User login
Expert makes the case for not subtyping patients with rosacea
. At least they should be, according to Julie C. Harper, MD.
“How many people with papules and pustules don’t also have redness?” Dr. Harper, who practices in Birmingham, Ala., said at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. “If we’re not careful, and we try to classify a person into a subtype of rosacea, we end up treating only part of their rosacea; we don’t treat all of it. We have seen this in the literature,” she added.
“The idea now is to take a phenotypic approach to rosacea. What we mean by that is that you look at the patient, you document every part of rosacea that you see, and you treat according to that,” she continued. “That person with papules and pustules may also have phyma and ocular disease. They may have telangiectasia and persistent background erythema. They may also have flushing.”
Dr. Harper incorporates the mnemonic “STOP” to her visits with rosacea patients.
S stands for: Identify signs and symptoms of the condition. “Listen to the patient for symptoms,” she advised. “We’ve learned to listen to darker skinned patients for what they tell us about erythema, for example, because we may not be able to see it, yet they are experiencing it. They may also have symptomatic burning, itching, and stinging.”
T stands for: Discuss triggers. “Ask patients, ‘what is it that makes your rosacea worse?’ That’s different for everyone,” she said.
O stands for: Agree on a treatment outcome. “Ask, ‘what is it that really bothers you? Are you bothered by the bumps? The redness?’ ” she said.
“The P stands for: Develop a plan that addresses all of that,” she said.
Different treatments for different rosacea symptoms
No one-size-fits-all treatment exists for rosacea. Options that work well for papules and pustules aren’t effective for redness. Similarly, products that work for redness don’t work for telangiectasia.
“Different lesions and signs of rosacea will likely require multiple modes of treatment,” Dr. Harper said. “So, when you evaluate your rosacea patients, if they’re doing great, don’t change their regimen. But if you see somebody who is not well controlled, is there an opportunity for you to come in and add something to that regimen that may make them better? Maybe so.”
Treatment options indicated for papules and pustules include ivermectin, metronidazole, azelaic acid, sodium sulfacetamide/sulfur, modified release doxycycline, minocycline foam, and encapsulated benzoyl peroxide.
Options indicated for persistent background erythema include brimonidine and oxymetazoline, while device-based treatments include the pulsed dye laser, the KTP laser, intense pulsed light, and electrosurgery.
Anti-inflammatory action for pustules and papules
A relatively new product indicated for pustules and papules is minocycline 1.5% foam, the only minocycline that is FDA approved to treat rosacea.
“There is no oral minocycline product approved for rosacea yet,” Dr. Harper said. “There is not a known bacterial pathogen in rosacea. Tetracyclines likely work in rosacea by inhibiting neutrophil chemotaxis, inhibiting MMP and thus KLK-5 and LL-37, inhibiting pro-inflammatory cytokines, downregulating reactive oxygen species, and inhibiting angiogenesis.”
In two 12-week, phase 3 randomized studies of 1,522 patients with moderate to severe rosacea, participants were assigned to receive minocycline 5% foam or a vehicle that contained mineral oil and coconut oil.
At week 12, about 50% of patients who received minocycline 5% foam were clear, compared with about 40% of those in the vehicle arm. Also, the reduction of lesion count was about 63% for patients in the treatment group, compared with a reduction of about 54% in the vehicle arm.
Dr. Harper characterized the 63% reduction as “pretty good, but is it good enough or fast enough? I don’t think so, so even with a great drug like this, I would use something else. You can use two medications sometimes to get people better faster. There’s room to bring in something for that background erythema.”
Minocycline 1.5% foam is colored yellow and may stain fabric. “It contains coconut oil, soybean oil, and light mineral oil,” she said. “Most people prefer to use this at bedtime, but you don’t have to.”
Another treatment option is 5% microencapsulated benzoyl peroxide cream, which is FDA approved for inflammatory lesions of rosacea.
“What’s the mechanism of action? Probably not being antimicrobial,” Dr. Harper said. “I think it’s probably at least in part anti-inflammatory, because we have some data to show that it’s killing Demodex [mites]. If Demodex [are] a trigger of inflammation, and we can lessen Demodex, then we could lessen the inflammatory response after that.”
The drug’s approval was based on data from two positive, identical phase 3 randomized, double-blind, multicenter, 12-week clinical trials that evaluated its safety compared with vehicle in 733 people with inflammatory lesions of rosacea (NCT03564119 and NCT03448939).
At week 12, inflammatory lesions of rosacea were reduced by nearly 70% in both trials among those who received 5% microencapsulated benzoyl peroxide cream, compared with 38%-46% among those who received the vehicle. Also, nearly 50% of subjects in the treatment groups were clear or almost clear at 12 weeks, compared with 38%-46% of those who received the vehicle.
Dr. Harper added that about one-quarter of patients in the treatment group of the trials were clear or almost clear by week 4. “That’s pretty fast,” she said, noting that the product’s microencapsulated shell acts as a fenestrated barrier. “It has little openings, which means that it takes a while for the drug to work itself out,” she said. “I think of it as being like a speed bump for benzoyl peroxide delivery. It has to get through this little maze before it lands on the skin. We think that is what has helped with tolerability.”
Oral sarecycline, a narrow spectrum tetracycline that was FDA approved for acne in 2018, may also benefit rosacea patients. In a 12-week, investigator-blinded pilot study, 72 patients with papulopustular rosacea were assigned to receive sarecycline, while 25 received a multivitamin.
By week 12, 75% of patients in the sarecycline group were clear, compared with 16% of those in the multivitamin group, while the inflammatory lesion counts dropped from baseline by 80% and 60%, respectively. Studies of sarecycline for acne have demonstrated similar rates of vertigo, dizziness, and sunburn to those of placebo.
“There were also low rates of gastrointestinal disturbances,” Dr. Harper said. “That’s important in rosacea, because there is no bacterial pathogen.”
Dr. Harper disclosed that she serves as an advisor or consultant for Almirall, BioPharmX, Cassiopeia, Cutanea, Cutera, Dermira, EPI, Galderma, LaRoche-Posay, Ortho, Vyne, Sol Gel, and Sun. She also serves as a speaker or member of a speakers bureau for Almirall, EPI, Galderma, Ortho, and Vyne.
Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
. At least they should be, according to Julie C. Harper, MD.
“How many people with papules and pustules don’t also have redness?” Dr. Harper, who practices in Birmingham, Ala., said at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. “If we’re not careful, and we try to classify a person into a subtype of rosacea, we end up treating only part of their rosacea; we don’t treat all of it. We have seen this in the literature,” she added.
“The idea now is to take a phenotypic approach to rosacea. What we mean by that is that you look at the patient, you document every part of rosacea that you see, and you treat according to that,” she continued. “That person with papules and pustules may also have phyma and ocular disease. They may have telangiectasia and persistent background erythema. They may also have flushing.”
Dr. Harper incorporates the mnemonic “STOP” to her visits with rosacea patients.
S stands for: Identify signs and symptoms of the condition. “Listen to the patient for symptoms,” she advised. “We’ve learned to listen to darker skinned patients for what they tell us about erythema, for example, because we may not be able to see it, yet they are experiencing it. They may also have symptomatic burning, itching, and stinging.”
T stands for: Discuss triggers. “Ask patients, ‘what is it that makes your rosacea worse?’ That’s different for everyone,” she said.
O stands for: Agree on a treatment outcome. “Ask, ‘what is it that really bothers you? Are you bothered by the bumps? The redness?’ ” she said.
“The P stands for: Develop a plan that addresses all of that,” she said.
Different treatments for different rosacea symptoms
No one-size-fits-all treatment exists for rosacea. Options that work well for papules and pustules aren’t effective for redness. Similarly, products that work for redness don’t work for telangiectasia.
“Different lesions and signs of rosacea will likely require multiple modes of treatment,” Dr. Harper said. “So, when you evaluate your rosacea patients, if they’re doing great, don’t change their regimen. But if you see somebody who is not well controlled, is there an opportunity for you to come in and add something to that regimen that may make them better? Maybe so.”
Treatment options indicated for papules and pustules include ivermectin, metronidazole, azelaic acid, sodium sulfacetamide/sulfur, modified release doxycycline, minocycline foam, and encapsulated benzoyl peroxide.
Options indicated for persistent background erythema include brimonidine and oxymetazoline, while device-based treatments include the pulsed dye laser, the KTP laser, intense pulsed light, and electrosurgery.
Anti-inflammatory action for pustules and papules
A relatively new product indicated for pustules and papules is minocycline 1.5% foam, the only minocycline that is FDA approved to treat rosacea.
“There is no oral minocycline product approved for rosacea yet,” Dr. Harper said. “There is not a known bacterial pathogen in rosacea. Tetracyclines likely work in rosacea by inhibiting neutrophil chemotaxis, inhibiting MMP and thus KLK-5 and LL-37, inhibiting pro-inflammatory cytokines, downregulating reactive oxygen species, and inhibiting angiogenesis.”
In two 12-week, phase 3 randomized studies of 1,522 patients with moderate to severe rosacea, participants were assigned to receive minocycline 5% foam or a vehicle that contained mineral oil and coconut oil.
At week 12, about 50% of patients who received minocycline 5% foam were clear, compared with about 40% of those in the vehicle arm. Also, the reduction of lesion count was about 63% for patients in the treatment group, compared with a reduction of about 54% in the vehicle arm.
Dr. Harper characterized the 63% reduction as “pretty good, but is it good enough or fast enough? I don’t think so, so even with a great drug like this, I would use something else. You can use two medications sometimes to get people better faster. There’s room to bring in something for that background erythema.”
Minocycline 1.5% foam is colored yellow and may stain fabric. “It contains coconut oil, soybean oil, and light mineral oil,” she said. “Most people prefer to use this at bedtime, but you don’t have to.”
Another treatment option is 5% microencapsulated benzoyl peroxide cream, which is FDA approved for inflammatory lesions of rosacea.
“What’s the mechanism of action? Probably not being antimicrobial,” Dr. Harper said. “I think it’s probably at least in part anti-inflammatory, because we have some data to show that it’s killing Demodex [mites]. If Demodex [are] a trigger of inflammation, and we can lessen Demodex, then we could lessen the inflammatory response after that.”
The drug’s approval was based on data from two positive, identical phase 3 randomized, double-blind, multicenter, 12-week clinical trials that evaluated its safety compared with vehicle in 733 people with inflammatory lesions of rosacea (NCT03564119 and NCT03448939).
At week 12, inflammatory lesions of rosacea were reduced by nearly 70% in both trials among those who received 5% microencapsulated benzoyl peroxide cream, compared with 38%-46% among those who received the vehicle. Also, nearly 50% of subjects in the treatment groups were clear or almost clear at 12 weeks, compared with 38%-46% of those who received the vehicle.
Dr. Harper added that about one-quarter of patients in the treatment group of the trials were clear or almost clear by week 4. “That’s pretty fast,” she said, noting that the product’s microencapsulated shell acts as a fenestrated barrier. “It has little openings, which means that it takes a while for the drug to work itself out,” she said. “I think of it as being like a speed bump for benzoyl peroxide delivery. It has to get through this little maze before it lands on the skin. We think that is what has helped with tolerability.”
Oral sarecycline, a narrow spectrum tetracycline that was FDA approved for acne in 2018, may also benefit rosacea patients. In a 12-week, investigator-blinded pilot study, 72 patients with papulopustular rosacea were assigned to receive sarecycline, while 25 received a multivitamin.
By week 12, 75% of patients in the sarecycline group were clear, compared with 16% of those in the multivitamin group, while the inflammatory lesion counts dropped from baseline by 80% and 60%, respectively. Studies of sarecycline for acne have demonstrated similar rates of vertigo, dizziness, and sunburn to those of placebo.
“There were also low rates of gastrointestinal disturbances,” Dr. Harper said. “That’s important in rosacea, because there is no bacterial pathogen.”
Dr. Harper disclosed that she serves as an advisor or consultant for Almirall, BioPharmX, Cassiopeia, Cutanea, Cutera, Dermira, EPI, Galderma, LaRoche-Posay, Ortho, Vyne, Sol Gel, and Sun. She also serves as a speaker or member of a speakers bureau for Almirall, EPI, Galderma, Ortho, and Vyne.
Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
. At least they should be, according to Julie C. Harper, MD.
“How many people with papules and pustules don’t also have redness?” Dr. Harper, who practices in Birmingham, Ala., said at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. “If we’re not careful, and we try to classify a person into a subtype of rosacea, we end up treating only part of their rosacea; we don’t treat all of it. We have seen this in the literature,” she added.
“The idea now is to take a phenotypic approach to rosacea. What we mean by that is that you look at the patient, you document every part of rosacea that you see, and you treat according to that,” she continued. “That person with papules and pustules may also have phyma and ocular disease. They may have telangiectasia and persistent background erythema. They may also have flushing.”
Dr. Harper incorporates the mnemonic “STOP” to her visits with rosacea patients.
S stands for: Identify signs and symptoms of the condition. “Listen to the patient for symptoms,” she advised. “We’ve learned to listen to darker skinned patients for what they tell us about erythema, for example, because we may not be able to see it, yet they are experiencing it. They may also have symptomatic burning, itching, and stinging.”
T stands for: Discuss triggers. “Ask patients, ‘what is it that makes your rosacea worse?’ That’s different for everyone,” she said.
O stands for: Agree on a treatment outcome. “Ask, ‘what is it that really bothers you? Are you bothered by the bumps? The redness?’ ” she said.
“The P stands for: Develop a plan that addresses all of that,” she said.
Different treatments for different rosacea symptoms
No one-size-fits-all treatment exists for rosacea. Options that work well for papules and pustules aren’t effective for redness. Similarly, products that work for redness don’t work for telangiectasia.
“Different lesions and signs of rosacea will likely require multiple modes of treatment,” Dr. Harper said. “So, when you evaluate your rosacea patients, if they’re doing great, don’t change their regimen. But if you see somebody who is not well controlled, is there an opportunity for you to come in and add something to that regimen that may make them better? Maybe so.”
Treatment options indicated for papules and pustules include ivermectin, metronidazole, azelaic acid, sodium sulfacetamide/sulfur, modified release doxycycline, minocycline foam, and encapsulated benzoyl peroxide.
Options indicated for persistent background erythema include brimonidine and oxymetazoline, while device-based treatments include the pulsed dye laser, the KTP laser, intense pulsed light, and electrosurgery.
Anti-inflammatory action for pustules and papules
A relatively new product indicated for pustules and papules is minocycline 1.5% foam, the only minocycline that is FDA approved to treat rosacea.
“There is no oral minocycline product approved for rosacea yet,” Dr. Harper said. “There is not a known bacterial pathogen in rosacea. Tetracyclines likely work in rosacea by inhibiting neutrophil chemotaxis, inhibiting MMP and thus KLK-5 and LL-37, inhibiting pro-inflammatory cytokines, downregulating reactive oxygen species, and inhibiting angiogenesis.”
In two 12-week, phase 3 randomized studies of 1,522 patients with moderate to severe rosacea, participants were assigned to receive minocycline 5% foam or a vehicle that contained mineral oil and coconut oil.
At week 12, about 50% of patients who received minocycline 5% foam were clear, compared with about 40% of those in the vehicle arm. Also, the reduction of lesion count was about 63% for patients in the treatment group, compared with a reduction of about 54% in the vehicle arm.
