Psoriasis

TOPLINE:

More gastrointestinal and nervous symptom adverse events (AEs) are linked to apremilast than deucravacitinib, which is associated with more cutaneous AEs, according to a retrospective comparison using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the adverse events associated with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor, and deucravacitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, data were drawn from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System database.
• The Medex_UIMA_1.8.3 system was used to standardize drug names, and MedDRA terminology was used to encode, categorize, and localize signals.
• AE event signals were grouped by skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, infections and infestations, and nervous system disorders.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 95,734 AE reports for apremilast and 760 AE reports for deucravacitinib, and AEs were found to be significant over time.
• The more common cutaneous AEs were psoriasis recurrence and acne (associated with apremilast) and skin burning and erythema (associated with deucravacitinib).
• The more common gastrointestinal AEs were diarrhea and nausea (apremilast) and mouth ulceration (deucravacitinib).
• Deucravacitinib-related pruritus and rash, as well as apremilast-related tension headache, were more common in women than men; deucravacitinib-related skin burning was more common in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “can help the doctors to choose the right treatment options based on the baseline characteristics of different patients,” said Yuanyuan Xu, a graduate student in the Department of Dermatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

SOURCE:

Mr. Xu presented the study as a poster at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis 2024 annual meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and cannot prove causality, and there were far fewer AE reports related to deucravacitinib, likely because the drug was introduced more recently.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no funding, and the authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

More gastrointestinal and nervous symptom adverse events (AEs) are linked to apremilast than deucravacitinib, which is associated with more cutaneous AEs, according to a retrospective comparison using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the adverse events associated with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor, and deucravacitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, data were drawn from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System database.
• The Medex_UIMA_1.8.3 system was used to standardize drug names, and MedDRA terminology was used to encode, categorize, and localize signals.
• AE event signals were grouped by skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, infections and infestations, and nervous system disorders.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 95,734 AE reports for apremilast and 760 AE reports for deucravacitinib, and AEs were found to be significant over time.
• The more common cutaneous AEs were psoriasis recurrence and acne (associated with apremilast) and skin burning and erythema (associated with deucravacitinib).
• The more common gastrointestinal AEs were diarrhea and nausea (apremilast) and mouth ulceration (deucravacitinib).
• Deucravacitinib-related pruritus and rash, as well as apremilast-related tension headache, were more common in women than men; deucravacitinib-related skin burning was more common in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “can help the doctors to choose the right treatment options based on the baseline characteristics of different patients,” said Yuanyuan Xu, a graduate student in the Department of Dermatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

SOURCE:

Mr. Xu presented the study as a poster at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis 2024 annual meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and cannot prove causality, and there were far fewer AE reports related to deucravacitinib, likely because the drug was introduced more recently.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no funding, and the authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

More gastrointestinal and nervous symptom adverse events (AEs) are linked to apremilast than deucravacitinib, which is associated with more cutaneous AEs, according to a retrospective comparison using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the adverse events associated with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor, and deucravacitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, data were drawn from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System database.
• The Medex_UIMA_1.8.3 system was used to standardize drug names, and MedDRA terminology was used to encode, categorize, and localize signals.
• AE event signals were grouped by skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, infections and infestations, and nervous system disorders.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 95,734 AE reports for apremilast and 760 AE reports for deucravacitinib, and AEs were found to be significant over time.
• The more common cutaneous AEs were psoriasis recurrence and acne (associated with apremilast) and skin burning and erythema (associated with deucravacitinib).
• The more common gastrointestinal AEs were diarrhea and nausea (apremilast) and mouth ulceration (deucravacitinib).
• Deucravacitinib-related pruritus and rash, as well as apremilast-related tension headache, were more common in women than men; deucravacitinib-related skin burning was more common in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “can help the doctors to choose the right treatment options based on the baseline characteristics of different patients,” said Yuanyuan Xu, a graduate student in the Department of Dermatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

SOURCE:

Mr. Xu presented the study as a poster at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis 2024 annual meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and cannot prove causality, and there were far fewer AE reports related to deucravacitinib, likely because the drug was introduced more recently.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no funding, and the authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) do not differ significantly among individual biologics used for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a database analysis finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
• The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
• Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
• There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.

IN PRACTICE:

Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SOURCE:

Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

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

TOPLINE:

Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) do not differ significantly among individual biologics used for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a database analysis finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
• The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
• Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
• There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.

IN PRACTICE:

Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SOURCE:

Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

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

TOPLINE:

Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) do not differ significantly among individual biologics used for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a database analysis finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
• The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
• Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
• There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.

IN PRACTICE:

Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SOURCE:

Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

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

SEATTLE — Tissue resident memory (TRM) T cells are a hot topic lately in the treatment of psoriasis. These cells reside in the skin and other tissues and promote the inflammatory response, likely contributing to psoriasis symptoms. In fact, flare-ups often recur at the same site, a phenomenon that might be driven by these resident memory cells, according to Liv Eidsmo, MD, PhD.

This has led to their use as biomarkers in clinical trials for new therapies, but TRM T cells have a complex biology that is far from fully understood, Dr. Eidsmo said at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. “With time, we’re understanding that the regulation of the functionality is more complicated than we thought, so following these cells as a positive outcome of a clinical trial is a little bit premature,” said Dr. Eidsmo, who is a consultant dermatologist at the University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Treatment strategies focus on inhibition of interleukin (IL)-23, which is an activator of TRM T cells and probably keeps them alive, according to Dr. Eidsmo. “The hope is that these cells can be silenced by IL-23 inhibition, which is a great idea, and it probably works. It’s just a matter of what is the readout of long-term remission, because the big challenge in the clinical world is when do we stop these expensive biological treatments? When can we feel secure that patients are in deep remission?” she asked.

TRM cells are also far from the only immune cells involved in psoriasis. Others include keratinocytes, Langerhans cells, and fibroblasts. Dr. Eidsmo referenced a recent spatial analysis that used single-cell and spatial RNA sequencing to identify the localization of specific cell populations and inflammatory pathways within psoriasis lesions and epidermal compartments as well as also suggested crosstalk links between cell types. Epigenetic changes in stem cells may also maintain a lower threshold for tissue inflammation.

Dr. Eidsmo advised caution in eliminating TRM T cells, which play a key role in protecting against melanoma and other cancers, especially later in life. “We don’t want to get rid of them. We want to have the right balance.”

She noted a study in her own lab that mapped TRM T cells in healthy epidermis and found that they could be renewed from both circulating precursors and cells within the epidermis. “So getting rid of the mature TRM T cells will most likely just lead to a new generation of the same subset.”

Other data show that there are a wide range of subsets of TRM T cells, and she recommended focusing on the functionality of TRM T cells rather than sheer numbers. “This is something we’re working on now: Can we change the functionality [of TRM T cells], rather than eradicate them and hope for the best in the next generation? Can we change the functionality of the T cells we already have in the skin?”

There is also epigenetic data in TRM T cells, keratinocytes, stem cells, and other cells thus suggesting complexity and plasticity in the system that remains poorly understood. 

Taken together, the research is at too early of a stage to be clinically useful, said Dr. Eidsmo. “We need to go back to the drawing board and just realize what we need to measure, and with the new techniques coming out, maybe spatial [measurement] at a high resolution, we can find biomarkers that better dictate the future of this. Be a little bit wary when you read the outcomes from the clinical trials that are ongoing, because right now, it’s a bit of a race between different biologics. These cells are used as a readout of efficacy of the treatments, and we’re not quite there yet.”

During the Q&A session after the presentation, one audience member asked about the heterogeneity of cells found within the skin of patients with psoriasis and pointed out that many proinflammatory cells likely play a role in tumor control. Dr. Eidsmo responded that her group’s analysis of a large database of patients with metastatic melanoma found that a factor that is important to the development of TRM T cells was strongly correlated to survival in patients with metastatic melanoma receiving immune checkpoint blockade. “So we really don’t want to eradicate them,” she said.

Also during the Q&A, Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, commented about the need to understand the previous events that drove the creation of memory T cells. “For me, the question is about the hierarchy, the primacy of what really drives the memory. In the infectious world, we’re trained to think [that memory responses] are T cell driven memory, but I wonder whether you have an idea of whether the T cell is responding to other memories, particularly in the stroma. Because certainly in the arthropathies, we have really good evidence now of epigenetic change in the synovial stroma and subsets,” said Dr. McInnes, who is director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.

Dr. Eidsmo responded that she believes responses are different among different individuals. “We know too little about how these two systems interact with one another. I think the TRM T cells are very good at amplifying the stroma to recruit cells in. I think we need to think of two-step therapies. You need to normalize this [stromal] environment. How you can do that, I don’t know.”

Dr. McInnes agreed. “As a myeloid doctor, I strongly believe that perpetuators are innate and the adaptive is following on. But how do we test that? That’s really hard,” he said. 

Dr. Eidsmo did not list any disclosures. Dr. McInnes has financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Compugen, Cabaletta, Causeway, Dextera, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, Versus Arthritis, MRC, and UCB. 

SEATTLE — Tissue resident memory (TRM) T cells are a hot topic lately in the treatment of psoriasis. These cells reside in the skin and other tissues and promote the inflammatory response, likely contributing to psoriasis symptoms. In fact, flare-ups often recur at the same site, a phenomenon that might be driven by these resident memory cells, according to Liv Eidsmo, MD, PhD.

This has led to their use as biomarkers in clinical trials for new therapies, but TRM T cells have a complex biology that is far from fully understood, Dr. Eidsmo said at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. “With time, we’re understanding that the regulation of the functionality is more complicated than we thought, so following these cells as a positive outcome of a clinical trial is a little bit premature,” said Dr. Eidsmo, who is a consultant dermatologist at the University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Treatment strategies focus on inhibition of interleukin (IL)-23, which is an activator of TRM T cells and probably keeps them alive, according to Dr. Eidsmo. “The hope is that these cells can be silenced by IL-23 inhibition, which is a great idea, and it probably works. It’s just a matter of what is the readout of long-term remission, because the big challenge in the clinical world is when do we stop these expensive biological treatments? When can we feel secure that patients are in deep remission?” she asked.

TRM cells are also far from the only immune cells involved in psoriasis. Others include keratinocytes, Langerhans cells, and fibroblasts. Dr. Eidsmo referenced a recent spatial analysis that used single-cell and spatial RNA sequencing to identify the localization of specific cell populations and inflammatory pathways within psoriasis lesions and epidermal compartments as well as also suggested crosstalk links between cell types. Epigenetic changes in stem cells may also maintain a lower threshold for tissue inflammation.

Dr. Eidsmo advised caution in eliminating TRM T cells, which play a key role in protecting against melanoma and other cancers, especially later in life. “We don’t want to get rid of them. We want to have the right balance.”

She noted a study in her own lab that mapped TRM T cells in healthy epidermis and found that they could be renewed from both circulating precursors and cells within the epidermis. “So getting rid of the mature TRM T cells will most likely just lead to a new generation of the same subset.”

