Atopic Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) are 2 common inflammatory skin conditions that may have similar clinical presentations. Historically, it was thought that these conditions could not be diagnosed simultaneously due to their differing immune mechanisms; however, this belief has been challenged by recent evidence suggesting a more nuanced relationship between the 2 disease processes. In this review, we examine the complex interplay between AD and ACD and explain how shifts in conventional understanding of the 2 conditions shaped our evolving recognition of their ability to coexist.

Epidemiology of AD and ACD

Atopic dermatitis is the most common inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents, with an estimated prevalence reaching 21%.¹ In 60% of cases, onset of AD will occur within the first year of life, and 90% of cases begin within the first 5 years.² Resolution may occur by adulthood; however, AD may continue to impact up to 8% to 9% of adults, with an increased prevalence in those older than 75 years.¹ This may represent an underestimation of the burden of adult AD; one systematic review of 17 studies found that the pooled proportion of adult-onset AD was greater than 25%.³

In contrast, ACD previously was assumed to be a disease that more commonly impacted adults and only rarely children, primarily due to an early misconception that children were not frequently exposed to contact allergens and their immune systems were too immature to react to them even if exposed.^4,5 However, it is now known that children do have risk factors for development of ACD, including a thinner stratum corneum and potentially a more absorbent skin surface.⁴ In addition, a 2022 study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found similar rates of ACD in children (n=1871) and adults (n=41,699) referred for patch testing (55.2% and 57.3%, respectively) as well as similar rates of having at least 1 relevant positive patch test (49.2% and 52.2%).⁶

In opposition to traditional beliefs, these findings highlight that AD and ACD can occur across age groups.

Immune Mechanism

The pathogenesis of AD represents a multifactorial process involving the immune system, cutaneous flora, genetic predisposition, and surrounding environment. Immunologically, acute AD is driven by a predominantly T_H2 helper T-cell response with high levels of IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13⁷; T_H22, T_H17, and T_H1 also have been implicated.⁸ Notably, T_H17 is found in high levels during the acute eczema phase, while T_H1 and T_H22are associated with the chronic phase.⁷

The pathophysiology of ACD is not completely understood. The classic paradigm involves 2 phases: sensitization and elicitation. Sensitization involves antigen-presenting cells that take up allergens absorbed by the skin to present them in regional lymph nodes where antigen-specific T lymphocytes are generated. Elicitation occurs upon re-exposure to the allergen, at which time the primed T lymphocytes are recruited to the skin, causing inflammation.⁹ Allergic contact dermatitis initially was thought to be driven by T_H1 cytokines and IL-17 but now is understood to be more complex.¹⁰ Studies have revealed immune polarization of contact allergens, demonstrating that nickel primarily induces a T_H1/T_H17 response, whereas fragrance and rubber accelerators skew to T_H2; T_H9 and T_H22 also may be involved depending on the causative allergen.^11,12

Of note, the immunologic differences between AD and ACD led early investigators to believe that patients with AD were relatively protected from ACD.¹³ However, as previously described, there are several overlapping cytokines between AD and ACD. Furthermore, research has revealed that risk of contact sensitization might be increased in the chronic eczema phase due to the shared T_H1 pathway.¹⁴ Barrier-disrupted skin (such as that in AD) also may increase the cytokine response and the density of antigen-presenting cells, leading to a proallergic state.¹⁵ This suggests that the immunologic pathways of AD and ACD are more intertwined than was previously understood.

Underlying Risk Factors

Skin barrier dysfunction is a key step in the pathogenesis of AD. Patients with AD commonly have loss-of-function mutations in the filaggrin gene, a protein that is key to the function of the stratum corneum. Loss of this protein may not only impact the immune response as previously noted but also may lead to increased transepidermal water loss and bacterial colonization.¹⁶ Interestingly, a 2014 review examined how this mutation could lead to an increased risk of sensitization to bivalent metal ions via an impaired chelating ability of the skin.¹⁷ Furthermore, a 2016 study conducted in Dutch construction workers revealed an increased risk for contact dermatitis (irritant and allergic) for those with a loss-of-function filaggrin mutation.¹⁸

Importantly, this same mutation may explain why patients with AD tend to have increased skin colonization by Staphylococcus aureus. The abundance of S aureus and the relative decrease in the diversity of other microorganisms on the skin may be associated with increased AD severity.¹⁹ Likewise, S aureus may play a role in the pathogenesis of ACD via production of its exotoxin directed at the T-cell receptor V beta 17 region. In particular, this receptor has been associated with nickel sensitization.¹⁷

Another risk factor to consider is increased exposure to contact sensitizers when treating AD. For instance, management often includes use of over-the-counter emollients, natural or botanical remedies with purported benefits for AD, cleansers, and detergents. However, these products can contain some of the most prevalent contact allergens seen in those with AD, including methyl-isothiazolinone, formaldehyde releasers, and fragrance.²⁰ Topical corticosteroids also are frequently used, and ACD to steroid molecules can occur, particularly to tixocortol-21-pivalate (a marker for class A corticosteroids) and budesonide (a marker for class B corticosteroids).²¹ Other allergens (eg, benzyl alcohol, propylene glycol) also may be found as inactive ingredients of topical corticosteroids.²² These exposures may place AD patients at risk for ACD.

The Coexistence of AD and ACD

Given the overlapping epidemiology, immunology, and potentially increased risk for the development of ACD in patients with AD, it would be reasonable to assume that the 2 diagnoses could coexist; however, is there clinical data to support this idea? Based on recent database reviews, the answer appears to be yes.^20,23-26 An analysis from the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry revealed that 30% of 1142 pediatric patch test cases analyzed were diagnosed as AD and ACD simultaneously.²⁴ The NACDG found similar results in its 2021 review, as 29.5% of children (n=1648) and 20.7% of adults (n=36,834) had a concurrent diagnosis of AD and ACD.²⁰ Notably, older results from these databases also demonstrated an association between the 2 conditions.^23,25,26

It remains unclear whether the prevalence of ACD is higher in those with or without AD. A comprehensive systematic review conducted in 2017 examined this topic through analysis of 74 studies. The results demonstrated a similar prevalence of contact sensitization in individuals with and without AD.²⁷ Another systematic review of 31 studies conducted in 2017 found a higher prevalence for ACD in children without AD; however, the authors noted that the included studies were too variable (eg, size, design, allergens tested) to draw definitive conclusions.²⁸

Even though there is no clear overall increased risk for ACD in patients with AD, research has suggested that certain allergens may be more prevalent in the setting of AD. An NACDG study found that adults with AD had increased odds of reacting to 10 of the top 25 NACDG screening allergens compared to those without AD.²⁰ Other studies have found that AD patients may be more likely to become sensitized to certain allergens, such as fragrance and lanolin.¹⁴

Considerations for Management

Diagnosis of ACD in patients with AD can be challenging because these conditions may present similarly with chronic, pruritic, inflammatory patches and plaques. Chronic ACD may be misdiagnosed as AD if patch testing is not performed.²⁹ Given the prevalence of ACD in the setting of AD, there should be a low threshold to pursue patch testing, especially when dermatitis is recalcitrant to standard therapies or presents in an atypical distribution (ie, perioral, predominantly head/neck, hand and foot, isolated eyelid involvement, buttocks).^4,30 Various allergen series are available for patch testing adults and children including the NACDG Standard Series, American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series, or the Pediatric Baseline Series.^31-33

If potentially relevant allergens are uncovered by patch testing, patients should be counseled on avoidance strategies. However, allergen avoidance may not always lead to complete symptom resolution, especially if AD is present concomitantly with ACD. Therefore, use of topical or systemic therapies still may be required. Topical corticosteroids can be used when dermatitis is acute and localized. Systemic corticosteroids are utilized for both diagnoses when cases are more severe or extensive, but their adverse-effect profile limits long-term use. Other systemic treatments, including conventional agents (ie, azathioprine, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil), biologics, and small molecule inhibitors also may be considered for severe cases.^34,35 Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-4/IL-13, is approved for use in moderate to severe AD in patients 6 months and older. Recent evidence has suggested that dupilumab also may be an effective off-label treatment choice for ACD when allergen avoidance alone is insufficient.³⁶ Studies have been conducted on secukinumab, a monoclonal antibody against IL-17; however, it has not been shown to be effective in either AD or ACD.^37,38 This indicates that targeted biologics may not always be successful in treating these diagnoses, likely due to their complex immune pathways. Finally, there is an emerging role for JAK inhibitors. Three are approved for AD: topical ruxolitinib, oral abrocitinib, and oral upadacitinib.³⁹ Further investigation is needed to determine the efficacy of JAK inhibitors in ACD.

Final Interpretation

Evolving evidence shows that AD and ACD can occur at the same time despite the historical perspective that their immune pathways were too polarized for this to happen. Atopic dermatitis may be an important risk factor for subsequent development of ACD. Management should include a low threshold to perform patch testing, while pharmacotherapies utilized in the treatment of both conditions should be considered.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) are 2 common inflammatory skin conditions that may have similar clinical presentations. Historically, it was thought that these conditions could not be diagnosed simultaneously due to their differing immune mechanisms; however, this belief has been challenged by recent evidence suggesting a more nuanced relationship between the 2 disease processes. In this review, we examine the complex interplay between AD and ACD and explain how shifts in conventional understanding of the 2 conditions shaped our evolving recognition of their ability to coexist.

Epidemiology of AD and ACD

Atopic dermatitis is the most common inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents, with an estimated prevalence reaching 21%.¹ In 60% of cases, onset of AD will occur within the first year of life, and 90% of cases begin within the first 5 years.² Resolution may occur by adulthood; however, AD may continue to impact up to 8% to 9% of adults, with an increased prevalence in those older than 75 years.¹ This may represent an underestimation of the burden of adult AD; one systematic review of 17 studies found that the pooled proportion of adult-onset AD was greater than 25%.³

In contrast, ACD previously was assumed to be a disease that more commonly impacted adults and only rarely children, primarily due to an early misconception that children were not frequently exposed to contact allergens and their immune systems were too immature to react to them even if exposed.^4,5 However, it is now known that children do have risk factors for development of ACD, including a thinner stratum corneum and potentially a more absorbent skin surface.⁴ In addition, a 2022 study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found similar rates of ACD in children (n=1871) and adults (n=41,699) referred for patch testing (55.2% and 57.3%, respectively) as well as similar rates of having at least 1 relevant positive patch test (49.2% and 52.2%).⁶

In opposition to traditional beliefs, these findings highlight that AD and ACD can occur across age groups.