Dr. Harper characterized the 63% reduction as “pretty good, but is it good enough or fast enough? I don’t think so, so even with a great drug like this, I would use something else. You can use two medications sometimes to get people better faster. There’s room to bring in something for that background erythema.”
Minocycline 1.5% foam is colored yellow and may stain fabric. “It contains coconut oil, soybean oil, and light mineral oil,” she said. “Most people prefer to use this at bedtime, but you don’t have to.”
Another treatment option is 5% microencapsulated benzoyl peroxide cream, which is FDA approved for inflammatory lesions of rosacea.
“What’s the mechanism of action? Probably not being antimicrobial,” Dr. Harper said. “I think it’s probably at least in part anti-inflammatory, because we have some data to show that it’s killing Demodex [mites]. If Demodex [are] a trigger of inflammation, and we can lessen Demodex, then we could lessen the inflammatory response after that.”
The drug’s approval was based on data from two positive, identical phase 3 randomized, double-blind, multicenter, 12-week clinical trials that evaluated its safety compared with vehicle in 733 people with inflammatory lesions of rosacea (NCT03564119 and NCT03448939).
At week 12, inflammatory lesions of rosacea were reduced by nearly 70% in both trials among those who received 5% microencapsulated benzoyl peroxide cream, compared with 38%-46% among those who received the vehicle. Also, nearly 50% of subjects in the treatment groups were clear or almost clear at 12 weeks, compared with 38%-46% of those who received the vehicle.
Dr. Harper added that about one-quarter of patients in the treatment group of the trials were clear or almost clear by week 4. “That’s pretty fast,” she said, noting that the product’s microencapsulated shell acts as a fenestrated barrier. “It has little openings, which means that it takes a while for the drug to work itself out,” she said. “I think of it as being like a speed bump for benzoyl peroxide delivery. It has to get through this little maze before it lands on the skin. We think that is what has helped with tolerability.”
Oral sarecycline, a narrow spectrum tetracycline that was FDA approved for acne in 2018, may also benefit rosacea patients. In a 12-week, investigator-blinded pilot study, 72 patients with papulopustular rosacea were assigned to receive sarecycline, while 25 received a multivitamin.
By week 12, 75% of patients in the sarecycline group were clear, compared with 16% of those in the multivitamin group, while the inflammatory lesion counts dropped from baseline by 80% and 60%, respectively. Studies of sarecycline for acne have demonstrated similar rates of vertigo, dizziness, and sunburn to those of placebo.
“There were also low rates of gastrointestinal disturbances,” Dr. Harper said. “That’s important in rosacea, because there is no bacterial pathogen.”
Dr. Harper disclosed that she serves as an advisor or consultant for Almirall, BioPharmX, Cassiopeia, Cutanea, Cutera, Dermira, EPI, Galderma, LaRoche-Posay, Ortho, Vyne, Sol Gel, and Sun. She also serves as a speaker or member of a speakers bureau for Almirall, EPI, Galderma, Ortho, and Vyne.
Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
FROM MEDSCAPE LIVE COASTAL DERM
Analysis of PsA guidelines reveals much room for improvement on conflicts of interest
, according to a retrospective analysis of all authors on the most recent guidelines issued by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Japanese Dermatological Association (JDA).
In addition to finding that the majority of the authors of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) issued by the JDA and ACR received substantial personal payments from pharmaceutical companies before and during CPG development, researchers led by Hanano Mamada and Anju Murayama of the Medical Governance Research Institute, Tokyo, wrote in Arthritis Care & Research that “several CPG authors self-cited their articles without the disclosure of NFCOI [nonfinancial conflicts of interest], and most of the recommendations were based on low or very low quality of evidence. Although the COI policies used by JDA and ACR are clearly inadequate, no significant revisions have been made for the last 3 years.”
Based on their findings, which were made using payment data from major Japanese pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. Open Payments Database from 2016 to 2018, the researchers suggested that the medical societies should:
- Adopt global standard COI policies from organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine and Guidelines International Network, including a 3-year lookback period for COI declaration.
- Consider a comprehensive definition and rigorous management with full disclosure of NFCOI.
- Publish a list of authors making each recommendation to grasp the implications of COI in clinical practice guidelines.
- Mention the detailed date of the COI disclosure, which should be close to the publication date as much as possible.
Financial conflicts of interest
The researchers used payment data published between 2016 and 2018 for all 83 companies belonging to the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, focusing on personal payments (for lecturing, writing, and consultancy) and excluding research payments, “since in Japan, the name, institution, and position of the author or researcher who received the research payment is not disclosed, which makes assessing research payments difficult.” To evaluate authors’ FCOI in the ACR’s CPG, the researchers analyzed the U.S. Open Payments Database “for all categories of general payments such as speaking, consulting, meals, and travel expenses 3 years from before the guideline’s first online publication on November 30, 2018.”
The 2018 ACR/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis had 36 authors and the JDA’s Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis 2019 had 23. Overall, 61% of JDA authors and half of ACR authors voluntarily declared FCOI with pharmaceutical companies; 25 of the ACR authors were U.S. physicians and could be included in the Open Payments Database search.
A total of 21 (91.3%) JDA authors and 21 (84.0%) ACR authors received at least one payment, with the combined total of $3,335,413 and $4,081,629 payments, respectively, over the 3 years. The average and median personal payments were $145,018 and $123,876 for JDA authors and $162,825 and $58,826 for ACR authors. When the payments to ACR authors were limited to lecturing, writing, and consulting fees that are required under the ACR’s COI policy, the mean was $130,102 and median was $39,375. The corresponding payments for JDA authors were $123,876 and $8,170, respectively,
The researchers found undisclosed payments for more than three-quarters of physician authors of the Japanese guideline, and nearly half of the doctors authoring the American guideline had undisclosed payments. These added up to $474,000 for the JDA, which amounted to 38% of the total for personal payments that must be reported to the JDA based on its COI policy for clinical practice guidelines, and $218,000 for the ACR, amounting to 18% of the total for personal payments that must be reported to the society based on its COI policy.
Of the 11 ACR authors who were not eligible for the U.S. Open Payments Database search, 5 declared FCOI with pharmaceutical companies in the guideline, meaning that 26 (72%) of the 36 authors had FCOI with pharmaceutical companies.
The ACR only required authors to declare FCOI covering 1 year before and during guideline development, and although the JDA required authors to declare their FCOI for the past 3 years of guideline development, the study authors noted that the JDA guideline disclosed them for only 2 years (between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2018).
“It is true that influential doctors such as clinical practice guideline authors tend to receive various types of payments from pharmaceutical companies and that it is difficult to conduct research without funding from pharmaceutical companies. However, our current research mainly focuses on personal payments from pharmaceutical companies such as lecture fees and consulting fees. These payments are recognized as pocket money and are not used for research. Thus, it is questionable that the observed relationships are something evitable,” the researchers wrote.
Nonfinancial conflicts of interest
Many authors of the ACR’s CPG and the JDA’s CPG also had NFCOI, defined objectively in this study as self-citation rate. NFCOI have been more broadly defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as “conflicts, such as personal relationships or rivalries, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs”; the ICMJE recommends reporting NFCOI on its COI form.
The JDA guideline included self-citations by 78% of its authors, compared with 32% of the ACR guideline authors, but this weighed differently among the two guidelines in that only 12 of the 354 (3.4%) citations in the JDA guideline were self-cited, compared with 46 of 137 (34%) citations in the ACR guideline.
The researchers noted that while the self-citation rates between JDA and ACR authors “differed remarkably,” the impact of ACR authors on CPG recommendations was much more direct. Three-quarters of JDA authors’ self-cited articles were about observational studies, whereas 52% of the ACR authors’ self-cited articles were clinical trials, most of which were randomized, controlled studies, and these NFCOI were not disclosed in the guideline.
Half of the strong recommendations in the JDA guideline were based on low or very low quality of evidence, whereas the ACR guideline had no strong recommendations based on low or very low quality of evidence.
This study was supported by the nonprofit Medical Governance Research Institute, which receives donations from Ain Pharmacies Inc., other organizations, and private individuals. The study also received support from the Tansa (formerly known as the Waseda Chronicle), an independent nonprofit news organization dedicated to investigative journalism. Three authors reported receiving personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies for work outside of the scope of this study.
, according to a retrospective analysis of all authors on the most recent guidelines issued by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Japanese Dermatological Association (JDA).
In addition to finding that the majority of the authors of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) issued by the JDA and ACR received substantial personal payments from pharmaceutical companies before and during CPG development, researchers led by Hanano Mamada and Anju Murayama of the Medical Governance Research Institute, Tokyo, wrote in Arthritis Care & Research that “several CPG authors self-cited their articles without the disclosure of NFCOI [nonfinancial conflicts of interest], and most of the recommendations were based on low or very low quality of evidence. Although the COI policies used by JDA and ACR are clearly inadequate, no significant revisions have been made for the last 3 years.”
Based on their findings, which were made using payment data from major Japanese pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. Open Payments Database from 2016 to 2018, the researchers suggested that the medical societies should:
- Adopt global standard COI policies from organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine and Guidelines International Network, including a 3-year lookback period for COI declaration.
- Consider a comprehensive definition and rigorous management with full disclosure of NFCOI.
- Publish a list of authors making each recommendation to grasp the implications of COI in clinical practice guidelines.
- Mention the detailed date of the COI disclosure, which should be close to the publication date as much as possible.
Financial conflicts of interest
The researchers used payment data published between 2016 and 2018 for all 83 companies belonging to the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, focusing on personal payments (for lecturing, writing, and consultancy) and excluding research payments, “since in Japan, the name, institution, and position of the author or researcher who received the research payment is not disclosed, which makes assessing research payments difficult.” To evaluate authors’ FCOI in the ACR’s CPG, the researchers analyzed the U.S. Open Payments Database “for all categories of general payments such as speaking, consulting, meals, and travel expenses 3 years from before the guideline’s first online publication on November 30, 2018.”
The 2018 ACR/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis had 36 authors and the JDA’s Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis 2019 had 23. Overall, 61% of JDA authors and half of ACR authors voluntarily declared FCOI with pharmaceutical companies; 25 of the ACR authors were U.S. physicians and could be included in the Open Payments Database search.
A total of 21 (91.3%) JDA authors and 21 (84.0%) ACR authors received at least one payment, with the combined total of $3,335,413 and $4,081,629 payments, respectively, over the 3 years. The average and median personal payments were $145,018 and $123,876 for JDA authors and $162,825 and $58,826 for ACR authors. When the payments to ACR authors were limited to lecturing, writing, and consulting fees that are required under the ACR’s COI policy, the mean was $130,102 and median was $39,375. The corresponding payments for JDA authors were $123,876 and $8,170, respectively,
The researchers found undisclosed payments for more than three-quarters of physician authors of the Japanese guideline, and nearly half of the doctors authoring the American guideline had undisclosed payments. These added up to $474,000 for the JDA, which amounted to 38% of the total for personal payments that must be reported to the JDA based on its COI policy for clinical practice guidelines, and $218,000 for the ACR, amounting to 18% of the total for personal payments that must be reported to the society based on its COI policy.
Of the 11 ACR authors who were not eligible for the U.S. Open Payments Database search, 5 declared FCOI with pharmaceutical companies in the guideline, meaning that 26 (72%) of the 36 authors had FCOI with pharmaceutical companies.
The ACR only required authors to declare FCOI covering 1 year before and during guideline development, and although the JDA required authors to declare their FCOI for the past 3 years of guideline development, the study authors noted that the JDA guideline disclosed them for only 2 years (between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2018).
“It is true that influential doctors such as clinical practice guideline authors tend to receive various types of payments from pharmaceutical companies and that it is difficult to conduct research without funding from pharmaceutical companies. However, our current research mainly focuses on personal payments from pharmaceutical companies such as lecture fees and consulting fees. These payments are recognized as pocket money and are not used for research. Thus, it is questionable that the observed relationships are something evitable,” the researchers wrote.
Nonfinancial conflicts of interest
Many authors of the ACR’s CPG and the JDA’s CPG also had NFCOI, defined objectively in this study as self-citation rate. NFCOI have been more broadly defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as “conflicts, such as personal relationships or rivalries, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs”; the ICMJE recommends reporting NFCOI on its COI form.
The JDA guideline included self-citations by 78% of its authors, compared with 32% of the ACR guideline authors, but this weighed differently among the two guidelines in that only 12 of the 354 (3.4%) citations in the JDA guideline were self-cited, compared with 46 of 137 (34%) citations in the ACR guideline.
The researchers noted that while the self-citation rates between JDA and ACR authors “differed remarkably,” the impact of ACR authors on CPG recommendations was much more direct. Three-quarters of JDA authors’ self-cited articles were about observational studies, whereas 52% of the ACR authors’ self-cited articles were clinical trials, most of which were randomized, controlled studies, and these NFCOI were not disclosed in the guideline.
Half of the strong recommendations in the JDA guideline were based on low or very low quality of evidence, whereas the ACR guideline had no strong recommendations based on low or very low quality of evidence.
This study was supported by the nonprofit Medical Governance Research Institute, which receives donations from Ain Pharmacies Inc., other organizations, and private individuals. The study also received support from the Tansa (formerly known as the Waseda Chronicle), an independent nonprofit news organization dedicated to investigative journalism. Three authors reported receiving personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies for work outside of the scope of this study.
, according to a retrospective analysis of all authors on the most recent guidelines issued by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Japanese Dermatological Association (JDA).
In addition to finding that the majority of the authors of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) issued by the JDA and ACR received substantial personal payments from pharmaceutical companies before and during CPG development, researchers led by Hanano Mamada and Anju Murayama of the Medical Governance Research Institute, Tokyo, wrote in Arthritis Care & Research that “several CPG authors self-cited their articles without the disclosure of NFCOI [nonfinancial conflicts of interest], and most of the recommendations were based on low or very low quality of evidence. Although the COI policies used by JDA and ACR are clearly inadequate, no significant revisions have been made for the last 3 years.”
Based on their findings, which were made using payment data from major Japanese pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. Open Payments Database from 2016 to 2018, the researchers suggested that the medical societies should:
- Adopt global standard COI policies from organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine and Guidelines International Network, including a 3-year lookback period for COI declaration.
- Consider a comprehensive definition and rigorous management with full disclosure of NFCOI.
- Publish a list of authors making each recommendation to grasp the implications of COI in clinical practice guidelines.
- Mention the detailed date of the COI disclosure, which should be close to the publication date as much as possible.
Financial conflicts of interest
The researchers used payment data published between 2016 and 2018 for all 83 companies belonging to the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, focusing on personal payments (for lecturing, writing, and consultancy) and excluding research payments, “since in Japan, the name, institution, and position of the author or researcher who received the research payment is not disclosed, which makes assessing research payments difficult.” To evaluate authors’ FCOI in the ACR’s CPG, the researchers analyzed the U.S. Open Payments Database “for all categories of general payments such as speaking, consulting, meals, and travel expenses 3 years from before the guideline’s first online publication on November 30, 2018.”
The 2018 ACR/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis had 36 authors and the JDA’s Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis 2019 had 23. Overall, 61% of JDA authors and half of ACR authors voluntarily declared FCOI with pharmaceutical companies; 25 of the ACR authors were U.S. physicians and could be included in the Open Payments Database search.