Other data show that there are a wide range of subsets of TRM T cells, and she recommended focusing on the functionality of TRM T cells rather than sheer numbers. “This is something we’re working on now: Can we change the functionality [of TRM T cells], rather than eradicate them and hope for the best in the next generation? Can we change the functionality of the T cells we already have in the skin?”

There is also epigenetic data in TRM T cells, keratinocytes, stem cells, and other cells thus suggesting complexity and plasticity in the system that remains poorly understood. 

Taken together, the research is at too early of a stage to be clinically useful, said Dr. Eidsmo. “We need to go back to the drawing board and just realize what we need to measure, and with the new techniques coming out, maybe spatial [measurement] at a high resolution, we can find biomarkers that better dictate the future of this. Be a little bit wary when you read the outcomes from the clinical trials that are ongoing, because right now, it’s a bit of a race between different biologics. These cells are used as a readout of efficacy of the treatments, and we’re not quite there yet.”

During the Q&A session after the presentation, one audience member asked about the heterogeneity of cells found within the skin of patients with psoriasis and pointed out that many proinflammatory cells likely play a role in tumor control. Dr. Eidsmo responded that her group’s analysis of a large database of patients with metastatic melanoma found that a factor that is important to the development of TRM T cells was strongly correlated to survival in patients with metastatic melanoma receiving immune checkpoint blockade. “So we really don’t want to eradicate them,” she said.

Also during the Q&A, Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, commented about the need to understand the previous events that drove the creation of memory T cells. “For me, the question is about the hierarchy, the primacy of what really drives the memory. In the infectious world, we’re trained to think [that memory responses] are T cell driven memory, but I wonder whether you have an idea of whether the T cell is responding to other memories, particularly in the stroma. Because certainly in the arthropathies, we have really good evidence now of epigenetic change in the synovial stroma and subsets,” said Dr. McInnes, who is director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.

Dr. Eidsmo responded that she believes responses are different among different individuals. “We know too little about how these two systems interact with one another. I think the TRM T cells are very good at amplifying the stroma to recruit cells in. I think we need to think of two-step therapies. You need to normalize this [stromal] environment. How you can do that, I don’t know.”

Dr. McInnes agreed. “As a myeloid doctor, I strongly believe that perpetuators are innate and the adaptive is following on. But how do we test that? That’s really hard,” he said. 

Dr. Eidsmo did not list any disclosures. Dr. McInnes has financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Compugen, Cabaletta, Causeway, Dextera, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, Versus Arthritis, MRC, and UCB. 

SEATTLE — Tissue resident memory (TRM) T cells are a hot topic lately in the treatment of psoriasis. These cells reside in the skin and other tissues and promote the inflammatory response, likely contributing to psoriasis symptoms. In fact, flare-ups often recur at the same site, a phenomenon that might be driven by these resident memory cells, according to Liv Eidsmo, MD, PhD.

This has led to their use as biomarkers in clinical trials for new therapies, but TRM T cells have a complex biology that is far from fully understood, Dr. Eidsmo said at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. “With time, we’re understanding that the regulation of the functionality is more complicated than we thought, so following these cells as a positive outcome of a clinical trial is a little bit premature,” said Dr. Eidsmo, who is a consultant dermatologist at the University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Treatment strategies focus on inhibition of interleukin (IL)-23, which is an activator of TRM T cells and probably keeps them alive, according to Dr. Eidsmo. “The hope is that these cells can be silenced by IL-23 inhibition, which is a great idea, and it probably works. It’s just a matter of what is the readout of long-term remission, because the big challenge in the clinical world is when do we stop these expensive biological treatments? When can we feel secure that patients are in deep remission?” she asked.

TRM cells are also far from the only immune cells involved in psoriasis. Others include keratinocytes, Langerhans cells, and fibroblasts. Dr. Eidsmo referenced a recent spatial analysis that used single-cell and spatial RNA sequencing to identify the localization of specific cell populations and inflammatory pathways within psoriasis lesions and epidermal compartments as well as also suggested crosstalk links between cell types. Epigenetic changes in stem cells may also maintain a lower threshold for tissue inflammation.

Dr. Eidsmo advised caution in eliminating TRM T cells, which play a key role in protecting against melanoma and other cancers, especially later in life. “We don’t want to get rid of them. We want to have the right balance.”

She noted a study in her own lab that mapped TRM T cells in healthy epidermis and found that they could be renewed from both circulating precursors and cells within the epidermis. “So getting rid of the mature TRM T cells will most likely just lead to a new generation of the same subset.”

Other data show that there are a wide range of subsets of TRM T cells, and she recommended focusing on the functionality of TRM T cells rather than sheer numbers. “This is something we’re working on now: Can we change the functionality [of TRM T cells], rather than eradicate them and hope for the best in the next generation? Can we change the functionality of the T cells we already have in the skin?”

There is also epigenetic data in TRM T cells, keratinocytes, stem cells, and other cells thus suggesting complexity and plasticity in the system that remains poorly understood. 

Taken together, the research is at too early of a stage to be clinically useful, said Dr. Eidsmo. “We need to go back to the drawing board and just realize what we need to measure, and with the new techniques coming out, maybe spatial [measurement] at a high resolution, we can find biomarkers that better dictate the future of this. Be a little bit wary when you read the outcomes from the clinical trials that are ongoing, because right now, it’s a bit of a race between different biologics. These cells are used as a readout of efficacy of the treatments, and we’re not quite there yet.”

During the Q&A session after the presentation, one audience member asked about the heterogeneity of cells found within the skin of patients with psoriasis and pointed out that many proinflammatory cells likely play a role in tumor control. Dr. Eidsmo responded that her group’s analysis of a large database of patients with metastatic melanoma found that a factor that is important to the development of TRM T cells was strongly correlated to survival in patients with metastatic melanoma receiving immune checkpoint blockade. “So we really don’t want to eradicate them,” she said.

Also during the Q&A, Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, commented about the need to understand the previous events that drove the creation of memory T cells. “For me, the question is about the hierarchy, the primacy of what really drives the memory. In the infectious world, we’re trained to think [that memory responses] are T cell driven memory, but I wonder whether you have an idea of whether the T cell is responding to other memories, particularly in the stroma. Because certainly in the arthropathies, we have really good evidence now of epigenetic change in the synovial stroma and subsets,” said Dr. McInnes, who is director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.

Dr. Eidsmo responded that she believes responses are different among different individuals. “We know too little about how these two systems interact with one another. I think the TRM T cells are very good at amplifying the stroma to recruit cells in. I think we need to think of two-step therapies. You need to normalize this [stromal] environment. How you can do that, I don’t know.”

Dr. McInnes agreed. “As a myeloid doctor, I strongly believe that perpetuators are innate and the adaptive is following on. But how do we test that? That’s really hard,” he said. 

Dr. Eidsmo did not list any disclosures. Dr. McInnes has financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Compugen, Cabaletta, Causeway, Dextera, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, Versus Arthritis, MRC, and UCB. 

SEATTLE — Musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms are common in patients with psoriasis, but should they be primarily handled by dermatologists or should rheumatologists be “in the driver’s seat?” That was the subject of a debate between a dermatologist and a rheumatologist at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Fabian Proft, MD, the rheumatologist, spoke first and emphasized the potential that MSK symptoms are a sign of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and therefore should be managed by a rheumatologist.

“Obviously, the rheumatologist perspective [is that] I should be in the driver’s seat when taking care of patient with psoriasis and MSK symptoms, but I will still need to have a copilot there: [The dermatologist] will have a slot,” said Dr. Proft, who is a rheumatologist at Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin.

“It’s so important that we make the correct and early diagnosis of [psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis] symptoms,” said Dr. Proft. He specifically called out cases where patients have symptoms that are difficult to determine, whether the cause is inflammatory, and when experience with imaging can be a key factor in the diagnosis.

It’s important not to overdiagnose or overtreat patients, he said, providing an example of a patient with psoriasis who had been training for a marathon. The MRI image suggested that his Achilles tendonitis pain was related to his athletic training, not PsA-associated inflammation. “So I think this is very important that you have the knowledge to read MRIs, and especially also carefully assessing them so as not to overdiagnose patients,” said Dr. Proft.

Dermatologist Rebuttal

In her rebuttal, Laura Savage, MD, PhD, emphasized the need for more of a coequal partnership between the two specialties because of the ability of dermatologists to intervene early in the treatment and prevention of PsA.

“Traditionally, I agree rheumatologists would solely be responsible for the assessment and the management of psoriatic arthritis, but I think that paradigm has shifted in part due to the increased recognition of the need for earlier intervention to limit disease progression and to reduce or even prevent functional limitation,” said Dr. Savage, who is a consultant dermatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and a senior lecturer at the University of Leeds, Leeds, England.

Ideally, molecular biomarkers would be available to predict the development of PsA, but there aren’t any. Still, “we have a huge biomarker in the form of the skin, and it’s recognized that the majority of patients who will develop psoriatic arthritis will have antecedent psoriasis in about 70% of cases,” Dr. Savage said. “There’s a typical time delay of around 7-12 years between the onset of the skin [disease] and the patients developing psoriatic arthritis, and so many of them are going to be into the care of other healthcare practitioners, and particularly the care of dermatologists.”

Dermatologists may also be able to play a role in the prevention of PsA, according to Dr. Savage. In one retrospective study, treatment of skin lesions with biologics was associated with a reduced frequency of progression to PsA (11.1% vs 16.4%) over 10 years (P = .0006). Studies with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and other interventions have shown similar results.

Such findings have led to the treat intercept strategy, which targets patients with psoriasis who have risk factors for transition to PsA — such as nail pitting, gluteal cleft disease, scalp disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and a first-degree relative with PsA — as well as symptoms of prodromal PSA, such as arthralgia and fatigue.

“I think dermatologists are aware of the need to not leave our patients languishing on these therapies and actually escalating them onto effective treatments that may also be able to treat early psoriatic arthritis. We could be more mindful about our choice of treatments for these patients, going on to thinking about their increased risk of PSA and trying to intercept,” Dr. Savage said. “What we don’t want is our patients to be developing these musculoskeletal symptoms of pain and stiffness and functional limitation and disability. We want to be treating the patients with musculoskeletal symptoms of that earlier prodromal phase when they’re developing arthralgia and fatigue.”

She conceded that more complicated patients are good candidates for care by the rheumatologist. “You can do your fancy imaging, and we’ll leave that to you, and the difficult-to-treat patients to [the rheumatologist], but actually we need to just get on and treat them,” she said. “One could argue as well that as a dermatologist, I’m likely to broaden my horizons in terms of choice of therapy and treat all of the domains of the patient. So I would argue that actually it should be the dermatologist who is in that driving seat, particularly when it comes to the management of early psoriatic arthritis, and actually what we should be doing is driving our patients and steering them to earlier intervention and better control for all domains of disease.”
 

