Dermatology

Results of a meta-analysis carried out by a French team indicate that there is a link between a father’s or mother’s autoimmune disease and their children’s risk of developing certain neurodevelopmental disorders (autism spectrum disorder [ASD] and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder). This meta-analysis is the first to separately explore the link between a father’s or mother’s autoimmune disease and the onset of neurodevelopmental disorders in their children.

According to its authors, these associations may result from exposure to environmental factors that contribute to autoimmune disorders, such as exposure to pollutants or cigarette smoke, and/or genetic predisposition, including genes relating to cytokines or to the HLA system.

Research is needed to determine the pathophysiologic links between these associations. This study suggests that there could be a shared mechanism between both parents, even though the maternal route seems to constitute an additional excess risk.
 

Why is this important?

Neurodevelopmental disorders are said to occur because of a close interrelationship between a person’s genes and environment. Immune-mediated adverse reactions may play an important role in triggering such disorders, as has been shown in associated epidemiologic studies and in animal studies. Autoimmune and autoinflammatory disorders are effectively characterized by the activation of the immune system, the circulation of autoantibodies, and the secretion of cytokines that are harmful to certain tissues.

Some relevant studies suggest a link between autoimmune disorders in the family or in the mother and the onset of neurodevelopmental disorders in their children. However, none of the studies have distinguished the influence of each of the parents so as to provide data that can be used to assess whether this association is more likely to be direct, and thus established during pregnancy, or rather genetic or environmental.
 

Main findings

Overall, the meta-analysis involved 14 studies that included 845,411 mothers and 601,148 fathers with an autoimmune disease, 4,984,965 control mothers and 4,992,854 control fathers. There were 182,927 children with neurodevelopmental disorders and 14,168,474 with no such diagnosis.

Globally, autoimmune diseases in mothers (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27 [1.03-1.57]; P = .02; I2 = 65%) and in fathers (AOR, 1.18 [1.07-1.30]; P = .01; I2 = 15.5%) are associated with a diagnosis of ASD in children. Similarly, they are associated with an increased risk of ADHD in children (AOR, 1.31 [1.11-1.55]; P = .001; I2 = 93% and AOR, 1.14 [1.10-1.17]; P < .0001; I2 = 0%, respectively, for mothers and fathers).

In mothers, type 1 diabetes (AOR, 1.60 [1.18-2.18]; P = .002; I2 = 0%), psoriasis (AOR, 1.45 [1.14-1.85]; P = .002; I2 = 0%), and rheumatoid arthritis (AOR, 1.38 [1.14-1.68]; P = .001; I2 = 0.8%) were associated with a risk of ASD in children. These three conditions also predisposed children to the risk of ADHD (AOR, 1.36 [1.24-1.52]; 1.41 [1.29-1.54]; and 1.32 [1.25-1.40], respectively, all P < .0001).

In fathers, type 1 diabetes considered in isolation was associated with a risk of ASD and ADHD in children (AOR, 1.42 [1.10-1.83] and 1.19 [1.08-1.31], respectively), while psoriasis (AOR, 1.18 [1.12-1.24]; P < .0001) is associated with a risk of ADHD in children.

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

Results of a meta-analysis carried out by a French team indicate that there is a link between a father’s or mother’s autoimmune disease and their children’s risk of developing certain neurodevelopmental disorders (autism spectrum disorder [ASD] and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder). This meta-analysis is the first to separately explore the link between a father’s or mother’s autoimmune disease and the onset of neurodevelopmental disorders in their children.

According to its authors, these associations may result from exposure to environmental factors that contribute to autoimmune disorders, such as exposure to pollutants or cigarette smoke, and/or genetic predisposition, including genes relating to cytokines or to the HLA system.

Research is needed to determine the pathophysiologic links between these associations. This study suggests that there could be a shared mechanism between both parents, even though the maternal route seems to constitute an additional excess risk.
 

Why is this important?

Neurodevelopmental disorders are said to occur because of a close interrelationship between a person’s genes and environment. Immune-mediated adverse reactions may play an important role in triggering such disorders, as has been shown in associated epidemiologic studies and in animal studies. Autoimmune and autoinflammatory disorders are effectively characterized by the activation of the immune system, the circulation of autoantibodies, and the secretion of cytokines that are harmful to certain tissues.

Some relevant studies suggest a link between autoimmune disorders in the family or in the mother and the onset of neurodevelopmental disorders in their children. However, none of the studies have distinguished the influence of each of the parents so as to provide data that can be used to assess whether this association is more likely to be direct, and thus established during pregnancy, or rather genetic or environmental.
 

Main findings

Overall, the meta-analysis involved 14 studies that included 845,411 mothers and 601,148 fathers with an autoimmune disease, 4,984,965 control mothers and 4,992,854 control fathers. There were 182,927 children with neurodevelopmental disorders and 14,168,474 with no such diagnosis.

Globally, autoimmune diseases in mothers (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27 [1.03-1.57]; P = .02; I2 = 65%) and in fathers (AOR, 1.18 [1.07-1.30]; P = .01; I2 = 15.5%) are associated with a diagnosis of ASD in children. Similarly, they are associated with an increased risk of ADHD in children (AOR, 1.31 [1.11-1.55]; P = .001; I2 = 93% and AOR, 1.14 [1.10-1.17]; P < .0001; I2 = 0%, respectively, for mothers and fathers).

In mothers, type 1 diabetes (AOR, 1.60 [1.18-2.18]; P = .002; I2 = 0%), psoriasis (AOR, 1.45 [1.14-1.85]; P = .002; I2 = 0%), and rheumatoid arthritis (AOR, 1.38 [1.14-1.68]; P = .001; I2 = 0.8%) were associated with a risk of ASD in children. These three conditions also predisposed children to the risk of ADHD (AOR, 1.36 [1.24-1.52]; 1.41 [1.29-1.54]; and 1.32 [1.25-1.40], respectively, all P < .0001).

In fathers, type 1 diabetes considered in isolation was associated with a risk of ASD and ADHD in children (AOR, 1.42 [1.10-1.83] and 1.19 [1.08-1.31], respectively), while psoriasis (AOR, 1.18 [1.12-1.24]; P < .0001) is associated with a risk of ADHD in children.

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

Results of a meta-analysis carried out by a French team indicate that there is a link between a father’s or mother’s autoimmune disease and their children’s risk of developing certain neurodevelopmental disorders (autism spectrum disorder [ASD] and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder). This meta-analysis is the first to separately explore the link between a father’s or mother’s autoimmune disease and the onset of neurodevelopmental disorders in their children.

According to its authors, these associations may result from exposure to environmental factors that contribute to autoimmune disorders, such as exposure to pollutants or cigarette smoke, and/or genetic predisposition, including genes relating to cytokines or to the HLA system.

Research is needed to determine the pathophysiologic links between these associations. This study suggests that there could be a shared mechanism between both parents, even though the maternal route seems to constitute an additional excess risk.
 

Why is this important?

Neurodevelopmental disorders are said to occur because of a close interrelationship between a person’s genes and environment. Immune-mediated adverse reactions may play an important role in triggering such disorders, as has been shown in associated epidemiologic studies and in animal studies. Autoimmune and autoinflammatory disorders are effectively characterized by the activation of the immune system, the circulation of autoantibodies, and the secretion of cytokines that are harmful to certain tissues.

Some relevant studies suggest a link between autoimmune disorders in the family or in the mother and the onset of neurodevelopmental disorders in their children. However, none of the studies have distinguished the influence of each of the parents so as to provide data that can be used to assess whether this association is more likely to be direct, and thus established during pregnancy, or rather genetic or environmental.
 

Main findings

Overall, the meta-analysis involved 14 studies that included 845,411 mothers and 601,148 fathers with an autoimmune disease, 4,984,965 control mothers and 4,992,854 control fathers. There were 182,927 children with neurodevelopmental disorders and 14,168,474 with no such diagnosis.

Globally, autoimmune diseases in mothers (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27 [1.03-1.57]; P = .02; I2 = 65%) and in fathers (AOR, 1.18 [1.07-1.30]; P = .01; I2 = 15.5%) are associated with a diagnosis of ASD in children. Similarly, they are associated with an increased risk of ADHD in children (AOR, 1.31 [1.11-1.55]; P = .001; I2 = 93% and AOR, 1.14 [1.10-1.17]; P < .0001; I2 = 0%, respectively, for mothers and fathers).

In mothers, type 1 diabetes (AOR, 1.60 [1.18-2.18]; P = .002; I2 = 0%), psoriasis (AOR, 1.45 [1.14-1.85]; P = .002; I2 = 0%), and rheumatoid arthritis (AOR, 1.38 [1.14-1.68]; P = .001; I2 = 0.8%) were associated with a risk of ASD in children. These three conditions also predisposed children to the risk of ADHD (AOR, 1.36 [1.24-1.52]; 1.41 [1.29-1.54]; and 1.32 [1.25-1.40], respectively, all P < .0001).

In fathers, type 1 diabetes considered in isolation was associated with a risk of ASD and ADHD in children (AOR, 1.42 [1.10-1.83] and 1.19 [1.08-1.31], respectively), while psoriasis (AOR, 1.18 [1.12-1.24]; P < .0001) is associated with a risk of ADHD in children.

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

BOSTON – Though hydroquinone, retinoids, steroids, and triple combination cream remain gold standards for the topical treatment of melasma, new synthetic and botanical topicals are emerging as adjuvant and alternative treatments, according to Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc.

One such agent is topical tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic medication that inhibits plasminogen activator from converting plasminogen in epidermal basal cells and keratinocytes to plasmin. “What makes tranexamic acid exciting is that it’s not just targeting melanogenesis; it’s also targeting the vascular component of melasma,” Dr. Elbuluk, director of the University of Southern California Skin of Color Center and Pigmentary Disorders Program, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “We really don’t have any topical agents that are doing that.”

Topical tranexamic acid is available in cream and solution formulations ranging from 2% to 5%. It has been studied in different drug delivery carriers (liposomal, liquid crystalline nanoparticle, and glycol co-enhancer carriers), has been combined with other lightening agents, and has been found to reduce Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI) scores and reduce melanin while also improving erythema. “That’s where it really stands out from hydroquinone and triple combination cream,” Dr. Elbuluk said.

One study of patients with melasma found that topical tranexamic acid can decrease the number of CD31-positive vessels and expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and downregulated endothelin-1.

“Compared to hydroquinone, some studies have found a similar efficacy; others have found it inferior,” she continued. “But none of our patients can be on hydroquinone yearlong, so you have to bring in other agents that are efficacious. This is why you could consider having patients on topical tranexamic acid at different times of the year. It can cause some irritation for patients, but overall, it’s pretty well tolerated, and patients are often very happy with the overall improvement in the texture and appearance of their skin.”

Another emerging option, flutamide, is an anti-androgenic agent used topically and orally to treat acne, hirsutism, and hair loss. “It has not been excessively studied for melasma, but it may improve the condition through modifying alpha-MSH [alpha melanocyte-stimulating hormone] or cAMP [cyclic adenosine monophosphate] agents that play a role in melanin synthesis,” Dr. Elbuluk said. A randomized, controlled trial of 74 women with melasma treated with 1% flutamide vs. 4% hydroquinone showed a significant improvement in the MASI score and patient satisfaction but no difference in the mexameter melanin assay results.

“We need more data, but I think this is the right approach for us to start thinking about different factors that are addressing all of the components of the pathogenesis of melasma,” she said.

Other synthetic topicals that are being used or studied for melasma include N-acetyl glucosamine, linoleic acid, pidobenzone, methimazole, metformin, magnolignan, N-acetyl-4-S-cysteaminylphenol, dioic acid, melatonin, and silymarin.


 

Botanicals

Botanically-derived topicals for melasma are also being evaluated, including niacinamide, an anti-inflammatory agent that inhibits melanosome transfer to keratinocytes. Niacinamide decreases mast cell infiltrate and solar elastosis and enhances the epidermal barrier.

The antioxidants ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and zinc are also being studied. Ascorbic acid has photoprotective effects, inhibits tyrosinase, and promotes collagen synthesis. “One of the challenges with vitamin C is that it’s not very stable and it has limited permeability and bioavailability in the skin,” Dr. Elbuluk said. Zinc, meanwhile, boasts anti-inflammatory, photoprotective, and exfoliative properties and is a cofactor in wound healing.

Other botanical lightening agents being studied, in addition to silymarin, include arbutin, aloe vera, bakuchiol, soy, Ananas comosus (pineapple), parsley, Bellis perennis (daisy), mulberry extract, ellagic acid, gentisic acid, cinnamic acid, Hippophae rhamnoides (sea buckthorn), Cassia fistula extracts, licorice root extract, lignin peroxidase, and Polypodium leucotomos.