A total of 21 (91.3%) JDA authors and 21 (84.0%) ACR authors received at least one payment, with the combined total of $3,335,413 and $4,081,629 payments, respectively, over the 3 years. The average and median personal payments were $145,018 and $123,876 for JDA authors and $162,825 and $58,826 for ACR authors. When the payments to ACR authors were limited to lecturing, writing, and consulting fees that are required under the ACR’s COI policy, the mean was $130,102 and median was $39,375. The corresponding payments for JDA authors were $123,876 and $8,170, respectively,
The researchers found undisclosed payments for more than three-quarters of physician authors of the Japanese guideline, and nearly half of the doctors authoring the American guideline had undisclosed payments. These added up to $474,000 for the JDA, which amounted to 38% of the total for personal payments that must be reported to the JDA based on its COI policy for clinical practice guidelines, and $218,000 for the ACR, amounting to 18% of the total for personal payments that must be reported to the society based on its COI policy.
Of the 11 ACR authors who were not eligible for the U.S. Open Payments Database search, 5 declared FCOI with pharmaceutical companies in the guideline, meaning that 26 (72%) of the 36 authors had FCOI with pharmaceutical companies.
The ACR only required authors to declare FCOI covering 1 year before and during guideline development, and although the JDA required authors to declare their FCOI for the past 3 years of guideline development, the study authors noted that the JDA guideline disclosed them for only 2 years (between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2018).
“It is true that influential doctors such as clinical practice guideline authors tend to receive various types of payments from pharmaceutical companies and that it is difficult to conduct research without funding from pharmaceutical companies. However, our current research mainly focuses on personal payments from pharmaceutical companies such as lecture fees and consulting fees. These payments are recognized as pocket money and are not used for research. Thus, it is questionable that the observed relationships are something evitable,” the researchers wrote.
Nonfinancial conflicts of interest
Many authors of the ACR’s CPG and the JDA’s CPG also had NFCOI, defined objectively in this study as self-citation rate. NFCOI have been more broadly defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as “conflicts, such as personal relationships or rivalries, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs”; the ICMJE recommends reporting NFCOI on its COI form.
The JDA guideline included self-citations by 78% of its authors, compared with 32% of the ACR guideline authors, but this weighed differently among the two guidelines in that only 12 of the 354 (3.4%) citations in the JDA guideline were self-cited, compared with 46 of 137 (34%) citations in the ACR guideline.
The researchers noted that while the self-citation rates between JDA and ACR authors “differed remarkably,” the impact of ACR authors on CPG recommendations was much more direct. Three-quarters of JDA authors’ self-cited articles were about observational studies, whereas 52% of the ACR authors’ self-cited articles were clinical trials, most of which were randomized, controlled studies, and these NFCOI were not disclosed in the guideline.
Half of the strong recommendations in the JDA guideline were based on low or very low quality of evidence, whereas the ACR guideline had no strong recommendations based on low or very low quality of evidence.
This study was supported by the nonprofit Medical Governance Research Institute, which receives donations from Ain Pharmacies Inc., other organizations, and private individuals. The study also received support from the Tansa (formerly known as the Waseda Chronicle), an independent nonprofit news organization dedicated to investigative journalism. Three authors reported receiving personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies for work outside of the scope of this study.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
Recurrent drainage from an old gunshot wound
An x-ray revealed a metal density in the area of concern that was consistent with a bullet fragment or other metallic foreign body. Since there were no lucencies on x-ray or tracking from the area of concern to the metacarpal, the diagnosis was confirmed as an infected foreign body. The history was very concerning for osteomyelitis, given that the patient had sustained a GSW and had undergone surgical repair with hardware. (Shifting hardware can also lead to callus formation and skin breakdown.)
The patient was told that he’d retained a bullet fragment or foreign body that caused a chronic infection and the recurrent drainage. In addition, the hardware spanning the gap between the remnants of his proximal and distal metacarpal had broken as a result of fatigue. He was referred to a surgeon to remove the foreign body and treat the infection. The patient was advised that he might also need replacement hardware and a bone graft.
Images and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.
An x-ray revealed a metal density in the area of concern that was consistent with a bullet fragment or other metallic foreign body. Since there were no lucencies on x-ray or tracking from the area of concern to the metacarpal, the diagnosis was confirmed as an infected foreign body. The history was very concerning for osteomyelitis, given that the patient had sustained a GSW and had undergone surgical repair with hardware. (Shifting hardware can also lead to callus formation and skin breakdown.)
The patient was told that he’d retained a bullet fragment or foreign body that caused a chronic infection and the recurrent drainage. In addition, the hardware spanning the gap between the remnants of his proximal and distal metacarpal had broken as a result of fatigue. He was referred to a surgeon to remove the foreign body and treat the infection. The patient was advised that he might also need replacement hardware and a bone graft.
Images and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.
An x-ray revealed a metal density in the area of concern that was consistent with a bullet fragment or other metallic foreign body. Since there were no lucencies on x-ray or tracking from the area of concern to the metacarpal, the diagnosis was confirmed as an infected foreign body. The history was very concerning for osteomyelitis, given that the patient had sustained a GSW and had undergone surgical repair with hardware. (Shifting hardware can also lead to callus formation and skin breakdown.)
The patient was told that he’d retained a bullet fragment or foreign body that caused a chronic infection and the recurrent drainage. In addition, the hardware spanning the gap between the remnants of his proximal and distal metacarpal had broken as a result of fatigue. He was referred to a surgeon to remove the foreign body and treat the infection. The patient was advised that he might also need replacement hardware and a bone graft.
Images and text courtesy of Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.
52-week data show lebrikizumab atopic dermatitis effects maintained
from the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials.
“We’re focused on the responders,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, as he presented the positive findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Responders were the 291 people whose atopic dermatitis greatly improved after an initial 16 weeks’ treatment with lebrikizumab in both trials and who were then randomly allocated to receive injections every 2 weeks (Q2W, n = 113) or every 4 weeks (Q4W, n = 118), or to receive placebo injections Q2W (n = 60).
“Very interestingly, for me, the Q4W maintenance dosing was just as good as the Q2W maintenance dosing,” said Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.
“Another highlight of these data is that the patients who went on to placebo, about 50% of the patients maintained good responses, despite no treatment from week 16 to week 52,” he added.
Most patients did not require topical steroids, and “there were no surprises here” in terms of the safety profile. Lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody, binds to soluble interleukin-13 and blocks IL-13 signaling.
“So, the study really shows that specific targeting of IL-13 with lebrikizumab, either Q2W or Q4W, has high maintenance of efficacy and is reasonably tolerated and safe in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis,” Dr. Blauvelt concluded.
“We know now that IL-13 is a critical cytokine in AD [atopic dermatitis] pathogenesis. The unique features of this drug I want to highlight is that it has high binding affinity for IL-13,” he said.
“It has a slow dissociation off rate, meaning it binds IL-13 tightly, very potently, and stays blocking and stays hold of IL-13 in a strong manner,” he added. The drug has a half-life of 25 days.
These features could be very important for long-term dosing of the drug, he argued.
Lebrikizumab phase 3 trials
ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two of several phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis.
These include the completed ADhere study, in which lebrikizumab was used in combination with topical steroids and showed positive results in skin improvement and relief of pruritus.
The ADore study, an open-label trial in adolescents, is yet to report. The ongoing ADjoin study, a long-term extension study, is actively recruiting.
ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two identically designed – multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group – monotherapy trials that initially pitched two dosing regimens of lebrikizumab (250 mg) against placebo with a double loading dose at baseline and week 2 and then one dose every 2 weeks. The pair of trials enrolled a total of 869 adolescents and adults.
After the 16-week induction period, all patients in the lebrikizumab arm who had responded to treatment were rerandomly assigned to receive lebrikizumab 250 mg Q2W or Q4W, or placebo Q2W during a 36-week long-term maintenance treatment period.
This brought the total treatment time to 52 weeks for those whose atopic dermatitis had initially responded to lebrikizumab, explained Blauvelt.
Responders were those who, at 16 weeks, had an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1) with a 2-point improvement or who had a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI 75) without the need for rescue medication, compared with baseline values.
Induction and maintenance phase results
At the end of the 16-week induction period, a greater proportion of patients who had been treated with lebrikizumab than placebo met a primary outcome of IGA 0/1 in each trial (43.1% vs. 12.7% in ADvocate1 and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in ADvocate2).
A similar result was seen for another primary outcome, EASI 75 (58.8% vs. 16.2% and 52.1% vs. 18.1%) and for a secondary outcome, improvement in pruritus using a numerical rating scale (45.9% vs. 13.0% and 39.8% vs. 11.5%).
In the maintenance phase, with respect to responders, Dr. Blauvelt reported “very similar results” between the QW2 and Q4W maintenance dosing, “and still a quite high response in [half] the patients who were randomized to placebo at week 16.”
In the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, respectively, an IGA 0/1 with at least a 2-point improvement was maintained at week 52 in 75.8% and 64.6% of patients treated with the Q2W lebrikizumab dose, 74.2% and 80.6% of those treated with the Q4W dose, and 46.5% and 49.8% of those given placebo.
EASI 75 was maintained at week 52 in a respective 79.2% and 77.4% of patients treated with the Q2W dose, 79.2% and 84.7% with the Q4W dose, and 61.3% and 72.0% with placebo.
As for maintenance of at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus score, results at 52 weeks were 81.2% and 90.3% for the 2-week dose, 80.4% and 88.1% for the 4-week dose, and 65.4% and 67.6% for placebo.
Although topical corticosteroid treatment was allowed during the maintenance phase, only about 15% of patients needed this, Dr. Blauvelt said.
Different dosing results questioned
During the discussion period, one delegate highlighted that the twice-weekly maintenance dosing schedule seemed to “do worse a little bit” than the 4-week dosing, with both “close to placebo,” although “the long-term effect is already very impressive.”
Dr. Blauvelt noted that a pooled analysis had been done and that “it’s very clear that being on lebrikizumab works better than not being on lebrikizumab.
“Now, Q2W versus Q4W. We believe that this may be due to the long half-life of the drug possibly. It could be due to the slow disassociation rate, it’s binding tightly,” he suggested.
“We also could talk about disease modification, right. So, it opens up the concept of hit hard, hit early for 16 weeks, and then maybe you can modify disease over time,” Dr. Blauvelt said.
He added: “That’s highly speculative, of course.”
Short-term safety data
The 52-week safety profile of lebrikizumab is consistent with previously published data at 16 weeks, Dr. Blauvelt said. The most common adverse events during the studies included atopic dermatitis, nasopharyngitis, conjunctivitis, conjunctivitis allergic, headache, and COVID-19.
“This drug has comparable efficacy with dupilumab and tralokinumab,” said Jashin J. Wu, MD, from the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., in an interview. He was not involved in the study.
“As it does not have any significant advantages with less long-term safety data, I do not see a place for it in my practice,” Dr. Wu said.
Dupilumab (Dupixent) and tralokinumab (Adbry) are monoclonal antibodies that also block IL-13. Both are already licensed for treating atopic dermatitis. Dupilumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017, and tralokinumab was approved in 2021.
The study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly has exclusive rights for the development and commercialization of lebrikizumab in the United States and all countries outside Europe; European rights belong to Almirall for all dermatology indications, including atopic dermatitis. Dr. Blauvelt acts as an investigator and adviser to these companies as well as many other pharmaceutical companies that are involved in developing new dermatologic treatments. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
from the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials.
“We’re focused on the responders,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, as he presented the positive findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Responders were the 291 people whose atopic dermatitis greatly improved after an initial 16 weeks’ treatment with lebrikizumab in both trials and who were then randomly allocated to receive injections every 2 weeks (Q2W, n = 113) or every 4 weeks (Q4W, n = 118), or to receive placebo injections Q2W (n = 60).
“Very interestingly, for me, the Q4W maintenance dosing was just as good as the Q2W maintenance dosing,” said Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.
“Another highlight of these data is that the patients who went on to placebo, about 50% of the patients maintained good responses, despite no treatment from week 16 to week 52,” he added.
Most patients did not require topical steroids, and “there were no surprises here” in terms of the safety profile. Lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody, binds to soluble interleukin-13 and blocks IL-13 signaling.
“So, the study really shows that specific targeting of IL-13 with lebrikizumab, either Q2W or Q4W, has high maintenance of efficacy and is reasonably tolerated and safe in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis,” Dr. Blauvelt concluded.
“We know now that IL-13 is a critical cytokine in AD [atopic dermatitis] pathogenesis. The unique features of this drug I want to highlight is that it has high binding affinity for IL-13,” he said.
“It has a slow dissociation off rate, meaning it binds IL-13 tightly, very potently, and stays blocking and stays hold of IL-13 in a strong manner,” he added. The drug has a half-life of 25 days.
These features could be very important for long-term dosing of the drug, he argued.
Lebrikizumab phase 3 trials
ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two of several phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis.
These include the completed ADhere study, in which lebrikizumab was used in combination with topical steroids and showed positive results in skin improvement and relief of pruritus.
The ADore study, an open-label trial in adolescents, is yet to report. The ongoing ADjoin study, a long-term extension study, is actively recruiting.
ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two identically designed – multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group – monotherapy trials that initially pitched two dosing regimens of lebrikizumab (250 mg) against placebo with a double loading dose at baseline and week 2 and then one dose every 2 weeks. The pair of trials enrolled a total of 869 adolescents and adults.
After the 16-week induction period, all patients in the lebrikizumab arm who had responded to treatment were rerandomly assigned to receive lebrikizumab 250 mg Q2W or Q4W, or placebo Q2W during a 36-week long-term maintenance treatment period.
This brought the total treatment time to 52 weeks for those whose atopic dermatitis had initially responded to lebrikizumab, explained Blauvelt.
Responders were those who, at 16 weeks, had an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1) with a 2-point improvement or who had a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI 75) without the need for rescue medication, compared with baseline values.
Induction and maintenance phase results
At the end of the 16-week induction period, a greater proportion of patients who had been treated with lebrikizumab than placebo met a primary outcome of IGA 0/1 in each trial (43.1% vs. 12.7% in ADvocate1 and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in ADvocate2).
A similar result was seen for another primary outcome, EASI 75 (58.8% vs. 16.2% and 52.1% vs. 18.1%) and for a secondary outcome, improvement in pruritus using a numerical rating scale (45.9% vs. 13.0% and 39.8% vs. 11.5%).
In the maintenance phase, with respect to responders, Dr. Blauvelt reported “very similar results” between the QW2 and Q4W maintenance dosing, “and still a quite high response in [half] the patients who were randomized to placebo at week 16.”
In the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, respectively, an IGA 0/1 with at least a 2-point improvement was maintained at week 52 in 75.8% and 64.6% of patients treated with the Q2W lebrikizumab dose, 74.2% and 80.6% of those treated with the Q4W dose, and 46.5% and 49.8% of those given placebo.
EASI 75 was maintained at week 52 in a respective 79.2% and 77.4% of patients treated with the Q2W dose, 79.2% and 84.7% with the Q4W dose, and 61.3% and 72.0% with placebo.
As for maintenance of at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus score, results at 52 weeks were 81.2% and 90.3% for the 2-week dose, 80.4% and 88.1% for the 4-week dose, and 65.4% and 67.6% for placebo.
Although topical corticosteroid treatment was allowed during the maintenance phase, only about 15% of patients needed this, Dr. Blauvelt said.
Different dosing results questioned
During the discussion period, one delegate highlighted that the twice-weekly maintenance dosing schedule seemed to “do worse a little bit” than the 4-week dosing, with both “close to placebo,” although “the long-term effect is already very impressive.”