Collaborative Care

During the follow-up discussion, both Dr. Proft and Dr. Savage agreed that dermatologists and rheumatologists should be working together in managing patients. “What we need to do is steer our patients toward collaborative care with our rheumatologists by trying to minimize delays to treatment, by working together in parallel clinics, combined clinics, and on virtual [multidisciplinary teams],” said Dr. Savage.

Dr. Proft agreed. “We should join forces and make decisions together.”

Dr. Savage and Dr. Proft did not provide any financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SEATTLE — Musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms are common in patients with psoriasis, but should they be primarily handled by dermatologists or should rheumatologists be “in the driver’s seat?” That was the subject of a debate between a dermatologist and a rheumatologist at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Fabian Proft, MD, the rheumatologist, spoke first and emphasized the potential that MSK symptoms are a sign of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and therefore should be managed by a rheumatologist.

“Obviously, the rheumatologist perspective [is that] I should be in the driver’s seat when taking care of patient with psoriasis and MSK symptoms, but I will still need to have a copilot there: [The dermatologist] will have a slot,” said Dr. Proft, who is a rheumatologist at Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin.

“It’s so important that we make the correct and early diagnosis of [psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis] symptoms,” said Dr. Proft. He specifically called out cases where patients have symptoms that are difficult to determine, whether the cause is inflammatory, and when experience with imaging can be a key factor in the diagnosis.

It’s important not to overdiagnose or overtreat patients, he said, providing an example of a patient with psoriasis who had been training for a marathon. The MRI image suggested that his Achilles tendonitis pain was related to his athletic training, not PsA-associated inflammation. “So I think this is very important that you have the knowledge to read MRIs, and especially also carefully assessing them so as not to overdiagnose patients,” said Dr. Proft.

Dermatologist Rebuttal

In her rebuttal, Laura Savage, MD, PhD, emphasized the need for more of a coequal partnership between the two specialties because of the ability of dermatologists to intervene early in the treatment and prevention of PsA.

“Traditionally, I agree rheumatologists would solely be responsible for the assessment and the management of psoriatic arthritis, but I think that paradigm has shifted in part due to the increased recognition of the need for earlier intervention to limit disease progression and to reduce or even prevent functional limitation,” said Dr. Savage, who is a consultant dermatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and a senior lecturer at the University of Leeds, Leeds, England.

Ideally, molecular biomarkers would be available to predict the development of PsA, but there aren’t any. Still, “we have a huge biomarker in the form of the skin, and it’s recognized that the majority of patients who will develop psoriatic arthritis will have antecedent psoriasis in about 70% of cases,” Dr. Savage said. “There’s a typical time delay of around 7-12 years between the onset of the skin [disease] and the patients developing psoriatic arthritis, and so many of them are going to be into the care of other healthcare practitioners, and particularly the care of dermatologists.”

Dermatologists may also be able to play a role in the prevention of PsA, according to Dr. Savage. In one retrospective study, treatment of skin lesions with biologics was associated with a reduced frequency of progression to PsA (11.1% vs 16.4%) over 10 years (P = .0006). Studies with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and other interventions have shown similar results.

Such findings have led to the treat intercept strategy, which targets patients with psoriasis who have risk factors for transition to PsA — such as nail pitting, gluteal cleft disease, scalp disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and a first-degree relative with PsA — as well as symptoms of prodromal PSA, such as arthralgia and fatigue.

“I think dermatologists are aware of the need to not leave our patients languishing on these therapies and actually escalating them onto effective treatments that may also be able to treat early psoriatic arthritis. We could be more mindful about our choice of treatments for these patients, going on to thinking about their increased risk of PSA and trying to intercept,” Dr. Savage said. “What we don’t want is our patients to be developing these musculoskeletal symptoms of pain and stiffness and functional limitation and disability. We want to be treating the patients with musculoskeletal symptoms of that earlier prodromal phase when they’re developing arthralgia and fatigue.”

She conceded that more complicated patients are good candidates for care by the rheumatologist. “You can do your fancy imaging, and we’ll leave that to you, and the difficult-to-treat patients to [the rheumatologist], but actually we need to just get on and treat them,” she said. “One could argue as well that as a dermatologist, I’m likely to broaden my horizons in terms of choice of therapy and treat all of the domains of the patient. So I would argue that actually it should be the dermatologist who is in that driving seat, particularly when it comes to the management of early psoriatic arthritis, and actually what we should be doing is driving our patients and steering them to earlier intervention and better control for all domains of disease.”
 

Collaborative Care

During the follow-up discussion, both Dr. Proft and Dr. Savage agreed that dermatologists and rheumatologists should be working together in managing patients. “What we need to do is steer our patients toward collaborative care with our rheumatologists by trying to minimize delays to treatment, by working together in parallel clinics, combined clinics, and on virtual [multidisciplinary teams],” said Dr. Savage.

Dr. Proft agreed. “We should join forces and make decisions together.”

Dr. Savage and Dr. Proft did not provide any financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SEATTLE — Musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms are common in patients with psoriasis, but should they be primarily handled by dermatologists or should rheumatologists be “in the driver’s seat?” That was the subject of a debate between a dermatologist and a rheumatologist at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Fabian Proft, MD, the rheumatologist, spoke first and emphasized the potential that MSK symptoms are a sign of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and therefore should be managed by a rheumatologist.

“Obviously, the rheumatologist perspective [is that] I should be in the driver’s seat when taking care of patient with psoriasis and MSK symptoms, but I will still need to have a copilot there: [The dermatologist] will have a slot,” said Dr. Proft, who is a rheumatologist at Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin.

“It’s so important that we make the correct and early diagnosis of [psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis] symptoms,” said Dr. Proft. He specifically called out cases where patients have symptoms that are difficult to determine, whether the cause is inflammatory, and when experience with imaging can be a key factor in the diagnosis.

It’s important not to overdiagnose or overtreat patients, he said, providing an example of a patient with psoriasis who had been training for a marathon. The MRI image suggested that his Achilles tendonitis pain was related to his athletic training, not PsA-associated inflammation. “So I think this is very important that you have the knowledge to read MRIs, and especially also carefully assessing them so as not to overdiagnose patients,” said Dr. Proft.

Dermatologist Rebuttal

In her rebuttal, Laura Savage, MD, PhD, emphasized the need for more of a coequal partnership between the two specialties because of the ability of dermatologists to intervene early in the treatment and prevention of PsA.

“Traditionally, I agree rheumatologists would solely be responsible for the assessment and the management of psoriatic arthritis, but I think that paradigm has shifted in part due to the increased recognition of the need for earlier intervention to limit disease progression and to reduce or even prevent functional limitation,” said Dr. Savage, who is a consultant dermatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and a senior lecturer at the University of Leeds, Leeds, England.

Ideally, molecular biomarkers would be available to predict the development of PsA, but there aren’t any. Still, “we have a huge biomarker in the form of the skin, and it’s recognized that the majority of patients who will develop psoriatic arthritis will have antecedent psoriasis in about 70% of cases,” Dr. Savage said. “There’s a typical time delay of around 7-12 years between the onset of the skin [disease] and the patients developing psoriatic arthritis, and so many of them are going to be into the care of other healthcare practitioners, and particularly the care of dermatologists.”

Dermatologists may also be able to play a role in the prevention of PsA, according to Dr. Savage. In one retrospective study, treatment of skin lesions with biologics was associated with a reduced frequency of progression to PsA (11.1% vs 16.4%) over 10 years (P = .0006). Studies with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and other interventions have shown similar results.

Such findings have led to the treat intercept strategy, which targets patients with psoriasis who have risk factors for transition to PsA — such as nail pitting, gluteal cleft disease, scalp disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and a first-degree relative with PsA — as well as symptoms of prodromal PSA, such as arthralgia and fatigue.

“I think dermatologists are aware of the need to not leave our patients languishing on these therapies and actually escalating them onto effective treatments that may also be able to treat early psoriatic arthritis. We could be more mindful about our choice of treatments for these patients, going on to thinking about their increased risk of PSA and trying to intercept,” Dr. Savage said. “What we don’t want is our patients to be developing these musculoskeletal symptoms of pain and stiffness and functional limitation and disability. We want to be treating the patients with musculoskeletal symptoms of that earlier prodromal phase when they’re developing arthralgia and fatigue.”

She conceded that more complicated patients are good candidates for care by the rheumatologist. “You can do your fancy imaging, and we’ll leave that to you, and the difficult-to-treat patients to [the rheumatologist], but actually we need to just get on and treat them,” she said. “One could argue as well that as a dermatologist, I’m likely to broaden my horizons in terms of choice of therapy and treat all of the domains of the patient. So I would argue that actually it should be the dermatologist who is in that driving seat, particularly when it comes to the management of early psoriatic arthritis, and actually what we should be doing is driving our patients and steering them to earlier intervention and better control for all domains of disease.”
 

Collaborative Care

During the follow-up discussion, both Dr. Proft and Dr. Savage agreed that dermatologists and rheumatologists should be working together in managing patients. “What we need to do is steer our patients toward collaborative care with our rheumatologists by trying to minimize delays to treatment, by working together in parallel clinics, combined clinics, and on virtual [multidisciplinary teams],” said Dr. Savage.

Dr. Proft agreed. “We should join forces and make decisions together.”

Dr. Savage and Dr. Proft did not provide any financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-ttwe (Pyzchiva) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of multiple inflammatory conditions.

In addition, the agency “provisionally determined” that the medication would be interchangeable with the reference product but that designation would not take hold until the interchangeability exclusivity period for the first approved biosimilar ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana) expires, according to a press release. This designation would, depending on state law, allow a pharmacist to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician. It’s unclear when ustekinumab-auub’s interchangeability exclusivity ends.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Ustekinumab-ttwe, a human interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 antagonist, is indicated for the treatment of:

• Moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy 
• Active psoriatic arthritis in adults and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis

It is administered via subcutaneous injection in 45 mg/0.5 mL and 90 mg/mL prefilled syringes or via intravenous infusion in 130 mg/26 mL (5 mg/mL) single-dose vial. 

Developed by Samsung Bioepis, ustekinumab-ttwe will be commercialized by Sandoz in the United States. Besides ustekinumab-auub, the other ustekinumab biosimilar is ustekinumab-aekn (Selarsdi).

Ustekinumab-ttwe is expected to launch in February 2025 “in accordance with the settlement and license agreement with Janssen Biotech,” which manufacturers the reference product, Sandoz said. The other approved ustekinumab biosimilars will launch within a similar time frame.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-ttwe (Pyzchiva) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of multiple inflammatory conditions.

In addition, the agency “provisionally determined” that the medication would be interchangeable with the reference product but that designation would not take hold until the interchangeability exclusivity period for the first approved biosimilar ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana) expires, according to a press release. This designation would, depending on state law, allow a pharmacist to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician. It’s unclear when ustekinumab-auub’s interchangeability exclusivity ends.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Ustekinumab-ttwe, a human interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 antagonist, is indicated for the treatment of:

• Moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy 
• Active psoriatic arthritis in adults and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis

It is administered via subcutaneous injection in 45 mg/0.5 mL and 90 mg/mL prefilled syringes or via intravenous infusion in 130 mg/26 mL (5 mg/mL) single-dose vial. 