“I do think there really is a place for these in our therapeutic armamentarium, but we need more studies,” she said. “There aren’t many randomized, controlled studies looking at these agents specifically.” A recent systematic review on the efficacy and safety of topical therapy with botanical products for treating melasma included 12 trials composed of 695 patients from seven countries. The authors concluded that the trials lacked sufficient pooled evidence on efficacy and safety. However, many of the studies showed that these agents did improve melasma and MASI scores.

Platelet-rich plasma

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is being used as monotherapy and adjuvant therapy for melasma. “It’s believed to release platelet-derived growth factors, which can affect collagen synthesis,” Dr. Elbuluk explained. “It also has effects on TGF-B1 [transforming growth factor-beta 1], which inhibits melanin synthesis and epidermal growth factor, which has a downstream effect on lowering melanin production.”

A 2021 systematic review of 10 studies involving 395 adults with melasma found that PRP plus microneedling was most efficacious compared with PRP alone or combined with intradermal injection.

A separate systematic review of seven trials evaluating PRP for melasma found that most studies showed moderate improvements in melasma, which led the researchers to assign a moderate grade recommendation to PRP for melasma.

“I think we need more studies, but you may see PRP being used more commonly for melasma,” Dr. Elbuluk said. “The reality with melasma is that you are rarely using just one agent. Combination therapies are often superior to monotherapies in efficacy.” Combination therapy does not include just topicals, she added, but consideration of topicals with procedural modalities “and figuring out what your patient can tolerate and what they can afford.”

Since melasma is a chronic condition, “you want to emphasize to your patients that there is no cure for melasma. We are constantly trying to keep it in remission and keep it in control. That’s an active process.”



Other emerging topical therapies

Meanwhile, researchers continue to evaluate new targets for emerging treatments including a topical combination of an anti-estrogen with a VEGF inhibitor. In a separate pilot study of six women with melasma, investigators described treatment success with a novel combination of 12% hydroquinone, 6% kojic acid, and 5% vitamin C cream. “It’s the right thinking, combining different factors that address different aspects of pathogenesis of melasma,” Dr. Elbuluk said.

The mode of topical drug delivery also plays a role in treatment success. For example, she said, liposomal formulations have been found to enhance drug delivery and skin permeation and to improve the moisturizing effect, stability, and tolerability.

Dr. Elbuluk disclosed that she is a consultant for Avita, Scientis, VisualDx, Zosana, Incyte, La Roche-Posay, and Beiersdorf. She is an advisory board member for Allergan, Galderma, Incyte, and Janssen.

BOSTON – Though hydroquinone, retinoids, steroids, and triple combination cream remain gold standards for the topical treatment of melasma, new synthetic and botanical topicals are emerging as adjuvant and alternative treatments, according to Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc.

One such agent is topical tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic medication that inhibits plasminogen activator from converting plasminogen in epidermal basal cells and keratinocytes to plasmin. “What makes tranexamic acid exciting is that it’s not just targeting melanogenesis; it’s also targeting the vascular component of melasma,” Dr. Elbuluk, director of the University of Southern California Skin of Color Center and Pigmentary Disorders Program, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “We really don’t have any topical agents that are doing that.”

Topical tranexamic acid is available in cream and solution formulations ranging from 2% to 5%. It has been studied in different drug delivery carriers (liposomal, liquid crystalline nanoparticle, and glycol co-enhancer carriers), has been combined with other lightening agents, and has been found to reduce Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI) scores and reduce melanin while also improving erythema. “That’s where it really stands out from hydroquinone and triple combination cream,” Dr. Elbuluk said.

One study of patients with melasma found that topical tranexamic acid can decrease the number of CD31-positive vessels and expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and downregulated endothelin-1.

“Compared to hydroquinone, some studies have found a similar efficacy; others have found it inferior,” she continued. “But none of our patients can be on hydroquinone yearlong, so you have to bring in other agents that are efficacious. This is why you could consider having patients on topical tranexamic acid at different times of the year. It can cause some irritation for patients, but overall, it’s pretty well tolerated, and patients are often very happy with the overall improvement in the texture and appearance of their skin.”

Another emerging option, flutamide, is an anti-androgenic agent used topically and orally to treat acne, hirsutism, and hair loss. “It has not been excessively studied for melasma, but it may improve the condition through modifying alpha-MSH [alpha melanocyte-stimulating hormone] or cAMP [cyclic adenosine monophosphate] agents that play a role in melanin synthesis,” Dr. Elbuluk said. A randomized, controlled trial of 74 women with melasma treated with 1% flutamide vs. 4% hydroquinone showed a significant improvement in the MASI score and patient satisfaction but no difference in the mexameter melanin assay results.

“We need more data, but I think this is the right approach for us to start thinking about different factors that are addressing all of the components of the pathogenesis of melasma,” she said.

Other synthetic topicals that are being used or studied for melasma include N-acetyl glucosamine, linoleic acid, pidobenzone, methimazole, metformin, magnolignan, N-acetyl-4-S-cysteaminylphenol, dioic acid, melatonin, and silymarin.


 

Botanicals

Botanically-derived topicals for melasma are also being evaluated, including niacinamide, an anti-inflammatory agent that inhibits melanosome transfer to keratinocytes. Niacinamide decreases mast cell infiltrate and solar elastosis and enhances the epidermal barrier.

The antioxidants ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and zinc are also being studied. Ascorbic acid has photoprotective effects, inhibits tyrosinase, and promotes collagen synthesis. “One of the challenges with vitamin C is that it’s not very stable and it has limited permeability and bioavailability in the skin,” Dr. Elbuluk said. Zinc, meanwhile, boasts anti-inflammatory, photoprotective, and exfoliative properties and is a cofactor in wound healing.

Other botanical lightening agents being studied, in addition to silymarin, include arbutin, aloe vera, bakuchiol, soy, Ananas comosus (pineapple), parsley, Bellis perennis (daisy), mulberry extract, ellagic acid, gentisic acid, cinnamic acid, Hippophae rhamnoides (sea buckthorn), Cassia fistula extracts, licorice root extract, lignin peroxidase, and Polypodium leucotomos.

“I do think there really is a place for these in our therapeutic armamentarium, but we need more studies,” she said. “There aren’t many randomized, controlled studies looking at these agents specifically.” A recent systematic review on the efficacy and safety of topical therapy with botanical products for treating melasma included 12 trials composed of 695 patients from seven countries. The authors concluded that the trials lacked sufficient pooled evidence on efficacy and safety. However, many of the studies showed that these agents did improve melasma and MASI scores.

Platelet-rich plasma

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is being used as monotherapy and adjuvant therapy for melasma. “It’s believed to release platelet-derived growth factors, which can affect collagen synthesis,” Dr. Elbuluk explained. “It also has effects on TGF-B1 [transforming growth factor-beta 1], which inhibits melanin synthesis and epidermal growth factor, which has a downstream effect on lowering melanin production.”

A 2021 systematic review of 10 studies involving 395 adults with melasma found that PRP plus microneedling was most efficacious compared with PRP alone or combined with intradermal injection.

A separate systematic review of seven trials evaluating PRP for melasma found that most studies showed moderate improvements in melasma, which led the researchers to assign a moderate grade recommendation to PRP for melasma.

“I think we need more studies, but you may see PRP being used more commonly for melasma,” Dr. Elbuluk said. “The reality with melasma is that you are rarely using just one agent. Combination therapies are often superior to monotherapies in efficacy.” Combination therapy does not include just topicals, she added, but consideration of topicals with procedural modalities “and figuring out what your patient can tolerate and what they can afford.”

Since melasma is a chronic condition, “you want to emphasize to your patients that there is no cure for melasma. We are constantly trying to keep it in remission and keep it in control. That’s an active process.”



Other emerging topical therapies

Meanwhile, researchers continue to evaluate new targets for emerging treatments including a topical combination of an anti-estrogen with a VEGF inhibitor. In a separate pilot study of six women with melasma, investigators described treatment success with a novel combination of 12% hydroquinone, 6% kojic acid, and 5% vitamin C cream. “It’s the right thinking, combining different factors that address different aspects of pathogenesis of melasma,” Dr. Elbuluk said.

The mode of topical drug delivery also plays a role in treatment success. For example, she said, liposomal formulations have been found to enhance drug delivery and skin permeation and to improve the moisturizing effect, stability, and tolerability.

Dr. Elbuluk disclosed that she is a consultant for Avita, Scientis, VisualDx, Zosana, Incyte, La Roche-Posay, and Beiersdorf. She is an advisory board member for Allergan, Galderma, Incyte, and Janssen.

BOSTON – Though hydroquinone, retinoids, steroids, and triple combination cream remain gold standards for the topical treatment of melasma, new synthetic and botanical topicals are emerging as adjuvant and alternative treatments, according to Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc.

One such agent is topical tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic medication that inhibits plasminogen activator from converting plasminogen in epidermal basal cells and keratinocytes to plasmin. “What makes tranexamic acid exciting is that it’s not just targeting melanogenesis; it’s also targeting the vascular component of melasma,” Dr. Elbuluk, director of the University of Southern California Skin of Color Center and Pigmentary Disorders Program, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “We really don’t have any topical agents that are doing that.”

Topical tranexamic acid is available in cream and solution formulations ranging from 2% to 5%. It has been studied in different drug delivery carriers (liposomal, liquid crystalline nanoparticle, and glycol co-enhancer carriers), has been combined with other lightening agents, and has been found to reduce Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI) scores and reduce melanin while also improving erythema. “That’s where it really stands out from hydroquinone and triple combination cream,” Dr. Elbuluk said.

One study of patients with melasma found that topical tranexamic acid can decrease the number of CD31-positive vessels and expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and downregulated endothelin-1.

“Compared to hydroquinone, some studies have found a similar efficacy; others have found it inferior,” she continued. “But none of our patients can be on hydroquinone yearlong, so you have to bring in other agents that are efficacious. This is why you could consider having patients on topical tranexamic acid at different times of the year. It can cause some irritation for patients, but overall, it’s pretty well tolerated, and patients are often very happy with the overall improvement in the texture and appearance of their skin.”

Another emerging option, flutamide, is an anti-androgenic agent used topically and orally to treat acne, hirsutism, and hair loss. “It has not been excessively studied for melasma, but it may improve the condition through modifying alpha-MSH [alpha melanocyte-stimulating hormone] or cAMP [cyclic adenosine monophosphate] agents that play a role in melanin synthesis,” Dr. Elbuluk said. A randomized, controlled trial of 74 women with melasma treated with 1% flutamide vs. 4% hydroquinone showed a significant improvement in the MASI score and patient satisfaction but no difference in the mexameter melanin assay results.

“We need more data, but I think this is the right approach for us to start thinking about different factors that are addressing all of the components of the pathogenesis of melasma,” she said.

Other synthetic topicals that are being used or studied for melasma include N-acetyl glucosamine, linoleic acid, pidobenzone, methimazole, metformin, magnolignan, N-acetyl-4-S-cysteaminylphenol, dioic acid, melatonin, and silymarin.


 

Botanicals

Botanically-derived topicals for melasma are also being evaluated, including niacinamide, an anti-inflammatory agent that inhibits melanosome transfer to keratinocytes. Niacinamide decreases mast cell infiltrate and solar elastosis and enhances the epidermal barrier.

The antioxidants ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and zinc are also being studied. Ascorbic acid has photoprotective effects, inhibits tyrosinase, and promotes collagen synthesis. “One of the challenges with vitamin C is that it’s not very stable and it has limited permeability and bioavailability in the skin,” Dr. Elbuluk said. Zinc, meanwhile, boasts anti-inflammatory, photoprotective, and exfoliative properties and is a cofactor in wound healing.

Other botanical lightening agents being studied, in addition to silymarin, include arbutin, aloe vera, bakuchiol, soy, Ananas comosus (pineapple), parsley, Bellis perennis (daisy), mulberry extract, ellagic acid, gentisic acid, cinnamic acid, Hippophae rhamnoides (sea buckthorn), Cassia fistula extracts, licorice root extract, lignin peroxidase, and Polypodium leucotomos.

“I do think there really is a place for these in our therapeutic armamentarium, but we need more studies,” she said. “There aren’t many randomized, controlled studies looking at these agents specifically.” A recent systematic review on the efficacy and safety of topical therapy with botanical products for treating melasma included 12 trials composed of 695 patients from seven countries. The authors concluded that the trials lacked sufficient pooled evidence on efficacy and safety. However, many of the studies showed that these agents did improve melasma and MASI scores.