Dr. Blauvelt noted that a pooled analysis had been done and that “it’s very clear that being on lebrikizumab works better than not being on lebrikizumab.
“Now, Q2W versus Q4W. We believe that this may be due to the long half-life of the drug possibly. It could be due to the slow disassociation rate, it’s binding tightly,” he suggested.
“We also could talk about disease modification, right. So, it opens up the concept of hit hard, hit early for 16 weeks, and then maybe you can modify disease over time,” Dr. Blauvelt said.
He added: “That’s highly speculative, of course.”
Short-term safety data
The 52-week safety profile of lebrikizumab is consistent with previously published data at 16 weeks, Dr. Blauvelt said. The most common adverse events during the studies included atopic dermatitis, nasopharyngitis, conjunctivitis, conjunctivitis allergic, headache, and COVID-19.
“This drug has comparable efficacy with dupilumab and tralokinumab,” said Jashin J. Wu, MD, from the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., in an interview. He was not involved in the study.
“As it does not have any significant advantages with less long-term safety data, I do not see a place for it in my practice,” Dr. Wu said.
Dupilumab (Dupixent) and tralokinumab (Adbry) are monoclonal antibodies that also block IL-13. Both are already licensed for treating atopic dermatitis. Dupilumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017, and tralokinumab was approved in 2021.
The study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly has exclusive rights for the development and commercialization of lebrikizumab in the United States and all countries outside Europe; European rights belong to Almirall for all dermatology indications, including atopic dermatitis. Dr. Blauvelt acts as an investigator and adviser to these companies as well as many other pharmaceutical companies that are involved in developing new dermatologic treatments. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
from the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials.
“We’re focused on the responders,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, as he presented the positive findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Responders were the 291 people whose atopic dermatitis greatly improved after an initial 16 weeks’ treatment with lebrikizumab in both trials and who were then randomly allocated to receive injections every 2 weeks (Q2W, n = 113) or every 4 weeks (Q4W, n = 118), or to receive placebo injections Q2W (n = 60).
“Very interestingly, for me, the Q4W maintenance dosing was just as good as the Q2W maintenance dosing,” said Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.
“Another highlight of these data is that the patients who went on to placebo, about 50% of the patients maintained good responses, despite no treatment from week 16 to week 52,” he added.
Most patients did not require topical steroids, and “there were no surprises here” in terms of the safety profile. Lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody, binds to soluble interleukin-13 and blocks IL-13 signaling.
“So, the study really shows that specific targeting of IL-13 with lebrikizumab, either Q2W or Q4W, has high maintenance of efficacy and is reasonably tolerated and safe in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis,” Dr. Blauvelt concluded.
“We know now that IL-13 is a critical cytokine in AD [atopic dermatitis] pathogenesis. The unique features of this drug I want to highlight is that it has high binding affinity for IL-13,” he said.
“It has a slow dissociation off rate, meaning it binds IL-13 tightly, very potently, and stays blocking and stays hold of IL-13 in a strong manner,” he added. The drug has a half-life of 25 days.
These features could be very important for long-term dosing of the drug, he argued.
Lebrikizumab phase 3 trials
ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two of several phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis.
These include the completed ADhere study, in which lebrikizumab was used in combination with topical steroids and showed positive results in skin improvement and relief of pruritus.
The ADore study, an open-label trial in adolescents, is yet to report. The ongoing ADjoin study, a long-term extension study, is actively recruiting.
ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two identically designed – multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group – monotherapy trials that initially pitched two dosing regimens of lebrikizumab (250 mg) against placebo with a double loading dose at baseline and week 2 and then one dose every 2 weeks. The pair of trials enrolled a total of 869 adolescents and adults.
After the 16-week induction period, all patients in the lebrikizumab arm who had responded to treatment were rerandomly assigned to receive lebrikizumab 250 mg Q2W or Q4W, or placebo Q2W during a 36-week long-term maintenance treatment period.
This brought the total treatment time to 52 weeks for those whose atopic dermatitis had initially responded to lebrikizumab, explained Blauvelt.
Responders were those who, at 16 weeks, had an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1) with a 2-point improvement or who had a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI 75) without the need for rescue medication, compared with baseline values.
Induction and maintenance phase results
At the end of the 16-week induction period, a greater proportion of patients who had been treated with lebrikizumab than placebo met a primary outcome of IGA 0/1 in each trial (43.1% vs. 12.7% in ADvocate1 and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in ADvocate2).
A similar result was seen for another primary outcome, EASI 75 (58.8% vs. 16.2% and 52.1% vs. 18.1%) and for a secondary outcome, improvement in pruritus using a numerical rating scale (45.9% vs. 13.0% and 39.8% vs. 11.5%).
In the maintenance phase, with respect to responders, Dr. Blauvelt reported “very similar results” between the QW2 and Q4W maintenance dosing, “and still a quite high response in [half] the patients who were randomized to placebo at week 16.”
In the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, respectively, an IGA 0/1 with at least a 2-point improvement was maintained at week 52 in 75.8% and 64.6% of patients treated with the Q2W lebrikizumab dose, 74.2% and 80.6% of those treated with the Q4W dose, and 46.5% and 49.8% of those given placebo.
EASI 75 was maintained at week 52 in a respective 79.2% and 77.4% of patients treated with the Q2W dose, 79.2% and 84.7% with the Q4W dose, and 61.3% and 72.0% with placebo.
As for maintenance of at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus score, results at 52 weeks were 81.2% and 90.3% for the 2-week dose, 80.4% and 88.1% for the 4-week dose, and 65.4% and 67.6% for placebo.
Although topical corticosteroid treatment was allowed during the maintenance phase, only about 15% of patients needed this, Dr. Blauvelt said.
Different dosing results questioned
During the discussion period, one delegate highlighted that the twice-weekly maintenance dosing schedule seemed to “do worse a little bit” than the 4-week dosing, with both “close to placebo,” although “the long-term effect is already very impressive.”
Dr. Blauvelt noted that a pooled analysis had been done and that “it’s very clear that being on lebrikizumab works better than not being on lebrikizumab.
“Now, Q2W versus Q4W. We believe that this may be due to the long half-life of the drug possibly. It could be due to the slow disassociation rate, it’s binding tightly,” he suggested.
“We also could talk about disease modification, right. So, it opens up the concept of hit hard, hit early for 16 weeks, and then maybe you can modify disease over time,” Dr. Blauvelt said.
He added: “That’s highly speculative, of course.”
Short-term safety data
The 52-week safety profile of lebrikizumab is consistent with previously published data at 16 weeks, Dr. Blauvelt said. The most common adverse events during the studies included atopic dermatitis, nasopharyngitis, conjunctivitis, conjunctivitis allergic, headache, and COVID-19.
“This drug has comparable efficacy with dupilumab and tralokinumab,” said Jashin J. Wu, MD, from the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., in an interview. He was not involved in the study.
“As it does not have any significant advantages with less long-term safety data, I do not see a place for it in my practice,” Dr. Wu said.
Dupilumab (Dupixent) and tralokinumab (Adbry) are monoclonal antibodies that also block IL-13. Both are already licensed for treating atopic dermatitis. Dupilumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017, and tralokinumab was approved in 2021.
The study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly has exclusive rights for the development and commercialization of lebrikizumab in the United States and all countries outside Europe; European rights belong to Almirall for all dermatology indications, including atopic dermatitis. Dr. Blauvelt acts as an investigator and adviser to these companies as well as many other pharmaceutical companies that are involved in developing new dermatologic treatments. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
Ruxolitinib repigments many vitiligo-affected body areas
.
Those difficult areas include the hands and feet, said Thierry Passeron, MD, PhD, of Université Côte d’Azur and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (France).
Indeed, a 50% or greater improvement in the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI-50) of the hands and feet was achieved with ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) in around one-third of patients after 52 weeks’ treatment, and more than half of patients showed improvement in the upper and lower extremities.
During one of the late-breaking news sessions, Dr. Passeron presented a pooled analysis of the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 (TRuE-V1) and Study 2 (TruE-V2), which assessed VASI-50 data by body regions.
Similarly positive results were seen on the head and neck and the trunk, with VASI-50 being reached in a respective 68% and 48% of patients after a full year of treatment.
“VASI-50 response rates rose steadily through 52 weeks for both the head and trunk,” said Dr. Passeron. He noted that the trials were initially double-blinded for 24 weeks and that there was a further open-label extension phase through week 52.
In the latter phase, all patients were treated with ruxolitinib; those who originally received a vehicle agent as placebo crossed over to the active treatment.
First FDA-approved treatment for adults and adolescents with vitiligo
Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor that has been available for the treatment for atopic dermatitis for more than a year. It was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of vitiligo in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years and older.
This approval was based on the positive findings of the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 studies, which showed that after 24 weeks, 30% of patients treated with ruxolitinib had at least 75% improvement in the facial VASI, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.
“These studies demonstrated very nice results, especially on the face, which is the easiest part to repigment in vitiligo,” Dr. Passeron said.
“We know that the location is very important when it comes to repigmentation of vitiligo,” he added. He noted that other body areas, “the extremities, for example, are much more difficult.”
The analysis he presented specifically assessed the effect of ruxolitinib cream on repigmentation in other areas.
Pooled analysis performed
Data from the two TRuE-V trials were pooled. The new analysis included a total of 661 individuals; of those patients, 443 had been treated with topical ruxolitinib, and 218 had received a vehicle cream as a placebo.
For the first 24 weeks, patients received twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle cream. This was followed by a 28-week extension phase in which everyone was treated with ruxolitinib cream, after which there was a 30-day final follow-up period.
Dr. Passeron reported data by body region for weeks 12, 24, and 52, which showed an increasing percentage of patients with VASI-50.
“We didn’t look at the face; that we know well, that is a very good result,” he said.
The best results were seen for the head and neck. VASI-50 was reached by 28.3%, 45.3%, and 68.1% of patients treated with ruxolitinib cream at weeks 12, 24, and 52, respectively. Corresponding rates for the placebo-crossover group were 19.8%, 23.8%, and 51%.
Repigmentation rates of the hand, upper extremities, trunk, lower extremities, and feet were about 9%-15% for both ruxolitinib and placebo at 12 weeks, but by 24 weeks, there was a clear increase in repigmentation rates in the ruxolitinib group for all body areas.
The 24-week VASI-50 rates for hand repigmentation were 24.9% for ruxolitinib cream and 14.4% for placebo. Corresponding rates for upper extremity repigmentation were 33.2% and 8.2%; for the trunk, 26.4% and 12.2%; for the lower extremities, 29.5% and 12.2%; and for the feet, 18.5% and 12.5%.
“The results are quite poor at 12 weeks,” Dr. Passeron said. “It’s very important to keep this in mind; it takes time to repigment vitiligo, it takes to 6-24 months. We have to explain to our patients that they will have to wait to see the results.”
Steady improvements, no new safety concerns
Regarding VASI-50 over time, there was a steady increase in total body scores; 47.7% of patients who received ruxolitinib and 23.3% of placebo-treated patients hit this target at 52 weeks.
“And what is also very important to see is that we didn’t reach the plateau,” Dr. Passeron reported.
Similar patterns were seen for all the other body areas. Again there was a suggestion that rates may continue to rise with continued long-term treatment.
“About one-third of the patients reached at least 50% repigmentation after 1 year of treatment in the hands and feet,” Dr. Passeron said. He noted that certain areas, such as the back of the hand or tips of the fingers, may be unresponsive.
“So, we have to also to warn the patient that probably on these areas we have to combine it with other treatment because it remains very, very difficult to treat.”
There were no new safety concerns regarding treatment-emergent adverse events, which were reported in 52% of patients who received ruxolitinib and in 36% of placebo-treated patients.
The most common adverse reactions included COVID-19 (6.1% vs. 3.1%), acne at the application site (5.3% vs. 1.3%), and pruritus at the application site (3.9% vs. 2.7%), although cases were “mild or moderate,” said Dr. Passeron.
An expert’s take-home
“The results of TRuE-V phase 3 studies are encouraging and exciting,” Viktoria Eleftheriadou, MD, MRCP(UK), SCE(Derm), PhD, said in providing an independent comment for this news organization.
“Although ruxolitinib cream is applied on the skin, this novel treatment for vitiligo is not without risks; therefore, careful monitoring of patients who are started on this topical treatment would be prudent,” said Dr. Eleftheriadou, who is a consultant dermatologist for Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
“I would like to see how many patients achieved VASI-75 or VASI-80 score, which from patients’ perspectives is a more meaningful outcome, as well as how long these results will last for,” she added.
The study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Dr. Passeron has received grants, honoraria, or both from AbbVie, ACM Pharma, Almirall, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB. Dr. Passeron is the cofounder of YUKIN Therapeutics and has patents on WNT agonists or GSK2b antagonist for repigmentation of vitiligo and on the use of CXCR3B blockers in vitiligo. Dr. Eleftheriadou is an investigator and trial development group member on the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial (specific), a lead investigator on the pilot HI-Light Vitiligo Trial, and a medical advisory panel member of the Vitiligo Society UK. Dr. Eleftheriadou also provides consultancy services to Incyte and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
.
Those difficult areas include the hands and feet, said Thierry Passeron, MD, PhD, of Université Côte d’Azur and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (France).
Indeed, a 50% or greater improvement in the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI-50) of the hands and feet was achieved with ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) in around one-third of patients after 52 weeks’ treatment, and more than half of patients showed improvement in the upper and lower extremities.
During one of the late-breaking news sessions, Dr. Passeron presented a pooled analysis of the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 (TRuE-V1) and Study 2 (TruE-V2), which assessed VASI-50 data by body regions.
Similarly positive results were seen on the head and neck and the trunk, with VASI-50 being reached in a respective 68% and 48% of patients after a full year of treatment.
“VASI-50 response rates rose steadily through 52 weeks for both the head and trunk,” said Dr. Passeron. He noted that the trials were initially double-blinded for 24 weeks and that there was a further open-label extension phase through week 52.
In the latter phase, all patients were treated with ruxolitinib; those who originally received a vehicle agent as placebo crossed over to the active treatment.
First FDA-approved treatment for adults and adolescents with vitiligo
Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor that has been available for the treatment for atopic dermatitis for more than a year. It was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of vitiligo in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years and older.
This approval was based on the positive findings of the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 studies, which showed that after 24 weeks, 30% of patients treated with ruxolitinib had at least 75% improvement in the facial VASI, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.
“These studies demonstrated very nice results, especially on the face, which is the easiest part to repigment in vitiligo,” Dr. Passeron said.
“We know that the location is very important when it comes to repigmentation of vitiligo,” he added. He noted that other body areas, “the extremities, for example, are much more difficult.”
The analysis he presented specifically assessed the effect of ruxolitinib cream on repigmentation in other areas.
Pooled analysis performed
Data from the two TRuE-V trials were pooled. The new analysis included a total of 661 individuals; of those patients, 443 had been treated with topical ruxolitinib, and 218 had received a vehicle cream as a placebo.
For the first 24 weeks, patients received twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle cream. This was followed by a 28-week extension phase in which everyone was treated with ruxolitinib cream, after which there was a 30-day final follow-up period.
Dr. Passeron reported data by body region for weeks 12, 24, and 52, which showed an increasing percentage of patients with VASI-50.
“We didn’t look at the face; that we know well, that is a very good result,” he said.