Immune Mechanism

The pathogenesis of AD represents a multifactorial process involving the immune system, cutaneous flora, genetic predisposition, and surrounding environment. Immunologically, acute AD is driven by a predominantly T_H2 helper T-cell response with high levels of IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13⁷; T_H22, T_H17, and T_H1 also have been implicated.⁸ Notably, T_H17 is found in high levels during the acute eczema phase, while T_H1 and T_H22are associated with the chronic phase.⁷

The pathophysiology of ACD is not completely understood. The classic paradigm involves 2 phases: sensitization and elicitation. Sensitization involves antigen-presenting cells that take up allergens absorbed by the skin to present them in regional lymph nodes where antigen-specific T lymphocytes are generated. Elicitation occurs upon re-exposure to the allergen, at which time the primed T lymphocytes are recruited to the skin, causing inflammation.⁹ Allergic contact dermatitis initially was thought to be driven by T_H1 cytokines and IL-17 but now is understood to be more complex.¹⁰ Studies have revealed immune polarization of contact allergens, demonstrating that nickel primarily induces a T_H1/T_H17 response, whereas fragrance and rubber accelerators skew to T_H2; T_H9 and T_H22 also may be involved depending on the causative allergen.^11,12

Of note, the immunologic differences between AD and ACD led early investigators to believe that patients with AD were relatively protected from ACD.¹³ However, as previously described, there are several overlapping cytokines between AD and ACD. Furthermore, research has revealed that risk of contact sensitization might be increased in the chronic eczema phase due to the shared T_H1 pathway.¹⁴ Barrier-disrupted skin (such as that in AD) also may increase the cytokine response and the density of antigen-presenting cells, leading to a proallergic state.¹⁵ This suggests that the immunologic pathways of AD and ACD are more intertwined than was previously understood.

Underlying Risk Factors

Skin barrier dysfunction is a key step in the pathogenesis of AD. Patients with AD commonly have loss-of-function mutations in the filaggrin gene, a protein that is key to the function of the stratum corneum. Loss of this protein may not only impact the immune response as previously noted but also may lead to increased transepidermal water loss and bacterial colonization.¹⁶ Interestingly, a 2014 review examined how this mutation could lead to an increased risk of sensitization to bivalent metal ions via an impaired chelating ability of the skin.¹⁷ Furthermore, a 2016 study conducted in Dutch construction workers revealed an increased risk for contact dermatitis (irritant and allergic) for those with a loss-of-function filaggrin mutation.¹⁸

Importantly, this same mutation may explain why patients with AD tend to have increased skin colonization by Staphylococcus aureus. The abundance of S aureus and the relative decrease in the diversity of other microorganisms on the skin may be associated with increased AD severity.¹⁹ Likewise, S aureus may play a role in the pathogenesis of ACD via production of its exotoxin directed at the T-cell receptor V beta 17 region. In particular, this receptor has been associated with nickel sensitization.¹⁷

Another risk factor to consider is increased exposure to contact sensitizers when treating AD. For instance, management often includes use of over-the-counter emollients, natural or botanical remedies with purported benefits for AD, cleansers, and detergents. However, these products can contain some of the most prevalent contact allergens seen in those with AD, including methyl-isothiazolinone, formaldehyde releasers, and fragrance.²⁰ Topical corticosteroids also are frequently used, and ACD to steroid molecules can occur, particularly to tixocortol-21-pivalate (a marker for class A corticosteroids) and budesonide (a marker for class B corticosteroids).²¹ Other allergens (eg, benzyl alcohol, propylene glycol) also may be found as inactive ingredients of topical corticosteroids.²² These exposures may place AD patients at risk for ACD.

The Coexistence of AD and ACD

Given the overlapping epidemiology, immunology, and potentially increased risk for the development of ACD in patients with AD, it would be reasonable to assume that the 2 diagnoses could coexist; however, is there clinical data to support this idea? Based on recent database reviews, the answer appears to be yes.^20,23-26 An analysis from the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry revealed that 30% of 1142 pediatric patch test cases analyzed were diagnosed as AD and ACD simultaneously.²⁴ The NACDG found similar results in its 2021 review, as 29.5% of children (n=1648) and 20.7% of adults (n=36,834) had a concurrent diagnosis of AD and ACD.²⁰ Notably, older results from these databases also demonstrated an association between the 2 conditions.^23,25,26

It remains unclear whether the prevalence of ACD is higher in those with or without AD. A comprehensive systematic review conducted in 2017 examined this topic through analysis of 74 studies. The results demonstrated a similar prevalence of contact sensitization in individuals with and without AD.²⁷ Another systematic review of 31 studies conducted in 2017 found a higher prevalence for ACD in children without AD; however, the authors noted that the included studies were too variable (eg, size, design, allergens tested) to draw definitive conclusions.²⁸

Even though there is no clear overall increased risk for ACD in patients with AD, research has suggested that certain allergens may be more prevalent in the setting of AD. An NACDG study found that adults with AD had increased odds of reacting to 10 of the top 25 NACDG screening allergens compared to those without AD.²⁰ Other studies have found that AD patients may be more likely to become sensitized to certain allergens, such as fragrance and lanolin.¹⁴

Considerations for Management

Diagnosis of ACD in patients with AD can be challenging because these conditions may present similarly with chronic, pruritic, inflammatory patches and plaques. Chronic ACD may be misdiagnosed as AD if patch testing is not performed.²⁹ Given the prevalence of ACD in the setting of AD, there should be a low threshold to pursue patch testing, especially when dermatitis is recalcitrant to standard therapies or presents in an atypical distribution (ie, perioral, predominantly head/neck, hand and foot, isolated eyelid involvement, buttocks).^4,30 Various allergen series are available for patch testing adults and children including the NACDG Standard Series, American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series, or the Pediatric Baseline Series.^31-33

If potentially relevant allergens are uncovered by patch testing, patients should be counseled on avoidance strategies. However, allergen avoidance may not always lead to complete symptom resolution, especially if AD is present concomitantly with ACD. Therefore, use of topical or systemic therapies still may be required. Topical corticosteroids can be used when dermatitis is acute and localized. Systemic corticosteroids are utilized for both diagnoses when cases are more severe or extensive, but their adverse-effect profile limits long-term use. Other systemic treatments, including conventional agents (ie, azathioprine, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil), biologics, and small molecule inhibitors also may be considered for severe cases.^34,35 Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-4/IL-13, is approved for use in moderate to severe AD in patients 6 months and older. Recent evidence has suggested that dupilumab also may be an effective off-label treatment choice for ACD when allergen avoidance alone is insufficient.³⁶ Studies have been conducted on secukinumab, a monoclonal antibody against IL-17; however, it has not been shown to be effective in either AD or ACD.^37,38 This indicates that targeted biologics may not always be successful in treating these diagnoses, likely due to their complex immune pathways. Finally, there is an emerging role for JAK inhibitors. Three are approved for AD: topical ruxolitinib, oral abrocitinib, and oral upadacitinib.³⁹ Further investigation is needed to determine the efficacy of JAK inhibitors in ACD.

Final Interpretation

Evolving evidence shows that AD and ACD can occur at the same time despite the historical perspective that their immune pathways were too polarized for this to happen. Atopic dermatitis may be an important risk factor for subsequent development of ACD. Management should include a low threshold to perform patch testing, while pharmacotherapies utilized in the treatment of both conditions should be considered.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) are 2 common inflammatory skin conditions that may have similar clinical presentations. Historically, it was thought that these conditions could not be diagnosed simultaneously due to their differing immune mechanisms; however, this belief has been challenged by recent evidence suggesting a more nuanced relationship between the 2 disease processes. In this review, we examine the complex interplay between AD and ACD and explain how shifts in conventional understanding of the 2 conditions shaped our evolving recognition of their ability to coexist.

Epidemiology of AD and ACD

Atopic dermatitis is the most common inflammatory skin disease in children and adolescents, with an estimated prevalence reaching 21%.¹ In 60% of cases, onset of AD will occur within the first year of life, and 90% of cases begin within the first 5 years.² Resolution may occur by adulthood; however, AD may continue to impact up to 8% to 9% of adults, with an increased prevalence in those older than 75 years.¹ This may represent an underestimation of the burden of adult AD; one systematic review of 17 studies found that the pooled proportion of adult-onset AD was greater than 25%.³

In contrast, ACD previously was assumed to be a disease that more commonly impacted adults and only rarely children, primarily due to an early misconception that children were not frequently exposed to contact allergens and their immune systems were too immature to react to them even if exposed.^4,5 However, it is now known that children do have risk factors for development of ACD, including a thinner stratum corneum and potentially a more absorbent skin surface.⁴ In addition, a 2022 study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found similar rates of ACD in children (n=1871) and adults (n=41,699) referred for patch testing (55.2% and 57.3%, respectively) as well as similar rates of having at least 1 relevant positive patch test (49.2% and 52.2%).⁶

In opposition to traditional beliefs, these findings highlight that AD and ACD can occur across age groups.

Immune Mechanism

The pathogenesis of AD represents a multifactorial process involving the immune system, cutaneous flora, genetic predisposition, and surrounding environment. Immunologically, acute AD is driven by a predominantly T_H2 helper T-cell response with high levels of IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13⁷; T_H22, T_H17, and T_H1 also have been implicated.⁸ Notably, T_H17 is found in high levels during the acute eczema phase, while T_H1 and T_H22are associated with the chronic phase.⁷

The pathophysiology of ACD is not completely understood. The classic paradigm involves 2 phases: sensitization and elicitation. Sensitization involves antigen-presenting cells that take up allergens absorbed by the skin to present them in regional lymph nodes where antigen-specific T lymphocytes are generated. Elicitation occurs upon re-exposure to the allergen, at which time the primed T lymphocytes are recruited to the skin, causing inflammation.⁹ Allergic contact dermatitis initially was thought to be driven by T_H1 cytokines and IL-17 but now is understood to be more complex.¹⁰ Studies have revealed immune polarization of contact allergens, demonstrating that nickel primarily induces a T_H1/T_H17 response, whereas fragrance and rubber accelerators skew to T_H2; T_H9 and T_H22 also may be involved depending on the causative allergen.^11,12

Of note, the immunologic differences between AD and ACD led early investigators to believe that patients with AD were relatively protected from ACD.¹³ However, as previously described, there are several overlapping cytokines between AD and ACD. Furthermore, research has revealed that risk of contact sensitization might be increased in the chronic eczema phase due to the shared T_H1 pathway.¹⁴ Barrier-disrupted skin (such as that in AD) also may increase the cytokine response and the density of antigen-presenting cells, leading to a proallergic state.¹⁵ This suggests that the immunologic pathways of AD and ACD are more intertwined than was previously understood.