Platelet-rich plasma

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is being used as monotherapy and adjuvant therapy for melasma. “It’s believed to release platelet-derived growth factors, which can affect collagen synthesis,” Dr. Elbuluk explained. “It also has effects on TGF-B1 [transforming growth factor-beta 1], which inhibits melanin synthesis and epidermal growth factor, which has a downstream effect on lowering melanin production.”

A 2021 systematic review of 10 studies involving 395 adults with melasma found that PRP plus microneedling was most efficacious compared with PRP alone or combined with intradermal injection.

A separate systematic review of seven trials evaluating PRP for melasma found that most studies showed moderate improvements in melasma, which led the researchers to assign a moderate grade recommendation to PRP for melasma.

“I think we need more studies, but you may see PRP being used more commonly for melasma,” Dr. Elbuluk said. “The reality with melasma is that you are rarely using just one agent. Combination therapies are often superior to monotherapies in efficacy.” Combination therapy does not include just topicals, she added, but consideration of topicals with procedural modalities “and figuring out what your patient can tolerate and what they can afford.”

Since melasma is a chronic condition, “you want to emphasize to your patients that there is no cure for melasma. We are constantly trying to keep it in remission and keep it in control. That’s an active process.”



Other emerging topical therapies

Meanwhile, researchers continue to evaluate new targets for emerging treatments including a topical combination of an anti-estrogen with a VEGF inhibitor. In a separate pilot study of six women with melasma, investigators described treatment success with a novel combination of 12% hydroquinone, 6% kojic acid, and 5% vitamin C cream. “It’s the right thinking, combining different factors that address different aspects of pathogenesis of melasma,” Dr. Elbuluk said.

The mode of topical drug delivery also plays a role in treatment success. For example, she said, liposomal formulations have been found to enhance drug delivery and skin permeation and to improve the moisturizing effect, stability, and tolerability.

Dr. Elbuluk disclosed that she is a consultant for Avita, Scientis, VisualDx, Zosana, Incyte, La Roche-Posay, and Beiersdorf. She is an advisory board member for Allergan, Galderma, Incyte, and Janssen.

BOSTON – In 2012, about 50% of patients receiving phototherapy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston were being treated for psoriasis. A decade later, that proportion has dropped to 20%.

Several factors have contributed to this trend, namely, the development of biologics, the COVID-19 pandemic, “and the rise of home phototherapy options,” Elizabeth A. Buzney, MD, codirector of the phototherapy center at Brigham and Women’s department of dermatology, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. In her clinical opinion, phototherapy plays an essential role in the treatment of psoriasis.

“It is medically and financially responsible to review the option of phototherapy with every psoriasis patient,” Dr. Buzney said. “Many patients are not medical or financial candidates for biologic/apremilast therapy, or just would prefer nonsystemic therapy.”

While the newer biologics have surpassed narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) phototherapy in terms of efficacy and rapid onset of action, she continued, NB-UVB performs on par with older biologics. In one meta-analysis, the proportion of patients achieving Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 with NB-UVB therapy was 70% after 20-40 sessions, just below the efficacy of newer biologics – but better than ustekinumab and adalimumab.

“Phototherapy is not so far out of range as you might think it is,” she said, noting that other studies of NB-UVB therapy show PASI 75 responses of 62% and PASI 90 responses of 40%.

Phototherapy can also be an appealing option because biologics aren’t the best option for all patients with psoriasis. They are expensive for the health care system and potentially for patients, require initial and potentially continued lab testing and monitoring, and require injections, “which some patients don’t like,” said Dr. Buzney, who is also vice-chair of clinical affairs at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital department of dermatology. “There’s an infrequent risk of serious infection and there is risk in patients with HIV, TB, and hepatitis that you have to address. There is also concern for the impact of biologics on patients with a recent cancer.”

On the other hand, few contraindications to NB-UVB exist. According to joint American Academy of Dermatology-National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines on the management and treatment of psoriasis with phototherapy, published in 2019, NB-UVB therapy is only contraindicated in patients with xeroderma pigmentosa and other photosensitive disorders. Concurrent use of cyclosporine and NB-UVB treatment is also contraindicated because of the calculated increase in risk of skin cancer, extrapolated from data on risk with cyclosporine and PUVA (psoralen and ultraviolet A therapy).

The guidelines state that NB-UVB can be used with caution in lupus patients with no history of photosensitivity and who are SS-A negative, as well as patients with a history of melanoma or multiple nonmelanoma skin cancers, a history of recurrent oral herpes simplex virus infection, a history of arsenic intake, prior exposure to ionizing radiation, and those taking photosensitizing medications (since NB-UVB lamps emit “negligible” UVA).

It’s also safe to use during pregnancy and in children. “It’s safe and effective for the right patient,” Dr. Buzney said, discussing how phototherapy can be modified to accommodate children. “You can consider a slower dose-increased regimen. Will children keep the eye protection on? That’s a tricky one. How are you going to manage their anxiety during treatment and involve their family?”

Subgroups of patients who demonstrate a better response to NB-UVB treatment include those with guttate psoriasis, compared with plaque psoriasis, nonsmokers, those with a lower BMI, those with a higher baseline PASI, and those who demonstrate a faster trajectory of clinical response over the first 2-3 weeks of treatment.

Why would one not use phototherapy for psoriasis? “Cost and convenience,” Dr. Buzney said. “There is lost time/revenue to commute to treatment, which may involve multiple times per week. Coming to a public space when COVID-19 is still lingering is another concern, as are the out-of-pocket costs for copays and parking.”

For these reasons, she considers home phototherapy as a transformative option for many patients. Home phototherapy booths provide a safe and effective way to use NB-UVB phototherapy while minimizing copays and commuting costs. The one-time price tag of home NB-UVB booths runs between $5,000 and $7,000, but that is “much less expensive than the biologics,” which can cost $40,000-$50,000 per year, she said.

A small cross-sectional study of office- versus home-based NB-UVB in patients with vitiligo found a cost savings for home-based NB-UVB after 3 months.

One of the challenges with home phototherapy is the lack of long-term studies on patient use. In a small study Dr. Buzney conducted of 30 patients who were prescribed home phototherapy in the last 5 years, 65% practiced (or had practiced) conservative dosing, 83% had continued care with a dermatologist, 19% reported sunburns (5 mild and 1 severe), and 50% had discontinued the therapy at the time of survey because of a perceived lack of efficacy and inconvenience. But 30% of those who had stopped had done so within one month of getting their home booth.

“This tells me that we have to educate our patients better about what expectations should be and make sure they understand how to use their booths,” she said. “Home phototherapy has changed my practice, but not everyone is a candidate for it. Some patients are not dependable. Others are unable to understand instructions.”

Cost to purchase a NB-UVB booth is also an issue, she noted. “Typically, a percentage of cost is covered by insurance, but it’s problematic to purchase a booth if patients don’t know it’s going to work for them or not. Then you have college students who don’t have the space in their apartment or dorm room for a booth.”

Dr. Buzney reported having no relevant financial conflicts.

BOSTON – In 2012, about 50% of patients receiving phototherapy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston were being treated for psoriasis. A decade later, that proportion has dropped to 20%.

Several factors have contributed to this trend, namely, the development of biologics, the COVID-19 pandemic, “and the rise of home phototherapy options,” Elizabeth A. Buzney, MD, codirector of the phototherapy center at Brigham and Women’s department of dermatology, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. In her clinical opinion, phototherapy plays an essential role in the treatment of psoriasis.

“It is medically and financially responsible to review the option of phototherapy with every psoriasis patient,” Dr. Buzney said. “Many patients are not medical or financial candidates for biologic/apremilast therapy, or just would prefer nonsystemic therapy.”

While the newer biologics have surpassed narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) phototherapy in terms of efficacy and rapid onset of action, she continued, NB-UVB performs on par with older biologics. In one meta-analysis, the proportion of patients achieving Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 with NB-UVB therapy was 70% after 20-40 sessions, just below the efficacy of newer biologics – but better than ustekinumab and adalimumab.

“Phototherapy is not so far out of range as you might think it is,” she said, noting that other studies of NB-UVB therapy show PASI 75 responses of 62% and PASI 90 responses of 40%.

Phototherapy can also be an appealing option because biologics aren’t the best option for all patients with psoriasis. They are expensive for the health care system and potentially for patients, require initial and potentially continued lab testing and monitoring, and require injections, “which some patients don’t like,” said Dr. Buzney, who is also vice-chair of clinical affairs at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital department of dermatology. “There’s an infrequent risk of serious infection and there is risk in patients with HIV, TB, and hepatitis that you have to address. There is also concern for the impact of biologics on patients with a recent cancer.”

On the other hand, few contraindications to NB-UVB exist. According to joint American Academy of Dermatology-National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines on the management and treatment of psoriasis with phototherapy, published in 2019, NB-UVB therapy is only contraindicated in patients with xeroderma pigmentosa and other photosensitive disorders. Concurrent use of cyclosporine and NB-UVB treatment is also contraindicated because of the calculated increase in risk of skin cancer, extrapolated from data on risk with cyclosporine and PUVA (psoralen and ultraviolet A therapy).

The guidelines state that NB-UVB can be used with caution in lupus patients with no history of photosensitivity and who are SS-A negative, as well as patients with a history of melanoma or multiple nonmelanoma skin cancers, a history of recurrent oral herpes simplex virus infection, a history of arsenic intake, prior exposure to ionizing radiation, and those taking photosensitizing medications (since NB-UVB lamps emit “negligible” UVA).

It’s also safe to use during pregnancy and in children. “It’s safe and effective for the right patient,” Dr. Buzney said, discussing how phototherapy can be modified to accommodate children. “You can consider a slower dose-increased regimen. Will children keep the eye protection on? That’s a tricky one. How are you going to manage their anxiety during treatment and involve their family?”

Subgroups of patients who demonstrate a better response to NB-UVB treatment include those with guttate psoriasis, compared with plaque psoriasis, nonsmokers, those with a lower BMI, those with a higher baseline PASI, and those who demonstrate a faster trajectory of clinical response over the first 2-3 weeks of treatment.

Why would one not use phototherapy for psoriasis? “Cost and convenience,” Dr. Buzney said. “There is lost time/revenue to commute to treatment, which may involve multiple times per week. Coming to a public space when COVID-19 is still lingering is another concern, as are the out-of-pocket costs for copays and parking.”

For these reasons, she considers home phototherapy as a transformative option for many patients. Home phototherapy booths provide a safe and effective way to use NB-UVB phototherapy while minimizing copays and commuting costs. The one-time price tag of home NB-UVB booths runs between $5,000 and $7,000, but that is “much less expensive than the biologics,” which can cost $40,000-$50,000 per year, she said.

A small cross-sectional study of office- versus home-based NB-UVB in patients with vitiligo found a cost savings for home-based NB-UVB after 3 months.

One of the challenges with home phototherapy is the lack of long-term studies on patient use. In a small study Dr. Buzney conducted of 30 patients who were prescribed home phototherapy in the last 5 years, 65% practiced (or had practiced) conservative dosing, 83% had continued care with a dermatologist, 19% reported sunburns (5 mild and 1 severe), and 50% had discontinued the therapy at the time of survey because of a perceived lack of efficacy and inconvenience. But 30% of those who had stopped had done so within one month of getting their home booth.

“This tells me that we have to educate our patients better about what expectations should be and make sure they understand how to use their booths,” she said. “Home phototherapy has changed my practice, but not everyone is a candidate for it. Some patients are not dependable. Others are unable to understand instructions.”

Cost to purchase a NB-UVB booth is also an issue, she noted. “Typically, a percentage of cost is covered by insurance, but it’s problematic to purchase a booth if patients don’t know it’s going to work for them or not. Then you have college students who don’t have the space in their apartment or dorm room for a booth.”

Dr. Buzney reported having no relevant financial conflicts.

BOSTON – In 2012, about 50% of patients receiving phototherapy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston were being treated for psoriasis. A decade later, that proportion has dropped to 20%.

Several factors have contributed to this trend, namely, the development of biologics, the COVID-19 pandemic, “and the rise of home phototherapy options,” Elizabeth A. Buzney, MD, codirector of the phototherapy center at Brigham and Women’s department of dermatology, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. In her clinical opinion, phototherapy plays an essential role in the treatment of psoriasis.

“It is medically and financially responsible to review the option of phototherapy with every psoriasis patient,” Dr. Buzney said. “Many patients are not medical or financial candidates for biologic/apremilast therapy, or just would prefer nonsystemic therapy.”