The best results were seen for the head and neck. VASI-50 was reached by 28.3%, 45.3%, and 68.1% of patients treated with ruxolitinib cream at weeks 12, 24, and 52, respectively. Corresponding rates for the placebo-crossover group were 19.8%, 23.8%, and 51%.
Repigmentation rates of the hand, upper extremities, trunk, lower extremities, and feet were about 9%-15% for both ruxolitinib and placebo at 12 weeks, but by 24 weeks, there was a clear increase in repigmentation rates in the ruxolitinib group for all body areas.
The 24-week VASI-50 rates for hand repigmentation were 24.9% for ruxolitinib cream and 14.4% for placebo. Corresponding rates for upper extremity repigmentation were 33.2% and 8.2%; for the trunk, 26.4% and 12.2%; for the lower extremities, 29.5% and 12.2%; and for the feet, 18.5% and 12.5%.
“The results are quite poor at 12 weeks,” Dr. Passeron said. “It’s very important to keep this in mind; it takes time to repigment vitiligo, it takes to 6-24 months. We have to explain to our patients that they will have to wait to see the results.”
Steady improvements, no new safety concerns
Regarding VASI-50 over time, there was a steady increase in total body scores; 47.7% of patients who received ruxolitinib and 23.3% of placebo-treated patients hit this target at 52 weeks.
“And what is also very important to see is that we didn’t reach the plateau,” Dr. Passeron reported.
Similar patterns were seen for all the other body areas. Again there was a suggestion that rates may continue to rise with continued long-term treatment.
“About one-third of the patients reached at least 50% repigmentation after 1 year of treatment in the hands and feet,” Dr. Passeron said. He noted that certain areas, such as the back of the hand or tips of the fingers, may be unresponsive.
“So, we have to also to warn the patient that probably on these areas we have to combine it with other treatment because it remains very, very difficult to treat.”
There were no new safety concerns regarding treatment-emergent adverse events, which were reported in 52% of patients who received ruxolitinib and in 36% of placebo-treated patients.
The most common adverse reactions included COVID-19 (6.1% vs. 3.1%), acne at the application site (5.3% vs. 1.3%), and pruritus at the application site (3.9% vs. 2.7%), although cases were “mild or moderate,” said Dr. Passeron.
An expert’s take-home
“The results of TRuE-V phase 3 studies are encouraging and exciting,” Viktoria Eleftheriadou, MD, MRCP(UK), SCE(Derm), PhD, said in providing an independent comment for this news organization.
“Although ruxolitinib cream is applied on the skin, this novel treatment for vitiligo is not without risks; therefore, careful monitoring of patients who are started on this topical treatment would be prudent,” said Dr. Eleftheriadou, who is a consultant dermatologist for Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
“I would like to see how many patients achieved VASI-75 or VASI-80 score, which from patients’ perspectives is a more meaningful outcome, as well as how long these results will last for,” she added.
The study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Dr. Passeron has received grants, honoraria, or both from AbbVie, ACM Pharma, Almirall, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB. Dr. Passeron is the cofounder of YUKIN Therapeutics and has patents on WNT agonists or GSK2b antagonist for repigmentation of vitiligo and on the use of CXCR3B blockers in vitiligo. Dr. Eleftheriadou is an investigator and trial development group member on the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial (specific), a lead investigator on the pilot HI-Light Vitiligo Trial, and a medical advisory panel member of the Vitiligo Society UK. Dr. Eleftheriadou also provides consultancy services to Incyte and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
.
Those difficult areas include the hands and feet, said Thierry Passeron, MD, PhD, of Université Côte d’Azur and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (France).
Indeed, a 50% or greater improvement in the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI-50) of the hands and feet was achieved with ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) in around one-third of patients after 52 weeks’ treatment, and more than half of patients showed improvement in the upper and lower extremities.
During one of the late-breaking news sessions, Dr. Passeron presented a pooled analysis of the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 (TRuE-V1) and Study 2 (TruE-V2), which assessed VASI-50 data by body regions.
Similarly positive results were seen on the head and neck and the trunk, with VASI-50 being reached in a respective 68% and 48% of patients after a full year of treatment.
“VASI-50 response rates rose steadily through 52 weeks for both the head and trunk,” said Dr. Passeron. He noted that the trials were initially double-blinded for 24 weeks and that there was a further open-label extension phase through week 52.
In the latter phase, all patients were treated with ruxolitinib; those who originally received a vehicle agent as placebo crossed over to the active treatment.
First FDA-approved treatment for adults and adolescents with vitiligo
Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor that has been available for the treatment for atopic dermatitis for more than a year. It was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of vitiligo in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years and older.
This approval was based on the positive findings of the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 studies, which showed that after 24 weeks, 30% of patients treated with ruxolitinib had at least 75% improvement in the facial VASI, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.
“These studies demonstrated very nice results, especially on the face, which is the easiest part to repigment in vitiligo,” Dr. Passeron said.
“We know that the location is very important when it comes to repigmentation of vitiligo,” he added. He noted that other body areas, “the extremities, for example, are much more difficult.”
The analysis he presented specifically assessed the effect of ruxolitinib cream on repigmentation in other areas.
Pooled analysis performed
Data from the two TRuE-V trials were pooled. The new analysis included a total of 661 individuals; of those patients, 443 had been treated with topical ruxolitinib, and 218 had received a vehicle cream as a placebo.
For the first 24 weeks, patients received twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle cream. This was followed by a 28-week extension phase in which everyone was treated with ruxolitinib cream, after which there was a 30-day final follow-up period.
Dr. Passeron reported data by body region for weeks 12, 24, and 52, which showed an increasing percentage of patients with VASI-50.
“We didn’t look at the face; that we know well, that is a very good result,” he said.
The best results were seen for the head and neck. VASI-50 was reached by 28.3%, 45.3%, and 68.1% of patients treated with ruxolitinib cream at weeks 12, 24, and 52, respectively. Corresponding rates for the placebo-crossover group were 19.8%, 23.8%, and 51%.
Repigmentation rates of the hand, upper extremities, trunk, lower extremities, and feet were about 9%-15% for both ruxolitinib and placebo at 12 weeks, but by 24 weeks, there was a clear increase in repigmentation rates in the ruxolitinib group for all body areas.
The 24-week VASI-50 rates for hand repigmentation were 24.9% for ruxolitinib cream and 14.4% for placebo. Corresponding rates for upper extremity repigmentation were 33.2% and 8.2%; for the trunk, 26.4% and 12.2%; for the lower extremities, 29.5% and 12.2%; and for the feet, 18.5% and 12.5%.
“The results are quite poor at 12 weeks,” Dr. Passeron said. “It’s very important to keep this in mind; it takes time to repigment vitiligo, it takes to 6-24 months. We have to explain to our patients that they will have to wait to see the results.”
Steady improvements, no new safety concerns
Regarding VASI-50 over time, there was a steady increase in total body scores; 47.7% of patients who received ruxolitinib and 23.3% of placebo-treated patients hit this target at 52 weeks.
“And what is also very important to see is that we didn’t reach the plateau,” Dr. Passeron reported.
Similar patterns were seen for all the other body areas. Again there was a suggestion that rates may continue to rise with continued long-term treatment.
“About one-third of the patients reached at least 50% repigmentation after 1 year of treatment in the hands and feet,” Dr. Passeron said. He noted that certain areas, such as the back of the hand or tips of the fingers, may be unresponsive.
“So, we have to also to warn the patient that probably on these areas we have to combine it with other treatment because it remains very, very difficult to treat.”
There were no new safety concerns regarding treatment-emergent adverse events, which were reported in 52% of patients who received ruxolitinib and in 36% of placebo-treated patients.
The most common adverse reactions included COVID-19 (6.1% vs. 3.1%), acne at the application site (5.3% vs. 1.3%), and pruritus at the application site (3.9% vs. 2.7%), although cases were “mild or moderate,” said Dr. Passeron.
An expert’s take-home
“The results of TRuE-V phase 3 studies are encouraging and exciting,” Viktoria Eleftheriadou, MD, MRCP(UK), SCE(Derm), PhD, said in providing an independent comment for this news organization.
“Although ruxolitinib cream is applied on the skin, this novel treatment for vitiligo is not without risks; therefore, careful monitoring of patients who are started on this topical treatment would be prudent,” said Dr. Eleftheriadou, who is a consultant dermatologist for Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
“I would like to see how many patients achieved VASI-75 or VASI-80 score, which from patients’ perspectives is a more meaningful outcome, as well as how long these results will last for,” she added.
The study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Dr. Passeron has received grants, honoraria, or both from AbbVie, ACM Pharma, Almirall, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB. Dr. Passeron is the cofounder of YUKIN Therapeutics and has patents on WNT agonists or GSK2b antagonist for repigmentation of vitiligo and on the use of CXCR3B blockers in vitiligo. Dr. Eleftheriadou is an investigator and trial development group member on the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial (specific), a lead investigator on the pilot HI-Light Vitiligo Trial, and a medical advisory panel member of the Vitiligo Society UK. Dr. Eleftheriadou also provides consultancy services to Incyte and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
How to handle pesky molluscum contagiosum lesions
.
“If you don’t treat them, they’re going to spread,” Dr. Smith, who practices dermatology in Fort Mill, S.C., said at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. “They’re going to be itchy, they can spread on the patient themselves and then to others, and they can cause scarring. The prevalence is anywhere from 5% to 11%. That means there are 6 million patients out there, just waiting to come into your clinics.”
To date, no treatment has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for MC, although a laundry list of agents have been tried, including cantharidin; cryotherapy; curettage with and without imiquimod; sinecatechins ointment, 15%; imiquimod; and retinoids. And there are several treatments that are being investigated.
A 2017 Cochrane review of 22 studies involving 1,650 patients demonstrated that no single intervention has been consistently effective in treating MC. “Most of the studies were actually very low quality,” said Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the analysis. “The one high quality study showed that imiquimod did not work any better than its vehicle.”
Investigational treatments
One of the products in the pipeline is VP-102, a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been evaluated in phase 3 studies of patients with molluscum aged 2 years and older. It features a visualization agent so that the person applying the drug can see which lesions have been treated. It also contains a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children.
VP-102, which is being developed by Verrica Pharmaceuticals, is applied once every 21 days in up to 4 applications, and multiple lesions can be treated with one applicator. “It’s a stable concentration with a good shelf life, and two phase 3 randomized studies have shown about a 50% complete clearance of new and existing lesions at day 84,” Dr. Smith said. Those studies enrolled children and adults.
A separate analysis of the same data presented at a meeting in 2019 showed that 77% of patients treated with VP-102 achieved greater than 75% clearance, while 65.8% achieved more than 90% clearance.
The new kid on the block is a gel formulation of a nitric oxide–releasing medication, berdazimer 10.3%, a first-in-class topical treatment being developed by Novan, which can be applied at home. In a multicenter study published in JAMA Dermatology, researchers randomized 444 patients to berdazimer gel 10.3% and 447 to a placebo gel, applied once daily in a thin layer on all MC lesions for 12 weeks. The study was conducted at 55 clinics across the United States between Sept. 1, 2020, and July 21, 2021. The mean age of the patients was about 6.5 years and participants had 3-70 raised MC lesions; those with sexually transmitted MC or MC in the periocular area were excluded. The primary endpoint was complete clearance of MC lesions after 12 weeks of treatment.
At 12 weeks, significantly more patients treated with berdazimer gel achieved complete clearance than those on vehicle (32.4% vs. 19.7%; P < .001). A total of 64 (14.4%) patients in the berdazimer group discontinued treatment because of MC clearance, compared with 40 patients (8.9%) in the vehicle group.
More recently, investigators evaluated autoinoculation vs. 35% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) for the treatment of MC. Autoinoculation involves puncturing the perilesional and lesional skin 5-7 times with an insulin syringe. “This gets a little bit of the virus into the dermis, and you hope to elicit an immune response,” explained Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the study. At 3 months, 80% of patients in the autoinoculation group achieved complete clearance, compared with 62% of those in the TCA group, while recurrence at 6 months was 3% vs. 40%, respectively.
Manual extraction of MC lesions is another option. “I love to pop the cores out with my thumbs,” Dr. Smith said. “You have to pick the patients who can tolerate this, and the MC lesions need to be ripe and ready.”
For ophthalmic lesions, watchful waiting is advisable unless the MC lesions are symptomatic or bothersome or large lesions form on the lid margin, which may cause ocular irritation or even a corneal abrasion. “If a patient presents with a multisite infection that includes ocular lesions, treat lesions on other parts of the body and keep your fingers crossed that a systemic immune response occurs,” she said.
The desired immune response is known as the “BOTE” sign (the beginning of the end), which heralds the clearance of the molluscum infection. This often appears as reddening of all the MC lesions and occasionally as a granulomatous “id-like” reaction especially on the extensor elbows and knees. “When this happens, it often scares the patients,” Dr. Smith said. But she explains that this is a positive development, and that “this means that the lesions are about to self-resolve.”
Dr. Smith disclosed that she serves as a speaker or a member of the speakers bureau for Amgen, CeraVe, EPI, Galderma, InCyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Sun. She also serves as an advisor or consultant for Janssen, Lilly, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.
Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
.
“If you don’t treat them, they’re going to spread,” Dr. Smith, who practices dermatology in Fort Mill, S.C., said at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. “They’re going to be itchy, they can spread on the patient themselves and then to others, and they can cause scarring. The prevalence is anywhere from 5% to 11%. That means there are 6 million patients out there, just waiting to come into your clinics.”
To date, no treatment has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for MC, although a laundry list of agents have been tried, including cantharidin; cryotherapy; curettage with and without imiquimod; sinecatechins ointment, 15%; imiquimod; and retinoids. And there are several treatments that are being investigated.
A 2017 Cochrane review of 22 studies involving 1,650 patients demonstrated that no single intervention has been consistently effective in treating MC. “Most of the studies were actually very low quality,” said Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the analysis. “The one high quality study showed that imiquimod did not work any better than its vehicle.”
Investigational treatments
One of the products in the pipeline is VP-102, a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been evaluated in phase 3 studies of patients with molluscum aged 2 years and older. It features a visualization agent so that the person applying the drug can see which lesions have been treated. It also contains a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children.
VP-102, which is being developed by Verrica Pharmaceuticals, is applied once every 21 days in up to 4 applications, and multiple lesions can be treated with one applicator. “It’s a stable concentration with a good shelf life, and two phase 3 randomized studies have shown about a 50% complete clearance of new and existing lesions at day 84,” Dr. Smith said. Those studies enrolled children and adults.
A separate analysis of the same data presented at a meeting in 2019 showed that 77% of patients treated with VP-102 achieved greater than 75% clearance, while 65.8% achieved more than 90% clearance.
The new kid on the block is a gel formulation of a nitric oxide–releasing medication, berdazimer 10.3%, a first-in-class topical treatment being developed by Novan, which can be applied at home. In a multicenter study published in JAMA Dermatology, researchers randomized 444 patients to berdazimer gel 10.3% and 447 to a placebo gel, applied once daily in a thin layer on all MC lesions for 12 weeks. The study was conducted at 55 clinics across the United States between Sept. 1, 2020, and July 21, 2021. The mean age of the patients was about 6.5 years and participants had 3-70 raised MC lesions; those with sexually transmitted MC or MC in the periocular area were excluded. The primary endpoint was complete clearance of MC lesions after 12 weeks of treatment.