Underlying Risk Factors

Skin barrier dysfunction is a key step in the pathogenesis of AD. Patients with AD commonly have loss-of-function mutations in the filaggrin gene, a protein that is key to the function of the stratum corneum. Loss of this protein may not only impact the immune response as previously noted but also may lead to increased transepidermal water loss and bacterial colonization.¹⁶ Interestingly, a 2014 review examined how this mutation could lead to an increased risk of sensitization to bivalent metal ions via an impaired chelating ability of the skin.¹⁷ Furthermore, a 2016 study conducted in Dutch construction workers revealed an increased risk for contact dermatitis (irritant and allergic) for those with a loss-of-function filaggrin mutation.¹⁸

Importantly, this same mutation may explain why patients with AD tend to have increased skin colonization by Staphylococcus aureus. The abundance of S aureus and the relative decrease in the diversity of other microorganisms on the skin may be associated with increased AD severity.¹⁹ Likewise, S aureus may play a role in the pathogenesis of ACD via production of its exotoxin directed at the T-cell receptor V beta 17 region. In particular, this receptor has been associated with nickel sensitization.¹⁷

Another risk factor to consider is increased exposure to contact sensitizers when treating AD. For instance, management often includes use of over-the-counter emollients, natural or botanical remedies with purported benefits for AD, cleansers, and detergents. However, these products can contain some of the most prevalent contact allergens seen in those with AD, including methyl-isothiazolinone, formaldehyde releasers, and fragrance.²⁰ Topical corticosteroids also are frequently used, and ACD to steroid molecules can occur, particularly to tixocortol-21-pivalate (a marker for class A corticosteroids) and budesonide (a marker for class B corticosteroids).²¹ Other allergens (eg, benzyl alcohol, propylene glycol) also may be found as inactive ingredients of topical corticosteroids.²² These exposures may place AD patients at risk for ACD.

The Coexistence of AD and ACD

Given the overlapping epidemiology, immunology, and potentially increased risk for the development of ACD in patients with AD, it would be reasonable to assume that the 2 diagnoses could coexist; however, is there clinical data to support this idea? Based on recent database reviews, the answer appears to be yes.^20,23-26 An analysis from the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry revealed that 30% of 1142 pediatric patch test cases analyzed were diagnosed as AD and ACD simultaneously.²⁴ The NACDG found similar results in its 2021 review, as 29.5% of children (n=1648) and 20.7% of adults (n=36,834) had a concurrent diagnosis of AD and ACD.²⁰ Notably, older results from these databases also demonstrated an association between the 2 conditions.^23,25,26

It remains unclear whether the prevalence of ACD is higher in those with or without AD. A comprehensive systematic review conducted in 2017 examined this topic through analysis of 74 studies. The results demonstrated a similar prevalence of contact sensitization in individuals with and without AD.²⁷ Another systematic review of 31 studies conducted in 2017 found a higher prevalence for ACD in children without AD; however, the authors noted that the included studies were too variable (eg, size, design, allergens tested) to draw definitive conclusions.²⁸

Even though there is no clear overall increased risk for ACD in patients with AD, research has suggested that certain allergens may be more prevalent in the setting of AD. An NACDG study found that adults with AD had increased odds of reacting to 10 of the top 25 NACDG screening allergens compared to those without AD.²⁰ Other studies have found that AD patients may be more likely to become sensitized to certain allergens, such as fragrance and lanolin.¹⁴

Considerations for Management

Diagnosis of ACD in patients with AD can be challenging because these conditions may present similarly with chronic, pruritic, inflammatory patches and plaques. Chronic ACD may be misdiagnosed as AD if patch testing is not performed.²⁹ Given the prevalence of ACD in the setting of AD, there should be a low threshold to pursue patch testing, especially when dermatitis is recalcitrant to standard therapies or presents in an atypical distribution (ie, perioral, predominantly head/neck, hand and foot, isolated eyelid involvement, buttocks).^4,30 Various allergen series are available for patch testing adults and children including the NACDG Standard Series, American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergen Series, or the Pediatric Baseline Series.^31-33

If potentially relevant allergens are uncovered by patch testing, patients should be counseled on avoidance strategies. However, allergen avoidance may not always lead to complete symptom resolution, especially if AD is present concomitantly with ACD. Therefore, use of topical or systemic therapies still may be required. Topical corticosteroids can be used when dermatitis is acute and localized. Systemic corticosteroids are utilized for both diagnoses when cases are more severe or extensive, but their adverse-effect profile limits long-term use. Other systemic treatments, including conventional agents (ie, azathioprine, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil), biologics, and small molecule inhibitors also may be considered for severe cases.^34,35 Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-4/IL-13, is approved for use in moderate to severe AD in patients 6 months and older. Recent evidence has suggested that dupilumab also may be an effective off-label treatment choice for ACD when allergen avoidance alone is insufficient.³⁶ Studies have been conducted on secukinumab, a monoclonal antibody against IL-17; however, it has not been shown to be effective in either AD or ACD.^37,38 This indicates that targeted biologics may not always be successful in treating these diagnoses, likely due to their complex immune pathways. Finally, there is an emerging role for JAK inhibitors. Three are approved for AD: topical ruxolitinib, oral abrocitinib, and oral upadacitinib.³⁹ Further investigation is needed to determine the efficacy of JAK inhibitors in ACD.

Final Interpretation

Evolving evidence shows that AD and ACD can occur at the same time despite the historical perspective that their immune pathways were too polarized for this to happen. Atopic dermatitis may be an important risk factor for subsequent development of ACD. Management should include a low threshold to perform patch testing, while pharmacotherapies utilized in the treatment of both conditions should be considered.

Treatment with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), according to a new systemic review and meta-analysis, published online in JAMA Dermatology.

“These findings may provide a reference for clinicians in prescribing JAK inhibitors for patients with AD,” Tai-Li Chen, MD, of Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, and colleagues wrote in the study.

The results shed some welcome light on treatment for this dermatologic population, for whom enthusiasm about JAK inhibitors was dampened by the addition of a boxed warning to the labels of JAK inhibitors last year, required by the Food and Drug Administration. The warning, which describes an increased risk of “serious heart-related events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death” was triggered by results of the ORAL Surveillance study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib.

The boxed warning is also included in the labels of topical ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved by the FDA for mild to moderate AD in 2021, and in the labels of two oral JAK inhibitors, upadacitinib and abrocitinib, approved by the FDA for treating moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

Despite the new findings, some dermatologists are still urging caution.

“All the JAK inhibitor trials are short term. I still think the precautionary principle applies and we need to counsel on the risks of JAKs,” tweeted Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital, and associate professor at the University of Toronto. “It is great to have these as options for our patients. But we need to be aware of the risks associated with this class of medications, counsel patients about them when we are informing them of the risks and benefits of treatment options, and wait for more data specific to this population to make even more informed decisions,” he told this news organization.

The meta-analysis examined both the risk of incident VTE in untreated patients with AD compared with non-AD patients, as well as the risk of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with those on either placebo or dupilumab. Four JAK inhibitors were studied: abrocitinib, baricitinib (under FDA review for AD), upadacitinib, and SHR0302 (in clinical trials).

Two studies (458,206 participants) found the overall incidence rate of VTE for patients with AD was 0.23 events per 100 patient-years. The risk was did not differ from that in non-AD patients (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.45).

Another 15 studies included 8,787 participants with AD and found no significant differences in the rates of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors (0.05%) versus those treated with placebo or dupilumab (0.03%). However “with the increasing applications of JAK inhibitors in AD, more clinical data are needed to identify patients at high risk for VTE,” noted the authors.

“We need more, long-term data,” agreed Dr. Drucker, adding that a major issue is the short-term nature of AD trials to date (generally up to 16 weeks), which “don’t provide adequate reassurance.” He said although the FDA’s boxed warning was prompted by a trial in RA patients treated with tofacitinib (a less selective JAK inhibitor than those approved by the FDA for AD), and the same risks have not been demonstrated specifically for the JAK inhibitors used for a patients with AD, he still remains cautious.

While agreeing on the need for more long-term data, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said that the new findings should “provide reassurance” to dermatologists and are “consonant with recent published meta-analyses reporting no increased VTE risk in patients with psoriasis, RA, or inflammatory bowel disease treated with JAK inhibitors” in Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

In an interview, Dr. Blauvelt said that safety profiles emerging for the newer JAK inhibitors, which block JAK 1/2, have been overshadowed by the older RA data for tofacitinib – which is a JAK 1/3 inhibitor, “despite emerging long-term, monotherapy, clinical study data for dermatologic diseases showing no or rare risks of developing severe adverse events outlined in the boxed warnings.”

Both Dr. Blauvelt and Dr. Drucker pointed out that people with RA tend to have more comorbidities than those with AD that would predispose them to adverse events. In fact, “approximately 75% of patients in the ORAL Surveillance study were also on concomitant methotrexate and/or prednisone, which can greatly confound safety results,” said Dr. Blauvelt.

The study authors did not report any disclosures. No funding source for the study was provided. Dr. Drucker has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Blauvelt has been a clinical study investigator in trials for AD treatments, including JAK inhibitors; his disclosures include serving as a speaker, scientific adviser, and/or clinical study investigator for multiple companies including AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Incyte, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB Pharma.

Treatment with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), according to a new systemic review and meta-analysis, published online in JAMA Dermatology.

“These findings may provide a reference for clinicians in prescribing JAK inhibitors for patients with AD,” Tai-Li Chen, MD, of Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, and colleagues wrote in the study.

The results shed some welcome light on treatment for this dermatologic population, for whom enthusiasm about JAK inhibitors was dampened by the addition of a boxed warning to the labels of JAK inhibitors last year, required by the Food and Drug Administration. The warning, which describes an increased risk of “serious heart-related events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death” was triggered by results of the ORAL Surveillance study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib.