While the newer biologics have surpassed narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) phototherapy in terms of efficacy and rapid onset of action, she continued, NB-UVB performs on par with older biologics. In one meta-analysis, the proportion of patients achieving Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 with NB-UVB therapy was 70% after 20-40 sessions, just below the efficacy of newer biologics – but better than ustekinumab and adalimumab.

“Phototherapy is not so far out of range as you might think it is,” she said, noting that other studies of NB-UVB therapy show PASI 75 responses of 62% and PASI 90 responses of 40%.

Phototherapy can also be an appealing option because biologics aren’t the best option for all patients with psoriasis. They are expensive for the health care system and potentially for patients, require initial and potentially continued lab testing and monitoring, and require injections, “which some patients don’t like,” said Dr. Buzney, who is also vice-chair of clinical affairs at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital department of dermatology. “There’s an infrequent risk of serious infection and there is risk in patients with HIV, TB, and hepatitis that you have to address. There is also concern for the impact of biologics on patients with a recent cancer.”

On the other hand, few contraindications to NB-UVB exist. According to joint American Academy of Dermatology-National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines on the management and treatment of psoriasis with phototherapy, published in 2019, NB-UVB therapy is only contraindicated in patients with xeroderma pigmentosa and other photosensitive disorders. Concurrent use of cyclosporine and NB-UVB treatment is also contraindicated because of the calculated increase in risk of skin cancer, extrapolated from data on risk with cyclosporine and PUVA (psoralen and ultraviolet A therapy).

The guidelines state that NB-UVB can be used with caution in lupus patients with no history of photosensitivity and who are SS-A negative, as well as patients with a history of melanoma or multiple nonmelanoma skin cancers, a history of recurrent oral herpes simplex virus infection, a history of arsenic intake, prior exposure to ionizing radiation, and those taking photosensitizing medications (since NB-UVB lamps emit “negligible” UVA).

It’s also safe to use during pregnancy and in children. “It’s safe and effective for the right patient,” Dr. Buzney said, discussing how phototherapy can be modified to accommodate children. “You can consider a slower dose-increased regimen. Will children keep the eye protection on? That’s a tricky one. How are you going to manage their anxiety during treatment and involve their family?”

Subgroups of patients who demonstrate a better response to NB-UVB treatment include those with guttate psoriasis, compared with plaque psoriasis, nonsmokers, those with a lower BMI, those with a higher baseline PASI, and those who demonstrate a faster trajectory of clinical response over the first 2-3 weeks of treatment.

Why would one not use phototherapy for psoriasis? “Cost and convenience,” Dr. Buzney said. “There is lost time/revenue to commute to treatment, which may involve multiple times per week. Coming to a public space when COVID-19 is still lingering is another concern, as are the out-of-pocket costs for copays and parking.”

For these reasons, she considers home phototherapy as a transformative option for many patients. Home phototherapy booths provide a safe and effective way to use NB-UVB phototherapy while minimizing copays and commuting costs. The one-time price tag of home NB-UVB booths runs between $5,000 and $7,000, but that is “much less expensive than the biologics,” which can cost $40,000-$50,000 per year, she said.

A small cross-sectional study of office- versus home-based NB-UVB in patients with vitiligo found a cost savings for home-based NB-UVB after 3 months.

One of the challenges with home phototherapy is the lack of long-term studies on patient use. In a small study Dr. Buzney conducted of 30 patients who were prescribed home phototherapy in the last 5 years, 65% practiced (or had practiced) conservative dosing, 83% had continued care with a dermatologist, 19% reported sunburns (5 mild and 1 severe), and 50% had discontinued the therapy at the time of survey because of a perceived lack of efficacy and inconvenience. But 30% of those who had stopped had done so within one month of getting their home booth.

“This tells me that we have to educate our patients better about what expectations should be and make sure they understand how to use their booths,” she said. “Home phototherapy has changed my practice, but not everyone is a candidate for it. Some patients are not dependable. Others are unable to understand instructions.”

Cost to purchase a NB-UVB booth is also an issue, she noted. “Typically, a percentage of cost is covered by insurance, but it’s problematic to purchase a booth if patients don’t know it’s going to work for them or not. Then you have college students who don’t have the space in their apartment or dorm room for a booth.”

Dr. Buzney reported having no relevant financial conflicts.

A topical gel that contains birch bark extract as the active ingredient – Filsuvez (Oleogel-S10) – has been recommended for approval for the treatment of skin wounds in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) by the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA’s) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use.

“The benefit of Filsuvez is its ability to promote healing of EB partial thickness wounds,” the EMA said in an announcement on April 22. “It is thought to work by modulating inflammatory mediators and stimulating keratinocyte differentiation and migration, thereby promoting wound health and closure,” the statement adds.

The recommended indication for the product – developed by Amryt Pharmaceuticals DAC and currently designated as an orphan drug – is for the treatment of partial-thickness wounds associated with dystrophic and junctional EB in patients aged 6 months and older. The recommendation for approval came after the EMA sought and received external advice from independent physicians treating EB and from patients with the rare disease.

The most common side effects, according to the EMA announcement, are wound complications, application site reactions, wound infections, pruritus, and hypersensitivity reactions.

In February 2022, the Food and Drug Administration declined to approve the company’s new drug application as it was presented and asked the company to submit additional evidence of effectiveness for Oleogel-S10 in EB, the company announced at that time. The statement noted that the company was committed to working with the FDA to identify "the most expeditious pathway towards a potential approval.” 

The company’s pivotal phase 3 trial enrolled 223 patients with EB, including 156 pediatric patients. The patients variously had three types of EB. The trial has two components: A 3-month, double-blind, randomized controlled phase, which has been completed, and an ongoing 24-month open-label, single-arm phase. The trial is being performed at 58 sites in 28 countries.

Results from the randomized controlled phase, reported in 2020, include a statistically significant increase in the proportion of patients achieving complete closure of an EB target wound within 45 days: 41.3% in the Oleogel-S10 group and 28.9% in the control group (P = .013). (Target wounds measured 10 cm² to 50 cm² and were present for at least 21 days but less than 9 months.) The safety profile of the treatment gel was acceptable and was well tolerated, compared with the control gel, according to Amryt’s press release. The results were presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress in October 2020.

Data from a 12-month interim analysis of the follow-up phase were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in March 2022. Results showed further reductions in total body surface area percentage wounding to 5.4% among (from 7.4% at the end of the double-blind period and 12.1% at the beginning of the study) among the patients who continued treatment and who underwent assessment, according to a company press release. Treatment was well tolerated, and no new safety signals were identified, the release said.

A decision by the European Commission is expected within the next 2 months.

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

A topical gel that contains birch bark extract as the active ingredient – Filsuvez (Oleogel-S10) – has been recommended for approval for the treatment of skin wounds in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) by the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA’s) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use.

“The benefit of Filsuvez is its ability to promote healing of EB partial thickness wounds,” the EMA said in an announcement on April 22. “It is thought to work by modulating inflammatory mediators and stimulating keratinocyte differentiation and migration, thereby promoting wound health and closure,” the statement adds.

The recommended indication for the product – developed by Amryt Pharmaceuticals DAC and currently designated as an orphan drug – is for the treatment of partial-thickness wounds associated with dystrophic and junctional EB in patients aged 6 months and older. The recommendation for approval came after the EMA sought and received external advice from independent physicians treating EB and from patients with the rare disease.

The most common side effects, according to the EMA announcement, are wound complications, application site reactions, wound infections, pruritus, and hypersensitivity reactions.

In February 2022, the Food and Drug Administration declined to approve the company’s new drug application as it was presented and asked the company to submit additional evidence of effectiveness for Oleogel-S10 in EB, the company announced at that time. The statement noted that the company was committed to working with the FDA to identify "the most expeditious pathway towards a potential approval.” 

The company’s pivotal phase 3 trial enrolled 223 patients with EB, including 156 pediatric patients. The patients variously had three types of EB. The trial has two components: A 3-month, double-blind, randomized controlled phase, which has been completed, and an ongoing 24-month open-label, single-arm phase. The trial is being performed at 58 sites in 28 countries.

Results from the randomized controlled phase, reported in 2020, include a statistically significant increase in the proportion of patients achieving complete closure of an EB target wound within 45 days: 41.3% in the Oleogel-S10 group and 28.9% in the control group (P = .013). (Target wounds measured 10 cm² to 50 cm² and were present for at least 21 days but less than 9 months.) The safety profile of the treatment gel was acceptable and was well tolerated, compared with the control gel, according to Amryt’s press release. The results were presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress in October 2020.

Data from a 12-month interim analysis of the follow-up phase were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in March 2022. Results showed further reductions in total body surface area percentage wounding to 5.4% among (from 7.4% at the end of the double-blind period and 12.1% at the beginning of the study) among the patients who continued treatment and who underwent assessment, according to a company press release. Treatment was well tolerated, and no new safety signals were identified, the release said.

A decision by the European Commission is expected within the next 2 months.

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

A topical gel that contains birch bark extract as the active ingredient – Filsuvez (Oleogel-S10) – has been recommended for approval for the treatment of skin wounds in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) by the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA’s) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use.

“The benefit of Filsuvez is its ability to promote healing of EB partial thickness wounds,” the EMA said in an announcement on April 22. “It is thought to work by modulating inflammatory mediators and stimulating keratinocyte differentiation and migration, thereby promoting wound health and closure,” the statement adds.

The recommended indication for the product – developed by Amryt Pharmaceuticals DAC and currently designated as an orphan drug – is for the treatment of partial-thickness wounds associated with dystrophic and junctional EB in patients aged 6 months and older. The recommendation for approval came after the EMA sought and received external advice from independent physicians treating EB and from patients with the rare disease.

The most common side effects, according to the EMA announcement, are wound complications, application site reactions, wound infections, pruritus, and hypersensitivity reactions.

In February 2022, the Food and Drug Administration declined to approve the company’s new drug application as it was presented and asked the company to submit additional evidence of effectiveness for Oleogel-S10 in EB, the company announced at that time. The statement noted that the company was committed to working with the FDA to identify "the most expeditious pathway towards a potential approval.” 

The company’s pivotal phase 3 trial enrolled 223 patients with EB, including 156 pediatric patients. The patients variously had three types of EB. The trial has two components: A 3-month, double-blind, randomized controlled phase, which has been completed, and an ongoing 24-month open-label, single-arm phase. The trial is being performed at 58 sites in 28 countries.

Results from the randomized controlled phase, reported in 2020, include a statistically significant increase in the proportion of patients achieving complete closure of an EB target wound within 45 days: 41.3% in the Oleogel-S10 group and 28.9% in the control group (P = .013). (Target wounds measured 10 cm² to 50 cm² and were present for at least 21 days but less than 9 months.) The safety profile of the treatment gel was acceptable and was well tolerated, compared with the control gel, according to Amryt’s press release. The results were presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress in October 2020.

Data from a 12-month interim analysis of the follow-up phase were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in March 2022. Results showed further reductions in total body surface area percentage wounding to 5.4% among (from 7.4% at the end of the double-blind period and 12.1% at the beginning of the study) among the patients who continued treatment and who underwent assessment, according to a company press release. Treatment was well tolerated, and no new safety signals were identified, the release said.

A decision by the European Commission is expected within the next 2 months.

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

BOSTON – According to the best available data, solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) at highest risk for developing skin cancer are thoracic organ recipients, those aged 50 or older at the time of the transplant, and males.

White patients who meet these criteria should be screening within 2 years after transplant, while Black patients should be screened within 5 years after transplant, Ally-Khan Somani, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Somani, director of dermatologic surgery and the division of cutaneous oncology at Indiana University, Indianapolis, based his remarks on consensus screening guidelines assembled from three rounds of Delphi method surveys with 47 dermatologists and 37 transplant physicians, with the goal of establishing skin cancer screening recommendations for SOTRs. Among the dermatologists surveyed, 45% were Mohs surgeons and 55% were general dermatologists.

The panel recommended that the transplant team should perform risk assessment for SOTRs to risk stratify patients for skin cancer screening (high risk vs. low risk). They also proposed that dermatologists perform skin cancer screening by full-body skin examinations, and that SOTRs with a history of skin cancer should continue with routine skin cancer surveillance as recommended by their dermatologists.

Those at low risk for skin cancer include abdominal organ recipients, SOTR age of younger than 50 at time of transplant, and female gender. The guidelines recommend that White, Asian, and Hispanic patients who meet those criteria should be screened within 5 years after transplant, while no consensus was reached for Black patients who meet those criteria.