At 12 weeks, significantly more patients treated with berdazimer gel achieved complete clearance than those on vehicle (32.4% vs. 19.7%; P < .001). A total of 64 (14.4%) patients in the berdazimer group discontinued treatment because of MC clearance, compared with 40 patients (8.9%) in the vehicle group.
More recently, investigators evaluated autoinoculation vs. 35% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) for the treatment of MC. Autoinoculation involves puncturing the perilesional and lesional skin 5-7 times with an insulin syringe. “This gets a little bit of the virus into the dermis, and you hope to elicit an immune response,” explained Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the study. At 3 months, 80% of patients in the autoinoculation group achieved complete clearance, compared with 62% of those in the TCA group, while recurrence at 6 months was 3% vs. 40%, respectively.
Manual extraction of MC lesions is another option. “I love to pop the cores out with my thumbs,” Dr. Smith said. “You have to pick the patients who can tolerate this, and the MC lesions need to be ripe and ready.”
For ophthalmic lesions, watchful waiting is advisable unless the MC lesions are symptomatic or bothersome or large lesions form on the lid margin, which may cause ocular irritation or even a corneal abrasion. “If a patient presents with a multisite infection that includes ocular lesions, treat lesions on other parts of the body and keep your fingers crossed that a systemic immune response occurs,” she said.
The desired immune response is known as the “BOTE” sign (the beginning of the end), which heralds the clearance of the molluscum infection. This often appears as reddening of all the MC lesions and occasionally as a granulomatous “id-like” reaction especially on the extensor elbows and knees. “When this happens, it often scares the patients,” Dr. Smith said. But she explains that this is a positive development, and that “this means that the lesions are about to self-resolve.”
Dr. Smith disclosed that she serves as a speaker or a member of the speakers bureau for Amgen, CeraVe, EPI, Galderma, InCyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Sun. She also serves as an advisor or consultant for Janssen, Lilly, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.
Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
.
“If you don’t treat them, they’re going to spread,” Dr. Smith, who practices dermatology in Fort Mill, S.C., said at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. “They’re going to be itchy, they can spread on the patient themselves and then to others, and they can cause scarring. The prevalence is anywhere from 5% to 11%. That means there are 6 million patients out there, just waiting to come into your clinics.”
To date, no treatment has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for MC, although a laundry list of agents have been tried, including cantharidin; cryotherapy; curettage with and without imiquimod; sinecatechins ointment, 15%; imiquimod; and retinoids. And there are several treatments that are being investigated.
A 2017 Cochrane review of 22 studies involving 1,650 patients demonstrated that no single intervention has been consistently effective in treating MC. “Most of the studies were actually very low quality,” said Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the analysis. “The one high quality study showed that imiquimod did not work any better than its vehicle.”
Investigational treatments
One of the products in the pipeline is VP-102, a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been evaluated in phase 3 studies of patients with molluscum aged 2 years and older. It features a visualization agent so that the person applying the drug can see which lesions have been treated. It also contains a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children.
VP-102, which is being developed by Verrica Pharmaceuticals, is applied once every 21 days in up to 4 applications, and multiple lesions can be treated with one applicator. “It’s a stable concentration with a good shelf life, and two phase 3 randomized studies have shown about a 50% complete clearance of new and existing lesions at day 84,” Dr. Smith said. Those studies enrolled children and adults.
A separate analysis of the same data presented at a meeting in 2019 showed that 77% of patients treated with VP-102 achieved greater than 75% clearance, while 65.8% achieved more than 90% clearance.
The new kid on the block is a gel formulation of a nitric oxide–releasing medication, berdazimer 10.3%, a first-in-class topical treatment being developed by Novan, which can be applied at home. In a multicenter study published in JAMA Dermatology, researchers randomized 444 patients to berdazimer gel 10.3% and 447 to a placebo gel, applied once daily in a thin layer on all MC lesions for 12 weeks. The study was conducted at 55 clinics across the United States between Sept. 1, 2020, and July 21, 2021. The mean age of the patients was about 6.5 years and participants had 3-70 raised MC lesions; those with sexually transmitted MC or MC in the periocular area were excluded. The primary endpoint was complete clearance of MC lesions after 12 weeks of treatment.
At 12 weeks, significantly more patients treated with berdazimer gel achieved complete clearance than those on vehicle (32.4% vs. 19.7%; P < .001). A total of 64 (14.4%) patients in the berdazimer group discontinued treatment because of MC clearance, compared with 40 patients (8.9%) in the vehicle group.
More recently, investigators evaluated autoinoculation vs. 35% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) for the treatment of MC. Autoinoculation involves puncturing the perilesional and lesional skin 5-7 times with an insulin syringe. “This gets a little bit of the virus into the dermis, and you hope to elicit an immune response,” explained Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the study. At 3 months, 80% of patients in the autoinoculation group achieved complete clearance, compared with 62% of those in the TCA group, while recurrence at 6 months was 3% vs. 40%, respectively.
Manual extraction of MC lesions is another option. “I love to pop the cores out with my thumbs,” Dr. Smith said. “You have to pick the patients who can tolerate this, and the MC lesions need to be ripe and ready.”
For ophthalmic lesions, watchful waiting is advisable unless the MC lesions are symptomatic or bothersome or large lesions form on the lid margin, which may cause ocular irritation or even a corneal abrasion. “If a patient presents with a multisite infection that includes ocular lesions, treat lesions on other parts of the body and keep your fingers crossed that a systemic immune response occurs,” she said.
The desired immune response is known as the “BOTE” sign (the beginning of the end), which heralds the clearance of the molluscum infection. This often appears as reddening of all the MC lesions and occasionally as a granulomatous “id-like” reaction especially on the extensor elbows and knees. “When this happens, it often scares the patients,” Dr. Smith said. But she explains that this is a positive development, and that “this means that the lesions are about to self-resolve.”
Dr. Smith disclosed that she serves as a speaker or a member of the speakers bureau for Amgen, CeraVe, EPI, Galderma, InCyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Sun. She also serves as an advisor or consultant for Janssen, Lilly, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.
Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
FROM MEDSCAPE LIVE COASTAL DERM
Breakthrough COVID studies lend support to use of new boosters in immunosuppressed patients
People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”
The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.
The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.
“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”
The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.
The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.
When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.
The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.
The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).
One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.
Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.
“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.
A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).
Among those taking immunosuppressants who seroconverted, a primary series of vaccination reduced the risk of a breakthrough infection by 29%. Protection became more robust with a booster or prior infection, both of which reduced breakthrough infection risk by 39% in those taking immunosuppressants who seroconverted.
“We demonstrate in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on immunosuppressants that additional vaccinations are associated with decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron breakthrough infections,” wrote Eileen W. Stalman, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam UMC in the Netherlands, and her colleagues.
Though neither study broke down immune response or breakthrough infection based on individual medications, Kim said that previous research allows one to extrapolate “that prior culprits of poor vaccine responses [such as B-cell depleting drugs, mycophenolate, and TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors will continue to bear the greatest burden in breakthrough infection, including Omicron.”
Overall, he found the data from both studies relatively consistent with one another.
“Those on immunosuppression, particularly mechanisms that have been established as risk factors for poor vaccine responses, are at risk of breakthrough infection during the era of Omicron,” Dr. Kim said.
The earlier study from Korea also found that “the median time between the third-dose vaccination and the date of confirmed breakthrough infection in patients with ARDs was significantly shorter, compared with that in health care workers” at just 93 days in patients versus 122 days in health care workers. They postulated that this population’s limited neutralization of Omicron explained this short-lived protection.
Most of the patients with breakthrough infections (74%) in that study showed no neutralization against Omicron, including the only two hospitalized patients, both of whom had strong responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain. The significant decline over time of neutralization against Omicron suggested “the potential for a substantial loss of the protection from breakthrough infection,” the authors write.
“The third dose of an mRNA vaccine could improve the cross-neutralization of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease [although] more than half of the patients failed to generate Omicron-neutralizing antibodies,” Tae Choi said in an interview. “Our study sheds light on the relative deficiency of the Omicron-specific neutralizing responses in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease and their anticipated vulnerability to breakthrough infection.”
The message for clinicians, Dr. Kim said, is to “continue to urge our patients to maintain additional and boosting doses per guidance, use pre-exposure prophylaxis such as Evusheld, and continue other mitigation strategies as they have done.”
The Dutch study was funded by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; the Korean study used no external funding.
The authors of the Korean study had no disclosures. The Dutch study’s authors reported a wide range of disclosures involving more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies but not including Pfizer or Moderna. Dr. Kim’s industry disclosures include Alexion, ANI, AstraZeneca, Aurinia, Exagen, Foghorn Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Kypha, and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”
The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.
The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.
“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”
The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.
The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.
When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.
The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.
The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).
One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.
Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.
“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.
A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).
Among those taking immunosuppressants who seroconverted, a primary series of vaccination reduced the risk of a breakthrough infection by 29%. Protection became more robust with a booster or prior infection, both of which reduced breakthrough infection risk by 39% in those taking immunosuppressants who seroconverted.
“We demonstrate in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on immunosuppressants that additional vaccinations are associated with decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron breakthrough infections,” wrote Eileen W. Stalman, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam UMC in the Netherlands, and her colleagues.
Though neither study broke down immune response or breakthrough infection based on individual medications, Kim said that previous research allows one to extrapolate “that prior culprits of poor vaccine responses [such as B-cell depleting drugs, mycophenolate, and TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors will continue to bear the greatest burden in breakthrough infection, including Omicron.”
Overall, he found the data from both studies relatively consistent with one another.
“Those on immunosuppression, particularly mechanisms that have been established as risk factors for poor vaccine responses, are at risk of breakthrough infection during the era of Omicron,” Dr. Kim said.
The earlier study from Korea also found that “the median time between the third-dose vaccination and the date of confirmed breakthrough infection in patients with ARDs was significantly shorter, compared with that in health care workers” at just 93 days in patients versus 122 days in health care workers. They postulated that this population’s limited neutralization of Omicron explained this short-lived protection.
Most of the patients with breakthrough infections (74%) in that study showed no neutralization against Omicron, including the only two hospitalized patients, both of whom had strong responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain. The significant decline over time of neutralization against Omicron suggested “the potential for a substantial loss of the protection from breakthrough infection,” the authors write.
“The third dose of an mRNA vaccine could improve the cross-neutralization of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease [although] more than half of the patients failed to generate Omicron-neutralizing antibodies,” Tae Choi said in an interview. “Our study sheds light on the relative deficiency of the Omicron-specific neutralizing responses in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease and their anticipated vulnerability to breakthrough infection.”
The message for clinicians, Dr. Kim said, is to “continue to urge our patients to maintain additional and boosting doses per guidance, use pre-exposure prophylaxis such as Evusheld, and continue other mitigation strategies as they have done.”
The Dutch study was funded by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; the Korean study used no external funding.
The authors of the Korean study had no disclosures. The Dutch study’s authors reported a wide range of disclosures involving more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies but not including Pfizer or Moderna. Dr. Kim’s industry disclosures include Alexion, ANI, AstraZeneca, Aurinia, Exagen, Foghorn Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Kypha, and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”
The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.
The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.
“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”
The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.
The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.
When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.
The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.
The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).
One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.
Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.
“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.
A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).
Among those taking immunosuppressants who seroconverted, a primary series of vaccination reduced the risk of a breakthrough infection by 29%. Protection became more robust with a booster or prior infection, both of which reduced breakthrough infection risk by 39% in those taking immunosuppressants who seroconverted.
“We demonstrate in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on immunosuppressants that additional vaccinations are associated with decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron breakthrough infections,” wrote Eileen W. Stalman, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam UMC in the Netherlands, and her colleagues.
Though neither study broke down immune response or breakthrough infection based on individual medications, Kim said that previous research allows one to extrapolate “that prior culprits of poor vaccine responses [such as B-cell depleting drugs, mycophenolate, and TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors will continue to bear the greatest burden in breakthrough infection, including Omicron.”
Overall, he found the data from both studies relatively consistent with one another.
“Those on immunosuppression, particularly mechanisms that have been established as risk factors for poor vaccine responses, are at risk of breakthrough infection during the era of Omicron,” Dr. Kim said.
The earlier study from Korea also found that “the median time between the third-dose vaccination and the date of confirmed breakthrough infection in patients with ARDs was significantly shorter, compared with that in health care workers” at just 93 days in patients versus 122 days in health care workers. They postulated that this population’s limited neutralization of Omicron explained this short-lived protection.
Most of the patients with breakthrough infections (74%) in that study showed no neutralization against Omicron, including the only two hospitalized patients, both of whom had strong responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain. The significant decline over time of neutralization against Omicron suggested “the potential for a substantial loss of the protection from breakthrough infection,” the authors write.
“The third dose of an mRNA vaccine could improve the cross-neutralization of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease [although] more than half of the patients failed to generate Omicron-neutralizing antibodies,” Tae Choi said in an interview. “Our study sheds light on the relative deficiency of the Omicron-specific neutralizing responses in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease and their anticipated vulnerability to breakthrough infection.”
The message for clinicians, Dr. Kim said, is to “continue to urge our patients to maintain additional and boosting doses per guidance, use pre-exposure prophylaxis such as Evusheld, and continue other mitigation strategies as they have done.”
The Dutch study was funded by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; the Korean study used no external funding.
The authors of the Korean study had no disclosures. The Dutch study’s authors reported a wide range of disclosures involving more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies but not including Pfizer or Moderna. Dr. Kim’s industry disclosures include Alexion, ANI, AstraZeneca, Aurinia, Exagen, Foghorn Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Kypha, and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Don’t make children with head lice leave school, report says
The American Academy of Pediatrics says children with head lice don’t need to be sent home from school.
Head lice infestations aren’t really a health hazard because of low transmission rates, a new report from the academy says, and sending students home “may stigmatize children suspected of having head lice.” The group says schools should instead offer education programs to help families understand how to manage head lice.
“Head lice are an unpleasant part of the human experience, but they can be successfully managed and are no reason for a child to miss school,” Dawn Nolt, MD, lead author of the report on head lice, said in a news release.
The report advises schools to abandon “no-nit” policies, which call for a student to be lice-free before being allowed back in class.
“A child or adolescent should not be restricted from school attendance because of head lice, given the low contagion within classrooms. ‘No-nit’ policies that exclude children or adolescents until all nits are removed may violate a child’s or adolescent’s civil liberties and are best addressed with legal counsel for schools,” the report says.
The report notes that lice almost always spread through head-to-head contact, not by “jumping” from one person to another. It’s possible for lice to spread by touching the belongings of a person with lice, such as combs or sports helmets, but the chances of that happening are very low, the academy said.
“Lice found on combs are likely to be injured or dead, and a louse is not likely to leave a healthy head unless there is a heavy infestation,” the report says.
The report lists new medications for treatment and gives an algorithm for managing head lice cases.
“The ideal treatment of head lice should be safe, free of toxic chemicals, readily available, simple to apply, effective, and inexpensive,” the report says.
This is the first updated guidance on head lice from the American Academy of Pediatrics since 2015. The CDC also says students with head lice don’t need to be sent home.
“Students diagnosed with live head lice do not need to be sent home early from school; they can go home at the end of the day, be treated, and return to class after appropriate treatment has begun. Nits may persist after treatment, but successful treatment should kill crawling lice,” the CDC says.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The American Academy of Pediatrics says children with head lice don’t need to be sent home from school.