The boxed warning is also included in the labels of topical ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved by the FDA for mild to moderate AD in 2021, and in the labels of two oral JAK inhibitors, upadacitinib and abrocitinib, approved by the FDA for treating moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

Despite the new findings, some dermatologists are still urging caution.

“All the JAK inhibitor trials are short term. I still think the precautionary principle applies and we need to counsel on the risks of JAKs,” tweeted Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital, and associate professor at the University of Toronto. “It is great to have these as options for our patients. But we need to be aware of the risks associated with this class of medications, counsel patients about them when we are informing them of the risks and benefits of treatment options, and wait for more data specific to this population to make even more informed decisions,” he told this news organization.

The meta-analysis examined both the risk of incident VTE in untreated patients with AD compared with non-AD patients, as well as the risk of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with those on either placebo or dupilumab. Four JAK inhibitors were studied: abrocitinib, baricitinib (under FDA review for AD), upadacitinib, and SHR0302 (in clinical trials).

Two studies (458,206 participants) found the overall incidence rate of VTE for patients with AD was 0.23 events per 100 patient-years. The risk was did not differ from that in non-AD patients (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.45).

Another 15 studies included 8,787 participants with AD and found no significant differences in the rates of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors (0.05%) versus those treated with placebo or dupilumab (0.03%). However “with the increasing applications of JAK inhibitors in AD, more clinical data are needed to identify patients at high risk for VTE,” noted the authors.

“We need more, long-term data,” agreed Dr. Drucker, adding that a major issue is the short-term nature of AD trials to date (generally up to 16 weeks), which “don’t provide adequate reassurance.” He said although the FDA’s boxed warning was prompted by a trial in RA patients treated with tofacitinib (a less selective JAK inhibitor than those approved by the FDA for AD), and the same risks have not been demonstrated specifically for the JAK inhibitors used for a patients with AD, he still remains cautious.

While agreeing on the need for more long-term data, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said that the new findings should “provide reassurance” to dermatologists and are “consonant with recent published meta-analyses reporting no increased VTE risk in patients with psoriasis, RA, or inflammatory bowel disease treated with JAK inhibitors” in Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

In an interview, Dr. Blauvelt said that safety profiles emerging for the newer JAK inhibitors, which block JAK 1/2, have been overshadowed by the older RA data for tofacitinib – which is a JAK 1/3 inhibitor, “despite emerging long-term, monotherapy, clinical study data for dermatologic diseases showing no or rare risks of developing severe adverse events outlined in the boxed warnings.”

Both Dr. Blauvelt and Dr. Drucker pointed out that people with RA tend to have more comorbidities than those with AD that would predispose them to adverse events. In fact, “approximately 75% of patients in the ORAL Surveillance study were also on concomitant methotrexate and/or prednisone, which can greatly confound safety results,” said Dr. Blauvelt.

The study authors did not report any disclosures. No funding source for the study was provided. Dr. Drucker has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Blauvelt has been a clinical study investigator in trials for AD treatments, including JAK inhibitors; his disclosures include serving as a speaker, scientific adviser, and/or clinical study investigator for multiple companies including AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Incyte, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB Pharma.

Treatment with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), according to a new systemic review and meta-analysis, published online in JAMA Dermatology.

“These findings may provide a reference for clinicians in prescribing JAK inhibitors for patients with AD,” Tai-Li Chen, MD, of Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, and colleagues wrote in the study.

The results shed some welcome light on treatment for this dermatologic population, for whom enthusiasm about JAK inhibitors was dampened by the addition of a boxed warning to the labels of JAK inhibitors last year, required by the Food and Drug Administration. The warning, which describes an increased risk of “serious heart-related events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death” was triggered by results of the ORAL Surveillance study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib.

The boxed warning is also included in the labels of topical ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved by the FDA for mild to moderate AD in 2021, and in the labels of two oral JAK inhibitors, upadacitinib and abrocitinib, approved by the FDA for treating moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

Despite the new findings, some dermatologists are still urging caution.

“All the JAK inhibitor trials are short term. I still think the precautionary principle applies and we need to counsel on the risks of JAKs,” tweeted Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital, and associate professor at the University of Toronto. “It is great to have these as options for our patients. But we need to be aware of the risks associated with this class of medications, counsel patients about them when we are informing them of the risks and benefits of treatment options, and wait for more data specific to this population to make even more informed decisions,” he told this news organization.

The meta-analysis examined both the risk of incident VTE in untreated patients with AD compared with non-AD patients, as well as the risk of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with those on either placebo or dupilumab. Four JAK inhibitors were studied: abrocitinib, baricitinib (under FDA review for AD), upadacitinib, and SHR0302 (in clinical trials).

Two studies (458,206 participants) found the overall incidence rate of VTE for patients with AD was 0.23 events per 100 patient-years. The risk was did not differ from that in non-AD patients (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.45).

Another 15 studies included 8,787 participants with AD and found no significant differences in the rates of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors (0.05%) versus those treated with placebo or dupilumab (0.03%). However “with the increasing applications of JAK inhibitors in AD, more clinical data are needed to identify patients at high risk for VTE,” noted the authors.

“We need more, long-term data,” agreed Dr. Drucker, adding that a major issue is the short-term nature of AD trials to date (generally up to 16 weeks), which “don’t provide adequate reassurance.” He said although the FDA’s boxed warning was prompted by a trial in RA patients treated with tofacitinib (a less selective JAK inhibitor than those approved by the FDA for AD), and the same risks have not been demonstrated specifically for the JAK inhibitors used for a patients with AD, he still remains cautious.

While agreeing on the need for more long-term data, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said that the new findings should “provide reassurance” to dermatologists and are “consonant with recent published meta-analyses reporting no increased VTE risk in patients with psoriasis, RA, or inflammatory bowel disease treated with JAK inhibitors” in Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

In an interview, Dr. Blauvelt said that safety profiles emerging for the newer JAK inhibitors, which block JAK 1/2, have been overshadowed by the older RA data for tofacitinib – which is a JAK 1/3 inhibitor, “despite emerging long-term, monotherapy, clinical study data for dermatologic diseases showing no or rare risks of developing severe adverse events outlined in the boxed warnings.”

Both Dr. Blauvelt and Dr. Drucker pointed out that people with RA tend to have more comorbidities than those with AD that would predispose them to adverse events. In fact, “approximately 75% of patients in the ORAL Surveillance study were also on concomitant methotrexate and/or prednisone, which can greatly confound safety results,” said Dr. Blauvelt.

The study authors did not report any disclosures. No funding source for the study was provided. Dr. Drucker has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Blauvelt has been a clinical study investigator in trials for AD treatments, including JAK inhibitors; his disclosures include serving as a speaker, scientific adviser, and/or clinical study investigator for multiple companies including AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Incyte, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB Pharma.

In patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, abrocitinib showed consistent treatment responses and no new safety issues, whether or not they had already been treated with the biologic dupilumab, an industry-sponsored study reports.

“In this post hoc analysis, both the efficacy and the safety profiles of abrocitinib were consistent in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, regardless of prior biologic therapy use,” lead author Melinda Gooderham, MD, medical director of the SKiN Centre for Dermatology, Peterborough, Ont., said during an oral presentation at the Society for Investigative Dermatology (SID) 2022 Annual Meeting.

“These results ... support the use of abrocitinib in patients who might have received biologic therapy prior,” she added.

“Prior biologic use did not reveal any new safety signals ... keeping in mind the key limitation of this analysis is that it was done post hoc,” she noted.

Guidelines for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis refractory to topical or systemic therapy include systemic immunosuppressants and dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 cytokine-induced responses, Dr. Gooderham said.

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved abrocitinib, an oral once-a-day Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor, to treat the disease. The approval came with a boxed warning about increased risk for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, and lymphoproliferative disorders, major adverse cardiovascular events, thrombosis, and laboratory abnormalities.
 

Comparing the bio-experienced with the bio-naive

Dr. Gooderham and colleagues investigated whether patients who’d been treated with a biologic would respond to abrocitinib differently than patients who had not received prior biologic treatment.

Researchers pooled data from two phase 3 placebo-controlled trials of abrocitinib that led to approval and an earlier phase 2b study. They identified 67 patients previously treated with dupilumab and 867 patients who were bio-naive. They repeated their analysis using data from another phase 3 study of abrocitinib on 86 patients previously treated with dupilumab and 1,147 who were bio-naive. On average, the bio-experienced patients were in their mid-30s to early 40s, and the bio-naive group was several years younger.

In the pooled phase 2b and phase 3 JADE MONO-1 and JADE MONO-2 monotherapy trials, patients received once-daily abrocitinib 100 or 200 mg or placebo for 12 weeks. In the phase 3 JADE REGIMEN, which they analyzed separately, eligible patients were enrolled in a 12-week open-label run-in period during which they received an induction treatment of abrocitinib 200 mg once a day.

Researchers compared results of two assessments: the IGA (Investigator Global Assessment) and EASI-75 (Eczema Area and Severity Index, 75% or greater improvement from baseline).

• At week 12, IGA 0/1 dose-dependent response rates were similar in the pooled groups, regardless of whether they had received prior biologic therapy. With abrocitinib 200 mg, 43.5% of those with prior dupilumab therapy responded versus 41.4% of bio-naive patients; with abrocitinib 100 mg, 24.1% versus 26.7% responded. In JADE REGIMEN, corresponding response rates with abrocitinib 200 mg were 53.5% versus 66.9%, respectively.
• At week 12, EASI-75 responses were also comparable. In the pooled groups by dose, with abrocitinib 200 mg, EASI-75 response rates were 65.2% in patients with prior dupilumab therapy versus 62.4% in those without; at abrocitinib 100 mg, 34.5% versus 42.7% responded. Corresponding rates in JADE REGIMEN were 64.0% versus 76.4%, respectively.
• Treatment-emergent adverse event rates among patients with versus without prior biologic therapy were, respectively, 71.7% versus 69.9% (abrocitinib 200 mg + 100 mg groups) in the pooled population. Rates in JADE REGIMEN with abrocitinib 200 mg were, respectively, 66.3% versus 66.5%.
• Abrocitinib efficacy and safety were consistent in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, regardless of prior biologic therapy. Adverse events in the pooled monotherapy trials and in JADE REGIMEN included acne, atopic dermatitis, diarrhea, headache, nasopharyngitis, nausea, upper abdominal pain, and upper respiratory tract infection.

The authors acknowledge that the post hoc study design is a limitation and recommend confirming these findings in a large, long-term prospective study.
 

