodularis as well as AD.”

Dr. Rosmarin

Results from the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, which included the concurrent use of topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors and were presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, showed that nemolizumab significantly improved skin lesions and itch in adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, compared with placebo. Specifically, 35.6% and 37.7% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, reached clearance or almost-clearance of skin lesions when assessed using the IGA score, compared with 24.6% and 26.0% in the placebo group (P < .0006, P = .001). In addition, 43.5% and 42.1% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, achieved a 75% reduction in the EASI, compared with 29.0% and 30.2% in the placebo group (P < .0001, P = .0011). “There are similar results regardless of the degree of itch patients are starting out with at baseline,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s a very rapid response, by week 4, and that continues to improve through week 16.”

Amlitelimab. Under development by Sanofi, this monoclonal antibody binds to OX40-Ligand, and is designed for patients with moderate to severe AD. According to results of a phase 2b trial that were presented in an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, patients treated with amlitelimab 250 mg Q4W with a 500 mg loading dose showed a 61.5% improvement in the average EASI score from baseline at week 16, compared with 29.4% of those who received placebo (P <.0001), with continued improvement seen through 24 weeks. “There are really strong results with EASI scores; clearly this medicine works compared to the placebo,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s also improving other biomarkers as well, including eosinophils, IL-13, TARC [serum thymus and activation-regulated chemokine], and IL-22.”

138559 (Temtokibart). Under development by LEO, 138559 is the first biologic to show the efficacy and safety of an IL-22RA1 targeting antibody for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD. In a phase 2a study abstract presented at the 2023 EADV meeting, the mean change in EASI from baseline to Week 16 was significantly greater for patients in the 138559-treated group compared with those in the placebo group (–15.3 vs. –3.5; P = .003). In addition, at week 16, significantly greater proportions of patients in the 138559 group relative to those in the placebo group achieved an EASI75 score (41.6% vs. 13.7%; P = .011) and an EASI-90 score (30.8% vs. 3.5%; P = .003). “With this particular receptor you’re not only blocking IL-22, but you’re blocking IL-20 and IL-24 as well,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It really may be that it’s IL-20 and IL-24 that are more responsible for the pathogenic effect.”

Dr. Rosmarin disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma and Sanofi.

In the opinion of David Rosmarin, MD, the approval of dupilumab in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe, resistant atopic dermatitis (AD) marked an inflection point in dermatology.

“Dupilumab has revolutionized AD, and the [interleukin] IL-4 receptor target isn’t going away,” Dr. Rosmarin, who chairs the department of dermatology at Indiana University, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference. “It’s truly an exciting time because we have a lot of different treatments in the pipeline that target IL-4 and other receptors.”

In a review of AD biologic therapies in development, he highlighted the following:

CM310 (Stapokibart): This IL-4 receptor alpha monoclonal antibody, which is being developed by Keymed Biosciences, inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling. In a phase 3 randomized study of patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) meeting, it showed results similar to those of dupilumab. Specifically, at week 16, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-75 scores were achieved in 66.9% of patients in the CM310 group and 25.8% of patients in the placebo group, while the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) with a reduction of greater than or equal to 2 points from baseline was 44.2% in the CM310 group, compared with 16.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001 for both associations). According to Dr. Rosmarin, other novel anti-IL-4 receptor antibodies for AD include AK120, which is being developed by Akeso Biopharma, and CBP-201 (rademikibart), which is being developed by Connect Biopharma.

Eblasakimab. Under development by ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, this biologic is a potential first-in-class, monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-13Ralpha1 with high affinity and blocks the signaling of IL-4 and IL-13 through the type-2 receptor. In the TREK-AD monotherapy phase 2b trial in patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, the primary endpoint of EASI percent change from baseline to week 16, was met for eblasakimab doses 600 mg Q4W, 300mg Q2W, and 400mg Q2W vs. placebo (73.0% [P = .001], 69.8% [P = .005], and 65.8% [P = .029] vs. 51.1%), respectively.

Nemolizumab. Under development by Galderma, nemolizumab is a first-in-class IL-31 receptor alpha antagonist. “Many people refer to IL-31 as the itch cytokine,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “That’s probably a little oversimplified, but it’s certainly a powerful medication in development for prurigo nodularis as well as AD.”

Dr. Rosmarin

Results from the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, which included the concurrent use of topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors and were presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, showed that nemolizumab significantly improved skin lesions and itch in adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, compared with placebo. Specifically, 35.6% and 37.7% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, reached clearance or almost-clearance of skin lesions when assessed using the IGA score, compared with 24.6% and 26.0% in the placebo group (P < .0006, P = .001). In addition, 43.5% and 42.1% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, achieved a 75% reduction in the EASI, compared with 29.0% and 30.2% in the placebo group (P < .0001, P = .0011). “There are similar results regardless of the degree of itch patients are starting out with at baseline,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s a very rapid response, by week 4, and that continues to improve through week 16.”

Amlitelimab. Under development by Sanofi, this monoclonal antibody binds to OX40-Ligand, and is designed for patients with moderate to severe AD. According to results of a phase 2b trial that were presented in an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, patients treated with amlitelimab 250 mg Q4W with a 500 mg loading dose showed a 61.5% improvement in the average EASI score from baseline at week 16, compared with 29.4% of those who received placebo (P <.0001), with continued improvement seen through 24 weeks. “There are really strong results with EASI scores; clearly this medicine works compared to the placebo,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s also improving other biomarkers as well, including eosinophils, IL-13, TARC [serum thymus and activation-regulated chemokine], and IL-22.”

138559 (Temtokibart). Under development by LEO, 138559 is the first biologic to show the efficacy and safety of an IL-22RA1 targeting antibody for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD. In a phase 2a study abstract presented at the 2023 EADV meeting, the mean change in EASI from baseline to Week 16 was significantly greater for patients in the 138559-treated group compared with those in the placebo group (–15.3 vs. –3.5; P = .003). In addition, at week 16, significantly greater proportions of patients in the 138559 group relative to those in the placebo group achieved an EASI75 score (41.6% vs. 13.7%; P = .011) and an EASI-90 score (30.8% vs. 3.5%; P = .003). “With this particular receptor you’re not only blocking IL-22, but you’re blocking IL-20 and IL-24 as well,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It really may be that it’s IL-20 and IL-24 that are more responsible for the pathogenic effect.”

Dr. Rosmarin disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma and Sanofi.

In the opinion of David Rosmarin, MD, the approval of dupilumab in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe, resistant atopic dermatitis (AD) marked an inflection point in dermatology.

“Dupilumab has revolutionized AD, and the [interleukin] IL-4 receptor target isn’t going away,” Dr. Rosmarin, who chairs the department of dermatology at Indiana University, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference. “It’s truly an exciting time because we have a lot of different treatments in the pipeline that target IL-4 and other receptors.”

In a review of AD biologic therapies in development, he highlighted the following:

CM310 (Stapokibart): This IL-4 receptor alpha monoclonal antibody, which is being developed by Keymed Biosciences, inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling. In a phase 3 randomized study of patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) meeting, it showed results similar to those of dupilumab. Specifically, at week 16, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-75 scores were achieved in 66.9% of patients in the CM310 group and 25.8% of patients in the placebo group, while the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) with a reduction of greater than or equal to 2 points from baseline was 44.2% in the CM310 group, compared with 16.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001 for both associations). According to Dr. Rosmarin, other novel anti-IL-4 receptor antibodies for AD include AK120, which is being developed by Akeso Biopharma, and CBP-201 (rademikibart), which is being developed by Connect Biopharma.

Eblasakimab. Under development by ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, this biologic is a potential first-in-class, monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-13Ralpha1 with high affinity and blocks the signaling of IL-4 and IL-13 through the type-2 receptor. In the TREK-AD monotherapy phase 2b trial in patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, the primary endpoint of EASI percent change from baseline to week 16, was met for eblasakimab doses 600 mg Q4W, 300mg Q2W, and 400mg Q2W vs. placebo (73.0% [P = .001], 69.8% [P = .005], and 65.8% [P = .029] vs. 51.1%), respectively.

Nemolizumab. Under development by Galderma, nemolizumab is a first-in-class IL-31 receptor alpha antagonist. “Many people refer to IL-31 as the itch cytokine,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “That’s probably a little oversimplified, but it’s certainly a powerful medication in development for prurigo nodularis as well as AD.”

Dr. Rosmarin

Results from the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, which included the concurrent use of topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors and were presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, showed that nemolizumab significantly improved skin lesions and itch in adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, compared with placebo. Specifically, 35.6% and 37.7% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, reached clearance or almost-clearance of skin lesions when assessed using the IGA score, compared with 24.6% and 26.0% in the placebo group (P < .0006, P = .001). In addition, 43.5% and 42.1% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, achieved a 75% reduction in the EASI, compared with 29.0% and 30.2% in the placebo group (P < .0001, P = .0011). “There are similar results regardless of the degree of itch patients are starting out with at baseline,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s a very rapid response, by week 4, and that continues to improve through week 16.”

Amlitelimab. Under development by Sanofi, this monoclonal antibody binds to OX40-Ligand, and is designed for patients with moderate to severe AD. According to results of a phase 2b trial that were presented in an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, patients treated with amlitelimab 250 mg Q4W with a 500 mg loading dose showed a 61.5% improvement in the average EASI score from baseline at week 16, compared with 29.4% of those who received placebo (P <.0001), with continued improvement seen through 24 weeks. “There are really strong results with EASI scores; clearly this medicine works compared to the placebo,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s also improving other biomarkers as well, including eosinophils, IL-13, TARC [serum thymus and activation-regulated chemokine], and IL-22.”

138559 (Temtokibart). Under development by LEO, 138559 is the first biologic to show the efficacy and safety of an IL-22RA1 targeting antibody for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD. In a phase 2a study abstract presented at the 2023 EADV meeting, the mean change in EASI from baseline to Week 16 was significantly greater for patients in the 138559-treated group compared with those in the placebo group (–15.3 vs. –3.5; P = .003). In addition, at week 16, significantly greater proportions of patients in the 138559 group relative to those in the placebo group achieved an EASI75 score (41.6% vs. 13.7%; P = .011) and an EASI-90 score (30.8% vs. 3.5%; P = .003). “With this particular receptor you’re not only blocking IL-22, but you’re blocking IL-20 and IL-24 as well,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It really may be that it’s IL-20 and IL-24 that are more responsible for the pathogenic effect.”