Based on posttransplant skin cancer incidence rates, risk is increased among males, Whites, thoracic organ recipients, and being age 50 or older, Dr. Somani said. “At our institution, we make sure there’s a good connection between our transplant teams and dermatologists. We recommend rapid referral for suspicious lesions and we educate patients and screen them within 1 year of transplant, or sooner for high-risk patients. Surveillance is increased to every 3 or 4 months for patients with a history of multiple or high-risk cancers or sooner, followed by routine surveillance as recommended by the patient’s dermatologist.”

To risk stratify patients on the development of their first skin cancer post transplantation, researchers developed the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator (SUNTRAC), a prediction tool with a freely available app. Data for the tool were drawn from the Transplant Skin Cancer Network study, a 5-year analysis of 6,340 adult recipients of a first solid organ transplant at 26 transplant centers in the United States. It generates a risk score for SOTRs (low, medium, high, or very high), which informs transplant care providers of a patient’s risk of skin cancer.

Dr. Somani disclosed that he has received grants and funding from Castle Biosciences. He is an adviser to Cook Biotech and a consultant to Sanara MedTech.

BOSTON – According to the best available data, solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) at highest risk for developing skin cancer are thoracic organ recipients, those aged 50 or older at the time of the transplant, and males.

White patients who meet these criteria should be screening within 2 years after transplant, while Black patients should be screened within 5 years after transplant, Ally-Khan Somani, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Somani, director of dermatologic surgery and the division of cutaneous oncology at Indiana University, Indianapolis, based his remarks on consensus screening guidelines assembled from three rounds of Delphi method surveys with 47 dermatologists and 37 transplant physicians, with the goal of establishing skin cancer screening recommendations for SOTRs. Among the dermatologists surveyed, 45% were Mohs surgeons and 55% were general dermatologists.

The panel recommended that the transplant team should perform risk assessment for SOTRs to risk stratify patients for skin cancer screening (high risk vs. low risk). They also proposed that dermatologists perform skin cancer screening by full-body skin examinations, and that SOTRs with a history of skin cancer should continue with routine skin cancer surveillance as recommended by their dermatologists.

Those at low risk for skin cancer include abdominal organ recipients, SOTR age of younger than 50 at time of transplant, and female gender. The guidelines recommend that White, Asian, and Hispanic patients who meet those criteria should be screened within 5 years after transplant, while no consensus was reached for Black patients who meet those criteria.

Based on posttransplant skin cancer incidence rates, risk is increased among males, Whites, thoracic organ recipients, and being age 50 or older, Dr. Somani said. “At our institution, we make sure there’s a good connection between our transplant teams and dermatologists. We recommend rapid referral for suspicious lesions and we educate patients and screen them within 1 year of transplant, or sooner for high-risk patients. Surveillance is increased to every 3 or 4 months for patients with a history of multiple or high-risk cancers or sooner, followed by routine surveillance as recommended by the patient’s dermatologist.”

To risk stratify patients on the development of their first skin cancer post transplantation, researchers developed the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator (SUNTRAC), a prediction tool with a freely available app. Data for the tool were drawn from the Transplant Skin Cancer Network study, a 5-year analysis of 6,340 adult recipients of a first solid organ transplant at 26 transplant centers in the United States. It generates a risk score for SOTRs (low, medium, high, or very high), which informs transplant care providers of a patient’s risk of skin cancer.

Dr. Somani disclosed that he has received grants and funding from Castle Biosciences. He is an adviser to Cook Biotech and a consultant to Sanara MedTech.

BOSTON – According to the best available data, solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) at highest risk for developing skin cancer are thoracic organ recipients, those aged 50 or older at the time of the transplant, and males.

White patients who meet these criteria should be screening within 2 years after transplant, while Black patients should be screened within 5 years after transplant, Ally-Khan Somani, MD, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Somani, director of dermatologic surgery and the division of cutaneous oncology at Indiana University, Indianapolis, based his remarks on consensus screening guidelines assembled from three rounds of Delphi method surveys with 47 dermatologists and 37 transplant physicians, with the goal of establishing skin cancer screening recommendations for SOTRs. Among the dermatologists surveyed, 45% were Mohs surgeons and 55% were general dermatologists.

The panel recommended that the transplant team should perform risk assessment for SOTRs to risk stratify patients for skin cancer screening (high risk vs. low risk). They also proposed that dermatologists perform skin cancer screening by full-body skin examinations, and that SOTRs with a history of skin cancer should continue with routine skin cancer surveillance as recommended by their dermatologists.

Those at low risk for skin cancer include abdominal organ recipients, SOTR age of younger than 50 at time of transplant, and female gender. The guidelines recommend that White, Asian, and Hispanic patients who meet those criteria should be screened within 5 years after transplant, while no consensus was reached for Black patients who meet those criteria.

Based on posttransplant skin cancer incidence rates, risk is increased among males, Whites, thoracic organ recipients, and being age 50 or older, Dr. Somani said. “At our institution, we make sure there’s a good connection between our transplant teams and dermatologists. We recommend rapid referral for suspicious lesions and we educate patients and screen them within 1 year of transplant, or sooner for high-risk patients. Surveillance is increased to every 3 or 4 months for patients with a history of multiple or high-risk cancers or sooner, followed by routine surveillance as recommended by the patient’s dermatologist.”

To risk stratify patients on the development of their first skin cancer post transplantation, researchers developed the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator (SUNTRAC), a prediction tool with a freely available app. Data for the tool were drawn from the Transplant Skin Cancer Network study, a 5-year analysis of 6,340 adult recipients of a first solid organ transplant at 26 transplant centers in the United States. It generates a risk score for SOTRs (low, medium, high, or very high), which informs transplant care providers of a patient’s risk of skin cancer.

Dr. Somani disclosed that he has received grants and funding from Castle Biosciences. He is an adviser to Cook Biotech and a consultant to Sanara MedTech.

BOSTON – When patients present with complaints of hair loss or changes in hair color or texture, make sure to ask if they are taking oral hair growth supplements.

This is an important question because patients consider supplements as “natural and healthy,” not as drugs or chemicals, Wilma F. Bergfeld, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Some of these products contain botanicals, which are not always safe, added Dr. Bergfeld, professor of dermatology and pathology at the Cleveland Clinic. “They have many activities, and they are being touted as having some activity in helping the hair or enhancing hair growth,” including having 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors as an ingredient. “Saw palmetto is probably the most common one, but there are a host of natural ingredients that are being put into these supplements, including those that promote androgen induction, as well as antioxidants and anti-inflammatories.”

In the opinion of Dr. Bergfeld, a nutrition-focused physical assessment should include an examination of the scalp and all hairy areas. “It’s also important to see the symmetry and shape of hair growth or hair loss areas, the distribution, hair color, the thickness and texture of the hair fibers,” she added.

Besides asking about what supplements patients are taking, other questions to ask during the visit include: Are you noticing more hair on your brush, pillow, and shoulders, or in the shower? Do you think your hair is thinning? What are your medical problems? Have you experienced rapid weight loss? Have you started any new medications? What medication(s) are you on? What foods do you eat? Do you have a family history of hair loss?

Possible causes of hair loss or changes include environmental factors, stress, hormonal changes, medications, and nutrition.

Common ingredients contained in healthy hair supplements include biotin, folic acid, L-cysteine, L-methionine, MSM (methylsulfonylmethane), vitamin B complex, and vitamins A, C, D, and E. “Vitamin D and A are associated on the hair follicle receptor sites, and they balance each other, so if one is down the other is usually down,” said Dr. Bergfeld, who directs Cleveland Clinic’s hair disorders clinic and its dermatopathology program. Other important ingredients include iron, zinc, manganese, amino acids including L-Lysine, and fatty acids.

Iron deficiency is a known cause of hair loss. “The absorption of iron relies on vitamin C and sometimes lysine,” she said. Red meat has a high iron content and since many patients are restricting red meat intake, “they do need to think about that.” Zinc deficiency is less common in Western countries, she continued, “but when you find it, it’s revolutionary because if they’re shedding hair and their hair character is changing, often some supplementation will do the trick. But remember: Zinc is not only an anti-inflammatory, it’s also an antiandrogen. It has 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor capabilities.”.

Dr. Bergfeld noted that biotin, also known as vitamin B₇ and found in many foods, is used in many vitamin supplements marketed for hair loss. The recommended daily allowance (RDA) is 30 mcg/day in adults but the amount in hair supplements can be up to 650% of RDA. “Biotin at high levels is believed to be safe, but can interfere with troponin and other lab testing,” she cautioned. “This can lead to dangerous false laboratory results.”

To date, insufficient data exist to recommend supplementation with zinc, riboflavin, folic acid, or vitamin B₁₂ for hair loss, “but they may help in cases of deficiency,” said Dr. Bergfeld, a past president of the American Hair Research Society. The use of vitamin E and biotin supplementation is not supported in the literature for treating androgenetic alopecia or telogen effluvium. Excessive vitamin A (not beta carotene) and selenium can contribute to hair loss and studies have shown a relationship between androgenetic alopecia and low vitamin D levels. “Vitamin D should be supplemented if serum levels are low, but more studies are needed to determine the effect of iron and zinc supplementation” in patients with androgenetic alopecia, she said.

While there are not enough data to support a recommendation for supplementation of folic or B₁₂ for alopecia, she said, “vitamin B₁₂ deficiency may occur in androgenetic alopecia patients, associated with pernicious anemia.”

She added that the use biotin supplementation for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia is not supported by available data, and “it is also unclear if selenium plays a role in this disease.”

Dr. Bergfeld reported having no disclosures related to her presentation.

BOSTON – When patients present with complaints of hair loss or changes in hair color or texture, make sure to ask if they are taking oral hair growth supplements.

This is an important question because patients consider supplements as “natural and healthy,” not as drugs or chemicals, Wilma F. Bergfeld, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Some of these products contain botanicals, which are not always safe, added Dr. Bergfeld, professor of dermatology and pathology at the Cleveland Clinic. “They have many activities, and they are being touted as having some activity in helping the hair or enhancing hair growth,” including having 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors as an ingredient. “Saw palmetto is probably the most common one, but there are a host of natural ingredients that are being put into these supplements, including those that promote androgen induction, as well as antioxidants and anti-inflammatories.”

In the opinion of Dr. Bergfeld, a nutrition-focused physical assessment should include an examination of the scalp and all hairy areas. “It’s also important to see the symmetry and shape of hair growth or hair loss areas, the distribution, hair color, the thickness and texture of the hair fibers,” she added.

Besides asking about what supplements patients are taking, other questions to ask during the visit include: Are you noticing more hair on your brush, pillow, and shoulders, or in the shower? Do you think your hair is thinning? What are your medical problems? Have you experienced rapid weight loss? Have you started any new medications? What medication(s) are you on? What foods do you eat? Do you have a family history of hair loss?

Possible causes of hair loss or changes include environmental factors, stress, hormonal changes, medications, and nutrition.

Common ingredients contained in healthy hair supplements include biotin, folic acid, L-cysteine, L-methionine, MSM (methylsulfonylmethane), vitamin B complex, and vitamins A, C, D, and E. “Vitamin D and A are associated on the hair follicle receptor sites, and they balance each other, so if one is down the other is usually down,” said Dr. Bergfeld, who directs Cleveland Clinic’s hair disorders clinic and its dermatopathology program. Other important ingredients include iron, zinc, manganese, amino acids including L-Lysine, and fatty acids.

Iron deficiency is a known cause of hair loss. “The absorption of iron relies on vitamin C and sometimes lysine,” she said. Red meat has a high iron content and since many patients are restricting red meat intake, “they do need to think about that.” Zinc deficiency is less common in Western countries, she continued, “but when you find it, it’s revolutionary because if they’re shedding hair and their hair character is changing, often some supplementation will do the trick. But remember: Zinc is not only an anti-inflammatory, it’s also an antiandrogen. It has 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor capabilities.”.

Dr. Bergfeld noted that biotin, also known as vitamin B₇ and found in many foods, is used in many vitamin supplements marketed for hair loss. The recommended daily allowance (RDA) is 30 mcg/day in adults but the amount in hair supplements can be up to 650% of RDA. “Biotin at high levels is believed to be safe, but can interfere with troponin and other lab testing,” she cautioned. “This can lead to dangerous false laboratory results.”

To date, insufficient data exist to recommend supplementation with zinc, riboflavin, folic acid, or vitamin B₁₂ for hair loss, “but they may help in cases of deficiency,” said Dr. Bergfeld, a past president of the American Hair Research Society. The use of vitamin E and biotin supplementation is not supported in the literature for treating androgenetic alopecia or telogen effluvium. Excessive vitamin A (not beta carotene) and selenium can contribute to hair loss and studies have shown a relationship between androgenetic alopecia and low vitamin D levels. “Vitamin D should be supplemented if serum levels are low, but more studies are needed to determine the effect of iron and zinc supplementation” in patients with androgenetic alopecia, she said.