Developed by Samsung Bioepis, ustekinumab-ttwe will be commercialized by Sandoz in the United States. Besides ustekinumab-auub, the other ustekinumab biosimilar is ustekinumab-aekn (Selarsdi).

Ustekinumab-ttwe is expected to launch in February 2025 “in accordance with the settlement and license agreement with Janssen Biotech,” which manufacturers the reference product, Sandoz said. The other approved ustekinumab biosimilars will launch within a similar time frame.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-ttwe (Pyzchiva) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of multiple inflammatory conditions.

In addition, the agency “provisionally determined” that the medication would be interchangeable with the reference product but that designation would not take hold until the interchangeability exclusivity period for the first approved biosimilar ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana) expires, according to a press release. This designation would, depending on state law, allow a pharmacist to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician. It’s unclear when ustekinumab-auub’s interchangeability exclusivity ends.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Ustekinumab-ttwe, a human interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 antagonist, is indicated for the treatment of:

• Moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy 
• Active psoriatic arthritis in adults and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis

It is administered via subcutaneous injection in 45 mg/0.5 mL and 90 mg/mL prefilled syringes or via intravenous infusion in 130 mg/26 mL (5 mg/mL) single-dose vial. 

Developed by Samsung Bioepis, ustekinumab-ttwe will be commercialized by Sandoz in the United States. Besides ustekinumab-auub, the other ustekinumab biosimilar is ustekinumab-aekn (Selarsdi).

Ustekinumab-ttwe is expected to launch in February 2025 “in accordance with the settlement and license agreement with Janssen Biotech,” which manufacturers the reference product, Sandoz said. The other approved ustekinumab biosimilars will launch within a similar time frame.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Practice Gap

The Wood lamp commonly is used as a diagnostic tool for pigmentary skin conditions (eg, vitiligo) or skin conditions that exhibit fluorescence (eg, erythrasma).¹ Recently, its diagnostic efficacy has extended to scabies, in which it unveils a distinctive wavy, bluish-white, linear fluorescence upon illumination.²

Functionally, the Wood lamp operates by subjecting phosphors to UV light within the wavelength range of 320 to 400 nm, inducing fluorescence in substances such as collagen and elastin. In the context of vitiligo, this process manifests as a preferential chalk white fluorescence in areas lacking melanin.¹

Despite its demonstrated effectiveness, the Wood lamp is not without limitations. It comes with a notable financial investment ranging from $70 to $500, requires periodic maintenance such as light bulb replacements, and can be unwieldy.³ Furthermore, its reliance on a power source poses a challenge in settings where immediate access to convenient power outlets is limited, such as inpatient and rural dermatology clinics. These limitations underscore the need for alternative solutions and innovations to address challenges and ensure accessibility in diverse health care environments.

The Tools

Free smartphone applications (apps), such as Ultraviolet Light-UV Lamp by AppBrain or Blacklight UV Light Simulator by That Smile, can simulate UV light and functionally serve as a Wood lamp.

The Technique

UV light apps use LED or organic LED screen pixels to emit a blue light equivalent at 467 nm.⁴ Although these apps are not designed specifically for dermatologic uses, they are mostly free, widely available for Android and iPhone users, and portable. Importantly, they can demonstrate good performance in visualizing vitiligo, as shown in Figure 1—albeit perhaps not reaching the same level as the Wood lamp (Figure 2).

Because these UV light apps are not regulated and their efficacy for medical use has not been firmly established, the Wood lamp remains the gold standard. Therefore, we propose the use of UV light apps in situations when a Wood lamp is not available or convenient, such as in rural, inpatient, or international health care settings.

Practice Implications

Exploring and adopting these free alternatives can contribute to improved accessibility and diagnostic capabilities in diverse health care environments, particularly for communities facing financial constraints. Continued research and validation of these apps in clinical settings will be essential to establish their reliability and effectiveness in enhancing diagnostic practices.

Practice Gap

The Wood lamp commonly is used as a diagnostic tool for pigmentary skin conditions (eg, vitiligo) or skin conditions that exhibit fluorescence (eg, erythrasma).¹ Recently, its diagnostic efficacy has extended to scabies, in which it unveils a distinctive wavy, bluish-white, linear fluorescence upon illumination.²

Functionally, the Wood lamp operates by subjecting phosphors to UV light within the wavelength range of 320 to 400 nm, inducing fluorescence in substances such as collagen and elastin. In the context of vitiligo, this process manifests as a preferential chalk white fluorescence in areas lacking melanin.¹

Despite its demonstrated effectiveness, the Wood lamp is not without limitations. It comes with a notable financial investment ranging from $70 to $500, requires periodic maintenance such as light bulb replacements, and can be unwieldy.³ Furthermore, its reliance on a power source poses a challenge in settings where immediate access to convenient power outlets is limited, such as inpatient and rural dermatology clinics. These limitations underscore the need for alternative solutions and innovations to address challenges and ensure accessibility in diverse health care environments.

The Tools

Free smartphone applications (apps), such as Ultraviolet Light-UV Lamp by AppBrain or Blacklight UV Light Simulator by That Smile, can simulate UV light and functionally serve as a Wood lamp.

The Technique

UV light apps use LED or organic LED screen pixels to emit a blue light equivalent at 467 nm.⁴ Although these apps are not designed specifically for dermatologic uses, they are mostly free, widely available for Android and iPhone users, and portable. Importantly, they can demonstrate good performance in visualizing vitiligo, as shown in Figure 1—albeit perhaps not reaching the same level as the Wood lamp (Figure 2).

Because these UV light apps are not regulated and their efficacy for medical use has not been firmly established, the Wood lamp remains the gold standard. Therefore, we propose the use of UV light apps in situations when a Wood lamp is not available or convenient, such as in rural, inpatient, or international health care settings.

Practice Implications

Exploring and adopting these free alternatives can contribute to improved accessibility and diagnostic capabilities in diverse health care environments, particularly for communities facing financial constraints. Continued research and validation of these apps in clinical settings will be essential to establish their reliability and effectiveness in enhancing diagnostic practices.

Practice Gap

The Wood lamp commonly is used as a diagnostic tool for pigmentary skin conditions (eg, vitiligo) or skin conditions that exhibit fluorescence (eg, erythrasma).¹ Recently, its diagnostic efficacy has extended to scabies, in which it unveils a distinctive wavy, bluish-white, linear fluorescence upon illumination.²

Functionally, the Wood lamp operates by subjecting phosphors to UV light within the wavelength range of 320 to 400 nm, inducing fluorescence in substances such as collagen and elastin. In the context of vitiligo, this process manifests as a preferential chalk white fluorescence in areas lacking melanin.¹

Despite its demonstrated effectiveness, the Wood lamp is not without limitations. It comes with a notable financial investment ranging from $70 to $500, requires periodic maintenance such as light bulb replacements, and can be unwieldy.³ Furthermore, its reliance on a power source poses a challenge in settings where immediate access to convenient power outlets is limited, such as inpatient and rural dermatology clinics. These limitations underscore the need for alternative solutions and innovations to address challenges and ensure accessibility in diverse health care environments.

The Tools

Free smartphone applications (apps), such as Ultraviolet Light-UV Lamp by AppBrain or Blacklight UV Light Simulator by That Smile, can simulate UV light and functionally serve as a Wood lamp.

The Technique

UV light apps use LED or organic LED screen pixels to emit a blue light equivalent at 467 nm.⁴ Although these apps are not designed specifically for dermatologic uses, they are mostly free, widely available for Android and iPhone users, and portable. Importantly, they can demonstrate good performance in visualizing vitiligo, as shown in Figure 1—albeit perhaps not reaching the same level as the Wood lamp (Figure 2).

Because these UV light apps are not regulated and their efficacy for medical use has not been firmly established, the Wood lamp remains the gold standard. Therefore, we propose the use of UV light apps in situations when a Wood lamp is not available or convenient, such as in rural, inpatient, or international health care settings.

Practice Implications

Exploring and adopting these free alternatives can contribute to improved accessibility and diagnostic capabilities in diverse health care environments, particularly for communities facing financial constraints. Continued research and validation of these apps in clinical settings will be essential to establish their reliability and effectiveness in enhancing diagnostic practices.

Over a period of 5 years, the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with psoriasis and dyslipidemia who were on statin therapy was 40% greater than that in non-psoriasis patients with dyslipidemia on statin therapy, even after adjusting for covariates, results from a large retrospective study showed.

“It is well-established that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for the development of MACE, with cardiometabolic risk factors being more prevalent and incident among patients with psoriasis,” the study’s first author Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, a dermatology research fellow at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview after the annual meeting of the Society for Investigational Dermatology, where the study was presented during a late-breaking abstract session.

Dr. Ormaza Vera

Current guidelines from the joint American Academy of Dermatology/National Psoriasis Foundation and the American Academy of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force recommend statins, a lipid-lowering and anti-inflammatory therapy, “for patients with psoriasis who have additional risk-enhancing factors, similar to recommendations made for the general population without psoriasis,” she noted. But how the incidence of MACE differs between patients with and without psoriasis while on statin therapy “has not been explored in real-world settings,” she added.

To address this question, the researchers used real-world data from the TriNetX health research network to identify individuals aged 18-90 years with a diagnosis of both psoriasis and lipid disorders who were undergoing treatment with statins. Those with a prior history of MACE were excluded from the analysis. Patients with lipid disorders on statin therapy, but without psoriatic disease, were matched 1:1 by age, sex, race, ethnicity, common risk factors for MACE, and medications shown to reduce MACE risk. The researchers then assessed the cohorts 5 years following their first statin prescription and used the TriNetX analytics tool to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI to evaluate the likelihood of MACE in the presence of statin therapy.

Dr. Ormaza Vera and colleagues identified 20,660 patients with psoriasis and 2,768,429 patients without psoriasis who met the criteria for analysis. After propensity score matching, each cohort included 20,660 patients with a mean age of 60 years. During the 5-year observation period, 2725 patients in the psoriasis cohort experienced MACE compared with 2203 patients in the non-psoriasis cohort (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.317-1.488).

“This was an unexpected outcome that challenges the current understanding and highlights the need for further research into tailored treatments for cardiovascular risk in psoriasis patients,” Dr. Ormaza Vera told this news organization.

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective design, the inherent limitations of an observational study, and the use of electronic medical record data.

Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that the findings imply that there is more than statin use alone to protect someone with psoriasis from having an increased risk for MACE. “This is not really surprising because statin use alone is only part of a prevention strategy in someone with psoriasis who usually has multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Green said. “On the other hand, the study only went out for 5 years and cardiovascular disease is a long accumulating process, so it could also be too early to demonstrate MACE prevention.”

The study was funded by a grant from the American Skin Association. Dr. Ormaza Vera and her coauthors reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Over a period of 5 years, the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with psoriasis and dyslipidemia who were on statin therapy was 40% greater than that in non-psoriasis patients with dyslipidemia on statin therapy, even after adjusting for covariates, results from a large retrospective study showed.