Dr. Rosmarin disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma and Sanofi.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for dermatologic drugs between 2012 and 2022 were considered first in class or first in indication.

METHODOLOGY:

• Only five new drugs for diseases treated mostly by dermatologists were approved by the FDA between 1999 and 2009.
• In a cross-sectional analysis to characterize the frequency and degree of innovation of dermatologic drugs approved more recently, researchers identified new and supplemental dermatologic drugs approved between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, from FDA lists, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services CenterWatch, and peer-reviewed articles.
• They used five proxy measures to estimate each drug’s degree of innovation: FDA designation (first in class, advance in class, or addition to class), independent clinical usefulness ratings, and benefit ratings by health technology assessment organizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study authors identified 52 new drug applications and 26 supplemental new indications approved by the FDA for dermatologic indications between 2012 and 2022.
• Of the 52 new drugs, the researchers categorized 11 (21%) as first in class and 13 (25%) as first in indication.
• An analysis of benefit ratings available for 38 of the drugs showed that 15 (39%) were rated as being clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.
• Of the 10 supplemental new indications with ratings by any organization, 3 (30%) were rated as clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.

IN PRACTICE:

While innovative drug development in dermatology may have increased, “these findings also highlight opportunities to develop more truly innovative dermatologic agents, particularly for diseases with unmet therapeutic need,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

First author Samir Kamat, MD, of the Medical Education Department at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, and corresponding author Ravi Gupta, MD, MSHP, of the Internal Medicine Division at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, led the research. The study was published online as a research letter on December 20, 2023, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

They include the use of individual indications to assess clinical usefulness and benefit ratings. Many drugs, particularly supplemental indications, lacked such ratings. Reformulations of already marketed drugs or indications were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Kamat and Dr. Gupta had no relevant disclosures. Three coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for dermatologic drugs between 2012 and 2022 were considered first in class or first in indication.

METHODOLOGY:

• Only five new drugs for diseases treated mostly by dermatologists were approved by the FDA between 1999 and 2009.
• In a cross-sectional analysis to characterize the frequency and degree of innovation of dermatologic drugs approved more recently, researchers identified new and supplemental dermatologic drugs approved between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, from FDA lists, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services CenterWatch, and peer-reviewed articles.
• They used five proxy measures to estimate each drug’s degree of innovation: FDA designation (first in class, advance in class, or addition to class), independent clinical usefulness ratings, and benefit ratings by health technology assessment organizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study authors identified 52 new drug applications and 26 supplemental new indications approved by the FDA for dermatologic indications between 2012 and 2022.
• Of the 52 new drugs, the researchers categorized 11 (21%) as first in class and 13 (25%) as first in indication.
• An analysis of benefit ratings available for 38 of the drugs showed that 15 (39%) were rated as being clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.
• Of the 10 supplemental new indications with ratings by any organization, 3 (30%) were rated as clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.

IN PRACTICE:

While innovative drug development in dermatology may have increased, “these findings also highlight opportunities to develop more truly innovative dermatologic agents, particularly for diseases with unmet therapeutic need,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

First author Samir Kamat, MD, of the Medical Education Department at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, and corresponding author Ravi Gupta, MD, MSHP, of the Internal Medicine Division at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, led the research. The study was published online as a research letter on December 20, 2023, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

They include the use of individual indications to assess clinical usefulness and benefit ratings. Many drugs, particularly supplemental indications, lacked such ratings. Reformulations of already marketed drugs or indications were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Kamat and Dr. Gupta had no relevant disclosures. Three coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for dermatologic drugs between 2012 and 2022 were considered first in class or first in indication.

METHODOLOGY:

• Only five new drugs for diseases treated mostly by dermatologists were approved by the FDA between 1999 and 2009.
• In a cross-sectional analysis to characterize the frequency and degree of innovation of dermatologic drugs approved more recently, researchers identified new and supplemental dermatologic drugs approved between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, from FDA lists, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services CenterWatch, and peer-reviewed articles.
• They used five proxy measures to estimate each drug’s degree of innovation: FDA designation (first in class, advance in class, or addition to class), independent clinical usefulness ratings, and benefit ratings by health technology assessment organizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study authors identified 52 new drug applications and 26 supplemental new indications approved by the FDA for dermatologic indications between 2012 and 2022.
• Of the 52 new drugs, the researchers categorized 11 (21%) as first in class and 13 (25%) as first in indication.
• An analysis of benefit ratings available for 38 of the drugs showed that 15 (39%) were rated as being clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.
• Of the 10 supplemental new indications with ratings by any organization, 3 (30%) were rated as clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.

IN PRACTICE:

While innovative drug development in dermatology may have increased, “these findings also highlight opportunities to develop more truly innovative dermatologic agents, particularly for diseases with unmet therapeutic need,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

First author Samir Kamat, MD, of the Medical Education Department at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, and corresponding author Ravi Gupta, MD, MSHP, of the Internal Medicine Division at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, led the research. The study was published online as a research letter on December 20, 2023, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

They include the use of individual indications to assess clinical usefulness and benefit ratings. Many drugs, particularly supplemental indications, lacked such ratings. Reformulations of already marketed drugs or indications were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Kamat and Dr. Gupta had no relevant disclosures. Three coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The myriad of clinical tools available for assessing patients with atopic dermatitis may leave clinicians wondering how to best incorporate the tools into the daily clinical workflow.

“It can be overwhelming because there are many choices but so little time,” Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor and director of clinical research in the dermatology department at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Assessment tools such as the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Numeric Rating scale for itch (NRS-itch), and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) “all correlate, but they’re all different, and there is value in all of them,” said Dr. Silverberg. “Of course, you’re not going to use all of them, but which ones should you use?”

He favors a structured approach that considers signs, symptoms, and quality of life, a framework that he and Shanthi Narla, MD, proposed in an article published online in Dermatitis. In the United States, he said, the Investigator’s Global Assessment scale (IGA) and BSA are the preferred tools for assessing the clinical severity of AD.

“If you go to Australia and New Zealand, they love EASI, while in Western Europe, they love the SCORAD [SCORing Atopic Dermatitis] tool because they’ve been using it since the 1990s,” Dr. Silverberg said. “So whatever works for you, pick it. But just use something that’s going to work within your practice setting. The IGA and the BSA are the easiest to do and the fastest to do in clinical practice. You’re going to have to document disease severity anyway if you’re going to get systemic therapies approved,” he said, referring to approval for coverage by the patient’s health insurance drug formulary.
 

Several Recommendations

Based on his clinical experience, Dr. Silverberg recommended certain assessment tools as “feasible” to use in daily practice. In the domain of clinical signs, “the IGA and the BSA are the most useful,” he said. “If the patient is gowned up, it probably takes about 30 seconds to do an IGA scale, and a BSA can be done in under a minute, easily.”

In the domain of symptoms, he recommends having the patient or caregiver complete at least one of the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): the NRS-itch, the NRS-pain, the NRS-Sleep Disturbance, the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), and either the Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) or the Patient-Reported Global AD Severity (PrtGA).

“Pick one or two that reflect what you can do in clinical practice,” Dr. Silverberg advised. “The NRS-itch is clinically meaningful and takes 10 seconds to do. Or you can just ask the patient, ‘How do you rate your itch? Clear, mild, moderate, or severe?’ A verbal rating scale, like a Likert scale, would also work. Again, this takes 10 seconds to assess. This is not slowing you down in practice; it will speed you up in the long run.”

He favors the NRS scale assessments, “because the 2023 AAD guidelines for AD advocate for open-ended questions,” he said. “I can tell you from personal experience that when you go down that rabbit hole of open-ended questions, you’re never getting out of that exam room. If you ask a patient how AD affects their life, you might as well just plan on a 30- to 40-minute visit. But if you use structured questions, you can get the information you need so dearly to make the right assessments, but you can keep the visit moving efficiently.”

He noted that the NRS-itch or the PtGA and PrtGA tools “each take about 10 seconds to complete. I would argue that you could probably have the patient [complete all of these PROMs], and you’re still in under a minute, and you get incredibly rich information.”

In the quality-of-life domain, Dr. Silverberg recommends that the patient or caregiver complete the DLQI. If there is additional time, he also suggests the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) to gain further insight on symptomatology.

“The DLQI takes about a minute or minute-and-a-half to complete, while the ADCT takes about a minute,” he said. “It measures overall disease control, and there are some interesting individual questions there, such as how AD bothers them, how it impacts their sleep, how it impacts them emotionally.”

To optimize efficiency, Dr. Silverberg recommends that patients or caregivers complete PROMs prior to the patient encounter by e-mail or on the patient’s online portal the night before. Freely available smart phone applications designed for AD patients can help them track their disease symptoms, such as EczemaWise from the National Eczema Association.

“[The PROMs] can even be completed in the waiting area; a lot of times we’re running behind anyway,” he said. “Even if we’re not, it can be done in a minute or two while they’re filling out their insurance paperwork or whatever. Patient-reported outcomes can also be collected by the medical assistant or nursing while rooming the patient.”

Administering such structured assessments prior to the actual patient encounter “seems counterintuitive because you’re asking seemingly more information, but that doesn’t matter, because you are asking it in an efficient, structured manner, and you are getting the information you need,” he noted. “These tools can also help fill in the gaps of telehealth encounters.”

Dr. Silverberg reported being a consultant and/or an adviser for many pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grant or research support from Galderma and Pfizer.

The myriad of clinical tools available for assessing patients with atopic dermatitis may leave clinicians wondering how to best incorporate the tools into the daily clinical workflow.

“It can be overwhelming because there are many choices but so little time,” Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor and director of clinical research in the dermatology department at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Assessment tools such as the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Numeric Rating scale for itch (NRS-itch), and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) “all correlate, but they’re all different, and there is value in all of them,” said Dr. Silverberg. “Of course, you’re not going to use all of them, but which ones should you use?”