While there are not enough data to support a recommendation for supplementation of folic or B₁₂ for alopecia, she said, “vitamin B₁₂ deficiency may occur in androgenetic alopecia patients, associated with pernicious anemia.”

She added that the use biotin supplementation for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia is not supported by available data, and “it is also unclear if selenium plays a role in this disease.”

Dr. Bergfeld reported having no disclosures related to her presentation.

BOSTON – When patients present with complaints of hair loss or changes in hair color or texture, make sure to ask if they are taking oral hair growth supplements.

This is an important question because patients consider supplements as “natural and healthy,” not as drugs or chemicals, Wilma F. Bergfeld, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Some of these products contain botanicals, which are not always safe, added Dr. Bergfeld, professor of dermatology and pathology at the Cleveland Clinic. “They have many activities, and they are being touted as having some activity in helping the hair or enhancing hair growth,” including having 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors as an ingredient. “Saw palmetto is probably the most common one, but there are a host of natural ingredients that are being put into these supplements, including those that promote androgen induction, as well as antioxidants and anti-inflammatories.”

In the opinion of Dr. Bergfeld, a nutrition-focused physical assessment should include an examination of the scalp and all hairy areas. “It’s also important to see the symmetry and shape of hair growth or hair loss areas, the distribution, hair color, the thickness and texture of the hair fibers,” she added.

Besides asking about what supplements patients are taking, other questions to ask during the visit include: Are you noticing more hair on your brush, pillow, and shoulders, or in the shower? Do you think your hair is thinning? What are your medical problems? Have you experienced rapid weight loss? Have you started any new medications? What medication(s) are you on? What foods do you eat? Do you have a family history of hair loss?

Possible causes of hair loss or changes include environmental factors, stress, hormonal changes, medications, and nutrition.

Common ingredients contained in healthy hair supplements include biotin, folic acid, L-cysteine, L-methionine, MSM (methylsulfonylmethane), vitamin B complex, and vitamins A, C, D, and E. “Vitamin D and A are associated on the hair follicle receptor sites, and they balance each other, so if one is down the other is usually down,” said Dr. Bergfeld, who directs Cleveland Clinic’s hair disorders clinic and its dermatopathology program. Other important ingredients include iron, zinc, manganese, amino acids including L-Lysine, and fatty acids.

Iron deficiency is a known cause of hair loss. “The absorption of iron relies on vitamin C and sometimes lysine,” she said. Red meat has a high iron content and since many patients are restricting red meat intake, “they do need to think about that.” Zinc deficiency is less common in Western countries, she continued, “but when you find it, it’s revolutionary because if they’re shedding hair and their hair character is changing, often some supplementation will do the trick. But remember: Zinc is not only an anti-inflammatory, it’s also an antiandrogen. It has 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor capabilities.”.

Dr. Bergfeld noted that biotin, also known as vitamin B₇ and found in many foods, is used in many vitamin supplements marketed for hair loss. The recommended daily allowance (RDA) is 30 mcg/day in adults but the amount in hair supplements can be up to 650% of RDA. “Biotin at high levels is believed to be safe, but can interfere with troponin and other lab testing,” she cautioned. “This can lead to dangerous false laboratory results.”

To date, insufficient data exist to recommend supplementation with zinc, riboflavin, folic acid, or vitamin B₁₂ for hair loss, “but they may help in cases of deficiency,” said Dr. Bergfeld, a past president of the American Hair Research Society. The use of vitamin E and biotin supplementation is not supported in the literature for treating androgenetic alopecia or telogen effluvium. Excessive vitamin A (not beta carotene) and selenium can contribute to hair loss and studies have shown a relationship between androgenetic alopecia and low vitamin D levels. “Vitamin D should be supplemented if serum levels are low, but more studies are needed to determine the effect of iron and zinc supplementation” in patients with androgenetic alopecia, she said.

While there are not enough data to support a recommendation for supplementation of folic or B₁₂ for alopecia, she said, “vitamin B₁₂ deficiency may occur in androgenetic alopecia patients, associated with pernicious anemia.”

She added that the use biotin supplementation for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia is not supported by available data, and “it is also unclear if selenium plays a role in this disease.”

Dr. Bergfeld reported having no disclosures related to her presentation.

Two-year follow-up data from an international, multicenter, randomized trial of ixekizumab in pediatric patients with moderate to severe psoriasis demonstrate prolonged efficacy and no new safety signals with the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor, investigators reported.

In addition, findings of a substudy, which evaluated randomized withdrawal of treatment after 60 weeks, suggest patients were able to regain benefit after not being treated for a period.

Ixekizumab (Taltz) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating pediatric psoriasis in March 2020 for patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

The trial (IXORA-PEDS) involved 171 patients aged 6-17 years (mean age, 13.5 years; 99 females and 72 males), who were randomly assigned to receive ixekizumab via subcutaneous administration every 4 weeks (115) or placebo for 12 weeks (56). Thereafter, 166 patients continued in an open-label maintenance period in which they were treated every 4 weeks for 12-60 weeks. This was followed by an extension period of up to 108 weeks, which was completed by 139 patients (83.7%). At baseline, the patients’ Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score was 12 or higher, the static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score was 3 or higher, and 10% or more of body surface area was affected.

In the study, at 12 weeks, treatment with ixekizumab was superior to placebo, with sustained responses through 48 weeks. In the follow-up phase, primary and secondary endpoints were sustained through week 108, with patients achieving or maintaining PASI 75 (91.7%), PASI 90 (79%), PASI 100 (55.1%), sPGA 0 or 1 (78.3%), and sPGA 0 (52.4%). Significant improvements in itch were seen at 12 weeks and were sustained with “meaningful improvements in itch for 78.5% of these patients at week 108,” the investigators report.

Among the patients who received ixekizumab, clearance rates in areas that are difficult to treat increased from week 12 to week 108 among those affected. During this time, clearance of nail psoriasis increased from 22.8% to 68.1%, clearance of palmoplantar psoriasis increased from 46.2% to 90%, clearance of scalp psoriasis increased from 70.7% to 76.2%, and clearance of genital psoriasis increased from 83.3% to 87.5%.

No new safety findings during weeks 48-108 of the trial were reported, including no new cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or Candida infections. The results were reported in JAMA Dermatology.

“Safety is really what we think of most when we are talking about pediatric patients, especially since they may be on these for decades and ... since they most commonly start these therapies in adolescence,” said Amy Paller, MD, the study’s lead author, in an interview. “To be able to take this out 108 weeks, 2 years, is starting to get to a point where we are getting more comfortable with safety. Clearly, no new signals arose.” Dr. Paller is chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Northwestern University, Chicago.

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

Two-year follow-up data from an international, multicenter, randomized trial of ixekizumab in pediatric patients with moderate to severe psoriasis demonstrate prolonged efficacy and no new safety signals with the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor, investigators reported.

In addition, findings of a substudy, which evaluated randomized withdrawal of treatment after 60 weeks, suggest patients were able to regain benefit after not being treated for a period.

Ixekizumab (Taltz) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating pediatric psoriasis in March 2020 for patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

The trial (IXORA-PEDS) involved 171 patients aged 6-17 years (mean age, 13.5 years; 99 females and 72 males), who were randomly assigned to receive ixekizumab via subcutaneous administration every 4 weeks (115) or placebo for 12 weeks (56). Thereafter, 166 patients continued in an open-label maintenance period in which they were treated every 4 weeks for 12-60 weeks. This was followed by an extension period of up to 108 weeks, which was completed by 139 patients (83.7%). At baseline, the patients’ Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score was 12 or higher, the static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score was 3 or higher, and 10% or more of body surface area was affected.

In the study, at 12 weeks, treatment with ixekizumab was superior to placebo, with sustained responses through 48 weeks. In the follow-up phase, primary and secondary endpoints were sustained through week 108, with patients achieving or maintaining PASI 75 (91.7%), PASI 90 (79%), PASI 100 (55.1%), sPGA 0 or 1 (78.3%), and sPGA 0 (52.4%). Significant improvements in itch were seen at 12 weeks and were sustained with “meaningful improvements in itch for 78.5% of these patients at week 108,” the investigators report.

Among the patients who received ixekizumab, clearance rates in areas that are difficult to treat increased from week 12 to week 108 among those affected. During this time, clearance of nail psoriasis increased from 22.8% to 68.1%, clearance of palmoplantar psoriasis increased from 46.2% to 90%, clearance of scalp psoriasis increased from 70.7% to 76.2%, and clearance of genital psoriasis increased from 83.3% to 87.5%.

No new safety findings during weeks 48-108 of the trial were reported, including no new cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or Candida infections. The results were reported in JAMA Dermatology.

“Safety is really what we think of most when we are talking about pediatric patients, especially since they may be on these for decades and ... since they most commonly start these therapies in adolescence,” said Amy Paller, MD, the study’s lead author, in an interview. “To be able to take this out 108 weeks, 2 years, is starting to get to a point where we are getting more comfortable with safety. Clearly, no new signals arose.” Dr. Paller is chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Northwestern University, Chicago.

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

Two-year follow-up data from an international, multicenter, randomized trial of ixekizumab in pediatric patients with moderate to severe psoriasis demonstrate prolonged efficacy and no new safety signals with the interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor, investigators reported.

In addition, findings of a substudy, which evaluated randomized withdrawal of treatment after 60 weeks, suggest patients were able to regain benefit after not being treated for a period.

Ixekizumab (Taltz) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating pediatric psoriasis in March 2020 for patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

The trial (IXORA-PEDS) involved 171 patients aged 6-17 years (mean age, 13.5 years; 99 females and 72 males), who were randomly assigned to receive ixekizumab via subcutaneous administration every 4 weeks (115) or placebo for 12 weeks (56). Thereafter, 166 patients continued in an open-label maintenance period in which they were treated every 4 weeks for 12-60 weeks. This was followed by an extension period of up to 108 weeks, which was completed by 139 patients (83.7%). At baseline, the patients’ Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score was 12 or higher, the static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score was 3 or higher, and 10% or more of body surface area was affected.

In the study, at 12 weeks, treatment with ixekizumab was superior to placebo, with sustained responses through 48 weeks. In the follow-up phase, primary and secondary endpoints were sustained through week 108, with patients achieving or maintaining PASI 75 (91.7%), PASI 90 (79%), PASI 100 (55.1%), sPGA 0 or 1 (78.3%), and sPGA 0 (52.4%). Significant improvements in itch were seen at 12 weeks and were sustained with “meaningful improvements in itch for 78.5% of these patients at week 108,” the investigators report.

Among the patients who received ixekizumab, clearance rates in areas that are difficult to treat increased from week 12 to week 108 among those affected. During this time, clearance of nail psoriasis increased from 22.8% to 68.1%, clearance of palmoplantar psoriasis increased from 46.2% to 90%, clearance of scalp psoriasis increased from 70.7% to 76.2%, and clearance of genital psoriasis increased from 83.3% to 87.5%.

No new safety findings during weeks 48-108 of the trial were reported, including no new cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or Candida infections. The results were reported in JAMA Dermatology.

“Safety is really what we think of most when we are talking about pediatric patients, especially since they may be on these for decades and ... since they most commonly start these therapies in adolescence,” said Amy Paller, MD, the study’s lead author, in an interview. “To be able to take this out 108 weeks, 2 years, is starting to get to a point where we are getting more comfortable with safety. Clearly, no new signals arose.” Dr. Paller is chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics, Northwestern University, Chicago.

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

American patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and psoriasis who received the interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) as their first biologic treatment achieved the best response rate with a 300-mg dose regimen when compared with placebo, and those who up-titrated to 300 mg from the lower approved dose of 150 mg also saw benefits obtained at that level.

Researchers conducted a postmarketing trial of secukinumab in patients at U.S. centers, called CHOICE, after it was approved for psoriasis and PsA in 2015 and 2016 based on trials mainly conducted outside of the United States. The American patients in those studies “had a baseline clinical profile indicating harder-to-treat disease than the total study population, including higher body mass index (BMI), higher tender and swollen joint counts, increased prevalence of enthesitis and dactylitis, and more tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) experience,” Tien Q. Nguyen, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in Irvine, Calif., and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Rheumatology.