Head lice infestations aren’t really a health hazard because of low transmission rates, a new report from the academy says, and sending students home “may stigmatize children suspected of having head lice.” The group says schools should instead offer education programs to help families understand how to manage head lice.
“Head lice are an unpleasant part of the human experience, but they can be successfully managed and are no reason for a child to miss school,” Dawn Nolt, MD, lead author of the report on head lice, said in a news release.
The report advises schools to abandon “no-nit” policies, which call for a student to be lice-free before being allowed back in class.
“A child or adolescent should not be restricted from school attendance because of head lice, given the low contagion within classrooms. ‘No-nit’ policies that exclude children or adolescents until all nits are removed may violate a child’s or adolescent’s civil liberties and are best addressed with legal counsel for schools,” the report says.
The report notes that lice almost always spread through head-to-head contact, not by “jumping” from one person to another. It’s possible for lice to spread by touching the belongings of a person with lice, such as combs or sports helmets, but the chances of that happening are very low, the academy said.
“Lice found on combs are likely to be injured or dead, and a louse is not likely to leave a healthy head unless there is a heavy infestation,” the report says.
The report lists new medications for treatment and gives an algorithm for managing head lice cases.
“The ideal treatment of head lice should be safe, free of toxic chemicals, readily available, simple to apply, effective, and inexpensive,” the report says.
This is the first updated guidance on head lice from the American Academy of Pediatrics since 2015. The CDC also says students with head lice don’t need to be sent home.
“Students diagnosed with live head lice do not need to be sent home early from school; they can go home at the end of the day, be treated, and return to class after appropriate treatment has begun. Nits may persist after treatment, but successful treatment should kill crawling lice,” the CDC says.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The American Academy of Pediatrics says children with head lice don’t need to be sent home from school.
Head lice infestations aren’t really a health hazard because of low transmission rates, a new report from the academy says, and sending students home “may stigmatize children suspected of having head lice.” The group says schools should instead offer education programs to help families understand how to manage head lice.
“Head lice are an unpleasant part of the human experience, but they can be successfully managed and are no reason for a child to miss school,” Dawn Nolt, MD, lead author of the report on head lice, said in a news release.
The report advises schools to abandon “no-nit” policies, which call for a student to be lice-free before being allowed back in class.
“A child or adolescent should not be restricted from school attendance because of head lice, given the low contagion within classrooms. ‘No-nit’ policies that exclude children or adolescents until all nits are removed may violate a child’s or adolescent’s civil liberties and are best addressed with legal counsel for schools,” the report says.
The report notes that lice almost always spread through head-to-head contact, not by “jumping” from one person to another. It’s possible for lice to spread by touching the belongings of a person with lice, such as combs or sports helmets, but the chances of that happening are very low, the academy said.
“Lice found on combs are likely to be injured or dead, and a louse is not likely to leave a healthy head unless there is a heavy infestation,” the report says.
The report lists new medications for treatment and gives an algorithm for managing head lice cases.
“The ideal treatment of head lice should be safe, free of toxic chemicals, readily available, simple to apply, effective, and inexpensive,” the report says.
This is the first updated guidance on head lice from the American Academy of Pediatrics since 2015. The CDC also says students with head lice don’t need to be sent home.
“Students diagnosed with live head lice do not need to be sent home early from school; they can go home at the end of the day, be treated, and return to class after appropriate treatment has begun. Nits may persist after treatment, but successful treatment should kill crawling lice,” the CDC says.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
BREEZE-AD-PEDS: First data for baricitinib in childhood eczema reported
The oral Janus kinase
After 16 weeks of treatment, the primary endpoint – an Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-point improvement from baseline – was met by 41.7% of patients given 2 mg (those younger than age 10) or 4 mg of baricitinib (those aged 10-17 years), the highest dose studied in each of those two age groups.
By comparison, the primary endpoint was met in 16.4% of children in the placebo group (P < .001).
Baricitinib is approved for the treatment of AD in adults in many countries, Antonio Torrelo, MD, of the Hospital Infantil Niño Jesús, Madrid, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with severe alopecia areata in June and is under FDA review for the treatment of AD.
The phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial
BREEZE-AD-PEDS was a randomized, double-blind trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in 483 children and adolescents with moderate to severe AD. Participants were aged 2-17 years. Those aged 2-5 years had been diagnosed with AD for at least 6 months; if they were older, they had been diagnosed for at least 12 months.
Three dosing levels of baricitinib were tested: 121 patients were given a low dose, which was 0.5 mg/day in children aged 2 to less than 10 years and 1 mg/day in those aged 10 to less than 18 years. A medium dose – 1 mg/day in the younger children and 2 mg/day in the older children – was given to 120 children, while a high dose – 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day, respectively – was given to another 120 children.
Topical treatments were permitted, although for entry into the trial, participants had to have had an inadequate response to steroids and an inadequate or no response to topical calcineurin inhibitors. In all groups, age, gender, race, geographic region, age at diagnosis of AD, and duration of AD “were more or less similar,” Dr. Torello said.
Good results, but only with highest dose
The primary IGA endpoint was reached by 25.8% of children in the medium-dose group and by 18.2% in the low-dose group. Neither result was statistically significant in comparison with placebo (16.4%).
When breaking down the results between different ages, “the results in the IGA scores are consistent in both age subgroups – below 10 years and over 10 years,” Dr. Torello noted. The results are also consistent across body weights (< 20 kg, 20-60 kg, and > 60 kg), he added.
Among those treated with the high dose of baricitinib, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75% and 95% improvement scores were reached in 52.5% and 30% of patients, respectively. Corresponding figures for the medium dose were 40% and 21.7%; for the low baricitinib dose, 32.2% and 11.6%; and for placebo, 32% and 12.3%. Again, only the results for the highest baricitinib dose were significant in comparison with placebo.
A similar pattern was seen for improvement in itch, and there was a 75% improvement in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD75) results.
Safety of baricitinib in children
The labeling for JAK inhibitors that have been approved to date, including baricitinib, include a boxed warning regarding risks for thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. The warning is based on use by patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Dr. Torello summarized baricitinib’s safety profile in the trial as being “consistent with the well-known safety profile for baricitinib in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
In the study, no severe adverse effects were noted, and no new safety signals were observed, he said. The rate of any treatment-emergent effect among patients was around 50% and was similar across all baricitinib and placebo groups. Study discontinuations because of a side effect were more frequent in the placebo arm (1.6% of patients) than in the baricitinib low-, medium-, and high-dose arms (0.8%, 0%, and 0.8%, respectively).
There were no cases of deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or other adverse effects of special interest, including major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforations, and opportunistic infections, Dr. Torrelo said.
No patient experienced elevations in liver enzyme levels, although there were some cases of elevated creatinine phosphokinase levels (16% in the placebo group and 19% in the baricitinib arms altogether) that were not from muscle injury. There was a possible increase in low-density cholesterol level (3.3% of those taking placebo vs. 10.1% of baricitinib-treated patients).
Is there a role for baricitinib?
“Baricitinib is a potential therapeutic option with a favorable benefit-to-risk profile for children between 2 and 18 years who have moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and candidates for systemic therapy,” Dr. Torrelo said. “No single drug is capable to treat every patient with atopic dermatitis,” he added in discussing the possible place of baricitinib in pediatric practice.
“There are patients who do not respond to dupilumab, who apparently respond later to JAK inhibitors,” he noted.
“We are trying to work phenotypically, trying to learn what kind of patients – especially children who have a more heterogeneous disease than adults – can be better treated with JAK inhibitors or dupilumab.” There may be other important considerations in choosing a treatment in children, Dr. Torrelo said, including that JAK inhibitors can be given orally, while dupilumab is administered by injection.
Asked to comment on the results, Jashin J. Wu, MD, founder and CEO of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., pointed out that “only the higher dose is significantly more effective than placebo.”
In his view, “the potentially severe adverse events are not worth the risk compared to more effective agents, such as dupilumab, in this pediatric population,” added Dr. Wu, who recently authored a review of the role of JAK inhibitors in skin disease. He was not involved with the baricitinib study.
The study was funded by Eli Lilly in collaboration with Incyte. Dr. Torello has participated in advisory boards and/or has served as a principal investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The oral Janus kinase
After 16 weeks of treatment, the primary endpoint – an Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-point improvement from baseline – was met by 41.7% of patients given 2 mg (those younger than age 10) or 4 mg of baricitinib (those aged 10-17 years), the highest dose studied in each of those two age groups.
By comparison, the primary endpoint was met in 16.4% of children in the placebo group (P < .001).
Baricitinib is approved for the treatment of AD in adults in many countries, Antonio Torrelo, MD, of the Hospital Infantil Niño Jesús, Madrid, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with severe alopecia areata in June and is under FDA review for the treatment of AD.
The phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial
BREEZE-AD-PEDS was a randomized, double-blind trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in 483 children and adolescents with moderate to severe AD. Participants were aged 2-17 years. Those aged 2-5 years had been diagnosed with AD for at least 6 months; if they were older, they had been diagnosed for at least 12 months.
Three dosing levels of baricitinib were tested: 121 patients were given a low dose, which was 0.5 mg/day in children aged 2 to less than 10 years and 1 mg/day in those aged 10 to less than 18 years. A medium dose – 1 mg/day in the younger children and 2 mg/day in the older children – was given to 120 children, while a high dose – 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day, respectively – was given to another 120 children.
Topical treatments were permitted, although for entry into the trial, participants had to have had an inadequate response to steroids and an inadequate or no response to topical calcineurin inhibitors. In all groups, age, gender, race, geographic region, age at diagnosis of AD, and duration of AD “were more or less similar,” Dr. Torello said.
Good results, but only with highest dose
The primary IGA endpoint was reached by 25.8% of children in the medium-dose group and by 18.2% in the low-dose group. Neither result was statistically significant in comparison with placebo (16.4%).
When breaking down the results between different ages, “the results in the IGA scores are consistent in both age subgroups – below 10 years and over 10 years,” Dr. Torello noted. The results are also consistent across body weights (< 20 kg, 20-60 kg, and > 60 kg), he added.
Among those treated with the high dose of baricitinib, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75% and 95% improvement scores were reached in 52.5% and 30% of patients, respectively. Corresponding figures for the medium dose were 40% and 21.7%; for the low baricitinib dose, 32.2% and 11.6%; and for placebo, 32% and 12.3%. Again, only the results for the highest baricitinib dose were significant in comparison with placebo.
A similar pattern was seen for improvement in itch, and there was a 75% improvement in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD75) results.
Safety of baricitinib in children
The labeling for JAK inhibitors that have been approved to date, including baricitinib, include a boxed warning regarding risks for thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. The warning is based on use by patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Dr. Torello summarized baricitinib’s safety profile in the trial as being “consistent with the well-known safety profile for baricitinib in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
In the study, no severe adverse effects were noted, and no new safety signals were observed, he said. The rate of any treatment-emergent effect among patients was around 50% and was similar across all baricitinib and placebo groups. Study discontinuations because of a side effect were more frequent in the placebo arm (1.6% of patients) than in the baricitinib low-, medium-, and high-dose arms (0.8%, 0%, and 0.8%, respectively).
There were no cases of deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or other adverse effects of special interest, including major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforations, and opportunistic infections, Dr. Torrelo said.
No patient experienced elevations in liver enzyme levels, although there were some cases of elevated creatinine phosphokinase levels (16% in the placebo group and 19% in the baricitinib arms altogether) that were not from muscle injury. There was a possible increase in low-density cholesterol level (3.3% of those taking placebo vs. 10.1% of baricitinib-treated patients).
Is there a role for baricitinib?
“Baricitinib is a potential therapeutic option with a favorable benefit-to-risk profile for children between 2 and 18 years who have moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and candidates for systemic therapy,” Dr. Torrelo said. “No single drug is capable to treat every patient with atopic dermatitis,” he added in discussing the possible place of baricitinib in pediatric practice.
“There are patients who do not respond to dupilumab, who apparently respond later to JAK inhibitors,” he noted.
“We are trying to work phenotypically, trying to learn what kind of patients – especially children who have a more heterogeneous disease than adults – can be better treated with JAK inhibitors or dupilumab.” There may be other important considerations in choosing a treatment in children, Dr. Torrelo said, including that JAK inhibitors can be given orally, while dupilumab is administered by injection.
Asked to comment on the results, Jashin J. Wu, MD, founder and CEO of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., pointed out that “only the higher dose is significantly more effective than placebo.”
In his view, “the potentially severe adverse events are not worth the risk compared to more effective agents, such as dupilumab, in this pediatric population,” added Dr. Wu, who recently authored a review of the role of JAK inhibitors in skin disease. He was not involved with the baricitinib study.
The study was funded by Eli Lilly in collaboration with Incyte. Dr. Torello has participated in advisory boards and/or has served as a principal investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The oral Janus kinase
After 16 weeks of treatment, the primary endpoint – an Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-point improvement from baseline – was met by 41.7% of patients given 2 mg (those younger than age 10) or 4 mg of baricitinib (those aged 10-17 years), the highest dose studied in each of those two age groups.
By comparison, the primary endpoint was met in 16.4% of children in the placebo group (P < .001).
Baricitinib is approved for the treatment of AD in adults in many countries, Antonio Torrelo, MD, of the Hospital Infantil Niño Jesús, Madrid, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with severe alopecia areata in June and is under FDA review for the treatment of AD.
The phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial
BREEZE-AD-PEDS was a randomized, double-blind trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in 483 children and adolescents with moderate to severe AD. Participants were aged 2-17 years. Those aged 2-5 years had been diagnosed with AD for at least 6 months; if they were older, they had been diagnosed for at least 12 months.
Three dosing levels of baricitinib were tested: 121 patients were given a low dose, which was 0.5 mg/day in children aged 2 to less than 10 years and 1 mg/day in those aged 10 to less than 18 years. A medium dose – 1 mg/day in the younger children and 2 mg/day in the older children – was given to 120 children, while a high dose – 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day, respectively – was given to another 120 children.
Topical treatments were permitted, although for entry into the trial, participants had to have had an inadequate response to steroids and an inadequate or no response to topical calcineurin inhibitors. In all groups, age, gender, race, geographic region, age at diagnosis of AD, and duration of AD “were more or less similar,” Dr. Torello said.
Good results, but only with highest dose
The primary IGA endpoint was reached by 25.8% of children in the medium-dose group and by 18.2% in the low-dose group. Neither result was statistically significant in comparison with placebo (16.4%).
When breaking down the results between different ages, “the results in the IGA scores are consistent in both age subgroups – below 10 years and over 10 years,” Dr. Torello noted. The results are also consistent across body weights (< 20 kg, 20-60 kg, and > 60 kg), he added.
Among those treated with the high dose of baricitinib, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75% and 95% improvement scores were reached in 52.5% and 30% of patients, respectively. Corresponding figures for the medium dose were 40% and 21.7%; for the low baricitinib dose, 32.2% and 11.6%; and for placebo, 32% and 12.3%. Again, only the results for the highest baricitinib dose were significant in comparison with placebo.
A similar pattern was seen for improvement in itch, and there was a 75% improvement in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD75) results.