He favors a structured approach that considers signs, symptoms, and quality of life, a framework that he and Shanthi Narla, MD, proposed in an article published online in Dermatitis. In the United States, he said, the Investigator’s Global Assessment scale (IGA) and BSA are the preferred tools for assessing the clinical severity of AD.

“If you go to Australia and New Zealand, they love EASI, while in Western Europe, they love the SCORAD [SCORing Atopic Dermatitis] tool because they’ve been using it since the 1990s,” Dr. Silverberg said. “So whatever works for you, pick it. But just use something that’s going to work within your practice setting. The IGA and the BSA are the easiest to do and the fastest to do in clinical practice. You’re going to have to document disease severity anyway if you’re going to get systemic therapies approved,” he said, referring to approval for coverage by the patient’s health insurance drug formulary.
 

Several Recommendations

Based on his clinical experience, Dr. Silverberg recommended certain assessment tools as “feasible” to use in daily practice. In the domain of clinical signs, “the IGA and the BSA are the most useful,” he said. “If the patient is gowned up, it probably takes about 30 seconds to do an IGA scale, and a BSA can be done in under a minute, easily.”

In the domain of symptoms, he recommends having the patient or caregiver complete at least one of the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): the NRS-itch, the NRS-pain, the NRS-Sleep Disturbance, the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), and either the Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) or the Patient-Reported Global AD Severity (PrtGA).

“Pick one or two that reflect what you can do in clinical practice,” Dr. Silverberg advised. “The NRS-itch is clinically meaningful and takes 10 seconds to do. Or you can just ask the patient, ‘How do you rate your itch? Clear, mild, moderate, or severe?’ A verbal rating scale, like a Likert scale, would also work. Again, this takes 10 seconds to assess. This is not slowing you down in practice; it will speed you up in the long run.”

He favors the NRS scale assessments, “because the 2023 AAD guidelines for AD advocate for open-ended questions,” he said. “I can tell you from personal experience that when you go down that rabbit hole of open-ended questions, you’re never getting out of that exam room. If you ask a patient how AD affects their life, you might as well just plan on a 30- to 40-minute visit. But if you use structured questions, you can get the information you need so dearly to make the right assessments, but you can keep the visit moving efficiently.”

He noted that the NRS-itch or the PtGA and PrtGA tools “each take about 10 seconds to complete. I would argue that you could probably have the patient [complete all of these PROMs], and you’re still in under a minute, and you get incredibly rich information.”

In the quality-of-life domain, Dr. Silverberg recommends that the patient or caregiver complete the DLQI. If there is additional time, he also suggests the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) to gain further insight on symptomatology.

“The DLQI takes about a minute or minute-and-a-half to complete, while the ADCT takes about a minute,” he said. “It measures overall disease control, and there are some interesting individual questions there, such as how AD bothers them, how it impacts their sleep, how it impacts them emotionally.”

To optimize efficiency, Dr. Silverberg recommends that patients or caregivers complete PROMs prior to the patient encounter by e-mail or on the patient’s online portal the night before. Freely available smart phone applications designed for AD patients can help them track their disease symptoms, such as EczemaWise from the National Eczema Association.

“[The PROMs] can even be completed in the waiting area; a lot of times we’re running behind anyway,” he said. “Even if we’re not, it can be done in a minute or two while they’re filling out their insurance paperwork or whatever. Patient-reported outcomes can also be collected by the medical assistant or nursing while rooming the patient.”

Administering such structured assessments prior to the actual patient encounter “seems counterintuitive because you’re asking seemingly more information, but that doesn’t matter, because you are asking it in an efficient, structured manner, and you are getting the information you need,” he noted. “These tools can also help fill in the gaps of telehealth encounters.”

Dr. Silverberg reported being a consultant and/or an adviser for many pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grant or research support from Galderma and Pfizer.

The myriad of clinical tools available for assessing patients with atopic dermatitis may leave clinicians wondering how to best incorporate the tools into the daily clinical workflow.

“It can be overwhelming because there are many choices but so little time,” Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor and director of clinical research in the dermatology department at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Assessment tools such as the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Numeric Rating scale for itch (NRS-itch), and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) “all correlate, but they’re all different, and there is value in all of them,” said Dr. Silverberg. “Of course, you’re not going to use all of them, but which ones should you use?”

He favors a structured approach that considers signs, symptoms, and quality of life, a framework that he and Shanthi Narla, MD, proposed in an article published online in Dermatitis. In the United States, he said, the Investigator’s Global Assessment scale (IGA) and BSA are the preferred tools for assessing the clinical severity of AD.

“If you go to Australia and New Zealand, they love EASI, while in Western Europe, they love the SCORAD [SCORing Atopic Dermatitis] tool because they’ve been using it since the 1990s,” Dr. Silverberg said. “So whatever works for you, pick it. But just use something that’s going to work within your practice setting. The IGA and the BSA are the easiest to do and the fastest to do in clinical practice. You’re going to have to document disease severity anyway if you’re going to get systemic therapies approved,” he said, referring to approval for coverage by the patient’s health insurance drug formulary.
 

Several Recommendations

Based on his clinical experience, Dr. Silverberg recommended certain assessment tools as “feasible” to use in daily practice. In the domain of clinical signs, “the IGA and the BSA are the most useful,” he said. “If the patient is gowned up, it probably takes about 30 seconds to do an IGA scale, and a BSA can be done in under a minute, easily.”

In the domain of symptoms, he recommends having the patient or caregiver complete at least one of the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): the NRS-itch, the NRS-pain, the NRS-Sleep Disturbance, the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), and either the Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) or the Patient-Reported Global AD Severity (PrtGA).

“Pick one or two that reflect what you can do in clinical practice,” Dr. Silverberg advised. “The NRS-itch is clinically meaningful and takes 10 seconds to do. Or you can just ask the patient, ‘How do you rate your itch? Clear, mild, moderate, or severe?’ A verbal rating scale, like a Likert scale, would also work. Again, this takes 10 seconds to assess. This is not slowing you down in practice; it will speed you up in the long run.”

He favors the NRS scale assessments, “because the 2023 AAD guidelines for AD advocate for open-ended questions,” he said. “I can tell you from personal experience that when you go down that rabbit hole of open-ended questions, you’re never getting out of that exam room. If you ask a patient how AD affects their life, you might as well just plan on a 30- to 40-minute visit. But if you use structured questions, you can get the information you need so dearly to make the right assessments, but you can keep the visit moving efficiently.”

He noted that the NRS-itch or the PtGA and PrtGA tools “each take about 10 seconds to complete. I would argue that you could probably have the patient [complete all of these PROMs], and you’re still in under a minute, and you get incredibly rich information.”

In the quality-of-life domain, Dr. Silverberg recommends that the patient or caregiver complete the DLQI. If there is additional time, he also suggests the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) to gain further insight on symptomatology.

“The DLQI takes about a minute or minute-and-a-half to complete, while the ADCT takes about a minute,” he said. “It measures overall disease control, and there are some interesting individual questions there, such as how AD bothers them, how it impacts their sleep, how it impacts them emotionally.”

To optimize efficiency, Dr. Silverberg recommends that patients or caregivers complete PROMs prior to the patient encounter by e-mail or on the patient’s online portal the night before. Freely available smart phone applications designed for AD patients can help them track their disease symptoms, such as EczemaWise from the National Eczema Association.

“[The PROMs] can even be completed in the waiting area; a lot of times we’re running behind anyway,” he said. “Even if we’re not, it can be done in a minute or two while they’re filling out their insurance paperwork or whatever. Patient-reported outcomes can also be collected by the medical assistant or nursing while rooming the patient.”

Administering such structured assessments prior to the actual patient encounter “seems counterintuitive because you’re asking seemingly more information, but that doesn’t matter, because you are asking it in an efficient, structured manner, and you are getting the information you need,” he noted. “These tools can also help fill in the gaps of telehealth encounters.”

Dr. Silverberg reported being a consultant and/or an adviser for many pharmaceutical companies. He has also received grant or research support from Galderma and Pfizer.

An experimental topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor showed superior efficacy to vehicle in patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) and plaque psoriasis, results from a phase 2a study showed.

PDE4 inhibitors are a promising therapeutic target for inflammatory diseases because “they can increase cyclic adenosine monophosphate levels and subsequently reduce the production of proinflammatory cytokines,” lead study author Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, of the dermatology department at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues wrote. The paper was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Currently Available Treatments

For plaque psoriasis, the FDA approved the topical PDE4 inhibitor roflumilast in 2022. The oral PDE4 inhibitor apremilast has shown to be effective for plaque psoriasis and is well tolerated, and “it has been associated with gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) such as nausea and diarrhea,” the researchers wrote.

For AD, crisaborole is the only approved topical PDE4 treatment, and it is associated with application site burning and stinging, they wrote.

An Experimental Alternative

The new study tested a topical PDE4 inhibitor known as PF-07038124, which is being developed by Pfizer. It is designed to be “a potent, oxaborole-based PDE4 inhibitor [that shows] immunomodulatory activity in T-cell–based assays, contributing to inhibition of [interleukin]-4 and IL-13; thus, it could provide therapeutic benefit in the treatment of AD and plaque psoriasis,” the authors wrote.

The phase 2a study was conducted from December 21, 2020, to August 18, 2021. Researchers at 34 sites in four countries randomized 104 patients with mild to moderate AD (70) or plaque psoriasis (34) to receive PF-07038124 as a 0.001% topical ointment or a vehicle only once daily for 6 weeks.

The primary end point was the percent change from baseline in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) total score among patients with AD and in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score among patients with plaque psoriasis at week 6. Safety measures of interest included treatment-emergent adverse events.

Overall, the mean age of the 104 patients was 43 years, 52.9%, were women, 3.8% were Asian, 12.5% were Black, and 83.7% were White. Most had moderate disease.

At week 6 in patients with AD, the PF-07038124 group showed statistically significantly greater improvement in the EASI total score, compared with vehicle group (−74.9% vs −35.5% respectively; least squares mean [LSM] difference, −39.4%; 90% CI, −58.8% to−20.1%]; P < .001).