In order to get a better sense of how secukinumab performs in U.S. patients who have not been treated with biologics, the researchers conducted the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 4 CHOICE trial. It recruited patients for about 26 months at 67 U.S. centers during 2016-2018. The 258 patients randomized in the study to 300 mg (n = 103), 150 mg secukinumab (n = 103), or placebo (n = 52) had a mean time since PsA diagnosis of 3.0-3.9 years and all had a mean BMI of greater than 30 kg/m², with dactylitis present in 48% and enthesitis in 73%. About one-third were taking methotrexate at baseline.

At week 16, patients taking secukinumab 300 mg were about 3.5 times more likely to have 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria than with placebo (51.5% vs. 23.1%), whereas the response rate with 150 mg was not significantly different from placebo (36.9%). Rates of achieving ACR50 were significantly greater for both 300- and 150-mg doses versus placebo (28.2% and 24.3% vs. 5.8%), but only 300 mg led to a statistically significant difference in the rate of ACR70 responses, compared with placebo (17.5% vs. 1.9%).

In general, efficacy based on ACR20/50/70 responses and either remission or low disease activity on the Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis index was lower among patients with less than 10 tender joints and less than 10 swollen joints at baseline. Methotrexate use at baseline did not affect ACR20 rates at week 16 in patients taking secukinumab, but the effect of methotrexate on ACR20 rates was noticeable among placebo-treated patients (38.9% vs. 14.7%). Enthesitis appeared to resolve significantly more often among patients on secukinumab, and more patients on secukinumab also had their dactylitis resolve, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Patients with psoriasis affecting more than 3% of their body surface area experienced higher response rates on the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) for 75%, 90%, and 100% skin lesion clearance than did patients taking placebo.

Patients who switched from 150 mg to 300 mg secukinumab after week 16 in the second treatment period of the trial more often achieved ACR20/50/70 responses by week 52, going from 2.4% to 65.9% of the up-titration subset for ACR20 and from 0% to 34.1% for ACR50 and to 12.2% for ACR70. Patients on placebo who switched also experienced increases in these response rates out to week 52. However, BMI above 30 kg/m² led to numerically lower ACR50, ACR70, and PASI response rates at week 52.

The researchers noted that the response rates observed in CHOICE were lower than for the pivotal trials used for Food and Drug Administration approval for PsA, which “may have been due to patients in CHOICE having higher disease activity scores at baseline, compared with TNFi-naive patients” in the pivotal trials.

The safety profile of secukinumab appeared to be no different from what has been reported previously. The researchers said that, throughout the 52-week study, the most common adverse events in patients receiving secukinumab were upper respiratory tract infection in about 13% and diarrhea in about 7%. Most adverse events were mild or moderate, with serious adverse events occurring in 9.6% of patients taking secukinumab 300 mg and in 7.8% of patients taking secukinumab 150 mg over the 52 weeks.

“Overall, the findings from CHOICE were consistent with previous studies and demonstrated that secukinumab provides significant and sustained improvements in signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. Our findings suggest that secukinumab 300 mg is safe and efficacious as a first-line biologic treatment for patients with PsA. Further studies will also help determine the optimal dose of secukinumab for treating overweight patients or those with high disease activity at treatment initiation,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by Novartis, which manufactures secukinumab. Dr. Nguyen and some coauthors reported serving as a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

American patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and psoriasis who received the interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) as their first biologic treatment achieved the best response rate with a 300-mg dose regimen when compared with placebo, and those who up-titrated to 300 mg from the lower approved dose of 150 mg also saw benefits obtained at that level.

Researchers conducted a postmarketing trial of secukinumab in patients at U.S. centers, called CHOICE, after it was approved for psoriasis and PsA in 2015 and 2016 based on trials mainly conducted outside of the United States. The American patients in those studies “had a baseline clinical profile indicating harder-to-treat disease than the total study population, including higher body mass index (BMI), higher tender and swollen joint counts, increased prevalence of enthesitis and dactylitis, and more tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) experience,” Tien Q. Nguyen, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in Irvine, Calif., and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Rheumatology.

In order to get a better sense of how secukinumab performs in U.S. patients who have not been treated with biologics, the researchers conducted the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 4 CHOICE trial. It recruited patients for about 26 months at 67 U.S. centers during 2016-2018. The 258 patients randomized in the study to 300 mg (n = 103), 150 mg secukinumab (n = 103), or placebo (n = 52) had a mean time since PsA diagnosis of 3.0-3.9 years and all had a mean BMI of greater than 30 kg/m², with dactylitis present in 48% and enthesitis in 73%. About one-third were taking methotrexate at baseline.

At week 16, patients taking secukinumab 300 mg were about 3.5 times more likely to have 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria than with placebo (51.5% vs. 23.1%), whereas the response rate with 150 mg was not significantly different from placebo (36.9%). Rates of achieving ACR50 were significantly greater for both 300- and 150-mg doses versus placebo (28.2% and 24.3% vs. 5.8%), but only 300 mg led to a statistically significant difference in the rate of ACR70 responses, compared with placebo (17.5% vs. 1.9%).

In general, efficacy based on ACR20/50/70 responses and either remission or low disease activity on the Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis index was lower among patients with less than 10 tender joints and less than 10 swollen joints at baseline. Methotrexate use at baseline did not affect ACR20 rates at week 16 in patients taking secukinumab, but the effect of methotrexate on ACR20 rates was noticeable among placebo-treated patients (38.9% vs. 14.7%). Enthesitis appeared to resolve significantly more often among patients on secukinumab, and more patients on secukinumab also had their dactylitis resolve, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Patients with psoriasis affecting more than 3% of their body surface area experienced higher response rates on the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) for 75%, 90%, and 100% skin lesion clearance than did patients taking placebo.

Patients who switched from 150 mg to 300 mg secukinumab after week 16 in the second treatment period of the trial more often achieved ACR20/50/70 responses by week 52, going from 2.4% to 65.9% of the up-titration subset for ACR20 and from 0% to 34.1% for ACR50 and to 12.2% for ACR70. Patients on placebo who switched also experienced increases in these response rates out to week 52. However, BMI above 30 kg/m² led to numerically lower ACR50, ACR70, and PASI response rates at week 52.

The researchers noted that the response rates observed in CHOICE were lower than for the pivotal trials used for Food and Drug Administration approval for PsA, which “may have been due to patients in CHOICE having higher disease activity scores at baseline, compared with TNFi-naive patients” in the pivotal trials.

The safety profile of secukinumab appeared to be no different from what has been reported previously. The researchers said that, throughout the 52-week study, the most common adverse events in patients receiving secukinumab were upper respiratory tract infection in about 13% and diarrhea in about 7%. Most adverse events were mild or moderate, with serious adverse events occurring in 9.6% of patients taking secukinumab 300 mg and in 7.8% of patients taking secukinumab 150 mg over the 52 weeks.

“Overall, the findings from CHOICE were consistent with previous studies and demonstrated that secukinumab provides significant and sustained improvements in signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. Our findings suggest that secukinumab 300 mg is safe and efficacious as a first-line biologic treatment for patients with PsA. Further studies will also help determine the optimal dose of secukinumab for treating overweight patients or those with high disease activity at treatment initiation,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by Novartis, which manufactures secukinumab. Dr. Nguyen and some coauthors reported serving as a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

American patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and psoriasis who received the interleukin-17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) as their first biologic treatment achieved the best response rate with a 300-mg dose regimen when compared with placebo, and those who up-titrated to 300 mg from the lower approved dose of 150 mg also saw benefits obtained at that level.

Researchers conducted a postmarketing trial of secukinumab in patients at U.S. centers, called CHOICE, after it was approved for psoriasis and PsA in 2015 and 2016 based on trials mainly conducted outside of the United States. The American patients in those studies “had a baseline clinical profile indicating harder-to-treat disease than the total study population, including higher body mass index (BMI), higher tender and swollen joint counts, increased prevalence of enthesitis and dactylitis, and more tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) experience,” Tien Q. Nguyen, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in Irvine, Calif., and colleagues wrote in the Journal of Rheumatology.

In order to get a better sense of how secukinumab performs in U.S. patients who have not been treated with biologics, the researchers conducted the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 4 CHOICE trial. It recruited patients for about 26 months at 67 U.S. centers during 2016-2018. The 258 patients randomized in the study to 300 mg (n = 103), 150 mg secukinumab (n = 103), or placebo (n = 52) had a mean time since PsA diagnosis of 3.0-3.9 years and all had a mean BMI of greater than 30 kg/m², with dactylitis present in 48% and enthesitis in 73%. About one-third were taking methotrexate at baseline.

At week 16, patients taking secukinumab 300 mg were about 3.5 times more likely to have 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria than with placebo (51.5% vs. 23.1%), whereas the response rate with 150 mg was not significantly different from placebo (36.9%). Rates of achieving ACR50 were significantly greater for both 300- and 150-mg doses versus placebo (28.2% and 24.3% vs. 5.8%), but only 300 mg led to a statistically significant difference in the rate of ACR70 responses, compared with placebo (17.5% vs. 1.9%).

In general, efficacy based on ACR20/50/70 responses and either remission or low disease activity on the Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis index was lower among patients with less than 10 tender joints and less than 10 swollen joints at baseline. Methotrexate use at baseline did not affect ACR20 rates at week 16 in patients taking secukinumab, but the effect of methotrexate on ACR20 rates was noticeable among placebo-treated patients (38.9% vs. 14.7%). Enthesitis appeared to resolve significantly more often among patients on secukinumab, and more patients on secukinumab also had their dactylitis resolve, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Patients with psoriasis affecting more than 3% of their body surface area experienced higher response rates on the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) for 75%, 90%, and 100% skin lesion clearance than did patients taking placebo.

Patients who switched from 150 mg to 300 mg secukinumab after week 16 in the second treatment period of the trial more often achieved ACR20/50/70 responses by week 52, going from 2.4% to 65.9% of the up-titration subset for ACR20 and from 0% to 34.1% for ACR50 and to 12.2% for ACR70. Patients on placebo who switched also experienced increases in these response rates out to week 52. However, BMI above 30 kg/m² led to numerically lower ACR50, ACR70, and PASI response rates at week 52.

The researchers noted that the response rates observed in CHOICE were lower than for the pivotal trials used for Food and Drug Administration approval for PsA, which “may have been due to patients in CHOICE having higher disease activity scores at baseline, compared with TNFi-naive patients” in the pivotal trials.

The safety profile of secukinumab appeared to be no different from what has been reported previously. The researchers said that, throughout the 52-week study, the most common adverse events in patients receiving secukinumab were upper respiratory tract infection in about 13% and diarrhea in about 7%. Most adverse events were mild or moderate, with serious adverse events occurring in 9.6% of patients taking secukinumab 300 mg and in 7.8% of patients taking secukinumab 150 mg over the 52 weeks.

“Overall, the findings from CHOICE were consistent with previous studies and demonstrated that secukinumab provides significant and sustained improvements in signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. Our findings suggest that secukinumab 300 mg is safe and efficacious as a first-line biologic treatment for patients with PsA. Further studies will also help determine the optimal dose of secukinumab for treating overweight patients or those with high disease activity at treatment initiation,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by Novartis, which manufactures secukinumab. Dr. Nguyen and some coauthors reported serving as a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

Scaly plaques on sun-exposed skin with hyperpigmentation and dyspigmentation are classic signs of cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE). (The dyspigmentation seen in this case signaled that she likely had chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus [CCLE]—a subtype of CLE.) At the patient’s follow-up primary care visit, her antinuclear antibodies titer was 1:1280 (≥ 1:160 is considered a positive test) and her 24-hour urine protein was 1188 mg (normal levels in adults, < 150 mg/d). In light of the patient’s joint pain, lab findings, and skin manifestations, she was also given a diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Lupus erythematosus has an increased prevalence in women and typically occurs between the ages of 20 to 50 years.¹ The incidence and prevalence of this condition is also greater in Black patients. CLE can either occur with SLE or independently. Patients with CLE should be monitored for the development of SLE. A diagnosis of CLE is based mainly on clinical features; biopsy is only indicated if there is a high degree of uncertainty.

Patients with CLE may suffer from a lower quality of life compared to patients with other dermatologic conditions due to the often disfiguring and disabling nature of the condition.^1,2 Additionally, Black patients have an even higher chance of developing depressive symptoms associated with CCLE.²

Therapeutic management for CLE involves photoprotection by wearing sun-protective clothing, sunscreen, and limiting sun exposure.¹ Initial treatment includes topical or intralesional corticosteroids, or topical calcineurin inhibitors. Systemic therapy is similar to that used for SLE. Oral glucocorticoids, and antimalarial agents are considered first-line systemic therapy.¹ Second-line treatment includes methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, systemic retinoids, and azathioprine. Other immunosuppressive agents that are less commonly used include clofazimine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab.¹

The patient was treated sequentially with trials of oral azathioprine 50 mg bid, then prednisone 10 mg once daily, and then hydroxychloroquine 400 mg daily, without significant change in her condition. Additionally, topical steroids did not improve the patient’s symptoms. She was subsequently started on rituximab 1000 mg intravenously with a second dose repeated 2 weeks later, and another treatment 6 months after that. One year after her visit to the ED, the patient was experiencing marked improvement in her lesions.