“It is well-established that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for the development of MACE, with cardiometabolic risk factors being more prevalent and incident among patients with psoriasis,” the study’s first author Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, a dermatology research fellow at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview after the annual meeting of the Society for Investigational Dermatology, where the study was presented during a late-breaking abstract session.

Dr. Ormaza Vera

Current guidelines from the joint American Academy of Dermatology/National Psoriasis Foundation and the American Academy of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force recommend statins, a lipid-lowering and anti-inflammatory therapy, “for patients with psoriasis who have additional risk-enhancing factors, similar to recommendations made for the general population without psoriasis,” she noted. But how the incidence of MACE differs between patients with and without psoriasis while on statin therapy “has not been explored in real-world settings,” she added.

To address this question, the researchers used real-world data from the TriNetX health research network to identify individuals aged 18-90 years with a diagnosis of both psoriasis and lipid disorders who were undergoing treatment with statins. Those with a prior history of MACE were excluded from the analysis. Patients with lipid disorders on statin therapy, but without psoriatic disease, were matched 1:1 by age, sex, race, ethnicity, common risk factors for MACE, and medications shown to reduce MACE risk. The researchers then assessed the cohorts 5 years following their first statin prescription and used the TriNetX analytics tool to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI to evaluate the likelihood of MACE in the presence of statin therapy.

Dr. Ormaza Vera and colleagues identified 20,660 patients with psoriasis and 2,768,429 patients without psoriasis who met the criteria for analysis. After propensity score matching, each cohort included 20,660 patients with a mean age of 60 years. During the 5-year observation period, 2725 patients in the psoriasis cohort experienced MACE compared with 2203 patients in the non-psoriasis cohort (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.317-1.488).

“This was an unexpected outcome that challenges the current understanding and highlights the need for further research into tailored treatments for cardiovascular risk in psoriasis patients,” Dr. Ormaza Vera told this news organization.

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective design, the inherent limitations of an observational study, and the use of electronic medical record data.

Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that the findings imply that there is more than statin use alone to protect someone with psoriasis from having an increased risk for MACE. “This is not really surprising because statin use alone is only part of a prevention strategy in someone with psoriasis who usually has multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Green said. “On the other hand, the study only went out for 5 years and cardiovascular disease is a long accumulating process, so it could also be too early to demonstrate MACE prevention.”

The study was funded by a grant from the American Skin Association. Dr. Ormaza Vera and her coauthors reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Over a period of 5 years, the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with psoriasis and dyslipidemia who were on statin therapy was 40% greater than that in non-psoriasis patients with dyslipidemia on statin therapy, even after adjusting for covariates, results from a large retrospective study showed.

“It is well-established that psoriasis is an independent risk factor for the development of MACE, with cardiometabolic risk factors being more prevalent and incident among patients with psoriasis,” the study’s first author Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, a dermatology research fellow at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview after the annual meeting of the Society for Investigational Dermatology, where the study was presented during a late-breaking abstract session.

Dr. Ormaza Vera

Current guidelines from the joint American Academy of Dermatology/National Psoriasis Foundation and the American Academy of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force recommend statins, a lipid-lowering and anti-inflammatory therapy, “for patients with psoriasis who have additional risk-enhancing factors, similar to recommendations made for the general population without psoriasis,” she noted. But how the incidence of MACE differs between patients with and without psoriasis while on statin therapy “has not been explored in real-world settings,” she added.

To address this question, the researchers used real-world data from the TriNetX health research network to identify individuals aged 18-90 years with a diagnosis of both psoriasis and lipid disorders who were undergoing treatment with statins. Those with a prior history of MACE were excluded from the analysis. Patients with lipid disorders on statin therapy, but without psoriatic disease, were matched 1:1 by age, sex, race, ethnicity, common risk factors for MACE, and medications shown to reduce MACE risk. The researchers then assessed the cohorts 5 years following their first statin prescription and used the TriNetX analytics tool to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI to evaluate the likelihood of MACE in the presence of statin therapy.

Dr. Ormaza Vera and colleagues identified 20,660 patients with psoriasis and 2,768,429 patients without psoriasis who met the criteria for analysis. After propensity score matching, each cohort included 20,660 patients with a mean age of 60 years. During the 5-year observation period, 2725 patients in the psoriasis cohort experienced MACE compared with 2203 patients in the non-psoriasis cohort (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.317-1.488).

“This was an unexpected outcome that challenges the current understanding and highlights the need for further research into tailored treatments for cardiovascular risk in psoriasis patients,” Dr. Ormaza Vera told this news organization.

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its retrospective design, the inherent limitations of an observational study, and the use of electronic medical record data.

Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that the findings imply that there is more than statin use alone to protect someone with psoriasis from having an increased risk for MACE. “This is not really surprising because statin use alone is only part of a prevention strategy in someone with psoriasis who usually has multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Green said. “On the other hand, the study only went out for 5 years and cardiovascular disease is a long accumulating process, so it could also be too early to demonstrate MACE prevention.”

The study was funded by a grant from the American Skin Association. Dr. Ormaza Vera and her coauthors reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Supporters of home phototherapy for patients with plaque and guttate psoriasis had plenty to cheer about at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in March. There, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, presented results from the LITE study, a trial that tested the hypothesis that narrowband ultraviolet B phototherapy of psoriasis at home is noninferior to office treatment, based on outcomes that matter to patients, clinicians, and payers. While smaller studies have drawn similar conclusions, LITE was the largest trial of its kind to show what many dermatologists have suspected for years: Home phototherapy can be an effective first-line treatment for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

The co-primary outcomes in the LITE study were a Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) score of 0/1 (clear, almost clear) and a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 5 or less (small, no effect on health-related quality of life).

Dr. Gelfand and colleagues at 42 sites in the United States enrolled 783 patients aged 12 years and older who had plaque or guttate psoriasis and were candidates for phototherapy at home or in an office setting. Following 12 weeks of treatment, 25.6% of patients in the office-based phototherapy group achieved a PGA score of 0/1 compared with 32.8% of patients in the home-based phototherapy group (P > .0001 for noninferiority, non-response imputation for missing data). Similarly, 33.6% of patients in the office-based phototherapy group achieved a DLQI score of 5 or less compared with 52.4% of patients in the home-based phototherapy group (P > .0001 for noninferiority, non-response imputation for missing data).

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

A Safe and Effective Option

“I think that it’s important for physicians, insurance companies, and patients with psoriasis to understand that this is a very safe and effective form of therapy,” Craig A. Elmets, MD, professor of dermatology at The University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview. “For people who are not interested in systemic medications or who have contraindications to systemic medications, phototherapy would be ideal,” added Dr. Elmets, first author of the joint AAD–National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) guidelines for the management and treatment of psoriasis with phototherapy, published in 2019.

Factors beyond efficacy support the role of home phototherapy, Dr. Gelfand said, including the fact that it costs 10-100 times less than biologics for psoriasis and that office-based phototherapy is not available in 90% of counties in the United States. However, insurance coverage of home phototherapy “is highly variable because until the LITE study, there was no large-scale US data to support its use,” he told this news organization.

“Also, insurance companies are broken up into two parts: Durable medical goods and the medical side such as pharmacy costs, and they are siloed. The durable medical goods side views phototherapy as expensive, while the pharmacy side views it as dirt cheap. This is part of the problem with our health system. A lot of things are siloed and don’t make any sense,” said Dr. Gelfand, director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at the University of Pennsylvania. By working with the NPF and payers, he added, “we’re hoping ... to transform the way insurance companies think about covering home phototherapy.”

In the meantime, he and Dr. Elmets shared practical ways to optimize access to home phototherapy for psoriasis patients:

Have the discussion. Patients “rarely bring this up as an option,” Dr. Elmets said, so the onus is on clinicians to talk about it. In his view, the ideal candidate “is averse to using systemic agents but whose disease is beyond the point where topical medicines alone will work. One of the advantages of phototherapy is that it doesn’t have immunosuppressive effects.”

Clinicians and patients can learn about the efficacy and safety of phototherapy for psoriasis, including home-based options, on the NPF’s web site and by reading the 2019 joint AAD-NPF guidelines.

Shared decision-making is key. “When a patient comes in, I’ll discuss what their treatment options are and [we] will decide upon a course of action based on their unique needs and preferences [and] if it’s medically appropriate, meaning they have the type of psoriasis likely to respond to phototherapy,” Dr. Gelfand said. A patient with psoriasis mainly on the fingernails or genitals “is not a good candidate for phototherapy. If it’s on the trunk or extremities, that patient would be a good candidate.”

Home phototherapy candidates also must be willing and able to operate a machine and have dedicated space in their dwelling for it (most units are about the size of a door). Patients also have to be reliable, follow directions, and come back in person for follow-up appointments “so we can assess their response to treatment and fine-tune things as necessary and make sure they’re not developing any skin damage,” Dr. Gelfand said.

Educate yourself about existing options. Home phototherapy units from manufacturers such as Daavlin, National Biological Corporation, and SolRx range between $1200 and $6000 in cost, Dr. Gelfand said. He and his colleagues used the Daavlin 7 series in the LITE study. That unit features an integrated dosimetry system that delivers the correct dose of energy based on parameters that the prescribing clinician recommends. Settings are based on the patient’s skin type and how much the prescriber wants to increase the dose for each treatment. “The machine does the rest,” he said. “It knows what dose to give, so they get the same dosing as they would in an office situation.”

Smaller home-based phototherapy units designed to treat the hands and feet are available. So are handheld units to treat the scalp. “These can be a nice option for patients who have a few spots, but if the disease is moderate to severe, then it’s going to be pretty laborious to [use them],” Dr. Elmets said.

Remember that phototherapy is not a cure-all. According to the joint AAD-NPF guidelines, most phototherapy regimens require treatments two to three times per week for 10-14 weeks. Once patients achieve their home phototherapy treatment goal, Dr. Elmets often recommends treatments one to two times per week for maintenance.

“Patients with psoriasis have a lifetime condition,” he noted. “There are certainly cases where people have gone on phototherapy, cleared, and then stopped for a period of time. If they flare up, they can always go back to phototherapy. Usually, people who are on phototherapy use some type of topical agents to touch up areas that are resistant.”

Expect pushback from insurers on coverage. While Medicare and some integrated health plans cover home phototherapy, expect to spend time writing letters or placing phone calls to insurance companies to convince them why they should cover home phototherapy for candidate psoriasis patients. “Usually there’s a lot of letter writing and a long delay in getting approval,” Dr. Elmets said.

Dr. Elmets and Dr. Gelfand reported no relevant financial relationships. The LITE study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Research partners included the National Psoriasis Foundation and Daavlin, which provided the home phototherapy machines and covered the cost of shipping the devices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Supporters of home phototherapy for patients with plaque and guttate psoriasis had plenty to cheer about at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in March. There, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, presented results from the LITE study, a trial that tested the hypothesis that narrowband ultraviolet B phototherapy of psoriasis at home is noninferior to office treatment, based on outcomes that matter to patients, clinicians, and payers. While smaller studies have drawn similar conclusions, LITE was the largest trial of its kind to show what many dermatologists have suspected for years: Home phototherapy can be an effective first-line treatment for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

The co-primary outcomes in the LITE study were a Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) score of 0/1 (clear, almost clear) and a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 5 or less (small, no effect on health-related quality of life).

Dr. Gelfand and colleagues at 42 sites in the United States enrolled 783 patients aged 12 years and older who had plaque or guttate psoriasis and were candidates for phototherapy at home or in an office setting. Following 12 weeks of treatment, 25.6% of patients in the office-based phototherapy group achieved a PGA score of 0/1 compared with 32.8% of patients in the home-based phototherapy group (P > .0001 for noninferiority, non-response imputation for missing data). Similarly, 33.6% of patients in the office-based phototherapy group achieved a DLQI score of 5 or less compared with 52.4% of patients in the home-based phototherapy group (P > .0001 for noninferiority, non-response imputation for missing data).

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

A Safe and Effective Option

“I think that it’s important for physicians, insurance companies, and patients with psoriasis to understand that this is a very safe and effective form of therapy,” Craig A. Elmets, MD, professor of dermatology at The University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview. “For people who are not interested in systemic medications or who have contraindications to systemic medications, phototherapy would be ideal,” added Dr. Elmets, first author of the joint AAD–National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) guidelines for the management and treatment of psoriasis with phototherapy, published in 2019.

Factors beyond efficacy support the role of home phototherapy, Dr. Gelfand said, including the fact that it costs 10-100 times less than biologics for psoriasis and that office-based phototherapy is not available in 90% of counties in the United States. However, insurance coverage of home phototherapy “is highly variable because until the LITE study, there was no large-scale US data to support its use,” he told this news organization.

“Also, insurance companies are broken up into two parts: Durable medical goods and the medical side such as pharmacy costs, and they are siloed. The durable medical goods side views phototherapy as expensive, while the pharmacy side views it as dirt cheap. This is part of the problem with our health system. A lot of things are siloed and don’t make any sense,” said Dr. Gelfand, director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at the University of Pennsylvania. By working with the NPF and payers, he added, “we’re hoping ... to transform the way insurance companies think about covering home phototherapy.”

In the meantime, he and Dr. Elmets shared practical ways to optimize access to home phototherapy for psoriasis patients:

Have the discussion. Patients “rarely bring this up as an option,” Dr. Elmets said, so the onus is on clinicians to talk about it. In his view, the ideal candidate “is averse to using systemic agents but whose disease is beyond the point where topical medicines alone will work. One of the advantages of phototherapy is that it doesn’t have immunosuppressive effects.”

Clinicians and patients can learn about the efficacy and safety of phototherapy for psoriasis, including home-based options, on the NPF’s web site and by reading the 2019 joint AAD-NPF guidelines.

Shared decision-making is key. “When a patient comes in, I’ll discuss what their treatment options are and [we] will decide upon a course of action based on their unique needs and preferences [and] if it’s medically appropriate, meaning they have the type of psoriasis likely to respond to phototherapy,” Dr. Gelfand said. A patient with psoriasis mainly on the fingernails or genitals “is not a good candidate for phototherapy. If it’s on the trunk or extremities, that patient would be a good candidate.”

Home phototherapy candidates also must be willing and able to operate a machine and have dedicated space in their dwelling for it (most units are about the size of a door). Patients also have to be reliable, follow directions, and come back in person for follow-up appointments “so we can assess their response to treatment and fine-tune things as necessary and make sure they’re not developing any skin damage,” Dr. Gelfand said.

Educate yourself about existing options. Home phototherapy units from manufacturers such as Daavlin, National Biological Corporation, and SolRx range between $1200 and $6000 in cost, Dr. Gelfand said. He and his colleagues used the Daavlin 7 series in the LITE study. That unit features an integrated dosimetry system that delivers the correct dose of energy based on parameters that the prescribing clinician recommends. Settings are based on the patient’s skin type and how much the prescriber wants to increase the dose for each treatment. “The machine does the rest,” he said. “It knows what dose to give, so they get the same dosing as they would in an office situation.”

Smaller home-based phototherapy units designed to treat the hands and feet are available. So are handheld units to treat the scalp. “These can be a nice option for patients who have a few spots, but if the disease is moderate to severe, then it’s going to be pretty laborious to [use them],” Dr. Elmets said.

Remember that phototherapy is not a cure-all. According to the joint AAD-NPF guidelines, most phototherapy regimens require treatments two to three times per week for 10-14 weeks. Once patients achieve their home phototherapy treatment goal, Dr. Elmets often recommends treatments one to two times per week for maintenance.

“Patients with psoriasis have a lifetime condition,” he noted. “There are certainly cases where people have gone on phototherapy, cleared, and then stopped for a period of time. If they flare up, they can always go back to phototherapy. Usually, people who are on phototherapy use some type of topical agents to touch up areas that are resistant.”

Expect pushback from insurers on coverage. While Medicare and some integrated health plans cover home phototherapy, expect to spend time writing letters or placing phone calls to insurance companies to convince them why they should cover home phototherapy for candidate psoriasis patients. “Usually there’s a lot of letter writing and a long delay in getting approval,” Dr. Elmets said.

Dr. Elmets and Dr. Gelfand reported no relevant financial relationships. The LITE study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Research partners included the National Psoriasis Foundation and Daavlin, which provided the home phototherapy machines and covered the cost of shipping the devices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Supporters of home phototherapy for patients with plaque and guttate psoriasis had plenty to cheer about at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in March. There, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, presented results from the LITE study, a trial that tested the hypothesis that narrowband ultraviolet B phototherapy of psoriasis at home is noninferior to office treatment, based on outcomes that matter to patients, clinicians, and payers. While smaller studies have drawn similar conclusions, LITE was the largest trial of its kind to show what many dermatologists have suspected for years: Home phototherapy can be an effective first-line treatment for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

The co-primary outcomes in the LITE study were a Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) score of 0/1 (clear, almost clear) and a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 5 or less (small, no effect on health-related quality of life).

Dr. Gelfand and colleagues at 42 sites in the United States enrolled 783 patients aged 12 years and older who had plaque or guttate psoriasis and were candidates for phototherapy at home or in an office setting. Following 12 weeks of treatment, 25.6% of patients in the office-based phototherapy group achieved a PGA score of 0/1 compared with 32.8% of patients in the home-based phototherapy group (P > .0001 for noninferiority, non-response imputation for missing data). Similarly, 33.6% of patients in the office-based phototherapy group achieved a DLQI score of 5 or less compared with 52.4% of patients in the home-based phototherapy group (P > .0001 for noninferiority, non-response imputation for missing data).

Courtesy Dr. Gelfand

A Safe and Effective Option

“I think that it’s important for physicians, insurance companies, and patients with psoriasis to understand that this is a very safe and effective form of therapy,” Craig A. Elmets, MD, professor of dermatology at The University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview. “For people who are not interested in systemic medications or who have contraindications to systemic medications, phototherapy would be ideal,” added Dr. Elmets, first author of the joint AAD–National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) guidelines for the management and treatment of psoriasis with phototherapy, published in 2019.

Factors beyond efficacy support the role of home phototherapy, Dr. Gelfand said, including the fact that it costs 10-100 times less than biologics for psoriasis and that office-based phototherapy is not available in 90% of counties in the United States. However, insurance coverage of home phototherapy “is highly variable because until the LITE study, there was no large-scale US data to support its use,” he told this news organization.

“Also, insurance companies are broken up into two parts: Durable medical goods and the medical side such as pharmacy costs, and they are siloed. The durable medical goods side views phototherapy as expensive, while the pharmacy side views it as dirt cheap. This is part of the problem with our health system. A lot of things are siloed and don’t make any sense,” said Dr. Gelfand, director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at the University of Pennsylvania. By working with the NPF and payers, he added, “we’re hoping ... to transform the way insurance companies think about covering home phototherapy.”

In the meantime, he and Dr. Elmets shared practical ways to optimize access to home phototherapy for psoriasis patients:

Have the discussion. Patients “rarely bring this up as an option,” Dr. Elmets said, so the onus is on clinicians to talk about it. In his view, the ideal candidate “is averse to using systemic agents but whose disease is beyond the point where topical medicines alone will work. One of the advantages of phototherapy is that it doesn’t have immunosuppressive effects.”

Clinicians and patients can learn about the efficacy and safety of phototherapy for psoriasis, including home-based options, on the NPF’s web site and by reading the 2019 joint AAD-NPF guidelines.

Shared decision-making is key. “When a patient comes in, I’ll discuss what their treatment options are and [we] will decide upon a course of action based on their unique needs and preferences [and] if it’s medically appropriate, meaning they have the type of psoriasis likely to respond to phototherapy,” Dr. Gelfand said. A patient with psoriasis mainly on the fingernails or genitals “is not a good candidate for phototherapy. If it’s on the trunk or extremities, that patient would be a good candidate.”

Home phototherapy candidates also must be willing and able to operate a machine and have dedicated space in their dwelling for it (most units are about the size of a door). Patients also have to be reliable, follow directions, and come back in person for follow-up appointments “so we can assess their response to treatment and fine-tune things as necessary and make sure they’re not developing any skin damage,” Dr. Gelfand said.

Educate yourself about existing options. Home phototherapy units from manufacturers such as Daavlin, National Biological Corporation, and SolRx range between $1200 and $6000 in cost, Dr. Gelfand said. He and his colleagues used the Daavlin 7 series in the LITE study. That unit features an integrated dosimetry system that delivers the correct dose of energy based on parameters that the prescribing clinician recommends. Settings are based on the patient’s skin type and how much the prescriber wants to increase the dose for each treatment. “The machine does the rest,” he said. “It knows what dose to give, so they get the same dosing as they would in an office situation.”

Smaller home-based phototherapy units designed to treat the hands and feet are available. So are handheld units to treat the scalp. “These can be a nice option for patients who have a few spots, but if the disease is moderate to severe, then it’s going to be pretty laborious to [use them],” Dr. Elmets said.

Remember that phototherapy is not a cure-all. According to the joint AAD-NPF guidelines, most phototherapy regimens require treatments two to three times per week for 10-14 weeks. Once patients achieve their home phototherapy treatment goal, Dr. Elmets often recommends treatments one to two times per week for maintenance.

“Patients with psoriasis have a lifetime condition,” he noted. “There are certainly cases where people have gone on phototherapy, cleared, and then stopped for a period of time. If they flare up, they can always go back to phototherapy. Usually, people who are on phototherapy use some type of topical agents to touch up areas that are resistant.”

Expect pushback from insurers on coverage. While Medicare and some integrated health plans cover home phototherapy, expect to spend time writing letters or placing phone calls to insurance companies to convince them why they should cover home phototherapy for candidate psoriasis patients. “Usually there’s a lot of letter writing and a long delay in getting approval,” Dr. Elmets said.

Dr. Elmets and Dr. Gelfand reported no relevant financial relationships. The LITE study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Research partners included the National Psoriasis Foundation and Daavlin, which provided the home phototherapy machines and covered the cost of shipping the devices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an explanatory statement that Dr. Feldman wrote for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).

According to the Guinness Book of World records, the longest time someone has held their breath underwater voluntarily is 24 minutes and 37.36 seconds. While certainly an amazing feat, UnitedHealthcare, many of the Blues, and other national “payers” are expecting rheumatologists and other specialists to live “underwater” in order to take care of their patients. In other words, these insurance companies are mandating that specialists use certain provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost is higher than what the insurance company is willing to reimburse them. Essentially, the insurance companies expect the rheumatologists to pay them to take care of their patients. Because of the substantial and destabilizing financial losses incurred, many practices and free-standing infusion centers have been forced to cease offering these biosimilars. Most rheumatologists will provide patients with appropriate alternatives when available and permitted by the insurer; otherwise, they must refer patients to hospital-based infusion centers. That results in delayed care and increased costs for patients and the system, because hospital-based infusion typically costs more than twice what office-based infusion costs.

Quantifying the Problem

To help quantify the magnitude of this issue, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) recently conducted a survey of its membership. A shocking 97% of respondents reported that their practice had been affected by reimbursement rates for some biosimilars being lower than acquisition costs, with 91% of respondents stating that this issue is more pronounced for certain biosimilars than others. Across the board, respondents most frequently identified Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) and Avsola (infliximab-axxq) as being especially affected: Over 88% and over 85% of respondents identified these two products, respectively, as being underwater. These results support the ongoing anecdotal reports CSRO continues to receive from rheumatology practices.

However, the survey results indicated that this issue is by no means confined to those two biosimilars. Truxima (rituximab-abbs) — a biosimilar for Rituxan — was frequently mentioned as well. Notably, respondents almost uniformly identified biosimilars in the infliximab and rituximab families, which illustrates that this issue is no longer confined to one or two early-to-market biosimilars but has almost become a hallmark of this particular biosimilars market. Remarkably, one respondent commented that the brand products are now cheaper to acquire than the biosimilars. Furthermore, the survey included respondents from across the country, indicating that this issue is not confined to a particular region.
 

How Did This Happen?

Biosimilars held promise for increasing availability and decreasing biologic costs for patients but, thus far, no patients have seen their cost go down. It appears that the only biosimilars that have made it to “preferred” status on the formulary are the ones that have made more money for the middlemen in the drug supply chain, particularly those that construct formularies. Now, we have provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost exceeds the reimbursement for these drugs. This disparity was ultimately created by biosimilar manufacturers “over-rebating” their drugs to health insurance companies to gain “fail-first” status on the formulary.

For example, the manufacturer of Inflectra offered substantial rebates to health insurers for preferred formulary placement. These rebates are factored into the sales price of the medication, which then results in a rapidly declining average sales price (ASP) for the biosimilar. Unfortunately, the acquisition cost for the drug does not experience commensurate reductions, resulting in physicians being reimbursed far less for the drug than it costs to acquire. The financial losses for physicians put them underwater as a result of the acquisition costs for the preferred drugs far surpassing the reimbursement from the health insurance company that constructed the formulary.

While various factors affect ASPs and acquisition costs, this particular consequence of formulary placement based on price concessions is a major driver of the underwater situation in which physicians have found themselves with many biosimilars. Not only does that lead to a lower uptake of biosimilars, but it also results in patients being referred to the hospital outpatient infusion sites to receive this care, as freestanding infusion centers cannot treat these patients either. Hospitals incur higher costs because of facility fees and elevated rates, and this makes private rheumatology in-office infusion centers a much lower-cost option. Similarly, home infusion services, while convenient, are marginally more expensive than private practices and, in cases of biologic infusions, it is important to note that physicians’ offices have a greater safety profile than home infusion of biologics. The overall result of these “fail-first underwater drugs” is delayed and more costly care for the patient and the “system,” particularly self-insured employers.
 

What Is Being Done to Correct This?

Since ASPs are updated quarterly, it is possible that acquisition costs and reimbursements might stabilize over time, making the drugs affordable again to practices. However, that does not appear to be happening in the near future, so that possibility does not offer immediate relief to struggling practices. It doesn’t promise a favorable outlook for future biosimilar entries of provider-administered medications if formularies continue to prefer the highest-rebated medication.

This dynamic between ASP and acquisition cost does not happen on the pharmacy side because the price concessions on specific drug rebates and fees are proprietary. There appears to be no equivalent to a publicly known ASP on the pharmacy side, which has led to myriad pricing definitions and manipulation on the pharmacy benefit side of medications. In any event, the savings from rebates and other manufacturer price concessions on pharmacy drugs do not influence ASPs of medical benefit drugs.

The Inflation Reduction Act provided a temporary increase in the add-on payment for biosimilars from ASP+6% to ASP+8%, but as long as the biosimilar’s ASP is lower than the reference brand’s ASP, that temporary increase does not appear to make up for the large differential between ASP and acquisition cost. It should be noted that any federal attempt to artificially lower the ASP of a provider-administered drug without a pathway assuring that the acquisition cost for the provider is less than the reimbursement is going to result in loss of access for patients to those medications and/or higher hospital site of care costs.
 

A Few Partial Fixes, But Most Complaints Go Ignored

Considering the higher costs of hospital-based infusion, insurers should be motivated to keep patients within private practices. Perhaps through insurers’ recognition of that fact, some practices have successfully negotiated exceptions for specific patients by discussing this situation with insurers. From the feedback that CSRO has received from rheumatology practices, it appears that most insurers have been ignoring the complaints from physicians. The few who have responded have resulted in only partial fixes, with some of the biosimilars still left underwater.

Ultimate Solution?

This issue is a direct result of the “rebate game,” whereby price concessions from drug manufacturers drive formulary placement. For provider-administered medications, this results in an artificially lowered ASP, not as a consequence of free-market incentives that benefit the patient, but as a result of misaligned incentives created by Safe Harbor–protected “kickbacks,” distorting the free market and paradoxically reducing access to these medications, delaying care, and increasing prices for patients and the healthcare system.

While federal and state governments are not likely to address this particular situation in the biosimilars market, CSRO is highlighting this issue as a prime example of why the current formulary construction system urgently requires federal reform. At this time, the biosimilars most affected are Inflectra and Avsola, but if nothing changes, more and more biosimilars will fall victim to the short-sighted pricing strategy of aggressive rebating to gain formulary position, with physician purchasers and patients left to navigate the aftermath. The existing system, which necessitates drug companies purchasing formulary access from pharmacy benefit managers, has led to delayed and even denied patient access to certain provider-administered drugs. Moreover, it now appears to be hindering the adoption of biosimilars.

To address this, a multifaceted approach is required. It not only involves reevaluating the rebate system and its impact on formulary construction and ASP, but also ensuring that acquisition costs for providers are aligned with reimbursement rates. Insurers must recognize the economic and clinical value of maintaining infusions within private practices and immediately update their policies to ensure that physician in-office infusion is financially feasible for these “fail-first” biosimilars.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create a sustainable model that promotes the use of affordable biosimilars, enhances patient access to affordable care, and supports the financial viability of medical practices. Concerted efforts to reform the current formulary construction system are required to achieve a healthcare environment that is both cost effective and patient centric.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an explanatory statement that Dr. Feldman wrote for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).

According to the Guinness Book of World records, the longest time someone has held their breath underwater voluntarily is 24 minutes and 37.36 seconds. While certainly an amazing feat, UnitedHealthcare, many of the Blues, and other national “payers” are expecting rheumatologists and other specialists to live “underwater” in order to take care of their patients. In other words, these insurance companies are mandating that specialists use certain provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost is higher than what the insurance company is willing to reimburse them. Essentially, the insurance companies expect the rheumatologists to pay them to take care of their patients. Because of the substantial and destabilizing financial losses incurred, many practices and free-standing infusion centers have been forced to cease offering these biosimilars. Most rheumatologists will provide patients with appropriate alternatives when available and permitted by the insurer; otherwise, they must refer patients to hospital-based infusion centers. That results in delayed care and increased costs for patients and the system, because hospital-based infusion typically costs more than twice what office-based infusion costs.

Quantifying the Problem

To help quantify the magnitude of this issue, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) recently conducted a survey of its membership. A shocking 97% of respondents reported that their practice had been affected by reimbursement rates for some biosimilars being lower than acquisition costs, with 91% of respondents stating that this issue is more pronounced for certain biosimilars than others. Across the board, respondents most frequently identified Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) and Avsola (infliximab-axxq) as being especially affected: Over 88% and over 85% of respondents identified these two products, respectively, as being underwater. These results support the ongoing anecdotal reports CSRO continues to receive from rheumatology practices.

However, the survey results indicated that this issue is by no means confined to those two biosimilars. Truxima (rituximab-abbs) — a biosimilar for Rituxan — was frequently mentioned as well. Notably, respondents almost uniformly identified biosimilars in the infliximab and rituximab families, which illustrates that this issue is no longer confined to one or two early-to-market biosimilars but has almost become a hallmark of this particular biosimilars market. Remarkably, one respondent commented that the brand products are now cheaper to acquire than the biosimilars. Furthermore, the survey included respondents from across the country, indicating that this issue is not confined to a particular region.
 

How Did This Happen?

Biosimilars held promise for increasing availability and decreasing biologic costs for patients but, thus far, no patients have seen their cost go down. It appears that the only biosimilars that have made it to “preferred” status on the formulary are the ones that have made more money for the middlemen in the drug supply chain, particularly those that construct formularies. Now, we have provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost exceeds the reimbursement for these drugs. This disparity was ultimately created by biosimilar manufacturers “over-rebating” their drugs to health insurance companies to gain “fail-first” status on the formulary.

For example, the manufacturer of Inflectra offered substantial rebates to health insurers for preferred formulary placement. These rebates are factored into the sales price of the medication, which then results in a rapidly declining average sales price (ASP) for the biosimilar. Unfortunately, the acquisition cost for the drug does not experience commensurate reductions, resulting in physicians being reimbursed far less for the drug than it costs to acquire. The financial losses for physicians put them underwater as a result of the acquisition costs for the preferred drugs far surpassing the reimbursement from the health insurance company that constructed the formulary.

While various factors affect ASPs and acquisition costs, this particular consequence of formulary placement based on price concessions is a major driver of the underwater situation in which physicians have found themselves with many biosimilars. Not only does that lead to a lower uptake of biosimilars, but it also results in patients being referred to the hospital outpatient infusion sites to receive this care, as freestanding infusion centers cannot treat these patients either. Hospitals incur higher costs because of facility fees and elevated rates, and this makes private rheumatology in-office infusion centers a much lower-cost option. Similarly, home infusion services, while convenient, are marginally more expensive than private practices and, in cases of biologic infusions, it is important to note that physicians’ offices have a greater safety profile than home infusion of biologics. The overall result of these “fail-first underwater drugs” is delayed and more costly care for the patient and the “system,” particularly self-insured employers.
 

What Is Being Done to Correct This?

Since ASPs are updated quarterly, it is possible that acquisition costs and reimbursements might stabilize over time, making the drugs affordable again to practices. However, that does not appear to be happening in the near future, so that possibility does not offer immediate relief to struggling practices. It doesn’t promise a favorable outlook for future biosimilar entries of provider-administered medications if formularies continue to prefer the highest-rebated medication.

This dynamic between ASP and acquisition cost does not happen on the pharmacy side because the price concessions on specific drug rebates and fees are proprietary. There appears to be no equivalent to a publicly known ASP on the pharmacy side, which has led to myriad pricing definitions and manipulation on the pharmacy benefit side of medications. In any event, the savings from rebates and other manufacturer price concessions on pharmacy drugs do not influence ASPs of medical benefit drugs.

The Inflation Reduction Act provided a temporary increase in the add-on payment for biosimilars from ASP+6% to ASP+8%, but as long as the biosimilar’s ASP is lower than the reference brand’s ASP, that temporary increase does not appear to make up for the large differential between ASP and acquisition cost. It should be noted that any federal attempt to artificially lower the ASP of a provider-administered drug without a pathway assuring that the acquisition cost for the provider is less than the reimbursement is going to result in loss of access for patients to those medications and/or higher hospital site of care costs.
 

A Few Partial Fixes, But Most Complaints Go Ignored

Considering the higher costs of hospital-based infusion, insurers should be motivated to keep patients within private practices. Perhaps through insurers’ recognition of that fact, some practices have successfully negotiated exceptions for specific patients by discussing this situation with insurers. From the feedback that CSRO has received from rheumatology practices, it appears that most insurers have been ignoring the complaints from physicians. The few who have responded have resulted in only partial fixes, with some of the biosimilars still left underwater.

Ultimate Solution?

This issue is a direct result of the “rebate game,” whereby price concessions from drug manufacturers drive formulary placement. For provider-administered medications, this results in an artificially lowered ASP, not as a consequence of free-market incentives that benefit the patient, but as a result of misaligned incentives created by Safe Harbor–protected “kickbacks,” distorting the free market and paradoxically reducing access to these medications, delaying care, and increasing prices for patients and the healthcare system.

While federal and state governments are not likely to address this particular situation in the biosimilars market, CSRO is highlighting this issue as a prime example of why the current formulary construction system urgently requires federal reform. At this time, the biosimilars most affected are Inflectra and Avsola, but if nothing changes, more and more biosimilars will fall victim to the short-sighted pricing strategy of aggressive rebating to gain formulary position, with physician purchasers and patients left to navigate the aftermath. The existing system, which necessitates drug companies purchasing formulary access from pharmacy benefit managers, has led to delayed and even denied patient access to certain provider-administered drugs. Moreover, it now appears to be hindering the adoption of biosimilars.

To address this, a multifaceted approach is required. It not only involves reevaluating the rebate system and its impact on formulary construction and ASP, but also ensuring that acquisition costs for providers are aligned with reimbursement rates. Insurers must recognize the economic and clinical value of maintaining infusions within private practices and immediately update their policies to ensure that physician in-office infusion is financially feasible for these “fail-first” biosimilars.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create a sustainable model that promotes the use of affordable biosimilars, enhances patient access to affordable care, and supports the financial viability of medical practices. Concerted efforts to reform the current formulary construction system are required to achieve a healthcare environment that is both cost effective and patient centric.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from an explanatory statement that Dr. Feldman wrote for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO).

According to the Guinness Book of World records, the longest time someone has held their breath underwater voluntarily is 24 minutes and 37.36 seconds. While certainly an amazing feat, UnitedHealthcare, many of the Blues, and other national “payers” are expecting rheumatologists and other specialists to live “underwater” in order to take care of their patients. In other words, these insurance companies are mandating that specialists use certain provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost is higher than what the insurance company is willing to reimburse them. Essentially, the insurance companies expect the rheumatologists to pay them to take care of their patients. Because of the substantial and destabilizing financial losses incurred, many practices and free-standing infusion centers have been forced to cease offering these biosimilars. Most rheumatologists will provide patients with appropriate alternatives when available and permitted by the insurer; otherwise, they must refer patients to hospital-based infusion centers. That results in delayed care and increased costs for patients and the system, because hospital-based infusion typically costs more than twice what office-based infusion costs.

Quantifying the Problem

To help quantify the magnitude of this issue, the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO) recently conducted a survey of its membership. A shocking 97% of respondents reported that their practice had been affected by reimbursement rates for some biosimilars being lower than acquisition costs, with 91% of respondents stating that this issue is more pronounced for certain biosimilars than others. Across the board, respondents most frequently identified Inflectra (infliximab-dyyb) and Avsola (infliximab-axxq) as being especially affected: Over 88% and over 85% of respondents identified these two products, respectively, as being underwater. These results support the ongoing anecdotal reports CSRO continues to receive from rheumatology practices.

However, the survey results indicated that this issue is by no means confined to those two biosimilars. Truxima (rituximab-abbs) — a biosimilar for Rituxan — was frequently mentioned as well. Notably, respondents almost uniformly identified biosimilars in the infliximab and rituximab families, which illustrates that this issue is no longer confined to one or two early-to-market biosimilars but has almost become a hallmark of this particular biosimilars market. Remarkably, one respondent commented that the brand products are now cheaper to acquire than the biosimilars. Furthermore, the survey included respondents from across the country, indicating that this issue is not confined to a particular region.
 

How Did This Happen?

Biosimilars held promise for increasing availability and decreasing biologic costs for patients but, thus far, no patients have seen their cost go down. It appears that the only biosimilars that have made it to “preferred” status on the formulary are the ones that have made more money for the middlemen in the drug supply chain, particularly those that construct formularies. Now, we have provider-administered biosimilars whose acquisition cost exceeds the reimbursement for these drugs. This disparity was ultimately created by biosimilar manufacturers “over-rebating” their drugs to health insurance companies to gain “fail-first” status on the formulary.

For example, the manufacturer of Inflectra offered substantial rebates to health insurers for preferred formulary placement. These rebates are factored into the sales price of the medication, which then results in a rapidly declining average sales price (ASP) for the biosimilar. Unfortunately, the acquisition cost for the drug does not experience commensurate reductions, resulting in physicians being reimbursed far less for the drug than it costs to acquire. The financial losses for physicians put them underwater as a result of the acquisition costs for the preferred drugs far surpassing the reimbursement from the health insurance company that constructed the formulary.

While various factors affect ASPs and acquisition costs, this particular consequence of formulary placement based on price concessions is a major driver of the underwater situation in which physicians have found themselves with many biosimilars. Not only does that lead to a lower uptake of biosimilars, but it also results in patients being referred to the hospital outpatient infusion sites to receive this care, as freestanding infusion centers cannot treat these patients either. Hospitals incur higher costs because of facility fees and elevated rates, and this makes private rheumatology in-office infusion centers a much lower-cost option. Similarly, home infusion services, while convenient, are marginally more expensive than private practices and, in cases of biologic infusions, it is important to note that physicians’ offices have a greater safety profile than home infusion of biologics. The overall result of these “fail-first underwater drugs” is delayed and more costly care for the patient and the “system,” particularly self-insured employers.
 

What Is Being Done to Correct This?

Since ASPs are updated quarterly, it is possible that acquisition costs and reimbursements might stabilize over time, making the drugs affordable again to practices. However, that does not appear to be happening in the near future, so that possibility does not offer immediate relief to struggling practices. It doesn’t promise a favorable outlook for future biosimilar entries of provider-administered medications if formularies continue to prefer the highest-rebated medication.

This dynamic between ASP and acquisition cost does not happen on the pharmacy side because the price concessions on specific drug rebates and fees are proprietary. There appears to be no equivalent to a publicly known ASP on the pharmacy side, which has led to myriad pricing definitions and manipulation on the pharmacy benefit side of medications. In any event, the savings from rebates and other manufacturer price concessions on pharmacy drugs do not influence ASPs of medical benefit drugs.

The Inflation Reduction Act provided a temporary increase in the add-on payment for biosimilars from ASP+6% to ASP+8%, but as long as the biosimilar’s ASP is lower than the reference brand’s ASP, that temporary increase does not appear to make up for the large differential between ASP and acquisition cost. It should be noted that any federal attempt to artificially lower the ASP of a provider-administered drug without a pathway assuring that the acquisition cost for the provider is less than the reimbursement is going to result in loss of access for patients to those medications and/or higher hospital site of care costs.
 

A Few Partial Fixes, But Most Complaints Go Ignored

Considering the higher costs of hospital-based infusion, insurers should be motivated to keep patients within private practices. Perhaps through insurers’ recognition of that fact, some practices have successfully negotiated exceptions for specific patients by discussing this situation with insurers. From the feedback that CSRO has received from rheumatology practices, it appears that most insurers have been ignoring the complaints from physicians. The few who have responded have resulted in only partial fixes, with some of the biosimilars still left underwater.

Ultimate Solution?

This issue is a direct result of the “rebate game,” whereby price concessions from drug manufacturers drive formulary placement. For provider-administered medications, this results in an artificially lowered ASP, not as a consequence of free-market incentives that benefit the patient, but as a result of misaligned incentives created by Safe Harbor–protected “kickbacks,” distorting the free market and paradoxically reducing access to these medications, delaying care, and increasing prices for patients and the healthcare system.

While federal and state governments are not likely to address this particular situation in the biosimilars market, CSRO is highlighting this issue as a prime example of why the current formulary construction system urgently requires federal reform. At this time, the biosimilars most affected are Inflectra and Avsola, but if nothing changes, more and more biosimilars will fall victim to the short-sighted pricing strategy of aggressive rebating to gain formulary position, with physician purchasers and patients left to navigate the aftermath. The existing system, which necessitates drug companies purchasing formulary access from pharmacy benefit managers, has led to delayed and even denied patient access to certain provider-administered drugs. Moreover, it now appears to be hindering the adoption of biosimilars.

To address this, a multifaceted approach is required. It not only involves reevaluating the rebate system and its impact on formulary construction and ASP, but also ensuring that acquisition costs for providers are aligned with reimbursement rates. Insurers must recognize the economic and clinical value of maintaining infusions within private practices and immediately update their policies to ensure that physician in-office infusion is financially feasible for these “fail-first” biosimilars.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create a sustainable model that promotes the use of affordable biosimilars, enhances patient access to affordable care, and supports the financial viability of medical practices. Concerted efforts to reform the current formulary construction system are required to achieve a healthcare environment that is both cost effective and patient centric.

Dr. Feldman is a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans. She is the CSRO’s vice president of advocacy and government affairs and its immediate past president, as well as past chair of the Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines and a past member of the American College of Rheumatology insurance subcommittee. You can reach her at rhnews@mdedge.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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