Similarly, at week 6 in patients with plaque psoriasis, the PF-07038124 group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in the PASI total score, compared with the vehicle group (LSM, −4.8; 90% CI, −6.2 to −3.4] vs 0.1; 90% CI, −1.5 to 1.7), for a difference of −4.9; 90% CI, −7.0 to −2.8; P < .001.

In safety outcomes, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 16 people receiving PF-07038124 and 26 people receiving a vehicle. The treatment-related adverse events were reported only in the vehicle groups across all indications, while no patients in the PF-07038124 groups experienced pain or skin reactions at the application sites.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the trial, including its small size and the 6-week treatment period. “Unlike crisaborole, topical PF-07038124 was not associated with application site burning and stinging,” they noted. “To confirm persistence of efficacy and the safety profile of PF-07038124, long-term data should be collected in larger studies.”

Pfizer supported the study. Dr. Eichenfield reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer during the conduct of the study. He also has received grant support from, is consultant to, and/or is a member of the advisory board for many other pharmaceutical companies. Several other study authors reported similar disclosures.

An experimental topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor showed superior efficacy to vehicle in patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) and plaque psoriasis, results from a phase 2a study showed.

PDE4 inhibitors are a promising therapeutic target for inflammatory diseases because “they can increase cyclic adenosine monophosphate levels and subsequently reduce the production of proinflammatory cytokines,” lead study author Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, of the dermatology department at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues wrote. The paper was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Currently Available Treatments

For plaque psoriasis, the FDA approved the topical PDE4 inhibitor roflumilast in 2022. The oral PDE4 inhibitor apremilast has shown to be effective for plaque psoriasis and is well tolerated, and “it has been associated with gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) such as nausea and diarrhea,” the researchers wrote.

For AD, crisaborole is the only approved topical PDE4 treatment, and it is associated with application site burning and stinging, they wrote.

An Experimental Alternative

The new study tested a topical PDE4 inhibitor known as PF-07038124, which is being developed by Pfizer. It is designed to be “a potent, oxaborole-based PDE4 inhibitor [that shows] immunomodulatory activity in T-cell–based assays, contributing to inhibition of [interleukin]-4 and IL-13; thus, it could provide therapeutic benefit in the treatment of AD and plaque psoriasis,” the authors wrote.

The phase 2a study was conducted from December 21, 2020, to August 18, 2021. Researchers at 34 sites in four countries randomized 104 patients with mild to moderate AD (70) or plaque psoriasis (34) to receive PF-07038124 as a 0.001% topical ointment or a vehicle only once daily for 6 weeks.

The primary end point was the percent change from baseline in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) total score among patients with AD and in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score among patients with plaque psoriasis at week 6. Safety measures of interest included treatment-emergent adverse events.

Overall, the mean age of the 104 patients was 43 years, 52.9%, were women, 3.8% were Asian, 12.5% were Black, and 83.7% were White. Most had moderate disease.

At week 6 in patients with AD, the PF-07038124 group showed statistically significantly greater improvement in the EASI total score, compared with vehicle group (−74.9% vs −35.5% respectively; least squares mean [LSM] difference, −39.4%; 90% CI, −58.8% to−20.1%]; P < .001).

Similarly, at week 6 in patients with plaque psoriasis, the PF-07038124 group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in the PASI total score, compared with the vehicle group (LSM, −4.8; 90% CI, −6.2 to −3.4] vs 0.1; 90% CI, −1.5 to 1.7), for a difference of −4.9; 90% CI, −7.0 to −2.8; P < .001.

In safety outcomes, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 16 people receiving PF-07038124 and 26 people receiving a vehicle. The treatment-related adverse events were reported only in the vehicle groups across all indications, while no patients in the PF-07038124 groups experienced pain or skin reactions at the application sites.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the trial, including its small size and the 6-week treatment period. “Unlike crisaborole, topical PF-07038124 was not associated with application site burning and stinging,” they noted. “To confirm persistence of efficacy and the safety profile of PF-07038124, long-term data should be collected in larger studies.”

Pfizer supported the study. Dr. Eichenfield reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer during the conduct of the study. He also has received grant support from, is consultant to, and/or is a member of the advisory board for many other pharmaceutical companies. Several other study authors reported similar disclosures.

An experimental topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor showed superior efficacy to vehicle in patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) and plaque psoriasis, results from a phase 2a study showed.

PDE4 inhibitors are a promising therapeutic target for inflammatory diseases because “they can increase cyclic adenosine monophosphate levels and subsequently reduce the production of proinflammatory cytokines,” lead study author Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, of the dermatology department at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues wrote. The paper was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Currently Available Treatments

For plaque psoriasis, the FDA approved the topical PDE4 inhibitor roflumilast in 2022. The oral PDE4 inhibitor apremilast has shown to be effective for plaque psoriasis and is well tolerated, and “it has been associated with gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) such as nausea and diarrhea,” the researchers wrote.

For AD, crisaborole is the only approved topical PDE4 treatment, and it is associated with application site burning and stinging, they wrote.

An Experimental Alternative

The new study tested a topical PDE4 inhibitor known as PF-07038124, which is being developed by Pfizer. It is designed to be “a potent, oxaborole-based PDE4 inhibitor [that shows] immunomodulatory activity in T-cell–based assays, contributing to inhibition of [interleukin]-4 and IL-13; thus, it could provide therapeutic benefit in the treatment of AD and plaque psoriasis,” the authors wrote.

The phase 2a study was conducted from December 21, 2020, to August 18, 2021. Researchers at 34 sites in four countries randomized 104 patients with mild to moderate AD (70) or plaque psoriasis (34) to receive PF-07038124 as a 0.001% topical ointment or a vehicle only once daily for 6 weeks.

The primary end point was the percent change from baseline in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) total score among patients with AD and in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score among patients with plaque psoriasis at week 6. Safety measures of interest included treatment-emergent adverse events.

Overall, the mean age of the 104 patients was 43 years, 52.9%, were women, 3.8% were Asian, 12.5% were Black, and 83.7% were White. Most had moderate disease.

At week 6 in patients with AD, the PF-07038124 group showed statistically significantly greater improvement in the EASI total score, compared with vehicle group (−74.9% vs −35.5% respectively; least squares mean [LSM] difference, −39.4%; 90% CI, −58.8% to−20.1%]; P < .001).

Similarly, at week 6 in patients with plaque psoriasis, the PF-07038124 group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in the PASI total score, compared with the vehicle group (LSM, −4.8; 90% CI, −6.2 to −3.4] vs 0.1; 90% CI, −1.5 to 1.7), for a difference of −4.9; 90% CI, −7.0 to −2.8; P < .001.

In safety outcomes, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 16 people receiving PF-07038124 and 26 people receiving a vehicle. The treatment-related adverse events were reported only in the vehicle groups across all indications, while no patients in the PF-07038124 groups experienced pain or skin reactions at the application sites.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the trial, including its small size and the 6-week treatment period. “Unlike crisaborole, topical PF-07038124 was not associated with application site burning and stinging,” they noted. “To confirm persistence of efficacy and the safety profile of PF-07038124, long-term data should be collected in larger studies.”

Pfizer supported the study. Dr. Eichenfield reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer during the conduct of the study. He also has received grant support from, is consultant to, and/or is a member of the advisory board for many other pharmaceutical companies. Several other study authors reported similar disclosures.

With so many treatment options available for atopic dermatitis (AD) and more in the pipeline, one common question Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, hears from his fellow dermatologists is: How do I choose the right therapy for my patients?

“There isn’t going to be a one-size-fits-all approach, and it may be impossible to differentiate, given that these agents are not likely to be studied head-to-head,” Dr. Chovatiya, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Dr. Chovatiya

He shared a list of factors to consider when engaged in shared decision-making with patients about their AD treatment options. These include:

• Severity of disease (mild vs moderate vs severe).
• Extent of disease (low vs high body surface area).
• Rapidity of drug onset (hours vs days vs weeks).
• Depth of response based on different endpoints such as itch and number of lesions.
• Long-term efficacy (durability on treatment vs off treatment).
• Adverse events (cutaneous vs systemic).
• Black box warnings (present vs absent).
• Tolerance (selective areas vs the entire skin).
• Vehicle (ointment vs cream).
• Patient preference. “This may be the biggest driver; what do patients want?” Dr. Chovatiya said.
• Access to the drug. Is it easily obtainable for the patient?

He concluded his remarks by posing a question to attendees: “Are we closer to living in a topical steroid–free world for AD? Is that what we want?” he asked. “I wholeheartedly say that’s what we’ve been working toward all these years, and we should keep up the good fight. We have more data for targeted therapy to treat very specific disease with very specific outcomes and endpoints, because I think that’s [what] we all dream about in dermatology.”

Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies.

With so many treatment options available for atopic dermatitis (AD) and more in the pipeline, one common question Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, hears from his fellow dermatologists is: How do I choose the right therapy for my patients?

“There isn’t going to be a one-size-fits-all approach, and it may be impossible to differentiate, given that these agents are not likely to be studied head-to-head,” Dr. Chovatiya, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Dr. Chovatiya

He shared a list of factors to consider when engaged in shared decision-making with patients about their AD treatment options. These include:

• Severity of disease (mild vs moderate vs severe).
• Extent of disease (low vs high body surface area).
• Rapidity of drug onset (hours vs days vs weeks).
• Depth of response based on different endpoints such as itch and number of lesions.
• Long-term efficacy (durability on treatment vs off treatment).
• Adverse events (cutaneous vs systemic).
• Black box warnings (present vs absent).
• Tolerance (selective areas vs the entire skin).
• Vehicle (ointment vs cream).
• Patient preference. “This may be the biggest driver; what do patients want?” Dr. Chovatiya said.
• Access to the drug. Is it easily obtainable for the patient?

He concluded his remarks by posing a question to attendees: “Are we closer to living in a topical steroid–free world for AD? Is that what we want?” he asked. “I wholeheartedly say that’s what we’ve been working toward all these years, and we should keep up the good fight. We have more data for targeted therapy to treat very specific disease with very specific outcomes and endpoints, because I think that’s [what] we all dream about in dermatology.”

Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies.

With so many treatment options available for atopic dermatitis (AD) and more in the pipeline, one common question Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, hears from his fellow dermatologists is: How do I choose the right therapy for my patients?

“There isn’t going to be a one-size-fits-all approach, and it may be impossible to differentiate, given that these agents are not likely to be studied head-to-head,” Dr. Chovatiya, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Dr. Chovatiya

He shared a list of factors to consider when engaged in shared decision-making with patients about their AD treatment options. These include:

• Severity of disease (mild vs moderate vs severe).
• Extent of disease (low vs high body surface area).
• Rapidity of drug onset (hours vs days vs weeks).
• Depth of response based on different endpoints such as itch and number of lesions.
• Long-term efficacy (durability on treatment vs off treatment).
• Adverse events (cutaneous vs systemic).
• Black box warnings (present vs absent).
• Tolerance (selective areas vs the entire skin).
• Vehicle (ointment vs cream).
• Patient preference. “This may be the biggest driver; what do patients want?” Dr. Chovatiya said.
• Access to the drug. Is it easily obtainable for the patient?

He concluded his remarks by posing a question to attendees: “Are we closer to living in a topical steroid–free world for AD? Is that what we want?” he asked. “I wholeheartedly say that’s what we’ve been working toward all these years, and we should keep up the good fight. We have more data for targeted therapy to treat very specific disease with very specific outcomes and endpoints, because I think that’s [what] we all dream about in dermatology.”

Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies.

Safety data spanning up to 5 years from clinical trials of adolescents and adults using 15 mg or 30 mg of upadacitinib to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) indicates that rates of treatment-emergent adverse events remained low and consistent, with no new safety risks identified, underscoring the medication’s stable safety profile over an extended duration.

Those are among the key findings from an integrated analysis of long-term upadacitinib use presented by Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Virtual Conference. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

“What makes this study special is that these patients are followed for 260 weeks, or 5 years, and it encompasses over 7,000 patient-years of exposure,” said Dr. Bunick, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. “This is a milestone because it’s the longest safety study ever published for any systemic drug for AD.”

He and his colleagues evaluated the safety data for up to 5 years of upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg use in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD, based on the results of integrated data from three ongoing global multicenter phase 3 trials: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. Patients in the trials were randomized 1:1:1 to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo once daily alone (Measure Up 1 and 2) or with concomitant topical corticosteroids (AD Up). At week 16, patients receiving 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib during the double-blind period continued their assigned treatment in the blinded extension (BE) period, whereas patients receiving placebo were randomized 1:1 to receive either 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib in the BE period. The integrated analysis included 2683 patients (529 adolescents and 2154 adults) who received at least one dose of upadacitinib. Of these, 1337 received the 15-mg dose, while 1346 received the 30-mg dose. The researchers analyzed treatment-emergent events of special interest as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (PY) for the entire treatment period to adjust for potentially different follow-up durations.

According to Dr. Bunick, researchers often refer to “100 patient-years” in safety analyses to measure how common certain events are. “It is a straightforward way to convey the collective experience of the study’s participants over time,” he told this news organization. “For instance, if 100 patients are each monitored for 1 year, or 50 patients for 2 years each, both scenarios amount to 100 patient-years. This metric allows clinicians to understand how often certain adverse events occur across a diverse group over a specific time frame, providing a clear picture of long-term safety.”

Upadacitinib trials in atopic dermatitis have included diverse patient groups with varying risk factors. “Patients were not cherry-picked,” he said. “What I mean by that is that about 50% of patients enrolled in these trials had, at baseline, at least one cardiovascular risk factor: about 30% used tobacco; 10% had hypertension, and 5% had a history of a cardiovascular event.” In addition, about 15% were over age 50 with one cardiovascular risk factor and about 20% had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m². Among women in the study, about 20% were on oral contraceptives, yet none developed a venous thromboembolism (VTE).

In the integrated analysis, the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of upadacitinib was about 4.2 events per 100 PY, “meaning that this medicine shows durability,” Dr. Bunick said. “Very few people are discontinuing due to adverse events.”

Serious and opportunistic infections ranged from 1.6 to 2.8 events per 100 PY, but these were stable across the 1- to 5-year time points. The rates of active TB were less than 0.1 per 100 PY, while the rates of herpes zoster ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 events per 100 PY. “The key take-home point here is that 5% or less of the patients at baseline had received the shingles vaccine, so it’s very important to talk to patients about receiving the shingles vaccine before they go on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick advised, because “this could reduce risk of herpes zoster occurring in upadacitinib-treated patients substantially.”

In other findings, incidence rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY, while the rate of malignancy excluding NMSC ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY. Meanwhile, the rates of gastrointestinal perforations and VTE stood at 0.1 per 100 PY or lower, and MACE incidence rates ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY.

During his presentation, Dr. Bunick compared findings related to malignancy (excluding NMSC), MACE, and VTE to other published real-world background rates observed in moderate to severe AD populations. He noted that, while the malignancy rate in the current trial ranged from 0.3 to 0.4 per 100 PY, an observational study of more than 66,000 AD patients in the United Kingdom reported a malignancy (excluding NMSC) background incidence rate of 0.33 per 100 PY, and SEER data estimate that the malignancy incidence rate in the US general population is 0.45 per 100 PY. “Therefore, patients on upadacitinib at the 5-year mark are right at the AD population baseline risk,” he said.

And while the incidence rate of MACE in the current trial ranged from less than 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY, the background incidence rate of MACE in a Danish observational study of more than 2,500 patients with moderate to severe AD was 0.63 per 100 PY. “This suggests that there may be an anti-inflammatory and even a cardiovascular protective effect for patients on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick said.

As for VTE, the incidence rate in the current trial was 0.1 per 100 PY, but VTE background incidence rate observed in a moderate to severe AD population in the United States is 0.31 per 100 PY. “Again, this suggests anti-inflammatory and cardiovascular protective effects of upadacitinib in AD patients at the 5-year mark,” he said. “Reporting of MACE, VTE, and malignancy (excluding NMSC) in upadacitinib phase 3 clinical trials for AD generally reflects the background observations of these events in the AD population.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that observational data may overestimate the risk of adverse events.

Discussing the incidence rates for MACE, VTE, and malignancy in upadacitinib AD trials, Dr. Bunick remarked, “these are rock-bottom rates that have been low through 5 years of treatment.”

Dr. Bunick disclosed that he has received grant or research support from AbbVie (the manufacturer of upadacitinib), Almirall, Ortho Dermatologics, Timber, and Palvella. He is also a consultant and/or an adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Apogee, Connect Bropharma, Arcutis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Ortho Dermatologics, Leo Pharma, and UCB.

Safety data spanning up to 5 years from clinical trials of adolescents and adults using 15 mg or 30 mg of upadacitinib to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) indicates that rates of treatment-emergent adverse events remained low and consistent, with no new safety risks identified, underscoring the medication’s stable safety profile over an extended duration.

Those are among the key findings from an integrated analysis of long-term upadacitinib use presented by Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Virtual Conference. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

“What makes this study special is that these patients are followed for 260 weeks, or 5 years, and it encompasses over 7,000 patient-years of exposure,” said Dr. Bunick, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. “This is a milestone because it’s the longest safety study ever published for any systemic drug for AD.”

He and his colleagues evaluated the safety data for up to 5 years of upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg use in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD, based on the results of integrated data from three ongoing global multicenter phase 3 trials: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. Patients in the trials were randomized 1:1:1 to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo once daily alone (Measure Up 1 and 2) or with concomitant topical corticosteroids (AD Up). At week 16, patients receiving 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib during the double-blind period continued their assigned treatment in the blinded extension (BE) period, whereas patients receiving placebo were randomized 1:1 to receive either 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib in the BE period. The integrated analysis included 2683 patients (529 adolescents and 2154 adults) who received at least one dose of upadacitinib. Of these, 1337 received the 15-mg dose, while 1346 received the 30-mg dose. The researchers analyzed treatment-emergent events of special interest as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (PY) for the entire treatment period to adjust for potentially different follow-up durations.

According to Dr. Bunick, researchers often refer to “100 patient-years” in safety analyses to measure how common certain events are. “It is a straightforward way to convey the collective experience of the study’s participants over time,” he told this news organization. “For instance, if 100 patients are each monitored for 1 year, or 50 patients for 2 years each, both scenarios amount to 100 patient-years. This metric allows clinicians to understand how often certain adverse events occur across a diverse group over a specific time frame, providing a clear picture of long-term safety.”

Upadacitinib trials in atopic dermatitis have included diverse patient groups with varying risk factors. “Patients were not cherry-picked,” he said. “What I mean by that is that about 50% of patients enrolled in these trials had, at baseline, at least one cardiovascular risk factor: about 30% used tobacco; 10% had hypertension, and 5% had a history of a cardiovascular event.” In addition, about 15% were over age 50 with one cardiovascular risk factor and about 20% had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m². Among women in the study, about 20% were on oral contraceptives, yet none developed a venous thromboembolism (VTE).

In the integrated analysis, the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of upadacitinib was about 4.2 events per 100 PY, “meaning that this medicine shows durability,” Dr. Bunick said. “Very few people are discontinuing due to adverse events.”

Serious and opportunistic infections ranged from 1.6 to 2.8 events per 100 PY, but these were stable across the 1- to 5-year time points. The rates of active TB were less than 0.1 per 100 PY, while the rates of herpes zoster ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 events per 100 PY. “The key take-home point here is that 5% or less of the patients at baseline had received the shingles vaccine, so it’s very important to talk to patients about receiving the shingles vaccine before they go on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick advised, because “this could reduce risk of herpes zoster occurring in upadacitinib-treated patients substantially.”

In other findings, incidence rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY, while the rate of malignancy excluding NMSC ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY. Meanwhile, the rates of gastrointestinal perforations and VTE stood at 0.1 per 100 PY or lower, and MACE incidence rates ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY.