JAK inhibitors expand treatment options

The results will help doctors treat their patients, Jami L. Miller, MD, associate professor of dermatology and dermatology clinic medical director at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

“Because JAK inhibitors have potentially more side effects than inhibitors of interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, in clinical practice most dermatologists are more likely to treat patients first with dupilumab or similar meds and step up to a JAK inhibitor if they do not respond,” she added in an email. 

“With more meds coming out to meet the needs of this population, this is an exciting time for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis,” she commented.

Lindsay C. Strowd, MD, associate professor and vice chair of the department of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said JAK inhibitors are increasingly being studied and approved for use in various dermatologic diseases.

An oral JAK inhibitor (upadacitinib) is currently FDA approved for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, and a topical JAK inhibitor (ruxolitinib) is also approved for use in atopic dermatitis, Dr. Strowd noted.

“The study results give providers important practical information,” added Dr. Strowd, who also was not involved with the study. “Those of us who care for patients with severe atopic dermatitis need to know how patients with prior biologic exposure will respond as newer agents come to market and the options for biologic use in atopic dermatitis continue to grow.”

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. All study authors have reported relevant financial relationships with, and several authors are employees of, Pfizer, the developer of abrocitinib. Dr. Strowd and Dr. Miller have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, abrocitinib showed consistent treatment responses and no new safety issues, whether or not they had already been treated with the biologic dupilumab, an industry-sponsored study reports.

“In this post hoc analysis, both the efficacy and the safety profiles of abrocitinib were consistent in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, regardless of prior biologic therapy use,” lead author Melinda Gooderham, MD, medical director of the SKiN Centre for Dermatology, Peterborough, Ont., said during an oral presentation at the Society for Investigative Dermatology (SID) 2022 Annual Meeting.

“These results ... support the use of abrocitinib in patients who might have received biologic therapy prior,” she added.

“Prior biologic use did not reveal any new safety signals ... keeping in mind the key limitation of this analysis is that it was done post hoc,” she noted.

Guidelines for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis refractory to topical or systemic therapy include systemic immunosuppressants and dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 cytokine-induced responses, Dr. Gooderham said.

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved abrocitinib, an oral once-a-day Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor, to treat the disease. The approval came with a boxed warning about increased risk for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, and lymphoproliferative disorders, major adverse cardiovascular events, thrombosis, and laboratory abnormalities.
 

Comparing the bio-experienced with the bio-naive

Dr. Gooderham and colleagues investigated whether patients who’d been treated with a biologic would respond to abrocitinib differently than patients who had not received prior biologic treatment.

Researchers pooled data from two phase 3 placebo-controlled trials of abrocitinib that led to approval and an earlier phase 2b study. They identified 67 patients previously treated with dupilumab and 867 patients who were bio-naive. They repeated their analysis using data from another phase 3 study of abrocitinib on 86 patients previously treated with dupilumab and 1,147 who were bio-naive. On average, the bio-experienced patients were in their mid-30s to early 40s, and the bio-naive group was several years younger.

In the pooled phase 2b and phase 3 JADE MONO-1 and JADE MONO-2 monotherapy trials, patients received once-daily abrocitinib 100 or 200 mg or placebo for 12 weeks. In the phase 3 JADE REGIMEN, which they analyzed separately, eligible patients were enrolled in a 12-week open-label run-in period during which they received an induction treatment of abrocitinib 200 mg once a day.

Researchers compared results of two assessments: the IGA (Investigator Global Assessment) and EASI-75 (Eczema Area and Severity Index, 75% or greater improvement from baseline).

• At week 12, IGA 0/1 dose-dependent response rates were similar in the pooled groups, regardless of whether they had received prior biologic therapy. With abrocitinib 200 mg, 43.5% of those with prior dupilumab therapy responded versus 41.4% of bio-naive patients; with abrocitinib 100 mg, 24.1% versus 26.7% responded. In JADE REGIMEN, corresponding response rates with abrocitinib 200 mg were 53.5% versus 66.9%, respectively.
• At week 12, EASI-75 responses were also comparable. In the pooled groups by dose, with abrocitinib 200 mg, EASI-75 response rates were 65.2% in patients with prior dupilumab therapy versus 62.4% in those without; at abrocitinib 100 mg, 34.5% versus 42.7% responded. Corresponding rates in JADE REGIMEN were 64.0% versus 76.4%, respectively.
• Treatment-emergent adverse event rates among patients with versus without prior biologic therapy were, respectively, 71.7% versus 69.9% (abrocitinib 200 mg + 100 mg groups) in the pooled population. Rates in JADE REGIMEN with abrocitinib 200 mg were, respectively, 66.3% versus 66.5%.
• Abrocitinib efficacy and safety were consistent in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, regardless of prior biologic therapy. Adverse events in the pooled monotherapy trials and in JADE REGIMEN included acne, atopic dermatitis, diarrhea, headache, nasopharyngitis, nausea, upper abdominal pain, and upper respiratory tract infection.

The authors acknowledge that the post hoc study design is a limitation and recommend confirming these findings in a large, long-term prospective study.
 

JAK inhibitors expand treatment options

The results will help doctors treat their patients, Jami L. Miller, MD, associate professor of dermatology and dermatology clinic medical director at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

“Because JAK inhibitors have potentially more side effects than inhibitors of interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, in clinical practice most dermatologists are more likely to treat patients first with dupilumab or similar meds and step up to a JAK inhibitor if they do not respond,” she added in an email. 

“With more meds coming out to meet the needs of this population, this is an exciting time for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis,” she commented.

Lindsay C. Strowd, MD, associate professor and vice chair of the department of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said JAK inhibitors are increasingly being studied and approved for use in various dermatologic diseases.

An oral JAK inhibitor (upadacitinib) is currently FDA approved for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, and a topical JAK inhibitor (ruxolitinib) is also approved for use in atopic dermatitis, Dr. Strowd noted.

“The study results give providers important practical information,” added Dr. Strowd, who also was not involved with the study. “Those of us who care for patients with severe atopic dermatitis need to know how patients with prior biologic exposure will respond as newer agents come to market and the options for biologic use in atopic dermatitis continue to grow.”

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. All study authors have reported relevant financial relationships with, and several authors are employees of, Pfizer, the developer of abrocitinib. Dr. Strowd and Dr. Miller have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, abrocitinib showed consistent treatment responses and no new safety issues, whether or not they had already been treated with the biologic dupilumab, an industry-sponsored study reports.

“In this post hoc analysis, both the efficacy and the safety profiles of abrocitinib were consistent in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, regardless of prior biologic therapy use,” lead author Melinda Gooderham, MD, medical director of the SKiN Centre for Dermatology, Peterborough, Ont., said during an oral presentation at the Society for Investigative Dermatology (SID) 2022 Annual Meeting.

“These results ... support the use of abrocitinib in patients who might have received biologic therapy prior,” she added.

“Prior biologic use did not reveal any new safety signals ... keeping in mind the key limitation of this analysis is that it was done post hoc,” she noted.

Guidelines for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis refractory to topical or systemic therapy include systemic immunosuppressants and dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 cytokine-induced responses, Dr. Gooderham said.

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved abrocitinib, an oral once-a-day Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor, to treat the disease. The approval came with a boxed warning about increased risk for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, and lymphoproliferative disorders, major adverse cardiovascular events, thrombosis, and laboratory abnormalities.
 

Comparing the bio-experienced with the bio-naive

Dr. Gooderham and colleagues investigated whether patients who’d been treated with a biologic would respond to abrocitinib differently than patients who had not received prior biologic treatment.

Researchers pooled data from two phase 3 placebo-controlled trials of abrocitinib that led to approval and an earlier phase 2b study. They identified 67 patients previously treated with dupilumab and 867 patients who were bio-naive. They repeated their analysis using data from another phase 3 study of abrocitinib on 86 patients previously treated with dupilumab and 1,147 who were bio-naive. On average, the bio-experienced patients were in their mid-30s to early 40s, and the bio-naive group was several years younger.

In the pooled phase 2b and phase 3 JADE MONO-1 and JADE MONO-2 monotherapy trials, patients received once-daily abrocitinib 100 or 200 mg or placebo for 12 weeks. In the phase 3 JADE REGIMEN, which they analyzed separately, eligible patients were enrolled in a 12-week open-label run-in period during which they received an induction treatment of abrocitinib 200 mg once a day.

Researchers compared results of two assessments: the IGA (Investigator Global Assessment) and EASI-75 (Eczema Area and Severity Index, 75% or greater improvement from baseline).

• At week 12, IGA 0/1 dose-dependent response rates were similar in the pooled groups, regardless of whether they had received prior biologic therapy. With abrocitinib 200 mg, 43.5% of those with prior dupilumab therapy responded versus 41.4% of bio-naive patients; with abrocitinib 100 mg, 24.1% versus 26.7% responded. In JADE REGIMEN, corresponding response rates with abrocitinib 200 mg were 53.5% versus 66.9%, respectively.
• At week 12, EASI-75 responses were also comparable. In the pooled groups by dose, with abrocitinib 200 mg, EASI-75 response rates were 65.2% in patients with prior dupilumab therapy versus 62.4% in those without; at abrocitinib 100 mg, 34.5% versus 42.7% responded. Corresponding rates in JADE REGIMEN were 64.0% versus 76.4%, respectively.
• Treatment-emergent adverse event rates among patients with versus without prior biologic therapy were, respectively, 71.7% versus 69.9% (abrocitinib 200 mg + 100 mg groups) in the pooled population. Rates in JADE REGIMEN with abrocitinib 200 mg were, respectively, 66.3% versus 66.5%.
• Abrocitinib efficacy and safety were consistent in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, regardless of prior biologic therapy. Adverse events in the pooled monotherapy trials and in JADE REGIMEN included acne, atopic dermatitis, diarrhea, headache, nasopharyngitis, nausea, upper abdominal pain, and upper respiratory tract infection.

The authors acknowledge that the post hoc study design is a limitation and recommend confirming these findings in a large, long-term prospective study.
 

JAK inhibitors expand treatment options

The results will help doctors treat their patients, Jami L. Miller, MD, associate professor of dermatology and dermatology clinic medical director at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization.

“Because JAK inhibitors have potentially more side effects than inhibitors of interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, in clinical practice most dermatologists are more likely to treat patients first with dupilumab or similar meds and step up to a JAK inhibitor if they do not respond,” she added in an email. 