‌

Photo courtesy of Christy Nwankwo BA. Text courtesy of Christy Nwankwo, BA, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque

Scaly plaques on sun-exposed skin with hyperpigmentation and dyspigmentation are classic signs of cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE). (The dyspigmentation seen in this case signaled that she likely had chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus [CCLE]—a subtype of CLE.) At the patient’s follow-up primary care visit, her antinuclear antibodies titer was 1:1280 (≥ 1:160 is considered a positive test) and her 24-hour urine protein was 1188 mg (normal levels in adults, < 150 mg/d). In light of the patient’s joint pain, lab findings, and skin manifestations, she was also given a diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Lupus erythematosus has an increased prevalence in women and typically occurs between the ages of 20 to 50 years.¹ The incidence and prevalence of this condition is also greater in Black patients. CLE can either occur with SLE or independently. Patients with CLE should be monitored for the development of SLE. A diagnosis of CLE is based mainly on clinical features; biopsy is only indicated if there is a high degree of uncertainty.

Patients with CLE may suffer from a lower quality of life compared to patients with other dermatologic conditions due to the often disfiguring and disabling nature of the condition.^1,2 Additionally, Black patients have an even higher chance of developing depressive symptoms associated with CCLE.²

Therapeutic management for CLE involves photoprotection by wearing sun-protective clothing, sunscreen, and limiting sun exposure.¹ Initial treatment includes topical or intralesional corticosteroids, or topical calcineurin inhibitors. Systemic therapy is similar to that used for SLE. Oral glucocorticoids, and antimalarial agents are considered first-line systemic therapy.¹ Second-line treatment includes methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, systemic retinoids, and azathioprine. Other immunosuppressive agents that are less commonly used include clofazimine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab.¹

The patient was treated sequentially with trials of oral azathioprine 50 mg bid, then prednisone 10 mg once daily, and then hydroxychloroquine 400 mg daily, without significant change in her condition. Additionally, topical steroids did not improve the patient’s symptoms. She was subsequently started on rituximab 1000 mg intravenously with a second dose repeated 2 weeks later, and another treatment 6 months after that. One year after her visit to the ED, the patient was experiencing marked improvement in her lesions.

‌

Photo courtesy of Christy Nwankwo BA. Text courtesy of Christy Nwankwo, BA, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque

Scaly plaques on sun-exposed skin with hyperpigmentation and dyspigmentation are classic signs of cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE). (The dyspigmentation seen in this case signaled that she likely had chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus [CCLE]—a subtype of CLE.) At the patient’s follow-up primary care visit, her antinuclear antibodies titer was 1:1280 (≥ 1:160 is considered a positive test) and her 24-hour urine protein was 1188 mg (normal levels in adults, < 150 mg/d). In light of the patient’s joint pain, lab findings, and skin manifestations, she was also given a diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Lupus erythematosus has an increased prevalence in women and typically occurs between the ages of 20 to 50 years.¹ The incidence and prevalence of this condition is also greater in Black patients. CLE can either occur with SLE or independently. Patients with CLE should be monitored for the development of SLE. A diagnosis of CLE is based mainly on clinical features; biopsy is only indicated if there is a high degree of uncertainty.

Patients with CLE may suffer from a lower quality of life compared to patients with other dermatologic conditions due to the often disfiguring and disabling nature of the condition.^1,2 Additionally, Black patients have an even higher chance of developing depressive symptoms associated with CCLE.²

Therapeutic management for CLE involves photoprotection by wearing sun-protective clothing, sunscreen, and limiting sun exposure.¹ Initial treatment includes topical or intralesional corticosteroids, or topical calcineurin inhibitors. Systemic therapy is similar to that used for SLE. Oral glucocorticoids, and antimalarial agents are considered first-line systemic therapy.¹ Second-line treatment includes methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, systemic retinoids, and azathioprine. Other immunosuppressive agents that are less commonly used include clofazimine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab.¹

The patient was treated sequentially with trials of oral azathioprine 50 mg bid, then prednisone 10 mg once daily, and then hydroxychloroquine 400 mg daily, without significant change in her condition. Additionally, topical steroids did not improve the patient’s symptoms. She was subsequently started on rituximab 1000 mg intravenously with a second dose repeated 2 weeks later, and another treatment 6 months after that. One year after her visit to the ED, the patient was experiencing marked improvement in her lesions.

‌

Photo courtesy of Christy Nwankwo BA. Text courtesy of Christy Nwankwo, BA, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque

The Food and Drug Administration issued warning letters to 12 companies selling over-the-counter (OTC) skin lightening products, the agency announced on April 19. All the products contain hydroquinone as the active ingredient, and don’t meet the requirements to be sold legally over the counter. The letters were dated April 13.

The 12 products with hydroquinone are “unapproved drugs and are not generally recognized as safe and effective” (abbreviated as GRASE), the FDA said.

Among the side effects associated with hydroquinone products reported to the FDA are skin rashes, facial swelling, and skin discoloration or ochronosis. The discoloration can be permanent, the FDA said. The lighteners are marketed for use on age or dark spots on the skin associated with melasma.

Tri-Luma, a prescription product for the treatment of moderate to severe melasma of the face, is the only FDA-approved drug containing hydroquinone, according to the FDA. It contains 4% hydroquinone and two other ingredients. It is meant to be used under the supervision of a health care professional. Tri-Luma is indicated for up to 8 weeks of treatment for moderate to severe melasma of the face. The OTC products contain up to 2%. (Generic versions of 4% hydroquinone are available by prescription, dermatologists said.)

“Hydroquinone is a very effective medication, and that’s exactly what it is, a medication,” said Lily Talakoub, MD, a dermatologist in McLean, Va., who supports the FDA action. “It’s very effective and very safe to use in the right hands, but when it is overused or used in the wrong situation, it can cause problems.” Those problems often occur, she said, when there is no health care professional overseeing the use of the OTC products, and when people use them over the long term.

The FDA action to ban the OTC products is “very appropriate,” said dermatologist Pooja Sodha, MD, assistant professor and director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “We know patients pick this up [an OTC product] and use it without physician oversight.” When patients use the products longer than is appropriate, which is also common, it can worsen the initial skin issue, she said.

The action follows reforms finalized under the CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act), which included not only COVID-19 response efforts but also updated the method in which certain OTC drugs are regulated. Manufacturers of the skin lightening products that don’t have FDA approval had been told to remove the products from the market by September 2020.

The recent letters were sent to a dozen companies still marketing their products without an FDA new drug approval. The agency asked the companies to take prompt action and respond with 15 days, stating what they have done to correct the violations.

The 12 companies are AMBI Enterprises, Clinical Formula, Elements Brands Inc., Genomma Lab USA, Intilight/Dr Thomas Balshi, M&M Beauty and Wellness, Neoteric Cosmetics/Scott’s Liquid Gold, Skin Authority, Skin Pro, Skin PS Brands, True Earth Health Products, and Ultimark Products.

Health care professionals and consumers can report adverse reactions associated with these products to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program.

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

The Food and Drug Administration issued warning letters to 12 companies selling over-the-counter (OTC) skin lightening products, the agency announced on April 19. All the products contain hydroquinone as the active ingredient, and don’t meet the requirements to be sold legally over the counter. The letters were dated April 13.

The 12 products with hydroquinone are “unapproved drugs and are not generally recognized as safe and effective” (abbreviated as GRASE), the FDA said.

Among the side effects associated with hydroquinone products reported to the FDA are skin rashes, facial swelling, and skin discoloration or ochronosis. The discoloration can be permanent, the FDA said. The lighteners are marketed for use on age or dark spots on the skin associated with melasma.

Tri-Luma, a prescription product for the treatment of moderate to severe melasma of the face, is the only FDA-approved drug containing hydroquinone, according to the FDA. It contains 4% hydroquinone and two other ingredients. It is meant to be used under the supervision of a health care professional. Tri-Luma is indicated for up to 8 weeks of treatment for moderate to severe melasma of the face. The OTC products contain up to 2%. (Generic versions of 4% hydroquinone are available by prescription, dermatologists said.)

“Hydroquinone is a very effective medication, and that’s exactly what it is, a medication,” said Lily Talakoub, MD, a dermatologist in McLean, Va., who supports the FDA action. “It’s very effective and very safe to use in the right hands, but when it is overused or used in the wrong situation, it can cause problems.” Those problems often occur, she said, when there is no health care professional overseeing the use of the OTC products, and when people use them over the long term.

The FDA action to ban the OTC products is “very appropriate,” said dermatologist Pooja Sodha, MD, assistant professor and director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “We know patients pick this up [an OTC product] and use it without physician oversight.” When patients use the products longer than is appropriate, which is also common, it can worsen the initial skin issue, she said.

The action follows reforms finalized under the CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act), which included not only COVID-19 response efforts but also updated the method in which certain OTC drugs are regulated. Manufacturers of the skin lightening products that don’t have FDA approval had been told to remove the products from the market by September 2020.

The recent letters were sent to a dozen companies still marketing their products without an FDA new drug approval. The agency asked the companies to take prompt action and respond with 15 days, stating what they have done to correct the violations.

The 12 companies are AMBI Enterprises, Clinical Formula, Elements Brands Inc., Genomma Lab USA, Intilight/Dr Thomas Balshi, M&M Beauty and Wellness, Neoteric Cosmetics/Scott’s Liquid Gold, Skin Authority, Skin Pro, Skin PS Brands, True Earth Health Products, and Ultimark Products.

Health care professionals and consumers can report adverse reactions associated with these products to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program.

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

The Food and Drug Administration issued warning letters to 12 companies selling over-the-counter (OTC) skin lightening products, the agency announced on April 19. All the products contain hydroquinone as the active ingredient, and don’t meet the requirements to be sold legally over the counter. The letters were dated April 13.

The 12 products with hydroquinone are “unapproved drugs and are not generally recognized as safe and effective” (abbreviated as GRASE), the FDA said.

Among the side effects associated with hydroquinone products reported to the FDA are skin rashes, facial swelling, and skin discoloration or ochronosis. The discoloration can be permanent, the FDA said. The lighteners are marketed for use on age or dark spots on the skin associated with melasma.

Tri-Luma, a prescription product for the treatment of moderate to severe melasma of the face, is the only FDA-approved drug containing hydroquinone, according to the FDA. It contains 4% hydroquinone and two other ingredients. It is meant to be used under the supervision of a health care professional. Tri-Luma is indicated for up to 8 weeks of treatment for moderate to severe melasma of the face. The OTC products contain up to 2%. (Generic versions of 4% hydroquinone are available by prescription, dermatologists said.)

“Hydroquinone is a very effective medication, and that’s exactly what it is, a medication,” said Lily Talakoub, MD, a dermatologist in McLean, Va., who supports the FDA action. “It’s very effective and very safe to use in the right hands, but when it is overused or used in the wrong situation, it can cause problems.” Those problems often occur, she said, when there is no health care professional overseeing the use of the OTC products, and when people use them over the long term.

The FDA action to ban the OTC products is “very appropriate,” said dermatologist Pooja Sodha, MD, assistant professor and director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “We know patients pick this up [an OTC product] and use it without physician oversight.” When patients use the products longer than is appropriate, which is also common, it can worsen the initial skin issue, she said.

The action follows reforms finalized under the CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act), which included not only COVID-19 response efforts but also updated the method in which certain OTC drugs are regulated. Manufacturers of the skin lightening products that don’t have FDA approval had been told to remove the products from the market by September 2020.

The recent letters were sent to a dozen companies still marketing their products without an FDA new drug approval. The agency asked the companies to take prompt action and respond with 15 days, stating what they have done to correct the violations.

The 12 companies are AMBI Enterprises, Clinical Formula, Elements Brands Inc., Genomma Lab USA, Intilight/Dr Thomas Balshi, M&M Beauty and Wellness, Neoteric Cosmetics/Scott’s Liquid Gold, Skin Authority, Skin Pro, Skin PS Brands, True Earth Health Products, and Ultimark Products.

Health care professionals and consumers can report adverse reactions associated with these products to the FDA’s MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program.

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