During his presentation, Dr. Bunick compared findings related to malignancy (excluding NMSC), MACE, and VTE to other published real-world background rates observed in moderate to severe AD populations. He noted that, while the malignancy rate in the current trial ranged from 0.3 to 0.4 per 100 PY, an observational study of more than 66,000 AD patients in the United Kingdom reported a malignancy (excluding NMSC) background incidence rate of 0.33 per 100 PY, and SEER data estimate that the malignancy incidence rate in the US general population is 0.45 per 100 PY. “Therefore, patients on upadacitinib at the 5-year mark are right at the AD population baseline risk,” he said.

And while the incidence rate of MACE in the current trial ranged from less than 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY, the background incidence rate of MACE in a Danish observational study of more than 2,500 patients with moderate to severe AD was 0.63 per 100 PY. “This suggests that there may be an anti-inflammatory and even a cardiovascular protective effect for patients on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick said.

As for VTE, the incidence rate in the current trial was 0.1 per 100 PY, but VTE background incidence rate observed in a moderate to severe AD population in the United States is 0.31 per 100 PY. “Again, this suggests anti-inflammatory and cardiovascular protective effects of upadacitinib in AD patients at the 5-year mark,” he said. “Reporting of MACE, VTE, and malignancy (excluding NMSC) in upadacitinib phase 3 clinical trials for AD generally reflects the background observations of these events in the AD population.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that observational data may overestimate the risk of adverse events.

Discussing the incidence rates for MACE, VTE, and malignancy in upadacitinib AD trials, Dr. Bunick remarked, “these are rock-bottom rates that have been low through 5 years of treatment.”

Dr. Bunick disclosed that he has received grant or research support from AbbVie (the manufacturer of upadacitinib), Almirall, Ortho Dermatologics, Timber, and Palvella. He is also a consultant and/or an adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Apogee, Connect Bropharma, Arcutis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Ortho Dermatologics, Leo Pharma, and UCB.

Safety data spanning up to 5 years from clinical trials of adolescents and adults using 15 mg or 30 mg of upadacitinib to treat moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) indicates that rates of treatment-emergent adverse events remained low and consistent, with no new safety risks identified, underscoring the medication’s stable safety profile over an extended duration.

Those are among the key findings from an integrated analysis of long-term upadacitinib use presented by Christopher G. Bunick, MD, PhD, during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis Virtual Conference. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years of age and older with refractory, moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

“What makes this study special is that these patients are followed for 260 weeks, or 5 years, and it encompasses over 7,000 patient-years of exposure,” said Dr. Bunick, associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. “This is a milestone because it’s the longest safety study ever published for any systemic drug for AD.”

He and his colleagues evaluated the safety data for up to 5 years of upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg use in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD, based on the results of integrated data from three ongoing global multicenter phase 3 trials: Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up. Patients in the trials were randomized 1:1:1 to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo once daily alone (Measure Up 1 and 2) or with concomitant topical corticosteroids (AD Up). At week 16, patients receiving 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib during the double-blind period continued their assigned treatment in the blinded extension (BE) period, whereas patients receiving placebo were randomized 1:1 to receive either 15 mg or 30 mg upadacitinib in the BE period. The integrated analysis included 2683 patients (529 adolescents and 2154 adults) who received at least one dose of upadacitinib. Of these, 1337 received the 15-mg dose, while 1346 received the 30-mg dose. The researchers analyzed treatment-emergent events of special interest as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (PY) for the entire treatment period to adjust for potentially different follow-up durations.

According to Dr. Bunick, researchers often refer to “100 patient-years” in safety analyses to measure how common certain events are. “It is a straightforward way to convey the collective experience of the study’s participants over time,” he told this news organization. “For instance, if 100 patients are each monitored for 1 year, or 50 patients for 2 years each, both scenarios amount to 100 patient-years. This metric allows clinicians to understand how often certain adverse events occur across a diverse group over a specific time frame, providing a clear picture of long-term safety.”

Upadacitinib trials in atopic dermatitis have included diverse patient groups with varying risk factors. “Patients were not cherry-picked,” he said. “What I mean by that is that about 50% of patients enrolled in these trials had, at baseline, at least one cardiovascular risk factor: about 30% used tobacco; 10% had hypertension, and 5% had a history of a cardiovascular event.” In addition, about 15% were over age 50 with one cardiovascular risk factor and about 20% had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m². Among women in the study, about 20% were on oral contraceptives, yet none developed a venous thromboembolism (VTE).

In the integrated analysis, the rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to discontinuation of upadacitinib was about 4.2 events per 100 PY, “meaning that this medicine shows durability,” Dr. Bunick said. “Very few people are discontinuing due to adverse events.”

Serious and opportunistic infections ranged from 1.6 to 2.8 events per 100 PY, but these were stable across the 1- to 5-year time points. The rates of active TB were less than 0.1 per 100 PY, while the rates of herpes zoster ranged from 3.5 to 5.5 events per 100 PY. “The key take-home point here is that 5% or less of the patients at baseline had received the shingles vaccine, so it’s very important to talk to patients about receiving the shingles vaccine before they go on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick advised, because “this could reduce risk of herpes zoster occurring in upadacitinib-treated patients substantially.”

In other findings, incidence rates of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY, while the rate of malignancy excluding NMSC ranged between 0.3 and 0.4 per 100 PY. Meanwhile, the rates of gastrointestinal perforations and VTE stood at 0.1 per 100 PY or lower, and MACE incidence rates ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY.

During his presentation, Dr. Bunick compared findings related to malignancy (excluding NMSC), MACE, and VTE to other published real-world background rates observed in moderate to severe AD populations. He noted that, while the malignancy rate in the current trial ranged from 0.3 to 0.4 per 100 PY, an observational study of more than 66,000 AD patients in the United Kingdom reported a malignancy (excluding NMSC) background incidence rate of 0.33 per 100 PY, and SEER data estimate that the malignancy incidence rate in the US general population is 0.45 per 100 PY. “Therefore, patients on upadacitinib at the 5-year mark are right at the AD population baseline risk,” he said.

And while the incidence rate of MACE in the current trial ranged from less than 0.1 to 0.2 per 100 PY, the background incidence rate of MACE in a Danish observational study of more than 2,500 patients with moderate to severe AD was 0.63 per 100 PY. “This suggests that there may be an anti-inflammatory and even a cardiovascular protective effect for patients on upadacitinib,” Dr. Bunick said.

As for VTE, the incidence rate in the current trial was 0.1 per 100 PY, but VTE background incidence rate observed in a moderate to severe AD population in the United States is 0.31 per 100 PY. “Again, this suggests anti-inflammatory and cardiovascular protective effects of upadacitinib in AD patients at the 5-year mark,” he said. “Reporting of MACE, VTE, and malignancy (excluding NMSC) in upadacitinib phase 3 clinical trials for AD generally reflects the background observations of these events in the AD population.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that observational data may overestimate the risk of adverse events.

Discussing the incidence rates for MACE, VTE, and malignancy in upadacitinib AD trials, Dr. Bunick remarked, “these are rock-bottom rates that have been low through 5 years of treatment.”

Dr. Bunick disclosed that he has received grant or research support from AbbVie (the manufacturer of upadacitinib), Almirall, Ortho Dermatologics, Timber, and Palvella. He is also a consultant and/or an adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Apogee, Connect Bropharma, Arcutis, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Ortho Dermatologics, Leo Pharma, and UCB.

The prevalence of clinically meaningful conjunctivitis in patients taking dupilumab for atopic dermatitis (AD) is likely about 2%, and it most often occurs in the first 16 weeks of therapy.

Those are key findings from an analysis of published trials of dupilumab for AD and other conditions that study author Matthew Zirwas, MD, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Adults with AD have a significant and disease severity–dependent increased risk of developing ocular surface diseases, including conjunctivitis and keratitis, compared with the general population and independent of any drug effect, according to Dr. Zirwas, a dermatologist with Probity Medical Research of Columbus, Ohio.

Dupilumab inhibits signaling of interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, which drive type 2 inflammatory diseases such as AD, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP), eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), prurigo nodularis (PN), and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU).

In randomized, placebo-controlled trials of dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe AD, conjunctivitis was reported in more patients who received dupilumab treatment than in placebo-treated patients.

“When it comes to dupilumab-induced conjunctivitis, we have a good idea of the etiology, but the question of how frequently it occurs versus how frequently the conjunctivitis is unrelated to dupilumab is an interesting one,” he said. “How often is it clinically meaningful? What is it that is so unique about AD patients? We’ve all heard that it is a unique adverse event that only happens to people with AD and not to people using dupilumab for other indications. Where it gets interesting to me is how do we differentiate the cases that are dupilumab induced versus the cases that are just part of the underlying AD process?”

For their analysis, Dr. Zirwas and co-authors reviewed the incidence of conjunctivitis adverse events in patients from 15 completed, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials evaluating dupilumab in AD, asthma, CRSwNP, EoE, PN, and CSU, along with the severity and resolution of conjunctivitis events in adults with AD.

Of the 15 trials, 7 were conducted in patients with AD: 4 in adults, 1 in adolescents, 1 in school-aged children, and 1 in preschoolers. One of the AD trials, LIBERTY AD CHRONOS, extends 52 weeks. The remaining eight trials of patients with asthma, CRSwNP, EoE, PN, and CSU lasted 24-52 weeks.

In the non-AD trials, the researchers observed that conjunctivitis rates were generally in the 1%-3% range, with less pronounced or no differences between the dupilumab and placebo groups. In the AD trials, conjunctivitis rates were higher in patients receiving dupilumab, compared with those receiving placebo across age groups.

In the 16-week SOLO 1 & 2 and AD-1021 monotherapy trials, 12 conjunctivitis events occurred in 517 patients who received placebo (2%), compared with 103 of 1047 patients (9.84%) who received dupilumab. Of the dupilumab-associated conjunctivitis cases, 80 (78%) patients recovered by the end of the trials. Of the 23 cases of conjunctivitis that did not recover or dropped out of the trial, 15 were among the 529 patients who received 300 mg dupilumab once every 2 weeks (q2w) (3%) and eight were among the 518 who received 300 mg dupilumab once weekly (qw) (2%).