Safety of baricitinib in children
The labeling for JAK inhibitors that have been approved to date, including baricitinib, include a boxed warning regarding risks for thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. The warning is based on use by patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Dr. Torello summarized baricitinib’s safety profile in the trial as being “consistent with the well-known safety profile for baricitinib in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”
In the study, no severe adverse effects were noted, and no new safety signals were observed, he said. The rate of any treatment-emergent effect among patients was around 50% and was similar across all baricitinib and placebo groups. Study discontinuations because of a side effect were more frequent in the placebo arm (1.6% of patients) than in the baricitinib low-, medium-, and high-dose arms (0.8%, 0%, and 0.8%, respectively).
There were no cases of deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or other adverse effects of special interest, including major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforations, and opportunistic infections, Dr. Torrelo said.
No patient experienced elevations in liver enzyme levels, although there were some cases of elevated creatinine phosphokinase levels (16% in the placebo group and 19% in the baricitinib arms altogether) that were not from muscle injury. There was a possible increase in low-density cholesterol level (3.3% of those taking placebo vs. 10.1% of baricitinib-treated patients).
Is there a role for baricitinib?
“Baricitinib is a potential therapeutic option with a favorable benefit-to-risk profile for children between 2 and 18 years who have moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and candidates for systemic therapy,” Dr. Torrelo said. “No single drug is capable to treat every patient with atopic dermatitis,” he added in discussing the possible place of baricitinib in pediatric practice.
“There are patients who do not respond to dupilumab, who apparently respond later to JAK inhibitors,” he noted.
“We are trying to work phenotypically, trying to learn what kind of patients – especially children who have a more heterogeneous disease than adults – can be better treated with JAK inhibitors or dupilumab.” There may be other important considerations in choosing a treatment in children, Dr. Torrelo said, including that JAK inhibitors can be given orally, while dupilumab is administered by injection.
Asked to comment on the results, Jashin J. Wu, MD, founder and CEO of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., pointed out that “only the higher dose is significantly more effective than placebo.”
In his view, “the potentially severe adverse events are not worth the risk compared to more effective agents, such as dupilumab, in this pediatric population,” added Dr. Wu, who recently authored a review of the role of JAK inhibitors in skin disease. He was not involved with the baricitinib study.
The study was funded by Eli Lilly in collaboration with Incyte. Dr. Torello has participated in advisory boards and/or has served as a principal investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE EADV CONGRESS
What’s the true role of Demodex mites in the development of papulopustular rosacea?
, a narrative review proposes.
According to the author, Fabienne Forton, MD, PhD, a dermatologist based in Brussels, recent studies suggest that Demodex induces two opposite actions on host immunity: A defensive immune response aimed at eliminating the mite and an immunosuppressive action aimed at favoring its own proliferation. “Moreover, the initial defensive immune response is likely diverted towards benefit for the mite, via T-cell exhaustion induced by the immunosuppressive properties of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which may also explain the favorable influence that the altered vascular background of rosacea seems to exert on Demodex proliferation,” she wrote in the review, which was published in JEADV, the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
She presented several arguments for and against a causal role of Demodex in rosacea. Three on the “for” side are:
High Demodex densities (Dds) are observed in almost all cases of rosacea with papulopustules (PPR). Dr. Forton pointed out that Demodex proliferation presents in as many as 98.6% of cases of PPR when two consecutive standardized skin surface biopsies (SSSBs) are performed (Acta Derm Venereol. 2017;97:242-8). “Dds in patients with PPR are as high as those in patients with demodicosis, much higher than in healthy skin and other facial dermatoses (except when these are associated with demodicosis [as is often the case with seborrheic dermatitis and acne vulgaris]),” she wrote.
The Demodex mite has the elements necessary to stimulate the host’s innate and adaptative immune system. Dr. Forton characterized Demodex as “the only microorganism found in abundance in almost all subjects with PPR, which can, in addition, alter the skin barrier. To feed and move around, Demodex mites attack the epidermal wall of the pilosebaceous follicles mechanically (via their stylets, mouth palps and motor palps) and chemically (through enzymes secreted from salivary glands for pre-oral digestion).”
The Demodex mite stimulates the immune system (which ultimately results in phymatous changes). A healthy immune system, including T helper 17 cells, seems necessary to adequately control mite proliferation. Dr. Forton noted that researchers have observed a perivascular and perifollicular infiltrate in people with rosacea, “which invades the epidermis and is often associated with the presence of Demodex. The lympho-histiocytic perifollicular infiltrate is correlated with the presence and the numbers of mites inside the follicles, and giant cell granulomas can be seen around intradermal Demodex mites, which attempt to phagocytize the mites.”
The three arguments that she presented against a causal role of Demodex in rosacea are the following:
No relationship with the mite was observed in two early histological studies. Rosacea biopsies conducted in these two analyses, published in 1969 and 1988, showed only mild infiltrate, with few parasites and no inflammation around the infested follicles.
However, she countered, “these data are now obsolete, because it has since been clearly demonstrated that the perifollicular infiltrate is a characteristic of rosacea, that this infiltrate is statistically related to the presence and the number of Demodex mites, and that high Dds are observed in almost all subjects with PPR.”
Demodex is not always associated with inflammatory symptoms. This argument holds that Demodex is present in all individuals and can be observed in very high densities without causing significant symptoms. Studies that support this viewpoint include the following: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2001;15:441–4 and J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2011;12:998-1007.
However, Dr. Forton pointed out that the normal, low-density presence of Demodex in the skin “does not contradict a pathogenic effect when it proliferates excessively or penetrates into the dermis. The absence of intense inflammatory symptoms when the Dd is very high does not negate its potential pathogenicity.”
Demodex proliferation could be a consequence rather than a cause. Dr. Forton cited a study, suggesting that inflammation could be responsible for alteration of the skin barrier, “which, secondarily, would favor proliferation of the parasites, as with skin affected by atopic dermatitis that becomes superinfected by Staphylococcus aureus”. On the other hand, she argued, “unlike S. aureus, Demodex does not require alteration of the skin barrier to implant or proliferate. It also does not require an inflammatory background.” She added that if mite proliferation was a consequence of clinical lesions, “the Demodex mite should logically proliferate in other inflammatory facial skin conditions, which is not the case.”
A Sept. 14 National Rosacea Society (NRS) press release featured the paper by Dr. Forton, titled, “Which Comes First, The Rosacea Blemish or The Mite?” In the release, Richard Gallo, MD, PhD, who chaired the NRS Expert Committee that updated the standard classification of rosacea in 2018, said that “growing knowledge of rosacea’s pathophysiology has established that a consistent multivariate disease process underlies its potential manifestations, and the clinical significance of each of these elements is increasing as more is understood.”
While the potential role of Demodex in rosacea has been controversial in the past, “these new insights suggest where it may play a role as a meaningful cofactor in the development of the disorder,” added Dr. Gallo, chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.
Dr. Forton reported having no financial disclosures.
, a narrative review proposes.
According to the author, Fabienne Forton, MD, PhD, a dermatologist based in Brussels, recent studies suggest that Demodex induces two opposite actions on host immunity: A defensive immune response aimed at eliminating the mite and an immunosuppressive action aimed at favoring its own proliferation. “Moreover, the initial defensive immune response is likely diverted towards benefit for the mite, via T-cell exhaustion induced by the immunosuppressive properties of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which may also explain the favorable influence that the altered vascular background of rosacea seems to exert on Demodex proliferation,” she wrote in the review, which was published in JEADV, the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
She presented several arguments for and against a causal role of Demodex in rosacea. Three on the “for” side are:
High Demodex densities (Dds) are observed in almost all cases of rosacea with papulopustules (PPR). Dr. Forton pointed out that Demodex proliferation presents in as many as 98.6% of cases of PPR when two consecutive standardized skin surface biopsies (SSSBs) are performed (Acta Derm Venereol. 2017;97:242-8). “Dds in patients with PPR are as high as those in patients with demodicosis, much higher than in healthy skin and other facial dermatoses (except when these are associated with demodicosis [as is often the case with seborrheic dermatitis and acne vulgaris]),” she wrote.
The Demodex mite has the elements necessary to stimulate the host’s innate and adaptative immune system. Dr. Forton characterized Demodex as “the only microorganism found in abundance in almost all subjects with PPR, which can, in addition, alter the skin barrier. To feed and move around, Demodex mites attack the epidermal wall of the pilosebaceous follicles mechanically (via their stylets, mouth palps and motor palps) and chemically (through enzymes secreted from salivary glands for pre-oral digestion).”
The Demodex mite stimulates the immune system (which ultimately results in phymatous changes). A healthy immune system, including T helper 17 cells, seems necessary to adequately control mite proliferation. Dr. Forton noted that researchers have observed a perivascular and perifollicular infiltrate in people with rosacea, “which invades the epidermis and is often associated with the presence of Demodex. The lympho-histiocytic perifollicular infiltrate is correlated with the presence and the numbers of mites inside the follicles, and giant cell granulomas can be seen around intradermal Demodex mites, which attempt to phagocytize the mites.”
The three arguments that she presented against a causal role of Demodex in rosacea are the following:
No relationship with the mite was observed in two early histological studies. Rosacea biopsies conducted in these two analyses, published in 1969 and 1988, showed only mild infiltrate, with few parasites and no inflammation around the infested follicles.
However, she countered, “these data are now obsolete, because it has since been clearly demonstrated that the perifollicular infiltrate is a characteristic of rosacea, that this infiltrate is statistically related to the presence and the number of Demodex mites, and that high Dds are observed in almost all subjects with PPR.”
Demodex is not always associated with inflammatory symptoms. This argument holds that Demodex is present in all individuals and can be observed in very high densities without causing significant symptoms. Studies that support this viewpoint include the following: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2001;15:441–4 and J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2011;12:998-1007.
However, Dr. Forton pointed out that the normal, low-density presence of Demodex in the skin “does not contradict a pathogenic effect when it proliferates excessively or penetrates into the dermis. The absence of intense inflammatory symptoms when the Dd is very high does not negate its potential pathogenicity.”
Demodex proliferation could be a consequence rather than a cause. Dr. Forton cited a study, suggesting that inflammation could be responsible for alteration of the skin barrier, “which, secondarily, would favor proliferation of the parasites, as with skin affected by atopic dermatitis that becomes superinfected by Staphylococcus aureus”. On the other hand, she argued, “unlike S. aureus, Demodex does not require alteration of the skin barrier to implant or proliferate. It also does not require an inflammatory background.” She added that if mite proliferation was a consequence of clinical lesions, “the Demodex mite should logically proliferate in other inflammatory facial skin conditions, which is not the case.”
A Sept. 14 National Rosacea Society (NRS) press release featured the paper by Dr. Forton, titled, “Which Comes First, The Rosacea Blemish or The Mite?” In the release, Richard Gallo, MD, PhD, who chaired the NRS Expert Committee that updated the standard classification of rosacea in 2018, said that “growing knowledge of rosacea’s pathophysiology has established that a consistent multivariate disease process underlies its potential manifestations, and the clinical significance of each of these elements is increasing as more is understood.”
While the potential role of Demodex in rosacea has been controversial in the past, “these new insights suggest where it may play a role as a meaningful cofactor in the development of the disorder,” added Dr. Gallo, chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.
Dr. Forton reported having no financial disclosures.
, a narrative review proposes.
According to the author, Fabienne Forton, MD, PhD, a dermatologist based in Brussels, recent studies suggest that Demodex induces two opposite actions on host immunity: A defensive immune response aimed at eliminating the mite and an immunosuppressive action aimed at favoring its own proliferation. “Moreover, the initial defensive immune response is likely diverted towards benefit for the mite, via T-cell exhaustion induced by the immunosuppressive properties of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which may also explain the favorable influence that the altered vascular background of rosacea seems to exert on Demodex proliferation,” she wrote in the review, which was published in JEADV, the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
She presented several arguments for and against a causal role of Demodex in rosacea. Three on the “for” side are:
High Demodex densities (Dds) are observed in almost all cases of rosacea with papulopustules (PPR). Dr. Forton pointed out that Demodex proliferation presents in as many as 98.6% of cases of PPR when two consecutive standardized skin surface biopsies (SSSBs) are performed (Acta Derm Venereol. 2017;97:242-8). “Dds in patients with PPR are as high as those in patients with demodicosis, much higher than in healthy skin and other facial dermatoses (except when these are associated with demodicosis [as is often the case with seborrheic dermatitis and acne vulgaris]),” she wrote.
The Demodex mite has the elements necessary to stimulate the host’s innate and adaptative immune system. Dr. Forton characterized Demodex as “the only microorganism found in abundance in almost all subjects with PPR, which can, in addition, alter the skin barrier. To feed and move around, Demodex mites attack the epidermal wall of the pilosebaceous follicles mechanically (via their stylets, mouth palps and motor palps) and chemically (through enzymes secreted from salivary glands for pre-oral digestion).”
The Demodex mite stimulates the immune system (which ultimately results in phymatous changes). A healthy immune system, including T helper 17 cells, seems necessary to adequately control mite proliferation. Dr. Forton noted that researchers have observed a perivascular and perifollicular infiltrate in people with rosacea, “which invades the epidermis and is often associated with the presence of Demodex. The lympho-histiocytic perifollicular infiltrate is correlated with the presence and the numbers of mites inside the follicles, and giant cell granulomas can be seen around intradermal Demodex mites, which attempt to phagocytize the mites.”
The three arguments that she presented against a causal role of Demodex in rosacea are the following:
No relationship with the mite was observed in two early histological studies. Rosacea biopsies conducted in these two analyses, published in 1969 and 1988, showed only mild infiltrate, with few parasites and no inflammation around the infested follicles.
However, she countered, “these data are now obsolete, because it has since been clearly demonstrated that the perifollicular infiltrate is a characteristic of rosacea, that this infiltrate is statistically related to the presence and the number of Demodex mites, and that high Dds are observed in almost all subjects with PPR.”
Demodex is not always associated with inflammatory symptoms. This argument holds that Demodex is present in all individuals and can be observed in very high densities without causing significant symptoms. Studies that support this viewpoint include the following: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2001;15:441–4 and J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2011;12:998-1007.
However, Dr. Forton pointed out that the normal, low-density presence of Demodex in the skin “does not contradict a pathogenic effect when it proliferates excessively or penetrates into the dermis. The absence of intense inflammatory symptoms when the Dd is very high does not negate its potential pathogenicity.”
Demodex proliferation could be a consequence rather than a cause. Dr. Forton cited a study, suggesting that inflammation could be responsible for alteration of the skin barrier, “which, secondarily, would favor proliferation of the parasites, as with skin affected by atopic dermatitis that becomes superinfected by Staphylococcus aureus”. On the other hand, she argued, “unlike S. aureus, Demodex does not require alteration of the skin barrier to implant or proliferate. It also does not require an inflammatory background.” She added that if mite proliferation was a consequence of clinical lesions, “the Demodex mite should logically proliferate in other inflammatory facial skin conditions, which is not the case.”
A Sept. 14 National Rosacea Society (NRS) press release featured the paper by Dr. Forton, titled, “Which Comes First, The Rosacea Blemish or The Mite?” In the release, Richard Gallo, MD, PhD, who chaired the NRS Expert Committee that updated the standard classification of rosacea in 2018, said that “growing knowledge of rosacea’s pathophysiology has established that a consistent multivariate disease process underlies its potential manifestations, and the clinical significance of each of these elements is increasing as more is understood.”
While the potential role of Demodex in rosacea has been controversial in the past, “these new insights suggest where it may play a role as a meaningful cofactor in the development of the disorder,” added Dr. Gallo, chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.
Dr. Forton reported having no financial disclosures.
FROM JEADV