“With more meds coming out to meet the needs of this population, this is an exciting time for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis,” she commented.

Lindsay C. Strowd, MD, associate professor and vice chair of the department of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said JAK inhibitors are increasingly being studied and approved for use in various dermatologic diseases.

An oral JAK inhibitor (upadacitinib) is currently FDA approved for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, and a topical JAK inhibitor (ruxolitinib) is also approved for use in atopic dermatitis, Dr. Strowd noted.

“The study results give providers important practical information,” added Dr. Strowd, who also was not involved with the study. “Those of us who care for patients with severe atopic dermatitis need to know how patients with prior biologic exposure will respond as newer agents come to market and the options for biologic use in atopic dermatitis continue to grow.”

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. All study authors have reported relevant financial relationships with, and several authors are employees of, Pfizer, the developer of abrocitinib. Dr. Strowd and Dr. Miller have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

PORTLAND, ORE. – For those who hesitate to prescribe Janus kinase inhibitors for patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) because of the boxed warnings on currently approved agents, it’s time to reconsider, according to Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA.

“In dermatology, you need to know about JAK inhibitors, and you need to know how to use them,” Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “Making the choice, ‘I’m not going to use those drugs because of safety concerns,’ may be okay in 2022, but we are going to be getting a lot more indications for these drugs. So instead of avoiding JAK inhibitors, I would say try to learn [about] them, understand them, and get your messaging out on safety.”

It’s difficult to imagine a clinician-researcher who has more experience with the use of biologics and JAK inhibitors in AD than Dr. Blauvelt, who has been the international investigator on several important trials of treatments that include dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib for AD such as CHRONOS, ECZTEND, JADE REGIMEN, and HEADS UP. At the meeting, he discussed his clinical approach to selecting systemic agents for AD and shared prescribing tips. He began by noting that the approval of dupilumab for moderate to severe AD in 2017 ushered in a new era of treating the disease systemically.

“When it was approved, experts went right to dupilumab if they could, and avoided the use of cyclosporine or methotrexate,” said Dr. Blauvelt, who is also an elected member of the American Society for Clinical Investigation and the International Eczema Council. “I still think that dupilumab is a great agent to start with. We’ve had a bit of difficulty improving upon it.”

Following dupilumab’s approval, three other systemic options became available for patients with moderate to severe AD: the human IgG4 monoclonal antibody tralokinumab that binds to interleukin-13, which is administered subcutaneously; and, more recently, the oral JAK inhibitors abrocitinib and upadacitinib, approved in January for moderate to severe AD.

“I’m a big fan of JAK inhibitors because I think they offer things that biologic and topical therapies can’t offer,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “Patients like the pills versus shots. They also like the speed; JAK inhibitors work faster than dupilumab and tralokinumab. So, if you have a patient with bad AD who wants to get better quickly, that would be a reason to choose a JAK inhibitor over a biologic if you can.”

When Dr. Blauvelt has asked AD clinical trial participants if they’d rather be treated with a biologic agent or with a JAK inhibitor, about half choose one over the other.

“Patients who shy away from the safety issues would choose the biologic trial while the ones who wanted the fast relief would choose the JAK trial,” he said. “But if you present both options and the patients prefer a pill, I think the JAK inhibitors do better with a rapid control of inflammation as well as pruritus – the latter within 2 days of taking the pills.”

When counseling patients initiating a JAK inhibitor, Dr. Blauvelt mentioned three advantages, compared with biologics: the pill formulation, the rapidity of response in pruritus control, and better efficacy. “The downside is the safety,” he said. “Safety is the elephant in the room for the JAK inhibitors.”

The risks listed in the boxed warning in the labeling for JAK inhibitors include: an increased risk of serious bacterial, fungal, and opportunistic infections such as TB; a higher rate of all-cause mortality, including cardiovascular death; a higher rate of MACE (major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke); the potential for malignancy, including lymphoma; and the potential for thrombosis, including an increased incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE).

“Risk of thrombosis seems to be a class effect for all JAK inhibitors,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “As far as I know, it’s idiosyncratic. For nearly all the DVT [deep vein thrombosis] cases that have been reported, patients had baseline risk factors for DVT and PE, which are obesity, smoking, and use of oral contraceptives.”

Dr. Blauvelt pointed out that the boxed warning related to mortality, malignancies, and MACE stemmed from a long-term trial of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib in RA patients. “Those patients had to be at least 50 years old, 75% of them were on concomitant methotrexate and/or prednisone, and they had to have at least one cardiac risk factor to get into the trial,” he said.

“I’m not saying those things can’t happen in dermatology patients, but if you look at the safety data of JAK inhibitors in the AD studies and in the alopecia areata studies, we are seeing a few cases of these things here and there, but not major signals,” he said. To date, “they look safer in dermatologic diseases compared to tofacitinib in RA data in older populations.”

He emphasized the importance of discussing each of the risks in the boxed warning with patients who are candidates for JAK inhibitor therapy.

Dr. Blauvelt likened the lab monitoring required for JAK inhibitors to that required for methotrexate. This means ordering at baseline, a CBC with differential, a chem-20, a lipid panel, and a QuantiFERON-TB Gold test. The JAK inhibitor labels do not include information on the frequency of monitoring, “but I have a distinct opinion on this because of my blood test monitoring experience in the trials for many years,” he said.

“I think it’s good to do follow-up testing at 1 month, then every 3 months in the first year. In my experience, the people who drop blood cell counts or increase their lipids tend to do it in the first year.”

After 1 year of treatment, he continued, follow-up testing once every 6 months is reasonable. “If CPK [creatine phosphokinase] goes up, I don’t worry about it; it’s not clinically relevant. There is no recommendation for CPK monitoring, so if you’re getting that on your chem-20, I’d say don’t worry about it.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported that he is an investigator and a scientific adviser for several pharmaceutical companies developing treatments for AD, including companies that are evaluating or marketing JAK inhibitors for AD, including AbbVie, Incyte, and Pfizer, as well as dupilumab’s joint developers Sanofi and Regeneron.

PORTLAND, ORE. – For those who hesitate to prescribe Janus kinase inhibitors for patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) because of the boxed warnings on currently approved agents, it’s time to reconsider, according to Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA.

“In dermatology, you need to know about JAK inhibitors, and you need to know how to use them,” Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “Making the choice, ‘I’m not going to use those drugs because of safety concerns,’ may be okay in 2022, but we are going to be getting a lot more indications for these drugs. So instead of avoiding JAK inhibitors, I would say try to learn [about] them, understand them, and get your messaging out on safety.”

It’s difficult to imagine a clinician-researcher who has more experience with the use of biologics and JAK inhibitors in AD than Dr. Blauvelt, who has been the international investigator on several important trials of treatments that include dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib for AD such as CHRONOS, ECZTEND, JADE REGIMEN, and HEADS UP. At the meeting, he discussed his clinical approach to selecting systemic agents for AD and shared prescribing tips. He began by noting that the approval of dupilumab for moderate to severe AD in 2017 ushered in a new era of treating the disease systemically.

“When it was approved, experts went right to dupilumab if they could, and avoided the use of cyclosporine or methotrexate,” said Dr. Blauvelt, who is also an elected member of the American Society for Clinical Investigation and the International Eczema Council. “I still think that dupilumab is a great agent to start with. We’ve had a bit of difficulty improving upon it.”

Following dupilumab’s approval, three other systemic options became available for patients with moderate to severe AD: the human IgG4 monoclonal antibody tralokinumab that binds to interleukin-13, which is administered subcutaneously; and, more recently, the oral JAK inhibitors abrocitinib and upadacitinib, approved in January for moderate to severe AD.

“I’m a big fan of JAK inhibitors because I think they offer things that biologic and topical therapies can’t offer,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “Patients like the pills versus shots. They also like the speed; JAK inhibitors work faster than dupilumab and tralokinumab. So, if you have a patient with bad AD who wants to get better quickly, that would be a reason to choose a JAK inhibitor over a biologic if you can.”

When Dr. Blauvelt has asked AD clinical trial participants if they’d rather be treated with a biologic agent or with a JAK inhibitor, about half choose one over the other.

“Patients who shy away from the safety issues would choose the biologic trial while the ones who wanted the fast relief would choose the JAK trial,” he said. “But if you present both options and the patients prefer a pill, I think the JAK inhibitors do better with a rapid control of inflammation as well as pruritus – the latter within 2 days of taking the pills.”

When counseling patients initiating a JAK inhibitor, Dr. Blauvelt mentioned three advantages, compared with biologics: the pill formulation, the rapidity of response in pruritus control, and better efficacy. “The downside is the safety,” he said. “Safety is the elephant in the room for the JAK inhibitors.”

The risks listed in the boxed warning in the labeling for JAK inhibitors include: an increased risk of serious bacterial, fungal, and opportunistic infections such as TB; a higher rate of all-cause mortality, including cardiovascular death; a higher rate of MACE (major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke); the potential for malignancy, including lymphoma; and the potential for thrombosis, including an increased incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE).

“Risk of thrombosis seems to be a class effect for all JAK inhibitors,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “As far as I know, it’s idiosyncratic. For nearly all the DVT [deep vein thrombosis] cases that have been reported, patients had baseline risk factors for DVT and PE, which are obesity, smoking, and use of oral contraceptives.”

Dr. Blauvelt pointed out that the boxed warning related to mortality, malignancies, and MACE stemmed from a long-term trial of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib in RA patients. “Those patients had to be at least 50 years old, 75% of them were on concomitant methotrexate and/or prednisone, and they had to have at least one cardiac risk factor to get into the trial,” he said.

“I’m not saying those things can’t happen in dermatology patients, but if you look at the safety data of JAK inhibitors in the AD studies and in the alopecia areata studies, we are seeing a few cases of these things here and there, but not major signals,” he said. To date, “they look safer in dermatologic diseases compared to tofacitinib in RA data in older populations.”

He emphasized the importance of discussing each of the risks in the boxed warning with patients who are candidates for JAK inhibitor therapy.

Dr. Blauvelt likened the lab monitoring required for JAK inhibitors to that required for methotrexate. This means ordering at baseline, a CBC with differential, a chem-20, a lipid panel, and a QuantiFERON-TB Gold test. The JAK inhibitor labels do not include information on the frequency of monitoring, “but I have a distinct opinion on this because of my blood test monitoring experience in the trials for many years,” he said.

“I think it’s good to do follow-up testing at 1 month, then every 3 months in the first year. In my experience, the people who drop blood cell counts or increase their lipids tend to do it in the first year.”

After 1 year of treatment, he continued, follow-up testing once every 6 months is reasonable. “If CPK [creatine phosphokinase] goes up, I don’t worry about it; it’s not clinically relevant. There is no recommendation for CPK monitoring, so if you’re getting that on your chem-20, I’d say don’t worry about it.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported that he is an investigator and a scientific adviser for several pharmaceutical companies developing treatments for AD, including companies that are evaluating or marketing JAK inhibitors for AD, including AbbVie, Incyte, and Pfizer, as well as dupilumab’s joint developers Sanofi and Regeneron.

PORTLAND, ORE. – For those who hesitate to prescribe Janus kinase inhibitors for patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) because of the boxed warnings on currently approved agents, it’s time to reconsider, according to Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA.

“In dermatology, you need to know about JAK inhibitors, and you need to know how to use them,” Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “Making the choice, ‘I’m not going to use those drugs because of safety concerns,’ may be okay in 2022, but we are going to be getting a lot more indications for these drugs. So instead of avoiding JAK inhibitors, I would say try to learn [about] them, understand them, and get your messaging out on safety.”

It’s difficult to imagine a clinician-researcher who has more experience with the use of biologics and JAK inhibitors in AD than Dr. Blauvelt, who has been the international investigator on several important trials of treatments that include dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib for AD such as CHRONOS, ECZTEND, JADE REGIMEN, and HEADS UP. At the meeting, he discussed his clinical approach to selecting systemic agents for AD and shared prescribing tips. He began by noting that the approval of dupilumab for moderate to severe AD in 2017 ushered in a new era of treating the disease systemically.

“When it was approved, experts went right to dupilumab if they could, and avoided the use of cyclosporine or methotrexate,” said Dr. Blauvelt, who is also an elected member of the American Society for Clinical Investigation and the International Eczema Council. “I still think that dupilumab is a great agent to start with. We’ve had a bit of difficulty improving upon it.”

Following dupilumab’s approval, three other systemic options became available for patients with moderate to severe AD: the human IgG4 monoclonal antibody tralokinumab that binds to interleukin-13, which is administered subcutaneously; and, more recently, the oral JAK inhibitors abrocitinib and upadacitinib, approved in January for moderate to severe AD.

“I’m a big fan of JAK inhibitors because I think they offer things that biologic and topical therapies can’t offer,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “Patients like the pills versus shots. They also like the speed; JAK inhibitors work faster than dupilumab and tralokinumab. So, if you have a patient with bad AD who wants to get better quickly, that would be a reason to choose a JAK inhibitor over a biologic if you can.”

When Dr. Blauvelt has asked AD clinical trial participants if they’d rather be treated with a biologic agent or with a JAK inhibitor, about half choose one over the other.

“Patients who shy away from the safety issues would choose the biologic trial while the ones who wanted the fast relief would choose the JAK trial,” he said. “But if you present both options and the patients prefer a pill, I think the JAK inhibitors do better with a rapid control of inflammation as well as pruritus – the latter within 2 days of taking the pills.”

When counseling patients initiating a JAK inhibitor, Dr. Blauvelt mentioned three advantages, compared with biologics: the pill formulation, the rapidity of response in pruritus control, and better efficacy. “The downside is the safety,” he said. “Safety is the elephant in the room for the JAK inhibitors.”

The risks listed in the boxed warning in the labeling for JAK inhibitors include: an increased risk of serious bacterial, fungal, and opportunistic infections such as TB; a higher rate of all-cause mortality, including cardiovascular death; a higher rate of MACE (major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke); the potential for malignancy, including lymphoma; and the potential for thrombosis, including an increased incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE).

“Risk of thrombosis seems to be a class effect for all JAK inhibitors,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “As far as I know, it’s idiosyncratic. For nearly all the DVT [deep vein thrombosis] cases that have been reported, patients had baseline risk factors for DVT and PE, which are obesity, smoking, and use of oral contraceptives.”

Dr. Blauvelt pointed out that the boxed warning related to mortality, malignancies, and MACE stemmed from a long-term trial of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib in RA patients. “Those patients had to be at least 50 years old, 75% of them were on concomitant methotrexate and/or prednisone, and they had to have at least one cardiac risk factor to get into the trial,” he said.

“I’m not saying those things can’t happen in dermatology patients, but if you look at the safety data of JAK inhibitors in the AD studies and in the alopecia areata studies, we are seeing a few cases of these things here and there, but not major signals,” he said. To date, “they look safer in dermatologic diseases compared to tofacitinib in RA data in older populations.”

He emphasized the importance of discussing each of the risks in the boxed warning with patients who are candidates for JAK inhibitor therapy.

Dr. Blauvelt likened the lab monitoring required for JAK inhibitors to that required for methotrexate. This means ordering at baseline, a CBC with differential, a chem-20, a lipid panel, and a QuantiFERON-TB Gold test. The JAK inhibitor labels do not include information on the frequency of monitoring, “but I have a distinct opinion on this because of my blood test monitoring experience in the trials for many years,” he said.

“I think it’s good to do follow-up testing at 1 month, then every 3 months in the first year. In my experience, the people who drop blood cell counts or increase their lipids tend to do it in the first year.”

After 1 year of treatment, he continued, follow-up testing once every 6 months is reasonable. “If CPK [creatine phosphokinase] goes up, I don’t worry about it; it’s not clinically relevant. There is no recommendation for CPK monitoring, so if you’re getting that on your chem-20, I’d say don’t worry about it.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported that he is an investigator and a scientific adviser for several pharmaceutical companies developing treatments for AD, including companies that are evaluating or marketing JAK inhibitors for AD, including AbbVie, Incyte, and Pfizer, as well as dupilumab’s joint developers Sanofi and Regeneron.

Key clinical point: Childhood maltreatment (CM) is associated with poor physical and mental health outcomes in adults; however, it was not found to be a risk factor for the development of adult atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Similar proportion of adults with and without AD (20.6% and 21.6%, respectively; P  =  .80) reported experiencing ≥1 type of moderate-to-severe CM, such as emotional, physical, and sexual abuse and emotional and physical neglect. Neither type of CM was associated with the development of AD in adults.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a cross-sectional population-based study including 2973 adults, of which 131 were diagnosed with AD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and other sources. Some authors declared receiving honoraria, research funding, consulting fees, or support for attending meetings or travel from several sources.

Source: Piontek K et al. J Childhood maltreatment is not associated with atopic dermatitis in adults: Results from a cross-sectional population-based cohort study. Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022 (Aug 3). Doi: 10.1111/jdv.18480

Key clinical point: Childhood maltreatment (CM) is associated with poor physical and mental health outcomes in adults; however, it was not found to be a risk factor for the development of adult atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Similar proportion of adults with and without AD (20.6% and 21.6%, respectively; P  =  .80) reported experiencing ≥1 type of moderate-to-severe CM, such as emotional, physical, and sexual abuse and emotional and physical neglect. Neither type of CM was associated with the development of AD in adults.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a cross-sectional population-based study including 2973 adults, of which 131 were diagnosed with AD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and other sources. Some authors declared receiving honoraria, research funding, consulting fees, or support for attending meetings or travel from several sources.

Source: Piontek K et al. J Childhood maltreatment is not associated with atopic dermatitis in adults: Results from a cross-sectional population-based cohort study. Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022 (Aug 3). Doi: 10.1111/jdv.18480

Key clinical point: Childhood maltreatment (CM) is associated with poor physical and mental health outcomes in adults; however, it was not found to be a risk factor for the development of adult atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: Similar proportion of adults with and without AD (20.6% and 21.6%, respectively; P  =  .80) reported experiencing ≥1 type of moderate-to-severe CM, such as emotional, physical, and sexual abuse and emotional and physical neglect. Neither type of CM was associated with the development of AD in adults.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a cross-sectional population-based study including 2973 adults, of which 131 were diagnosed with AD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and other sources. Some authors declared receiving honoraria, research funding, consulting fees, or support for attending meetings or travel from several sources.

Source: Piontek K et al. J Childhood maltreatment is not associated with atopic dermatitis in adults: Results from a cross-sectional population-based cohort study. Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022 (Aug 3). Doi: 10.1111/jdv.18480

Key clinical point: Maternal exposure to nickel was associated with increased serum interleukin (IL)-2 levels but decreased serum eotaxin-1 levels and was negatively associated with the development of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children aged 3 years.

Major finding: Maternal nickel exposure was associated with increased serum levels of IL-2 (β 16.820; P < .001) but decreased serum levels of eotaxin-1 (β −5.065; P < .01) and was negatively associated with the development of AD (P  =  .024) in children aged 3 years.

Study details: Findings are from the analysis of an ongoing birth cohort study including 140 mother-child pairs.

Disclosures: This work was supported by grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, and National Health Research Institutes. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ho JC et al. Prenatal exposure to nickel and atopic dermatitis at age 3 years: A birth cohort study with cytokine profiles. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022 (Jul 16). Doi: 10.1111/jdv.18425

Key clinical point: Maternal exposure to nickel was associated with increased serum interleukin (IL)-2 levels but decreased serum eotaxin-1 levels and was negatively associated with the development of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children aged 3 years.

Major finding: Maternal nickel exposure was associated with increased serum levels of IL-2 (β 16.820; P < .001) but decreased serum levels of eotaxin-1 (β −5.065; P < .01) and was negatively associated with the development of AD (P  =  .024) in children aged 3 years.

Study details: Findings are from the analysis of an ongoing birth cohort study including 140 mother-child pairs.

Disclosures: This work was supported by grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, and National Health Research Institutes. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ho JC et al. Prenatal exposure to nickel and atopic dermatitis at age 3 years: A birth cohort study with cytokine profiles. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022 (Jul 16). Doi: 10.1111/jdv.18425

Key clinical point: Maternal exposure to nickel was associated with increased serum interleukin (IL)-2 levels but decreased serum eotaxin-1 levels and was negatively associated with the development of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children aged 3 years.

Major finding: Maternal nickel exposure was associated with increased serum levels of IL-2 (β 16.820; P < .001) but decreased serum levels of eotaxin-1 (β −5.065; P < .01) and was negatively associated with the development of AD (P  =  .024) in children aged 3 years.

Study details: Findings are from the analysis of an ongoing birth cohort study including 140 mother-child pairs.

Disclosures: This work was supported by grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, and National Health Research Institutes. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ho JC et al. Prenatal exposure to nickel and atopic dermatitis at age 3 years: A birth cohort study with cytokine profiles. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022 (Jul 16). Doi: 10.1111/jdv.18425

Key clinical point: Interleukin (IL)-13 inhibitors, such as lebrikizumab and tralokinumab, rapidly reduced disease severity and were well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving lebrikizumab or tralokinumab vs placebo achieved ≥75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index as early as week 4 (risk ratio [RR] 2.09; P  =  .006) and ≥4-point improvement in the Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score (RR 1.59; 95% CI 1.23-2.05). Lebrikizumab/tralokinumab was associated with a higher risk for conjunctivitis than placebo (RR 2.318; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 7 randomized controlled trials including 2946 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive lebrikizumab, tralokinumab, or placebo for 12-16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhang Y et al. The efficacy and safety of IL-13 inhibitors in atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Immunol. 2022;13:923362 (Jul 27). Doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.923362

Key clinical point: Interleukin (IL)-13 inhibitors, such as lebrikizumab and tralokinumab, rapidly reduced disease severity and were well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving lebrikizumab or tralokinumab vs placebo achieved ≥75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index as early as week 4 (risk ratio [RR] 2.09; P  =  .006) and ≥4-point improvement in the Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score (RR 1.59; 95% CI 1.23-2.05). Lebrikizumab/tralokinumab was associated with a higher risk for conjunctivitis than placebo (RR 2.318; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 7 randomized controlled trials including 2946 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive lebrikizumab, tralokinumab, or placebo for 12-16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhang Y et al. The efficacy and safety of IL-13 inhibitors in atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Immunol. 2022;13:923362 (Jul 27). Doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.923362

Key clinical point: Interleukin (IL)-13 inhibitors, such as lebrikizumab and tralokinumab, rapidly reduced disease severity and were well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving lebrikizumab or tralokinumab vs placebo achieved ≥75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index as early as week 4 (risk ratio [RR] 2.09; P  =  .006) and ≥4-point improvement in the Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score (RR 1.59; 95% CI 1.23-2.05). Lebrikizumab/tralokinumab was associated with a higher risk for conjunctivitis than placebo (RR 2.318; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a meta-analysis of 7 randomized controlled trials including 2946 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive lebrikizumab, tralokinumab, or placebo for 12-16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhang Y et al. The efficacy and safety of IL-13 inhibitors in atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Immunol. 2022;13:923362 (Jul 27). Doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.923362

Key clinical point: A 2-week treatment with a test cream (TC) containing a steroid and pseudoceramide rapidly improved skin barrier function compared with a control cream (CC) containing only steroids in patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: In the TC group, the mean skin hydration value (48.0; P < .01) and transepidermal water loss (−2.1; P < .05) improved significantly as early as at 1 week after application, with similar improvements observed at 2 weeks; however, no significant improvements were observed in the CC group.

Study details: Findings are from a parallel, double-blind study including 36 patients with mild-to-moderate AD skin symptoms on the inner forearm who were randomly assigned to receive a TC containing 0.15% prednisolone valerate acetate (PVA)+3% synthetic pseudoceramide or a CC containing 0.15% PVA for 2 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was fully funded by Kao Corporation, Japan. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Okoshi K et al. Efficacy of pseudo-ceramide-containing steroid lamellar cream in patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis: A randomized, double-blind study. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2022;12:1823–1834 (Jul 19). Doi: 10.1007/s13555-022-00766-2

Key clinical point: A 2-week treatment with a test cream (TC) containing a steroid and pseudoceramide rapidly improved skin barrier function compared with a control cream (CC) containing only steroids in patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: In the TC group, the mean skin hydration value (48.0; P < .01) and transepidermal water loss (−2.1; P < .05) improved significantly as early as at 1 week after application, with similar improvements observed at 2 weeks; however, no significant improvements were observed in the CC group.

Study details: Findings are from a parallel, double-blind study including 36 patients with mild-to-moderate AD skin symptoms on the inner forearm who were randomly assigned to receive a TC containing 0.15% prednisolone valerate acetate (PVA)+3% synthetic pseudoceramide or a CC containing 0.15% PVA for 2 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was fully funded by Kao Corporation, Japan. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Okoshi K et al. Efficacy of pseudo-ceramide-containing steroid lamellar cream in patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis: A randomized, double-blind study. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2022;12:1823–1834 (Jul 19). Doi: 10.1007/s13555-022-00766-2

Key clinical point: A 2-week treatment with a test cream (TC) containing a steroid and pseudoceramide rapidly improved skin barrier function compared with a control cream (CC) containing only steroids in patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: In the TC group, the mean skin hydration value (48.0; P < .01) and transepidermal water loss (−2.1; P < .05) improved significantly as early as at 1 week after application, with similar improvements observed at 2 weeks; however, no significant improvements were observed in the CC group.

Study details: Findings are from a parallel, double-blind study including 36 patients with mild-to-moderate AD skin symptoms on the inner forearm who were randomly assigned to receive a TC containing 0.15% prednisolone valerate acetate (PVA)+3% synthetic pseudoceramide or a CC containing 0.15% PVA for 2 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was fully funded by Kao Corporation, Japan. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Okoshi K et al. Efficacy of pseudo-ceramide-containing steroid lamellar cream in patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis: A randomized, double-blind study. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2022;12:1823–1834 (Jul 19). Doi: 10.1007/s13555-022-00766-2

Key clinical point: Dupilumab demonstrated comparable long-term efficacy and safety in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) and other major comorbidities (special population) as well as patients with only AD.

Major finding: Patients with AD and concomitant comorbidities achieved significant improvements in the Eczema Area and Severity Index at weeks 4, 16, and 52 (all P < .0001), with comparable outcomes observed in patients with only AD. Patients with vs without concomitant comorbidities reported injection site reactions (12.0% vs 17.22%) and conjunctivitis (8.0% vs 11.34%) as the main adverse events.

Study details: Findings are from a 52-week retrospective study including 263 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who received dupilumab for 16 weeks, including 25 patients with severe kidney failure, hepatitis B/C, neurological diseases, AIDS, or a history of cancer or organ transplantation who were classified as the special population.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Some authors declared serving as investigators, speakers, consultants, or advisory board members for several sources.

Source: Patruno C et al. Dupilumab for the treatment of adult atopic dermatitis in special populations. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022 (Jul 19). Doi: 10.1080/09546634.2022.2102121

Key clinical point: Dupilumab demonstrated comparable long-term efficacy and safety in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) and other major comorbidities (special population) as well as patients with only AD.

Major finding: Patients with AD and concomitant comorbidities achieved significant improvements in the Eczema Area and Severity Index at weeks 4, 16, and 52 (all P < .0001), with comparable outcomes observed in patients with only AD. Patients with vs without concomitant comorbidities reported injection site reactions (12.0% vs 17.22%) and conjunctivitis (8.0% vs 11.34%) as the main adverse events.

Study details: Findings are from a 52-week retrospective study including 263 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who received dupilumab for 16 weeks, including 25 patients with severe kidney failure, hepatitis B/C, neurological diseases, AIDS, or a history of cancer or organ transplantation who were classified as the special population.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Some authors declared serving as investigators, speakers, consultants, or advisory board members for several sources.

Source: Patruno C et al. Dupilumab for the treatment of adult atopic dermatitis in special populations. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022 (Jul 19). Doi: 10.1080/09546634.2022.2102121

Key clinical point: Dupilumab demonstrated comparable long-term efficacy and safety in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) and other major comorbidities (special population) as well as patients with only AD.

Major finding: Patients with AD and concomitant comorbidities achieved significant improvements in the Eczema Area and Severity Index at weeks 4, 16, and 52 (all P < .0001), with comparable outcomes observed in patients with only AD. Patients with vs without concomitant comorbidities reported injection site reactions (12.0% vs 17.22%) and conjunctivitis (8.0% vs 11.34%) as the main adverse events.

Study details: Findings are from a 52-week retrospective study including 263 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who received dupilumab for 16 weeks, including 25 patients with severe kidney failure, hepatitis B/C, neurological diseases, AIDS, or a history of cancer or organ transplantation who were classified as the special population.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Some authors declared serving as investigators, speakers, consultants, or advisory board members for several sources.

Source: Patruno C et al. Dupilumab for the treatment of adult atopic dermatitis in special populations. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022 (Jul 19). Doi: 10.1080/09546634.2022.2102121

Key clinical point: Dupilumab was effective against pruritus and improved itch and sleep scores in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: By 36 months, the mean numerical rating scale peak of pruritus (NRSpp) score dropped from 8.6 to 1.7 and the mean NRS sleep disturbance (NRSsd) score dropped from 7 to 0. The Eczema Area and Severity Index and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores were significantly correlated with both NRSpp and NRSsd scores (P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, observational study including 356 patients with AD who received dupilumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mastorino L et al. Chronic pruritus in atopic patients treated with dupilumab: Real life response and related parameters in 354 patients. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2022;15(7):883 (Jul 17). Doi: 10.3390/ph15070883

Key clinical point: Dupilumab was effective against pruritus and improved itch and sleep scores in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: By 36 months, the mean numerical rating scale peak of pruritus (NRSpp) score dropped from 8.6 to 1.7 and the mean NRS sleep disturbance (NRSsd) score dropped from 7 to 0. The Eczema Area and Severity Index and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores were significantly correlated with both NRSpp and NRSsd scores (P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, observational study including 356 patients with AD who received dupilumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mastorino L et al. Chronic pruritus in atopic patients treated with dupilumab: Real life response and related parameters in 354 patients. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2022;15(7):883 (Jul 17). Doi: 10.3390/ph15070883

Key clinical point: Dupilumab was effective against pruritus and improved itch and sleep scores in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: By 36 months, the mean numerical rating scale peak of pruritus (NRSpp) score dropped from 8.6 to 1.7 and the mean NRS sleep disturbance (NRSsd) score dropped from 7 to 0. The Eczema Area and Severity Index and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores were significantly correlated with both NRSpp and NRSsd scores (P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, observational study including 356 patients with AD who received dupilumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mastorino L et al. Chronic pruritus in atopic patients treated with dupilumab: Real life response and related parameters in 354 patients. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2022;15(7):883 (Jul 17). Doi: 10.3390/ph15070883