In the 52-week LIBERTY AD CHRONOS trial, 29 conjunctivitis events occurred in 315 patients who received placebo plus topical corticosteroid (TCS) (9%), compared with 113 of 425 patients (27%) who received dupilumab plus TCS. Of these, 103 (91%) recovered by the end of the trial. Of the 11 patients with conjunctivitis who did not recover or dropped out of the trial, 3 were among the 110 patients who received 300 mg dupilumab q2w plus TCS (3%), and 8 were among the 315 who received 300 mg dupilumab qw plus TCS (3%).

“When I look at all of this data, I think that about 2% of people treated with dupilumab are going to get clinically very meaningful conjunctivitis that may be therapy limiting,” Dr. Zirwas concluded. “The vast majority of those cases appear to happen in the first 16 weeks. This is just not something we see in cases of patients treated with dupilumab treated for other reasons.”

Following his presentation, a meeting attendee asked Dr. Zirwas if conjunctivitis occurs more often in patients with facial dermatitis. “My perception is that it happens more often in people who have facial or eyelid dermatitis, but I’ve seen it in plenty of people who didn’t have any facial or eyelid dermatitis,” he said. “I have seen more conjunctivitis in people with more severe AD and more severe atopic comorbidities. That is anecdotal. The data that I have seen has been back and forth on this topic.”

Dr. Zirwas disclosed that he is a speaker and consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, Leo, Lilly, Galderma, Pfizer, and AbbVie. Several of his co-authors work for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

The prevalence of clinically meaningful conjunctivitis in patients taking dupilumab for atopic dermatitis (AD) is likely about 2%, and it most often occurs in the first 16 weeks of therapy.

Those are key findings from an analysis of published trials of dupilumab for AD and other conditions that study author Matthew Zirwas, MD, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Adults with AD have a significant and disease severity–dependent increased risk of developing ocular surface diseases, including conjunctivitis and keratitis, compared with the general population and independent of any drug effect, according to Dr. Zirwas, a dermatologist with Probity Medical Research of Columbus, Ohio.

Dupilumab inhibits signaling of interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, which drive type 2 inflammatory diseases such as AD, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP), eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), prurigo nodularis (PN), and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU).

In randomized, placebo-controlled trials of dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe AD, conjunctivitis was reported in more patients who received dupilumab treatment than in placebo-treated patients.

“When it comes to dupilumab-induced conjunctivitis, we have a good idea of the etiology, but the question of how frequently it occurs versus how frequently the conjunctivitis is unrelated to dupilumab is an interesting one,” he said. “How often is it clinically meaningful? What is it that is so unique about AD patients? We’ve all heard that it is a unique adverse event that only happens to people with AD and not to people using dupilumab for other indications. Where it gets interesting to me is how do we differentiate the cases that are dupilumab induced versus the cases that are just part of the underlying AD process?”

For their analysis, Dr. Zirwas and co-authors reviewed the incidence of conjunctivitis adverse events in patients from 15 completed, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials evaluating dupilumab in AD, asthma, CRSwNP, EoE, PN, and CSU, along with the severity and resolution of conjunctivitis events in adults with AD.

Of the 15 trials, 7 were conducted in patients with AD: 4 in adults, 1 in adolescents, 1 in school-aged children, and 1 in preschoolers. One of the AD trials, LIBERTY AD CHRONOS, extends 52 weeks. The remaining eight trials of patients with asthma, CRSwNP, EoE, PN, and CSU lasted 24-52 weeks.

In the non-AD trials, the researchers observed that conjunctivitis rates were generally in the 1%-3% range, with less pronounced or no differences between the dupilumab and placebo groups. In the AD trials, conjunctivitis rates were higher in patients receiving dupilumab, compared with those receiving placebo across age groups.

In the 16-week SOLO 1 & 2 and AD-1021 monotherapy trials, 12 conjunctivitis events occurred in 517 patients who received placebo (2%), compared with 103 of 1047 patients (9.84%) who received dupilumab. Of the dupilumab-associated conjunctivitis cases, 80 (78%) patients recovered by the end of the trials. Of the 23 cases of conjunctivitis that did not recover or dropped out of the trial, 15 were among the 529 patients who received 300 mg dupilumab once every 2 weeks (q2w) (3%) and eight were among the 518 who received 300 mg dupilumab once weekly (qw) (2%).

In the 52-week LIBERTY AD CHRONOS trial, 29 conjunctivitis events occurred in 315 patients who received placebo plus topical corticosteroid (TCS) (9%), compared with 113 of 425 patients (27%) who received dupilumab plus TCS. Of these, 103 (91%) recovered by the end of the trial. Of the 11 patients with conjunctivitis who did not recover or dropped out of the trial, 3 were among the 110 patients who received 300 mg dupilumab q2w plus TCS (3%), and 8 were among the 315 who received 300 mg dupilumab qw plus TCS (3%).

“When I look at all of this data, I think that about 2% of people treated with dupilumab are going to get clinically very meaningful conjunctivitis that may be therapy limiting,” Dr. Zirwas concluded. “The vast majority of those cases appear to happen in the first 16 weeks. This is just not something we see in cases of patients treated with dupilumab treated for other reasons.”

Following his presentation, a meeting attendee asked Dr. Zirwas if conjunctivitis occurs more often in patients with facial dermatitis. “My perception is that it happens more often in people who have facial or eyelid dermatitis, but I’ve seen it in plenty of people who didn’t have any facial or eyelid dermatitis,” he said. “I have seen more conjunctivitis in people with more severe AD and more severe atopic comorbidities. That is anecdotal. The data that I have seen has been back and forth on this topic.”

Dr. Zirwas disclosed that he is a speaker and consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, Leo, Lilly, Galderma, Pfizer, and AbbVie. Several of his co-authors work for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

The prevalence of clinically meaningful conjunctivitis in patients taking dupilumab for atopic dermatitis (AD) is likely about 2%, and it most often occurs in the first 16 weeks of therapy.

Those are key findings from an analysis of published trials of dupilumab for AD and other conditions that study author Matthew Zirwas, MD, presented during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

Adults with AD have a significant and disease severity–dependent increased risk of developing ocular surface diseases, including conjunctivitis and keratitis, compared with the general population and independent of any drug effect, according to Dr. Zirwas, a dermatologist with Probity Medical Research of Columbus, Ohio.

Dupilumab inhibits signaling of interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, which drive type 2 inflammatory diseases such as AD, asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP), eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), prurigo nodularis (PN), and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU).

In randomized, placebo-controlled trials of dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe AD, conjunctivitis was reported in more patients who received dupilumab treatment than in placebo-treated patients.

“When it comes to dupilumab-induced conjunctivitis, we have a good idea of the etiology, but the question of how frequently it occurs versus how frequently the conjunctivitis is unrelated to dupilumab is an interesting one,” he said. “How often is it clinically meaningful? What is it that is so unique about AD patients? We’ve all heard that it is a unique adverse event that only happens to people with AD and not to people using dupilumab for other indications. Where it gets interesting to me is how do we differentiate the cases that are dupilumab induced versus the cases that are just part of the underlying AD process?”

For their analysis, Dr. Zirwas and co-authors reviewed the incidence of conjunctivitis adverse events in patients from 15 completed, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials evaluating dupilumab in AD, asthma, CRSwNP, EoE, PN, and CSU, along with the severity and resolution of conjunctivitis events in adults with AD.

Of the 15 trials, 7 were conducted in patients with AD: 4 in adults, 1 in adolescents, 1 in school-aged children, and 1 in preschoolers. One of the AD trials, LIBERTY AD CHRONOS, extends 52 weeks. The remaining eight trials of patients with asthma, CRSwNP, EoE, PN, and CSU lasted 24-52 weeks.

In the non-AD trials, the researchers observed that conjunctivitis rates were generally in the 1%-3% range, with less pronounced or no differences between the dupilumab and placebo groups. In the AD trials, conjunctivitis rates were higher in patients receiving dupilumab, compared with those receiving placebo across age groups.

In the 16-week SOLO 1 & 2 and AD-1021 monotherapy trials, 12 conjunctivitis events occurred in 517 patients who received placebo (2%), compared with 103 of 1047 patients (9.84%) who received dupilumab. Of the dupilumab-associated conjunctivitis cases, 80 (78%) patients recovered by the end of the trials. Of the 23 cases of conjunctivitis that did not recover or dropped out of the trial, 15 were among the 529 patients who received 300 mg dupilumab once every 2 weeks (q2w) (3%) and eight were among the 518 who received 300 mg dupilumab once weekly (qw) (2%).

In the 52-week LIBERTY AD CHRONOS trial, 29 conjunctivitis events occurred in 315 patients who received placebo plus topical corticosteroid (TCS) (9%), compared with 113 of 425 patients (27%) who received dupilumab plus TCS. Of these, 103 (91%) recovered by the end of the trial. Of the 11 patients with conjunctivitis who did not recover or dropped out of the trial, 3 were among the 110 patients who received 300 mg dupilumab q2w plus TCS (3%), and 8 were among the 315 who received 300 mg dupilumab qw plus TCS (3%).

“When I look at all of this data, I think that about 2% of people treated with dupilumab are going to get clinically very meaningful conjunctivitis that may be therapy limiting,” Dr. Zirwas concluded. “The vast majority of those cases appear to happen in the first 16 weeks. This is just not something we see in cases of patients treated with dupilumab treated for other reasons.”

Following his presentation, a meeting attendee asked Dr. Zirwas if conjunctivitis occurs more often in patients with facial dermatitis. “My perception is that it happens more often in people who have facial or eyelid dermatitis, but I’ve seen it in plenty of people who didn’t have any facial or eyelid dermatitis,” he said. “I have seen more conjunctivitis in people with more severe AD and more severe atopic comorbidities. That is anecdotal. The data that I have seen has been back and forth on this topic.”

Dr. Zirwas disclosed that he is a speaker and consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, Leo, Lilly, Galderma, Pfizer, and AbbVie. Several of his co-authors work for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Among patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) treated with the oral Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib for 4 or more weeks, more than half achieved clear or almost clear skin and 45% or more reported no or minimal itch, results from an analysis of registry data showed.

“We know from clinical trials that upadacitinib is effective, but we have very little real-world experience on its effectiveness,” presenting study author Melinda Gooderham, MD, medical director of the Skin Center for Dermatology in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

For the analysis, she and her coauthors evaluated the real-world clinical and patient-reported outcomes of 335 adults enrolled in the CorEvitas AD Registry from July 21, 2020, through Aug. 7, 2023. They included patients who were on upadacitinib for at least 4 weeks and persisted on the drug until the time of evaluation.

The CorEvitas AD Registry is a prospective, non-interventional registry of adults diagnosed with AD by a dermatologist or qualified dermatology practitioner. Outcomes measures included the proportion of patients who achieved skin clearance as defined by a Validated Investigators Global Assessment Scale for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA) score of 0 or 1, an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of 3 or less, a Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score of 0 or 1, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores of 0-2, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores of 0 or 1, or an Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) score of <7.

The researchers evaluated cross-sectional data from three different cohorts: data from the last registry visit (the overall cohort), data from a visit within 1 month to less than 5 months of upadacitinib initiation (the 1-5 months cohort), and data from a visit within 5-9 months following upadacitinib initiation (the 5-9 months cohort). They also conducted subgroup analyses of patients with prior use of biologics for AD (bio-experience) and those with no such history (bio-naive). Safety events were not assessed in this analysis.

The mean age of the 335 patients was 45.6 years, 51.6% were female, 64.2% were White, 64.2% were based in the United States and the rest were based in Canada. Most patients (70.8%) were treated with the 15-mg dose of upadacitinib. The median duration of treatment was 6.9 months. Slightly more than one-quarter of patients (28.1%) reported concomitant use of topical corticosteroids for AD, while 45.4% reported prior use of dupilumab and 6% reported prior use of tralokinumab.

Dr. Gooderham reported that 57.5% of patients in the total cohort total cohort achieved clear or almost clear skin (a vIGA-AD score of 0 or 1), with slight differences between the bio-naive (60.6%) and bio-experienced (54.1%) subgroups.

The other outcomes were similarly close between the 176 bio-naive and 159 bio-experienced patients. Specifically, 74.8% in the total cohort, 79.4% in the bio-naive subgroup, and 69.6% in the bio-experienced subgroup achieved an EASI score of 3 or less. In the measure of the worst itch in the past 24 hours, 45.3%, 47.7%, and 42.8% respectively achieved a PP-NRS of 0 or 1. In the patient-reported disease burden, 36.4%, 41%, and 31.4% achieved a POEM score of 0-2. In the quality of life measure, 39.8%, 42.8%, and 36.5% achieved a DLQI score of 0 or 1. In the measure of disease control, 69.3%, 70.5%, and 67.9% achieved an ADCT score of <7. In a combination of skin clearance and itch control, 40.9%, 43.2%, and 38.4% of the total cohort, bio-naive, and bio-experienced respectively achieved both an EASI score of 3 or less and a PP-NRS of 0 or 1.

The study outcomes were similar between the 1-5 months cohort and the 5-9 months cohort, but there was a trend toward more clearance the longer patients were on therapy.

“The findings suggest that low levels of disease severity are observed in patients on upadacitinib in a real-world setting,” Dr. Gooderham concluded. “This confirms what we see in the clinical trials.”

She disclosed that she is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for many pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie.

Among patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) treated with the oral Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib for 4 or more weeks, more than half achieved clear or almost clear skin and 45% or more reported no or minimal itch, results from an analysis of registry data showed.

“We know from clinical trials that upadacitinib is effective, but we have very little real-world experience on its effectiveness,” presenting study author Melinda Gooderham, MD, medical director of the Skin Center for Dermatology in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

For the analysis, she and her coauthors evaluated the real-world clinical and patient-reported outcomes of 335 adults enrolled in the CorEvitas AD Registry from July 21, 2020, through Aug. 7, 2023. They included patients who were on upadacitinib for at least 4 weeks and persisted on the drug until the time of evaluation.

The CorEvitas AD Registry is a prospective, non-interventional registry of adults diagnosed with AD by a dermatologist or qualified dermatology practitioner. Outcomes measures included the proportion of patients who achieved skin clearance as defined by a Validated Investigators Global Assessment Scale for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA) score of 0 or 1, an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of 3 or less, a Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score of 0 or 1, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores of 0-2, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores of 0 or 1, or an Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) score of <7.

The researchers evaluated cross-sectional data from three different cohorts: data from the last registry visit (the overall cohort), data from a visit within 1 month to less than 5 months of upadacitinib initiation (the 1-5 months cohort), and data from a visit within 5-9 months following upadacitinib initiation (the 5-9 months cohort). They also conducted subgroup analyses of patients with prior use of biologics for AD (bio-experience) and those with no such history (bio-naive). Safety events were not assessed in this analysis.

The mean age of the 335 patients was 45.6 years, 51.6% were female, 64.2% were White, 64.2% were based in the United States and the rest were based in Canada. Most patients (70.8%) were treated with the 15-mg dose of upadacitinib. The median duration of treatment was 6.9 months. Slightly more than one-quarter of patients (28.1%) reported concomitant use of topical corticosteroids for AD, while 45.4% reported prior use of dupilumab and 6% reported prior use of tralokinumab.

Dr. Gooderham reported that 57.5% of patients in the total cohort total cohort achieved clear or almost clear skin (a vIGA-AD score of 0 or 1), with slight differences between the bio-naive (60.6%) and bio-experienced (54.1%) subgroups.

The other outcomes were similarly close between the 176 bio-naive and 159 bio-experienced patients. Specifically, 74.8% in the total cohort, 79.4% in the bio-naive subgroup, and 69.6% in the bio-experienced subgroup achieved an EASI score of 3 or less. In the measure of the worst itch in the past 24 hours, 45.3%, 47.7%, and 42.8% respectively achieved a PP-NRS of 0 or 1. In the patient-reported disease burden, 36.4%, 41%, and 31.4% achieved a POEM score of 0-2. In the quality of life measure, 39.8%, 42.8%, and 36.5% achieved a DLQI score of 0 or 1. In the measure of disease control, 69.3%, 70.5%, and 67.9% achieved an ADCT score of <7. In a combination of skin clearance and itch control, 40.9%, 43.2%, and 38.4% of the total cohort, bio-naive, and bio-experienced respectively achieved both an EASI score of 3 or less and a PP-NRS of 0 or 1.

The study outcomes were similar between the 1-5 months cohort and the 5-9 months cohort, but there was a trend toward more clearance the longer patients were on therapy.

“The findings suggest that low levels of disease severity are observed in patients on upadacitinib in a real-world setting,” Dr. Gooderham concluded. “This confirms what we see in the clinical trials.”

She disclosed that she is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for many pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie.

Among patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) treated with the oral Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib for 4 or more weeks, more than half achieved clear or almost clear skin and 45% or more reported no or minimal itch, results from an analysis of registry data showed.

“We know from clinical trials that upadacitinib is effective, but we have very little real-world experience on its effectiveness,” presenting study author Melinda Gooderham, MD, medical director of the Skin Center for Dermatology in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference.

For the analysis, she and her coauthors evaluated the real-world clinical and patient-reported outcomes of 335 adults enrolled in the CorEvitas AD Registry from July 21, 2020, through Aug. 7, 2023. They included patients who were on upadacitinib for at least 4 weeks and persisted on the drug until the time of evaluation.

The CorEvitas AD Registry is a prospective, non-interventional registry of adults diagnosed with AD by a dermatologist or qualified dermatology practitioner. Outcomes measures included the proportion of patients who achieved skin clearance as defined by a Validated Investigators Global Assessment Scale for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA) score of 0 or 1, an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of 3 or less, a Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score of 0 or 1, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores of 0-2, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores of 0 or 1, or an Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) score of <7.

The researchers evaluated cross-sectional data from three different cohorts: data from the last registry visit (the overall cohort), data from a visit within 1 month to less than 5 months of upadacitinib initiation (the 1-5 months cohort), and data from a visit within 5-9 months following upadacitinib initiation (the 5-9 months cohort). They also conducted subgroup analyses of patients with prior use of biologics for AD (bio-experience) and those with no such history (bio-naive). Safety events were not assessed in this analysis.

The mean age of the 335 patients was 45.6 years, 51.6% were female, 64.2% were White, 64.2% were based in the United States and the rest were based in Canada. Most patients (70.8%) were treated with the 15-mg dose of upadacitinib. The median duration of treatment was 6.9 months. Slightly more than one-quarter of patients (28.1%) reported concomitant use of topical corticosteroids for AD, while 45.4% reported prior use of dupilumab and 6% reported prior use of tralokinumab.

Dr. Gooderham reported that 57.5% of patients in the total cohort total cohort achieved clear or almost clear skin (a vIGA-AD score of 0 or 1), with slight differences between the bio-naive (60.6%) and bio-experienced (54.1%) subgroups.

The other outcomes were similarly close between the 176 bio-naive and 159 bio-experienced patients. Specifically, 74.8% in the total cohort, 79.4% in the bio-naive subgroup, and 69.6% in the bio-experienced subgroup achieved an EASI score of 3 or less. In the measure of the worst itch in the past 24 hours, 45.3%, 47.7%, and 42.8% respectively achieved a PP-NRS of 0 or 1. In the patient-reported disease burden, 36.4%, 41%, and 31.4% achieved a POEM score of 0-2. In the quality of life measure, 39.8%, 42.8%, and 36.5% achieved a DLQI score of 0 or 1. In the measure of disease control, 69.3%, 70.5%, and 67.9% achieved an ADCT score of <7. In a combination of skin clearance and itch control, 40.9%, 43.2%, and 38.4% of the total cohort, bio-naive, and bio-experienced respectively achieved both an EASI score of 3 or less and a PP-NRS of 0 or 1.

The study outcomes were similar between the 1-5 months cohort and the 5-9 months cohort, but there was a trend toward more clearance the longer patients were on therapy.

“The findings suggest that low levels of disease severity are observed in patients on upadacitinib in a real-world setting,” Dr. Gooderham concluded. “This confirms what we see in the clinical trials.”

She disclosed that she is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for many pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie.