User login
JAK inhibitor ivarmacitinib shows efficacy for atopic dermatitis in a pivotal trial
NEW ORLEANS – The presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Two doses were studied in the placebo-controlled trial and both demonstrated “a favorable benefit-to-risk profile in patients with moderate to severe AD,” reported Yan Zhao, MD, a clinician and researcher in the department of dermatology, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing.
In the study, called QUARTZ3, 336 patients aged 12 and older at 51 sites in China and Canada were randomized to 4 mg once-daily ivarmacitinib, 8 mg once-daily QD ivarmacitinib, or placebo. The mean age of the population was 32 years and approximately one-third were female.
The mean duration of AD for participants was 10 years. The mean baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score was near 30. On the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) tool, approximately 40% had a score of 4, which is the highest score on the scale and indicates severe disease. The remaining patients had an IGA score of 3.
The co-primary endpoints were change in IGA and EASI scores at 16 weeks, and both improved rapidly, showing statistical significance relative to placebo by 4 weeks with no plateauing effect at the end of the 16-week trial. By week 16, the proportion of patients with an EASI score of 75, signifying a 75% improvement, was 66%, 54%, and 22% for the 8-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, 4-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, and placebo groups (P < .001 versus placebo for both doses of active therapy), respectively.
The pattern of the IGA response was similar. By week 16, the proportion of patients achieving an IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) was 42%, 36%, and 9% for the 8-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, 4-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, and placebo groups, respectively. The advantage of either dose over placebo was highly significant (P < .001) at 8, 12, and 16 weeks.
For the WI-NRS (Worst Itch – Numeric Rating Scale), the advantage of the 8-mg dose relative to placebo was significant (P < .001) at the 1-week evaluation. By 2 weeks, the 4-mg dose had gained the same degree of statistical significance relative to placebo. After week 4, when the maximum proportion of patients with a WI-NRS score ≤ 4 was reached (50%, 35%, and 10% in the 8-mg, 4-mg, and placebo groups), and the relative advantage of active treatment persisted until the end of the 16-week study.
Two scales were used to evaluate change in quality of life. On the DLQI (Dermatology Life Quality Index) and POEM (Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure), improvements were again rapid and sustained. By week 4, improvement with the 8-mg dose was about fourfold greater (P < .001) than improvement with placebo for DLQI and about sixfold greater (P < .001) for POEM. For the 4-mg dose, the relative differences were approximately threefold and fourfold greater, and both were significant (P <.001).
There was no further gain in these quality-of-life scales from week 4 to week 16, but the advantages relative to placebo were generally sustained, Dr. Zhao reported.
Ivarmacitinib was safe and well-tolerated, according to Dr. Zhao. The proportion of patients with a treatment-emergent adverse event that led to drug discontinuation was numerically higher (5.4%) in the placebo group than in the 8-mg (3.6%) or 4-mg group (2.7%). Rates of infection in the three groups were similar, and there were no major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or thromboembolism observed in any group.
Ivarmacitinib, which has about a 10-fold greater selectivity for JAK1 than JAK2 and a more than 70-fold greater selectivity for JAK1 than JAK3, is being tested for rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and alopecia areata in addition to AD, Dr. Zhao said. She also reported that an application for new drug approval has been submitted in China. Efforts to pursue regulatory approval elsewhere are anticipated.
Currently, there are three JAK inhibitors licensed for the treatment of AD in the United States. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo) are also once-daily oral JAK1-selective inhibitors. Regulatory approval for AD by the Food and Drug Administration was granted to both in early 2022 and both now have an indication for moderate to severe disease in patients ages 12 years and older.
In September 2021, the first U.S. approval of a drug in this class for AD was granted for a topical formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), which has selectivity for both JAK1 and JAK2. The indication is for mild to moderate AD in patients aged 12 years and older.
In the phase 3 clinical trial that led to approval of abrocitinib for AD, the comparator groups included placebo and active treatment with 300 mg dupilumab administered subcutaneously every other week. The higher of two doses of abrocitinib (100 mg) was numerically superior to dupilumab in terms of EASI 75 response at week 12 and was statistically superior for relief of itch at week 2.
Relative to the first-generation JAK inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz), both of the approved oral JAK inhibitors for AD, abrocitinib and upadacitinib, have greater JAK1-selectivity. However, selectivity for all JAK inhibitors is relative rather than absolute, according to a recent review article on oral JAK inhibitors for AD. Efficacy and safety are likely determined by relative inhibition of each of the four JAK enzymes (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2). Although JAK1 appears to be an important target for AD treatment, the clinical significance of the degree of selectivity among oral JAK inhibitors is not yet clear.
In an interview, the senior author of that review article, Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, emphasized this point. She said there is no evidence and no basis on which to speculate that any one drug in this class is better than another for AD. Dr. Guttman-Yassky is a professor and system chair of dermatology and immunology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“The efficacy [of ivarmacitinib] seems, in general, to be in line with other JAK inhibitors,” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who attended the late-breaker session during which these data were presented. Although she acknowledged that rapid control of pruritus is important clinically, she said the speed of itch relief as reported in the phase 3 ivarmacitinib trial does not distinguish it from other oral drugs in the class.
Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed.
“The rapid effects on itch of ivarmacitinib are consistent with those observed by the already approved JAK1-selective inhibitors abrocitinib and upadacitinib,” he said in an interview.
This suggests that head-to-head trials will be needed to draw any conclusions about the relative efficacy and safety of existing and emerging oral JAK inhibitors for AD.
Dr. Zhao has reported a financial relationship with Reistone Biopharma, which is developing ivarmacitinib and provided funding for the trial. Dr. Guttman-Yassky has reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Kwatra has reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Aslan, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Celldex, Galderma, Genzada, Incyte, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS – The presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Two doses were studied in the placebo-controlled trial and both demonstrated “a favorable benefit-to-risk profile in patients with moderate to severe AD,” reported Yan Zhao, MD, a clinician and researcher in the department of dermatology, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing.
In the study, called QUARTZ3, 336 patients aged 12 and older at 51 sites in China and Canada were randomized to 4 mg once-daily ivarmacitinib, 8 mg once-daily QD ivarmacitinib, or placebo. The mean age of the population was 32 years and approximately one-third were female.
The mean duration of AD for participants was 10 years. The mean baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score was near 30. On the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) tool, approximately 40% had a score of 4, which is the highest score on the scale and indicates severe disease. The remaining patients had an IGA score of 3.
The co-primary endpoints were change in IGA and EASI scores at 16 weeks, and both improved rapidly, showing statistical significance relative to placebo by 4 weeks with no plateauing effect at the end of the 16-week trial. By week 16, the proportion of patients with an EASI score of 75, signifying a 75% improvement, was 66%, 54%, and 22% for the 8-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, 4-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, and placebo groups (P < .001 versus placebo for both doses of active therapy), respectively.
The pattern of the IGA response was similar. By week 16, the proportion of patients achieving an IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) was 42%, 36%, and 9% for the 8-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, 4-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, and placebo groups, respectively. The advantage of either dose over placebo was highly significant (P < .001) at 8, 12, and 16 weeks.
For the WI-NRS (Worst Itch – Numeric Rating Scale), the advantage of the 8-mg dose relative to placebo was significant (P < .001) at the 1-week evaluation. By 2 weeks, the 4-mg dose had gained the same degree of statistical significance relative to placebo. After week 4, when the maximum proportion of patients with a WI-NRS score ≤ 4 was reached (50%, 35%, and 10% in the 8-mg, 4-mg, and placebo groups), and the relative advantage of active treatment persisted until the end of the 16-week study.
Two scales were used to evaluate change in quality of life. On the DLQI (Dermatology Life Quality Index) and POEM (Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure), improvements were again rapid and sustained. By week 4, improvement with the 8-mg dose was about fourfold greater (P < .001) than improvement with placebo for DLQI and about sixfold greater (P < .001) for POEM. For the 4-mg dose, the relative differences were approximately threefold and fourfold greater, and both were significant (P <.001).
There was no further gain in these quality-of-life scales from week 4 to week 16, but the advantages relative to placebo were generally sustained, Dr. Zhao reported.
Ivarmacitinib was safe and well-tolerated, according to Dr. Zhao. The proportion of patients with a treatment-emergent adverse event that led to drug discontinuation was numerically higher (5.4%) in the placebo group than in the 8-mg (3.6%) or 4-mg group (2.7%). Rates of infection in the three groups were similar, and there were no major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or thromboembolism observed in any group.
Ivarmacitinib, which has about a 10-fold greater selectivity for JAK1 than JAK2 and a more than 70-fold greater selectivity for JAK1 than JAK3, is being tested for rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and alopecia areata in addition to AD, Dr. Zhao said. She also reported that an application for new drug approval has been submitted in China. Efforts to pursue regulatory approval elsewhere are anticipated.
Currently, there are three JAK inhibitors licensed for the treatment of AD in the United States. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo) are also once-daily oral JAK1-selective inhibitors. Regulatory approval for AD by the Food and Drug Administration was granted to both in early 2022 and both now have an indication for moderate to severe disease in patients ages 12 years and older.
In September 2021, the first U.S. approval of a drug in this class for AD was granted for a topical formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), which has selectivity for both JAK1 and JAK2. The indication is for mild to moderate AD in patients aged 12 years and older.
In the phase 3 clinical trial that led to approval of abrocitinib for AD, the comparator groups included placebo and active treatment with 300 mg dupilumab administered subcutaneously every other week. The higher of two doses of abrocitinib (100 mg) was numerically superior to dupilumab in terms of EASI 75 response at week 12 and was statistically superior for relief of itch at week 2.
Relative to the first-generation JAK inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz), both of the approved oral JAK inhibitors for AD, abrocitinib and upadacitinib, have greater JAK1-selectivity. However, selectivity for all JAK inhibitors is relative rather than absolute, according to a recent review article on oral JAK inhibitors for AD. Efficacy and safety are likely determined by relative inhibition of each of the four JAK enzymes (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2). Although JAK1 appears to be an important target for AD treatment, the clinical significance of the degree of selectivity among oral JAK inhibitors is not yet clear.
In an interview, the senior author of that review article, Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, emphasized this point. She said there is no evidence and no basis on which to speculate that any one drug in this class is better than another for AD. Dr. Guttman-Yassky is a professor and system chair of dermatology and immunology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“The efficacy [of ivarmacitinib] seems, in general, to be in line with other JAK inhibitors,” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who attended the late-breaker session during which these data were presented. Although she acknowledged that rapid control of pruritus is important clinically, she said the speed of itch relief as reported in the phase 3 ivarmacitinib trial does not distinguish it from other oral drugs in the class.
Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed.
“The rapid effects on itch of ivarmacitinib are consistent with those observed by the already approved JAK1-selective inhibitors abrocitinib and upadacitinib,” he said in an interview.
This suggests that head-to-head trials will be needed to draw any conclusions about the relative efficacy and safety of existing and emerging oral JAK inhibitors for AD.
Dr. Zhao has reported a financial relationship with Reistone Biopharma, which is developing ivarmacitinib and provided funding for the trial. Dr. Guttman-Yassky has reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Kwatra has reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Aslan, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Celldex, Galderma, Genzada, Incyte, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS – The presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Two doses were studied in the placebo-controlled trial and both demonstrated “a favorable benefit-to-risk profile in patients with moderate to severe AD,” reported Yan Zhao, MD, a clinician and researcher in the department of dermatology, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing.
In the study, called QUARTZ3, 336 patients aged 12 and older at 51 sites in China and Canada were randomized to 4 mg once-daily ivarmacitinib, 8 mg once-daily QD ivarmacitinib, or placebo. The mean age of the population was 32 years and approximately one-third were female.
The mean duration of AD for participants was 10 years. The mean baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score was near 30. On the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) tool, approximately 40% had a score of 4, which is the highest score on the scale and indicates severe disease. The remaining patients had an IGA score of 3.
The co-primary endpoints were change in IGA and EASI scores at 16 weeks, and both improved rapidly, showing statistical significance relative to placebo by 4 weeks with no plateauing effect at the end of the 16-week trial. By week 16, the proportion of patients with an EASI score of 75, signifying a 75% improvement, was 66%, 54%, and 22% for the 8-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, 4-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, and placebo groups (P < .001 versus placebo for both doses of active therapy), respectively.
The pattern of the IGA response was similar. By week 16, the proportion of patients achieving an IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) was 42%, 36%, and 9% for the 8-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, 4-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, and placebo groups, respectively. The advantage of either dose over placebo was highly significant (P < .001) at 8, 12, and 16 weeks.
For the WI-NRS (Worst Itch – Numeric Rating Scale), the advantage of the 8-mg dose relative to placebo was significant (P < .001) at the 1-week evaluation. By 2 weeks, the 4-mg dose had gained the same degree of statistical significance relative to placebo. After week 4, when the maximum proportion of patients with a WI-NRS score ≤ 4 was reached (50%, 35%, and 10% in the 8-mg, 4-mg, and placebo groups), and the relative advantage of active treatment persisted until the end of the 16-week study.
Two scales were used to evaluate change in quality of life. On the DLQI (Dermatology Life Quality Index) and POEM (Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure), improvements were again rapid and sustained. By week 4, improvement with the 8-mg dose was about fourfold greater (P < .001) than improvement with placebo for DLQI and about sixfold greater (P < .001) for POEM. For the 4-mg dose, the relative differences were approximately threefold and fourfold greater, and both were significant (P <.001).
There was no further gain in these quality-of-life scales from week 4 to week 16, but the advantages relative to placebo were generally sustained, Dr. Zhao reported.
Ivarmacitinib was safe and well-tolerated, according to Dr. Zhao. The proportion of patients with a treatment-emergent adverse event that led to drug discontinuation was numerically higher (5.4%) in the placebo group than in the 8-mg (3.6%) or 4-mg group (2.7%). Rates of infection in the three groups were similar, and there were no major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or thromboembolism observed in any group.
Ivarmacitinib, which has about a 10-fold greater selectivity for JAK1 than JAK2 and a more than 70-fold greater selectivity for JAK1 than JAK3, is being tested for rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and alopecia areata in addition to AD, Dr. Zhao said. She also reported that an application for new drug approval has been submitted in China. Efforts to pursue regulatory approval elsewhere are anticipated.
Currently, there are three JAK inhibitors licensed for the treatment of AD in the United States. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo) are also once-daily oral JAK1-selective inhibitors. Regulatory approval for AD by the Food and Drug Administration was granted to both in early 2022 and both now have an indication for moderate to severe disease in patients ages 12 years and older.
In September 2021, the first U.S. approval of a drug in this class for AD was granted for a topical formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), which has selectivity for both JAK1 and JAK2. The indication is for mild to moderate AD in patients aged 12 years and older.
In the phase 3 clinical trial that led to approval of abrocitinib for AD, the comparator groups included placebo and active treatment with 300 mg dupilumab administered subcutaneously every other week. The higher of two doses of abrocitinib (100 mg) was numerically superior to dupilumab in terms of EASI 75 response at week 12 and was statistically superior for relief of itch at week 2.
Relative to the first-generation JAK inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz), both of the approved oral JAK inhibitors for AD, abrocitinib and upadacitinib, have greater JAK1-selectivity. However, selectivity for all JAK inhibitors is relative rather than absolute, according to a recent review article on oral JAK inhibitors for AD. Efficacy and safety are likely determined by relative inhibition of each of the four JAK enzymes (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2). Although JAK1 appears to be an important target for AD treatment, the clinical significance of the degree of selectivity among oral JAK inhibitors is not yet clear.
In an interview, the senior author of that review article, Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, emphasized this point. She said there is no evidence and no basis on which to speculate that any one drug in this class is better than another for AD. Dr. Guttman-Yassky is a professor and system chair of dermatology and immunology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
“The efficacy [of ivarmacitinib] seems, in general, to be in line with other JAK inhibitors,” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who attended the late-breaker session during which these data were presented. Although she acknowledged that rapid control of pruritus is important clinically, she said the speed of itch relief as reported in the phase 3 ivarmacitinib trial does not distinguish it from other oral drugs in the class.
Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed.
“The rapid effects on itch of ivarmacitinib are consistent with those observed by the already approved JAK1-selective inhibitors abrocitinib and upadacitinib,” he said in an interview.
This suggests that head-to-head trials will be needed to draw any conclusions about the relative efficacy and safety of existing and emerging oral JAK inhibitors for AD.
Dr. Zhao has reported a financial relationship with Reistone Biopharma, which is developing ivarmacitinib and provided funding for the trial. Dr. Guttman-Yassky has reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Kwatra has reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Aslan, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Celldex, Galderma, Genzada, Incyte, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT AAD 2023
Topical delgocitinib shows promise for chronic hand eczema, pivotal trial shows
NEW ORLEANS – , compared with those who received vehicle cream, results from a pivotal phase 3 trial showed.
“Chronic hand eczema is the most frequent chronic inflammatory disorder affecting the hands,” Robert Bissonnette, MD, a dermatologist who is founder and CEO of Innovaderm Research, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a late-breaking research session. “It’s associated with pain, pruritus, and has a huge impact on quality of life,” and results with current topical treatments are often unsatisfactory, he noted.
Delgocitinib is an investigational topical pan-JAK inhibitor that inhibits activation of the JAK-STAT pathway and targets key mediators of chronic hand eczema. In a phase 2b dose-ranging trial, twice-daily treatment with delgocitinib cream demonstrated significantly greater efficacy, compared with the cream vehicle, and was well tolerated in adults with mild to severe chronic hand eczema.
For the phase 3 study, known as DELTA 1, researchers randomized 487 adults with moderate to severe chronic hand eczema to receive twice-daily applications of delgocitinib cream 20 mg/g or cream vehicle for 16 weeks. After week 16, patients had the option to enter a long-term extension trial, which is currently ongoing. DELTA 1 was limited to adults with a diagnosis of chronic hand eczema defined as hand eczema that had persisted for more than 3 months or had returned more than twice within the past 12 months; an Investigator’s Global Assessment for chronic hand eczema (IGA-CHE) score of 3 (moderate) or 4 (severe); a weekly average Hand Eczema Symptom Diary (HESD) itch score of 4 or more points, and a medical history of inadequate response to topical corticosteroids within the past 12 months or for whom treatment with topical corticosteroids was not medically advisable.
The IGA-CHE scale used in the trial was new, “where, in order to be almost clear, the only sign that could be present on the skin was barely perceptible erythema,” Dr. Bissonnette said. He noted that he has used many IGA scales over the more than 25 years he has been involved with clinical trials, and “this was the first that used a scale with a bar so high.” Key secondary endpoints include a 75% and 90% improvement in Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI) from baseline at week 16 and a 4-point or greater improvement in the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) from baseline at week 16.
The median age of patients was 44 years, 88% were White, 4% were Asian, 1% were Black, and the remainder were from other racial groups. One-third of patients (33%) had severe hand eczema based on their IGA-CHE score, the median HECSI was 65 (in line with severe disease), and the median DLQI was 12. As for previous chronic hand eczema treatments, 19% had undergone phototherapy, 14% had tried oral retinoids, and 12% had tried oral corticosteroids.
In the study, a greater proportion of delgocitinib-treated patients achieved the primary endpoint of IGA-CHE 0/1, compared with the cream vehicle group at week 4 (15.4% vs. 4.9%; P < .001); week 8 (22.8% vs. 10.5%; P = .001), and week 16 (19.7% vs. 9.9%; P = .006). “As early as week 2, there is a separation between cream and vehicle,” Dr. Bissonnette said. When reviewing the results and the patients in the trial, he said that, in his personal opinion, “I don’t think this is uniquely representative of the efficacy of the drug,” because of the IGA scale that was used, which set such a high bar for efficacy.
As for secondary endpoints, a greater proportion of delgocitinib-treated patients than those in the vehicle group achieved a HESCI-75 (49.2% vs. 23.5%), a HECSI-90 (29.5% vs. 12.3%), and a 4-point or greater improvement on the DLQI (74.4% vs 50%; P < .001 for all endpoints).
Delgocitinib had a similar safety profile as the vehicle over 16 weeks, with no difference between the delgocitinib and vehicle arms in the proportion of patients who had adverse events (45.2% vs. 50.6%, respectively) and serious adverse events (1.8% vs. 1.9%). The most common adverse events (defined as 5% or greater in any treatment group) during the study were COVID-19 infections and nasopharyngitis; rates were comparable in the two arms.
Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, a dermatologist who directs the Center for Eczema and Itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study, said that chronic hand eczema can be functionally limiting for many patients. “Given its focal symptoms but multifaceted immunopathogenesis, topical JAK inhibition represents a rational strategy for targeted treatment,” Dr. Chovatiya told this news organization. He was not an investigator in the trial.
“In the phase 3 DELTA 1 study, topical delgocitinib cream was superior to vehicle control with nearly one out of five patients achieving clear or almost clear skin, with no difference in total adverse events between groups. While both comparative and long-term data would be helpful to better assess how delgocitinib cream stacks up against common topical anti-inflammatories and how it may be used for a chronic condition that typically requires ongoing treatment, these findings move us closer to a potential first-in-class approved therapy for chronic hand eczema.”
Dr. Bissonnette disclosed that he served as a consultant and investigator for the developer of delgocitinib, LEO Pharma, on this study. He has also received grants and research funding from many other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for several pharmaceutical companies, including LEO Pharma.
NEW ORLEANS – , compared with those who received vehicle cream, results from a pivotal phase 3 trial showed.
“Chronic hand eczema is the most frequent chronic inflammatory disorder affecting the hands,” Robert Bissonnette, MD, a dermatologist who is founder and CEO of Innovaderm Research, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a late-breaking research session. “It’s associated with pain, pruritus, and has a huge impact on quality of life,” and results with current topical treatments are often unsatisfactory, he noted.
Delgocitinib is an investigational topical pan-JAK inhibitor that inhibits activation of the JAK-STAT pathway and targets key mediators of chronic hand eczema. In a phase 2b dose-ranging trial, twice-daily treatment with delgocitinib cream demonstrated significantly greater efficacy, compared with the cream vehicle, and was well tolerated in adults with mild to severe chronic hand eczema.
For the phase 3 study, known as DELTA 1, researchers randomized 487 adults with moderate to severe chronic hand eczema to receive twice-daily applications of delgocitinib cream 20 mg/g or cream vehicle for 16 weeks. After week 16, patients had the option to enter a long-term extension trial, which is currently ongoing. DELTA 1 was limited to adults with a diagnosis of chronic hand eczema defined as hand eczema that had persisted for more than 3 months or had returned more than twice within the past 12 months; an Investigator’s Global Assessment for chronic hand eczema (IGA-CHE) score of 3 (moderate) or 4 (severe); a weekly average Hand Eczema Symptom Diary (HESD) itch score of 4 or more points, and a medical history of inadequate response to topical corticosteroids within the past 12 months or for whom treatment with topical corticosteroids was not medically advisable.
The IGA-CHE scale used in the trial was new, “where, in order to be almost clear, the only sign that could be present on the skin was barely perceptible erythema,” Dr. Bissonnette said. He noted that he has used many IGA scales over the more than 25 years he has been involved with clinical trials, and “this was the first that used a scale with a bar so high.” Key secondary endpoints include a 75% and 90% improvement in Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI) from baseline at week 16 and a 4-point or greater improvement in the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) from baseline at week 16.
The median age of patients was 44 years, 88% were White, 4% were Asian, 1% were Black, and the remainder were from other racial groups. One-third of patients (33%) had severe hand eczema based on their IGA-CHE score, the median HECSI was 65 (in line with severe disease), and the median DLQI was 12. As for previous chronic hand eczema treatments, 19% had undergone phototherapy, 14% had tried oral retinoids, and 12% had tried oral corticosteroids.
In the study, a greater proportion of delgocitinib-treated patients achieved the primary endpoint of IGA-CHE 0/1, compared with the cream vehicle group at week 4 (15.4% vs. 4.9%; P < .001); week 8 (22.8% vs. 10.5%; P = .001), and week 16 (19.7% vs. 9.9%; P = .006). “As early as week 2, there is a separation between cream and vehicle,” Dr. Bissonnette said. When reviewing the results and the patients in the trial, he said that, in his personal opinion, “I don’t think this is uniquely representative of the efficacy of the drug,” because of the IGA scale that was used, which set such a high bar for efficacy.
As for secondary endpoints, a greater proportion of delgocitinib-treated patients than those in the vehicle group achieved a HESCI-75 (49.2% vs. 23.5%), a HECSI-90 (29.5% vs. 12.3%), and a 4-point or greater improvement on the DLQI (74.4% vs 50%; P < .001 for all endpoints).
Delgocitinib had a similar safety profile as the vehicle over 16 weeks, with no difference between the delgocitinib and vehicle arms in the proportion of patients who had adverse events (45.2% vs. 50.6%, respectively) and serious adverse events (1.8% vs. 1.9%). The most common adverse events (defined as 5% or greater in any treatment group) during the study were COVID-19 infections and nasopharyngitis; rates were comparable in the two arms.
Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, a dermatologist who directs the Center for Eczema and Itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study, said that chronic hand eczema can be functionally limiting for many patients. “Given its focal symptoms but multifaceted immunopathogenesis, topical JAK inhibition represents a rational strategy for targeted treatment,” Dr. Chovatiya told this news organization. He was not an investigator in the trial.
“In the phase 3 DELTA 1 study, topical delgocitinib cream was superior to vehicle control with nearly one out of five patients achieving clear or almost clear skin, with no difference in total adverse events between groups. While both comparative and long-term data would be helpful to better assess how delgocitinib cream stacks up against common topical anti-inflammatories and how it may be used for a chronic condition that typically requires ongoing treatment, these findings move us closer to a potential first-in-class approved therapy for chronic hand eczema.”
Dr. Bissonnette disclosed that he served as a consultant and investigator for the developer of delgocitinib, LEO Pharma, on this study. He has also received grants and research funding from many other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for several pharmaceutical companies, including LEO Pharma.
NEW ORLEANS – , compared with those who received vehicle cream, results from a pivotal phase 3 trial showed.
“Chronic hand eczema is the most frequent chronic inflammatory disorder affecting the hands,” Robert Bissonnette, MD, a dermatologist who is founder and CEO of Innovaderm Research, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a late-breaking research session. “It’s associated with pain, pruritus, and has a huge impact on quality of life,” and results with current topical treatments are often unsatisfactory, he noted.
Delgocitinib is an investigational topical pan-JAK inhibitor that inhibits activation of the JAK-STAT pathway and targets key mediators of chronic hand eczema. In a phase 2b dose-ranging trial, twice-daily treatment with delgocitinib cream demonstrated significantly greater efficacy, compared with the cream vehicle, and was well tolerated in adults with mild to severe chronic hand eczema.
For the phase 3 study, known as DELTA 1, researchers randomized 487 adults with moderate to severe chronic hand eczema to receive twice-daily applications of delgocitinib cream 20 mg/g or cream vehicle for 16 weeks. After week 16, patients had the option to enter a long-term extension trial, which is currently ongoing. DELTA 1 was limited to adults with a diagnosis of chronic hand eczema defined as hand eczema that had persisted for more than 3 months or had returned more than twice within the past 12 months; an Investigator’s Global Assessment for chronic hand eczema (IGA-CHE) score of 3 (moderate) or 4 (severe); a weekly average Hand Eczema Symptom Diary (HESD) itch score of 4 or more points, and a medical history of inadequate response to topical corticosteroids within the past 12 months or for whom treatment with topical corticosteroids was not medically advisable.
The IGA-CHE scale used in the trial was new, “where, in order to be almost clear, the only sign that could be present on the skin was barely perceptible erythema,” Dr. Bissonnette said. He noted that he has used many IGA scales over the more than 25 years he has been involved with clinical trials, and “this was the first that used a scale with a bar so high.” Key secondary endpoints include a 75% and 90% improvement in Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI) from baseline at week 16 and a 4-point or greater improvement in the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) from baseline at week 16.
The median age of patients was 44 years, 88% were White, 4% were Asian, 1% were Black, and the remainder were from other racial groups. One-third of patients (33%) had severe hand eczema based on their IGA-CHE score, the median HECSI was 65 (in line with severe disease), and the median DLQI was 12. As for previous chronic hand eczema treatments, 19% had undergone phototherapy, 14% had tried oral retinoids, and 12% had tried oral corticosteroids.
In the study, a greater proportion of delgocitinib-treated patients achieved the primary endpoint of IGA-CHE 0/1, compared with the cream vehicle group at week 4 (15.4% vs. 4.9%; P < .001); week 8 (22.8% vs. 10.5%; P = .001), and week 16 (19.7% vs. 9.9%; P = .006). “As early as week 2, there is a separation between cream and vehicle,” Dr. Bissonnette said. When reviewing the results and the patients in the trial, he said that, in his personal opinion, “I don’t think this is uniquely representative of the efficacy of the drug,” because of the IGA scale that was used, which set such a high bar for efficacy.
As for secondary endpoints, a greater proportion of delgocitinib-treated patients than those in the vehicle group achieved a HESCI-75 (49.2% vs. 23.5%), a HECSI-90 (29.5% vs. 12.3%), and a 4-point or greater improvement on the DLQI (74.4% vs 50%; P < .001 for all endpoints).
Delgocitinib had a similar safety profile as the vehicle over 16 weeks, with no difference between the delgocitinib and vehicle arms in the proportion of patients who had adverse events (45.2% vs. 50.6%, respectively) and serious adverse events (1.8% vs. 1.9%). The most common adverse events (defined as 5% or greater in any treatment group) during the study were COVID-19 infections and nasopharyngitis; rates were comparable in the two arms.
Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, a dermatologist who directs the Center for Eczema and Itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study, said that chronic hand eczema can be functionally limiting for many patients. “Given its focal symptoms but multifaceted immunopathogenesis, topical JAK inhibition represents a rational strategy for targeted treatment,” Dr. Chovatiya told this news organization. He was not an investigator in the trial.
“In the phase 3 DELTA 1 study, topical delgocitinib cream was superior to vehicle control with nearly one out of five patients achieving clear or almost clear skin, with no difference in total adverse events between groups. While both comparative and long-term data would be helpful to better assess how delgocitinib cream stacks up against common topical anti-inflammatories and how it may be used for a chronic condition that typically requires ongoing treatment, these findings move us closer to a potential first-in-class approved therapy for chronic hand eczema.”
Dr. Bissonnette disclosed that he served as a consultant and investigator for the developer of delgocitinib, LEO Pharma, on this study. He has also received grants and research funding from many other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for several pharmaceutical companies, including LEO Pharma.
AT AAD 2023
Air pollution may be causing eczema
The finding points scientists toward how to better treat the skin ailment. There are now more than three times as many eczema cases as there were in the 1970s, and it now affects as many as 20% of children and 10% of adults.
“I think these authors are spot-on in recognizing that the incidence of allergic conditions is increasing concurrently with how different pollutants are increasing in our environment,” said Denver-based pediatric allergist and immunologist Jessica Hui, MD, according to NBC News. “We’re finally understanding more about why people are getting eczema.”
Some people get eczema because of genetics, but the new research built on the previous understanding of how chemicals called diisocyanates can trigger the eczema symptoms of severe itching, skin redness, and oozing or painful rashes. An experiment on mice showed that exposure to a specific part of diisocyanates, called isocyanates, disrupted oil production that the skin needs to stay healthy.
Researchers at the National Institutes of Health “found that when bacteria that live on healthy skin are exposed to isocyanate, they must adapt to survive,” the agency summarized in a news release. “When they adapt, these bacteria shift their metabolism away from making the lipids, or oils, that skin needs to stay healthy. This finding suggests that eczema may be treatable by replacing the modified skin bacteria with healthy bacteria.”
The study was published in the journal Science Advances.
The chemicals also trigger a message to the brain that causes skin inflammation and itching, lead researcher Ian Myles, MD, told NBC News. Dr. Myles is also chief of the Epithelial Research Unit in the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Laboratory of Clinical Immunology and Microbiology.
“So much of this is out of our control. I mean, you can’t shut the highways down,” he said of the environmental sources.
Previous research that explored attempting to restore healthy skin bacteria called Roseomonas mucosa to treat eczema symptoms had mixed results. The NIH says it has made the bacteria available “for commercial, nontherapeutic development ... as a potentially beneficial probiotic.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The finding points scientists toward how to better treat the skin ailment. There are now more than three times as many eczema cases as there were in the 1970s, and it now affects as many as 20% of children and 10% of adults.
“I think these authors are spot-on in recognizing that the incidence of allergic conditions is increasing concurrently with how different pollutants are increasing in our environment,” said Denver-based pediatric allergist and immunologist Jessica Hui, MD, according to NBC News. “We’re finally understanding more about why people are getting eczema.”
Some people get eczema because of genetics, but the new research built on the previous understanding of how chemicals called diisocyanates can trigger the eczema symptoms of severe itching, skin redness, and oozing or painful rashes. An experiment on mice showed that exposure to a specific part of diisocyanates, called isocyanates, disrupted oil production that the skin needs to stay healthy.
Researchers at the National Institutes of Health “found that when bacteria that live on healthy skin are exposed to isocyanate, they must adapt to survive,” the agency summarized in a news release. “When they adapt, these bacteria shift their metabolism away from making the lipids, or oils, that skin needs to stay healthy. This finding suggests that eczema may be treatable by replacing the modified skin bacteria with healthy bacteria.”
The study was published in the journal Science Advances.
The chemicals also trigger a message to the brain that causes skin inflammation and itching, lead researcher Ian Myles, MD, told NBC News. Dr. Myles is also chief of the Epithelial Research Unit in the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Laboratory of Clinical Immunology and Microbiology.
“So much of this is out of our control. I mean, you can’t shut the highways down,” he said of the environmental sources.
Previous research that explored attempting to restore healthy skin bacteria called Roseomonas mucosa to treat eczema symptoms had mixed results. The NIH says it has made the bacteria available “for commercial, nontherapeutic development ... as a potentially beneficial probiotic.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The finding points scientists toward how to better treat the skin ailment. There are now more than three times as many eczema cases as there were in the 1970s, and it now affects as many as 20% of children and 10% of adults.
“I think these authors are spot-on in recognizing that the incidence of allergic conditions is increasing concurrently with how different pollutants are increasing in our environment,” said Denver-based pediatric allergist and immunologist Jessica Hui, MD, according to NBC News. “We’re finally understanding more about why people are getting eczema.”
Some people get eczema because of genetics, but the new research built on the previous understanding of how chemicals called diisocyanates can trigger the eczema symptoms of severe itching, skin redness, and oozing or painful rashes. An experiment on mice showed that exposure to a specific part of diisocyanates, called isocyanates, disrupted oil production that the skin needs to stay healthy.
Researchers at the National Institutes of Health “found that when bacteria that live on healthy skin are exposed to isocyanate, they must adapt to survive,” the agency summarized in a news release. “When they adapt, these bacteria shift their metabolism away from making the lipids, or oils, that skin needs to stay healthy. This finding suggests that eczema may be treatable by replacing the modified skin bacteria with healthy bacteria.”
The study was published in the journal Science Advances.
The chemicals also trigger a message to the brain that causes skin inflammation and itching, lead researcher Ian Myles, MD, told NBC News. Dr. Myles is also chief of the Epithelial Research Unit in the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Laboratory of Clinical Immunology and Microbiology.
“So much of this is out of our control. I mean, you can’t shut the highways down,” he said of the environmental sources.
Previous research that explored attempting to restore healthy skin bacteria called Roseomonas mucosa to treat eczema symptoms had mixed results. The NIH says it has made the bacteria available “for commercial, nontherapeutic development ... as a potentially beneficial probiotic.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM SCIENCE ADVANCES
FDA approves new formulation of Hyrimoz adalimumab biosimilar
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a citrate-free, 100 mg/mL formulation of the biosimilar adalimumab-adaz (Hyrimoz), according to a statement from manufacturer Sandoz.
Hyrimoz, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker that is biosimilar to its reference product Humira, was approved by the FDA in 2018 at a concentration of 50 mg/mL for rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis. The high-concentration formula is indicated for these same conditions.
Sandoz said that it intends to launch the citrate-free formulation in the United States on July 1. It will be one of up to nine other adalimumab biosimilars that are expected to launch in July. On January 31, Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) became the first adalimumab biosimilar to launch in the United States.
The current label for Hyrimoz contains a black box warning emphasizing certain risks, notably the increased risk for serious infections, such as tuberculosis or sepsis, and an increased risk of malignancy, particularly lymphomas.
Adverse effects associated with Hyrimoz with an incidence greater than 10% include upper respiratory infections and sinusitis, injection-site reactions, headache, and rash.
The approval for the high-concentration formulation was based on data from a phase 1 pharmacokinetics bridging study that compared Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and citrate-free Hyrimoz 100 mg/mL.
“This study met all of the primary objectives, demonstrating comparable pharmacokinetics and showing similar safety and immunogenicity of the Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and Hyrimoz [100 mg/mL],” according to Sandoz, a division of Novartis.
The approval for Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL in 2018 was based on preclinical and clinical research comparing Hyrimoz and Humira. In a phase 3 trial published in the British Journal of Dermatology, which included adults with clinically stable but active moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis, Hyrimoz and Humira showed a similar percentage of patients met the primary endpoint of a 75% reduction or more in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) score at 16 weeks, compared with baseline (66.8% and 65%, respectively).
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a citrate-free, 100 mg/mL formulation of the biosimilar adalimumab-adaz (Hyrimoz), according to a statement from manufacturer Sandoz.
Hyrimoz, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker that is biosimilar to its reference product Humira, was approved by the FDA in 2018 at a concentration of 50 mg/mL for rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis. The high-concentration formula is indicated for these same conditions.
Sandoz said that it intends to launch the citrate-free formulation in the United States on July 1. It will be one of up to nine other adalimumab biosimilars that are expected to launch in July. On January 31, Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) became the first adalimumab biosimilar to launch in the United States.
The current label for Hyrimoz contains a black box warning emphasizing certain risks, notably the increased risk for serious infections, such as tuberculosis or sepsis, and an increased risk of malignancy, particularly lymphomas.
Adverse effects associated with Hyrimoz with an incidence greater than 10% include upper respiratory infections and sinusitis, injection-site reactions, headache, and rash.
The approval for the high-concentration formulation was based on data from a phase 1 pharmacokinetics bridging study that compared Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and citrate-free Hyrimoz 100 mg/mL.
“This study met all of the primary objectives, demonstrating comparable pharmacokinetics and showing similar safety and immunogenicity of the Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and Hyrimoz [100 mg/mL],” according to Sandoz, a division of Novartis.
The approval for Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL in 2018 was based on preclinical and clinical research comparing Hyrimoz and Humira. In a phase 3 trial published in the British Journal of Dermatology, which included adults with clinically stable but active moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis, Hyrimoz and Humira showed a similar percentage of patients met the primary endpoint of a 75% reduction or more in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) score at 16 weeks, compared with baseline (66.8% and 65%, respectively).
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved a citrate-free, 100 mg/mL formulation of the biosimilar adalimumab-adaz (Hyrimoz), according to a statement from manufacturer Sandoz.
Hyrimoz, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker that is biosimilar to its reference product Humira, was approved by the FDA in 2018 at a concentration of 50 mg/mL for rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis. The high-concentration formula is indicated for these same conditions.
Sandoz said that it intends to launch the citrate-free formulation in the United States on July 1. It will be one of up to nine other adalimumab biosimilars that are expected to launch in July. On January 31, Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) became the first adalimumab biosimilar to launch in the United States.
The current label for Hyrimoz contains a black box warning emphasizing certain risks, notably the increased risk for serious infections, such as tuberculosis or sepsis, and an increased risk of malignancy, particularly lymphomas.
Adverse effects associated with Hyrimoz with an incidence greater than 10% include upper respiratory infections and sinusitis, injection-site reactions, headache, and rash.
The approval for the high-concentration formulation was based on data from a phase 1 pharmacokinetics bridging study that compared Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and citrate-free Hyrimoz 100 mg/mL.
“This study met all of the primary objectives, demonstrating comparable pharmacokinetics and showing similar safety and immunogenicity of the Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and Hyrimoz [100 mg/mL],” according to Sandoz, a division of Novartis.
The approval for Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL in 2018 was based on preclinical and clinical research comparing Hyrimoz and Humira. In a phase 3 trial published in the British Journal of Dermatology, which included adults with clinically stable but active moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis, Hyrimoz and Humira showed a similar percentage of patients met the primary endpoint of a 75% reduction or more in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) score at 16 weeks, compared with baseline (66.8% and 65%, respectively).
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Anifrolumab shows promise in refractory discoid lupus erythematosus
a small retrospective study reports.
DLE, the most common form of chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus, can permanently scar and disfigure patients, and traditional treatments such as antimalarials, steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents, thalidomide, retinoids, and lenalidomide don’t consistently improve refractory DLE, the authors noted.
“All patients demonstrated significant improvement in symptomatology and disease activity within 2 months of initiating anifrolumab,” lead study author Katharina Shaw, MD, of the department of dermatology of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology. “These early results highlight the potential for anifrolumab to be a viable therapeutic option for patients with DLE, particularly those with severe or recalcitrant disease.”
The Food and Drug Administration approved anifrolumab (Saphnelo), a human monoclonal antibody targeting type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1, in 2021 for adults with moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus, but it has not been approved for the treatment of DLE.
Dr. Shaw and colleagues queried the medical records from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, to find all cases of DLE based on biopsy, expert opinion, or both from January 2000 to October 2022.
The researchers identified eight female patients who had received anifrolumab for at least 8 weeks. The women were aged between 19 and 75 years (median, 42.5 years), and all had DLE recalcitrant to standard therapies and had been treated with hydroxychloroquine and between 1 and 10 other drugs, most commonly methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).
The authors looked for improvements in patient-reported symptoms and Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index scores, including CLASI A (activity) score 0-70, and CLASI-D (damage) score 0-56.
All patients showed significantly improved symptoms and disease activity within 2 months of their first infusion of the treatment. The mean decrease and mean percentage decrease in CLASI-A scores were 17.1 and 65.1%, respectively. The mean decrease and mean percentage decrease in CLASI-D scores were 0.5 and 2.9%, respectively.
The rapid clinical improvements with anifrolumab, compared with improvements with traditional medications, were striking, the authors wrote. “Given the risk for permanent scarring, dyspigmentation, and alopecia with poorly controlled DLE, the importance of rapidly mitigating disease activity cannot be overemphasized.”
They acknowledged that the results are limited by the study’s small sample size and retrospective design, and they recommend larger related prospective studies.
Asked to comment on the results, Kaveh Ardalan, MD, MS, assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said that finding new DLE therapeutics is important because of the huge impact of uncontrolled DLE on patients’ quality of life, body image, and social roles.
Dr. Ardalan noted that he sees DLE in his pediatric patients, “either as an isolated finding or in the context of systemic lupus erythematosus. Anifrolumab is not approved by the FDA to treat DLE or children.
“Randomized controlled trials, including the TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 studies of anifrolumab in systemic lupus, have indicated that lupus skin manifestations can improve in patients who receive anifrolumab,” said Dr. Ardalan, who was not involved in the study. “And we know that type I interferons are major drivers of cutaneous disease activity in patients with lupus, so targeting that mechanism with anifrolumab makes biological sense.”
The authors’ use of the validated CLASI classification system to quantify disease activity and damage over time, and their determination of the length of time for the drug to take effect are strengths of the study, he added.
Funding information was not provided. Two authors reported financial relationships with Pfizer, which does not manufacture anifrolumab. Dr. Ardalan reported no conflicts of interest with the study.
a small retrospective study reports.
DLE, the most common form of chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus, can permanently scar and disfigure patients, and traditional treatments such as antimalarials, steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents, thalidomide, retinoids, and lenalidomide don’t consistently improve refractory DLE, the authors noted.
“All patients demonstrated significant improvement in symptomatology and disease activity within 2 months of initiating anifrolumab,” lead study author Katharina Shaw, MD, of the department of dermatology of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology. “These early results highlight the potential for anifrolumab to be a viable therapeutic option for patients with DLE, particularly those with severe or recalcitrant disease.”
The Food and Drug Administration approved anifrolumab (Saphnelo), a human monoclonal antibody targeting type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1, in 2021 for adults with moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus, but it has not been approved for the treatment of DLE.
Dr. Shaw and colleagues queried the medical records from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, to find all cases of DLE based on biopsy, expert opinion, or both from January 2000 to October 2022.
The researchers identified eight female patients who had received anifrolumab for at least 8 weeks. The women were aged between 19 and 75 years (median, 42.5 years), and all had DLE recalcitrant to standard therapies and had been treated with hydroxychloroquine and between 1 and 10 other drugs, most commonly methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).
The authors looked for improvements in patient-reported symptoms and Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index scores, including CLASI A (activity) score 0-70, and CLASI-D (damage) score 0-56.
All patients showed significantly improved symptoms and disease activity within 2 months of their first infusion of the treatment. The mean decrease and mean percentage decrease in CLASI-A scores were 17.1 and 65.1%, respectively. The mean decrease and mean percentage decrease in CLASI-D scores were 0.5 and 2.9%, respectively.
The rapid clinical improvements with anifrolumab, compared with improvements with traditional medications, were striking, the authors wrote. “Given the risk for permanent scarring, dyspigmentation, and alopecia with poorly controlled DLE, the importance of rapidly mitigating disease activity cannot be overemphasized.”
They acknowledged that the results are limited by the study’s small sample size and retrospective design, and they recommend larger related prospective studies.
Asked to comment on the results, Kaveh Ardalan, MD, MS, assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said that finding new DLE therapeutics is important because of the huge impact of uncontrolled DLE on patients’ quality of life, body image, and social roles.
Dr. Ardalan noted that he sees DLE in his pediatric patients, “either as an isolated finding or in the context of systemic lupus erythematosus. Anifrolumab is not approved by the FDA to treat DLE or children.
“Randomized controlled trials, including the TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 studies of anifrolumab in systemic lupus, have indicated that lupus skin manifestations can improve in patients who receive anifrolumab,” said Dr. Ardalan, who was not involved in the study. “And we know that type I interferons are major drivers of cutaneous disease activity in patients with lupus, so targeting that mechanism with anifrolumab makes biological sense.”
The authors’ use of the validated CLASI classification system to quantify disease activity and damage over time, and their determination of the length of time for the drug to take effect are strengths of the study, he added.
Funding information was not provided. Two authors reported financial relationships with Pfizer, which does not manufacture anifrolumab. Dr. Ardalan reported no conflicts of interest with the study.
a small retrospective study reports.
DLE, the most common form of chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus, can permanently scar and disfigure patients, and traditional treatments such as antimalarials, steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents, thalidomide, retinoids, and lenalidomide don’t consistently improve refractory DLE, the authors noted.
“All patients demonstrated significant improvement in symptomatology and disease activity within 2 months of initiating anifrolumab,” lead study author Katharina Shaw, MD, of the department of dermatology of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology. “These early results highlight the potential for anifrolumab to be a viable therapeutic option for patients with DLE, particularly those with severe or recalcitrant disease.”
The Food and Drug Administration approved anifrolumab (Saphnelo), a human monoclonal antibody targeting type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1, in 2021 for adults with moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus, but it has not been approved for the treatment of DLE.
Dr. Shaw and colleagues queried the medical records from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, to find all cases of DLE based on biopsy, expert opinion, or both from January 2000 to October 2022.
The researchers identified eight female patients who had received anifrolumab for at least 8 weeks. The women were aged between 19 and 75 years (median, 42.5 years), and all had DLE recalcitrant to standard therapies and had been treated with hydroxychloroquine and between 1 and 10 other drugs, most commonly methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).
The authors looked for improvements in patient-reported symptoms and Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index scores, including CLASI A (activity) score 0-70, and CLASI-D (damage) score 0-56.
All patients showed significantly improved symptoms and disease activity within 2 months of their first infusion of the treatment. The mean decrease and mean percentage decrease in CLASI-A scores were 17.1 and 65.1%, respectively. The mean decrease and mean percentage decrease in CLASI-D scores were 0.5 and 2.9%, respectively.
The rapid clinical improvements with anifrolumab, compared with improvements with traditional medications, were striking, the authors wrote. “Given the risk for permanent scarring, dyspigmentation, and alopecia with poorly controlled DLE, the importance of rapidly mitigating disease activity cannot be overemphasized.”
They acknowledged that the results are limited by the study’s small sample size and retrospective design, and they recommend larger related prospective studies.
Asked to comment on the results, Kaveh Ardalan, MD, MS, assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said that finding new DLE therapeutics is important because of the huge impact of uncontrolled DLE on patients’ quality of life, body image, and social roles.
Dr. Ardalan noted that he sees DLE in his pediatric patients, “either as an isolated finding or in the context of systemic lupus erythematosus. Anifrolumab is not approved by the FDA to treat DLE or children.
“Randomized controlled trials, including the TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 studies of anifrolumab in systemic lupus, have indicated that lupus skin manifestations can improve in patients who receive anifrolumab,” said Dr. Ardalan, who was not involved in the study. “And we know that type I interferons are major drivers of cutaneous disease activity in patients with lupus, so targeting that mechanism with anifrolumab makes biological sense.”
The authors’ use of the validated CLASI classification system to quantify disease activity and damage over time, and their determination of the length of time for the drug to take effect are strengths of the study, he added.
Funding information was not provided. Two authors reported financial relationships with Pfizer, which does not manufacture anifrolumab. Dr. Ardalan reported no conflicts of interest with the study.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
New data forecast more oral PDE4 inhibitors for psoriasis
NEW ORLEANS – according to results of a phase 2 clinical trial presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The phase 2b data, which are prompting a phase 3 trial, suggest that the drug, called orismilast, “is a potential new addition to the psoriasis armamentarium,” reported Lars E. French, MD, professor and chair, department of dermatology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Germany).
At the same session, findings from another study supported off-label use of oral roflumilast (Daliresp and generic), a PDE4 inhibitor approved for severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The only PDE4 inhibitors with an indication for psoriasis are roflumilast, approved as a cream (Zoryve), and apremilast (Otezla), approved as an oral therapy.
Phase 2 study of orismilast
In the orismilast trial, Dr. French attributed the efficacy observed to the potency of orismilast on the B and D subtypes of PDE4 associated with inflammation. One clue is that these specific subtypes are overly expressed in the skin of patients with either psoriasis or atopic dermatitis.
“When compared to apremilast, orismilast is at least two to fivefold more potent on all PDE4 isoforms and up to 39 times more potent on some of the PDE4 B and D isoforms,” said Dr. French, referring to preclinical findings in human whole blood and blood cells and in a mouse model of chronic inflammation.
The efficacy of orismilast in an immediate-release oral formulation was previously demonstrated in a recently published phase 2a trial, but the newest study tested a modified-release formulation of orismilast to test its potential to improve tolerability.
In the study, 202 adult patients with moderate to severe psoriasis (Psoriasis Area Severity Index [PASI] score ≥ 12) were randomly assigned to one of three doses of orismilast or to placebo. Each of the three doses – 20 mg, 30 mg, or 40 mg – were administered twice daily. The primary endpoint was change in PASI score at 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included PASI 75 responses (signifying 75% clearance) and safety.
Relative to placebo, which was associated with a PASI improvement of 17%, all three of the tested orismilast doses were superior in a dose-dependent manner. The rates of response were 53%, 61%, and 64% for the 20-mg, 30-mg, and 40-mg twice-daily doses, respectively.
The PASI improvements were rapid, Dr. French said. At 4 weeks, PASI scores climbed from baseline by nearly 40% for those on all orismilast doses, which was more than double the improvement in the placebo group.
In the intention-to-treat analysis with missing data counted as nonresponders, the proportion of patients reaching PASI-75 scores at 16 weeks were 39%, 49%, 45%, and 17%, in the 20-mg, 30-mg, 40-mg, and placebo groups, respectively. The proportion of patients experiencing complete or near-complete skin clearance defined by a PASI 90 were 24%, 22%, 28%, and 8%, respectively.
The side-effect profile was consistent with other PDE4 inhibitors. The most common adverse events included gastrointestinal complaints, such as diarrhea and nausea, as well as headache and dizziness. But the majority of these events were of low grade, and they were largely confined to the first 4 weeks of treatment, which is a pattern reported with other PDE4 inhibitors in psoriasis and other chronic inflammatory diseases, such as COPD, according to Dr. French.
“There were no discontinuations for a treatment-related adverse event in the arms receiving either the 20-mg or the 30-mg doses,” Dr. French reported. There were only two serious adverse events, and neither were considered by trial investigators to be related to orismilast.
Based on the limited therapeutic gain but greater risk for adverse events on the 40-mg twice-daily dose, “the question is now whether to move forward with the 20-mg or the 30-mg dose,” said Dr. French, who said planning of a phase 3 trial is underway.
Phase 2 study of roflumilast
However, this was not the only set of data on an oral PDE4 inhibitor presented as a late-breaker at the AAD meeting. For clinicians looking for a more immediate and less expensive alternative to apremilast, another study indicated that off-label use of oral roflumilast is an option.
In an investigator-initiated, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in Denmark, the rate of response to oral roflumilast at 24 weeks, including the clear or almost clear response, was on the same general order of magnitude as that seen in the orismilast study, reported Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of Copenhagen.
“At 24 weeks, 21.7% had achieved a PASI 90, and 8.7% achieved a PASI 100,” Dr. Egeberg said.
Oral roflumilast has been available for the treatment of COPD for more than 10 years and is now available in a generic formulation. This study was conducted independent of any pharmaceutical company involvement, and the high rate of response and low risk of adverse events suggests that patients can benefit from a PDE4 inhibitor in a very low-cost form.
“Generic oral roflumilast is cheaper than a Starbucks coffee,” Dr. Egeberg said.
In this trial, 46 patients were randomly assigned to placebo or to the COPD-approved roflumilast dose of 500 mcg once daily. The primary endpoint was change in PASI scores from baseline to week 12, which Dr. Egeberg pointed out is a shorter time frame than the 16 weeks more typical of psoriasis treatment studies.
At week 12, the median improvement in PASI was 34.8% in the roflumilast group versus 0% in the placebo group. Patients were then followed for an additional 12 weeks, but those randomized to placebo were switched to the active treatment. By week 24, the switch patients had largely caught up to those initiated on roflumilast for median PASI improvement (39.1% vs. 43.5%).
Similar to orismilast, roflumilast “was generally well tolerated,” Dr. Egeberg said. The adverse events were consistent with those associated with PDE4 inhibitors in previous trials, whether in psoriasis or COPD. There was only one serious adverse event, and it was not considered treatment related. Discontinuations for adverse events “were very low.”
In a population with a relatively high rate of smoking, Dr. Egeberg further reported, lung function was improved, a remark initially interpreted as a joke by some attending the presentation. However, Dr. Egeberg confirmed that lung function was monitored, and objective improvements were recorded.
By Danish law, the investigators were required to inform the manufacturers of roflumilast. Despite the results of this study, he is not aware of any plans to seek an indication for roflumilast in psoriasis, but he noted that the drug is readily available at a low price.
For those willing to offer this therapy off label, “you can start using it tomorrow if you’d like,” he said.
Dr. French reports financial relationships with Almirall, Amgen, Biotest, Galderma, Janssen Cilag, Leo Pharma, Pincell, Regeneron, UCB, and UNION Therapeutics, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Egeberg reports financial relationships with Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS – according to results of a phase 2 clinical trial presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The phase 2b data, which are prompting a phase 3 trial, suggest that the drug, called orismilast, “is a potential new addition to the psoriasis armamentarium,” reported Lars E. French, MD, professor and chair, department of dermatology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Germany).
At the same session, findings from another study supported off-label use of oral roflumilast (Daliresp and generic), a PDE4 inhibitor approved for severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The only PDE4 inhibitors with an indication for psoriasis are roflumilast, approved as a cream (Zoryve), and apremilast (Otezla), approved as an oral therapy.
Phase 2 study of orismilast
In the orismilast trial, Dr. French attributed the efficacy observed to the potency of orismilast on the B and D subtypes of PDE4 associated with inflammation. One clue is that these specific subtypes are overly expressed in the skin of patients with either psoriasis or atopic dermatitis.
“When compared to apremilast, orismilast is at least two to fivefold more potent on all PDE4 isoforms and up to 39 times more potent on some of the PDE4 B and D isoforms,” said Dr. French, referring to preclinical findings in human whole blood and blood cells and in a mouse model of chronic inflammation.
The efficacy of orismilast in an immediate-release oral formulation was previously demonstrated in a recently published phase 2a trial, but the newest study tested a modified-release formulation of orismilast to test its potential to improve tolerability.
In the study, 202 adult patients with moderate to severe psoriasis (Psoriasis Area Severity Index [PASI] score ≥ 12) were randomly assigned to one of three doses of orismilast or to placebo. Each of the three doses – 20 mg, 30 mg, or 40 mg – were administered twice daily. The primary endpoint was change in PASI score at 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included PASI 75 responses (signifying 75% clearance) and safety.
Relative to placebo, which was associated with a PASI improvement of 17%, all three of the tested orismilast doses were superior in a dose-dependent manner. The rates of response were 53%, 61%, and 64% for the 20-mg, 30-mg, and 40-mg twice-daily doses, respectively.
The PASI improvements were rapid, Dr. French said. At 4 weeks, PASI scores climbed from baseline by nearly 40% for those on all orismilast doses, which was more than double the improvement in the placebo group.
In the intention-to-treat analysis with missing data counted as nonresponders, the proportion of patients reaching PASI-75 scores at 16 weeks were 39%, 49%, 45%, and 17%, in the 20-mg, 30-mg, 40-mg, and placebo groups, respectively. The proportion of patients experiencing complete or near-complete skin clearance defined by a PASI 90 were 24%, 22%, 28%, and 8%, respectively.
The side-effect profile was consistent with other PDE4 inhibitors. The most common adverse events included gastrointestinal complaints, such as diarrhea and nausea, as well as headache and dizziness. But the majority of these events were of low grade, and they were largely confined to the first 4 weeks of treatment, which is a pattern reported with other PDE4 inhibitors in psoriasis and other chronic inflammatory diseases, such as COPD, according to Dr. French.
“There were no discontinuations for a treatment-related adverse event in the arms receiving either the 20-mg or the 30-mg doses,” Dr. French reported. There were only two serious adverse events, and neither were considered by trial investigators to be related to orismilast.
Based on the limited therapeutic gain but greater risk for adverse events on the 40-mg twice-daily dose, “the question is now whether to move forward with the 20-mg or the 30-mg dose,” said Dr. French, who said planning of a phase 3 trial is underway.
Phase 2 study of roflumilast
However, this was not the only set of data on an oral PDE4 inhibitor presented as a late-breaker at the AAD meeting. For clinicians looking for a more immediate and less expensive alternative to apremilast, another study indicated that off-label use of oral roflumilast is an option.
In an investigator-initiated, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in Denmark, the rate of response to oral roflumilast at 24 weeks, including the clear or almost clear response, was on the same general order of magnitude as that seen in the orismilast study, reported Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of Copenhagen.
“At 24 weeks, 21.7% had achieved a PASI 90, and 8.7% achieved a PASI 100,” Dr. Egeberg said.
Oral roflumilast has been available for the treatment of COPD for more than 10 years and is now available in a generic formulation. This study was conducted independent of any pharmaceutical company involvement, and the high rate of response and low risk of adverse events suggests that patients can benefit from a PDE4 inhibitor in a very low-cost form.
“Generic oral roflumilast is cheaper than a Starbucks coffee,” Dr. Egeberg said.
In this trial, 46 patients were randomly assigned to placebo or to the COPD-approved roflumilast dose of 500 mcg once daily. The primary endpoint was change in PASI scores from baseline to week 12, which Dr. Egeberg pointed out is a shorter time frame than the 16 weeks more typical of psoriasis treatment studies.
At week 12, the median improvement in PASI was 34.8% in the roflumilast group versus 0% in the placebo group. Patients were then followed for an additional 12 weeks, but those randomized to placebo were switched to the active treatment. By week 24, the switch patients had largely caught up to those initiated on roflumilast for median PASI improvement (39.1% vs. 43.5%).
Similar to orismilast, roflumilast “was generally well tolerated,” Dr. Egeberg said. The adverse events were consistent with those associated with PDE4 inhibitors in previous trials, whether in psoriasis or COPD. There was only one serious adverse event, and it was not considered treatment related. Discontinuations for adverse events “were very low.”
In a population with a relatively high rate of smoking, Dr. Egeberg further reported, lung function was improved, a remark initially interpreted as a joke by some attending the presentation. However, Dr. Egeberg confirmed that lung function was monitored, and objective improvements were recorded.
By Danish law, the investigators were required to inform the manufacturers of roflumilast. Despite the results of this study, he is not aware of any plans to seek an indication for roflumilast in psoriasis, but he noted that the drug is readily available at a low price.
For those willing to offer this therapy off label, “you can start using it tomorrow if you’d like,” he said.
Dr. French reports financial relationships with Almirall, Amgen, Biotest, Galderma, Janssen Cilag, Leo Pharma, Pincell, Regeneron, UCB, and UNION Therapeutics, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Egeberg reports financial relationships with Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW ORLEANS – according to results of a phase 2 clinical trial presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
The phase 2b data, which are prompting a phase 3 trial, suggest that the drug, called orismilast, “is a potential new addition to the psoriasis armamentarium,” reported Lars E. French, MD, professor and chair, department of dermatology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Germany).
At the same session, findings from another study supported off-label use of oral roflumilast (Daliresp and generic), a PDE4 inhibitor approved for severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The only PDE4 inhibitors with an indication for psoriasis are roflumilast, approved as a cream (Zoryve), and apremilast (Otezla), approved as an oral therapy.
Phase 2 study of orismilast
In the orismilast trial, Dr. French attributed the efficacy observed to the potency of orismilast on the B and D subtypes of PDE4 associated with inflammation. One clue is that these specific subtypes are overly expressed in the skin of patients with either psoriasis or atopic dermatitis.
“When compared to apremilast, orismilast is at least two to fivefold more potent on all PDE4 isoforms and up to 39 times more potent on some of the PDE4 B and D isoforms,” said Dr. French, referring to preclinical findings in human whole blood and blood cells and in a mouse model of chronic inflammation.
The efficacy of orismilast in an immediate-release oral formulation was previously demonstrated in a recently published phase 2a trial, but the newest study tested a modified-release formulation of orismilast to test its potential to improve tolerability.
In the study, 202 adult patients with moderate to severe psoriasis (Psoriasis Area Severity Index [PASI] score ≥ 12) were randomly assigned to one of three doses of orismilast or to placebo. Each of the three doses – 20 mg, 30 mg, or 40 mg – were administered twice daily. The primary endpoint was change in PASI score at 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included PASI 75 responses (signifying 75% clearance) and safety.
Relative to placebo, which was associated with a PASI improvement of 17%, all three of the tested orismilast doses were superior in a dose-dependent manner. The rates of response were 53%, 61%, and 64% for the 20-mg, 30-mg, and 40-mg twice-daily doses, respectively.
The PASI improvements were rapid, Dr. French said. At 4 weeks, PASI scores climbed from baseline by nearly 40% for those on all orismilast doses, which was more than double the improvement in the placebo group.
In the intention-to-treat analysis with missing data counted as nonresponders, the proportion of patients reaching PASI-75 scores at 16 weeks were 39%, 49%, 45%, and 17%, in the 20-mg, 30-mg, 40-mg, and placebo groups, respectively. The proportion of patients experiencing complete or near-complete skin clearance defined by a PASI 90 were 24%, 22%, 28%, and 8%, respectively.
The side-effect profile was consistent with other PDE4 inhibitors. The most common adverse events included gastrointestinal complaints, such as diarrhea and nausea, as well as headache and dizziness. But the majority of these events were of low grade, and they were largely confined to the first 4 weeks of treatment, which is a pattern reported with other PDE4 inhibitors in psoriasis and other chronic inflammatory diseases, such as COPD, according to Dr. French.
“There were no discontinuations for a treatment-related adverse event in the arms receiving either the 20-mg or the 30-mg doses,” Dr. French reported. There were only two serious adverse events, and neither were considered by trial investigators to be related to orismilast.
Based on the limited therapeutic gain but greater risk for adverse events on the 40-mg twice-daily dose, “the question is now whether to move forward with the 20-mg or the 30-mg dose,” said Dr. French, who said planning of a phase 3 trial is underway.
Phase 2 study of roflumilast
However, this was not the only set of data on an oral PDE4 inhibitor presented as a late-breaker at the AAD meeting. For clinicians looking for a more immediate and less expensive alternative to apremilast, another study indicated that off-label use of oral roflumilast is an option.
In an investigator-initiated, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in Denmark, the rate of response to oral roflumilast at 24 weeks, including the clear or almost clear response, was on the same general order of magnitude as that seen in the orismilast study, reported Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of Copenhagen.
“At 24 weeks, 21.7% had achieved a PASI 90, and 8.7% achieved a PASI 100,” Dr. Egeberg said.
Oral roflumilast has been available for the treatment of COPD for more than 10 years and is now available in a generic formulation. This study was conducted independent of any pharmaceutical company involvement, and the high rate of response and low risk of adverse events suggests that patients can benefit from a PDE4 inhibitor in a very low-cost form.
“Generic oral roflumilast is cheaper than a Starbucks coffee,” Dr. Egeberg said.
In this trial, 46 patients were randomly assigned to placebo or to the COPD-approved roflumilast dose of 500 mcg once daily. The primary endpoint was change in PASI scores from baseline to week 12, which Dr. Egeberg pointed out is a shorter time frame than the 16 weeks more typical of psoriasis treatment studies.
At week 12, the median improvement in PASI was 34.8% in the roflumilast group versus 0% in the placebo group. Patients were then followed for an additional 12 weeks, but those randomized to placebo were switched to the active treatment. By week 24, the switch patients had largely caught up to those initiated on roflumilast for median PASI improvement (39.1% vs. 43.5%).
Similar to orismilast, roflumilast “was generally well tolerated,” Dr. Egeberg said. The adverse events were consistent with those associated with PDE4 inhibitors in previous trials, whether in psoriasis or COPD. There was only one serious adverse event, and it was not considered treatment related. Discontinuations for adverse events “were very low.”
In a population with a relatively high rate of smoking, Dr. Egeberg further reported, lung function was improved, a remark initially interpreted as a joke by some attending the presentation. However, Dr. Egeberg confirmed that lung function was monitored, and objective improvements were recorded.
By Danish law, the investigators were required to inform the manufacturers of roflumilast. Despite the results of this study, he is not aware of any plans to seek an indication for roflumilast in psoriasis, but he noted that the drug is readily available at a low price.
For those willing to offer this therapy off label, “you can start using it tomorrow if you’d like,” he said.
Dr. French reports financial relationships with Almirall, Amgen, Biotest, Galderma, Janssen Cilag, Leo Pharma, Pincell, Regeneron, UCB, and UNION Therapeutics, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Egeberg reports financial relationships with Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, and Pfizer.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT AAD 2023
New JAK inhibitor study data confirm benefit in alopecia areata
from clinical trials of two drugs presented at a late-breaker research session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Based on phase 3 studies that document robust hair growth in about one third of patients, deuruxolitinib (CTP-543), an inhibitor of the JAK1 and JAK2 enzymes, has the potential to become the second JAK inhibitor available for the treatment of alopecia areata. If approved, it will join baricitinib (Olumiant), which received U.S. approval almost 1 year ago.
In his talk on THRIVE-AA2, a phase 3 trial of the investigational medicine deuruxolitinib, the principal investigator, Brett A. King, MD, PhD, displayed several before-and-after photos and said, “The photos tell the whole story. This is why there is so much excitement about these drugs.”
THRIVE-AA2 was the second of two phase 3 studies of deuruxolitinib. King was a principal investigator for both pivotal trials, called THRIVE-AA1 and THRIVE AA-2. He characterized the results of the two THRIVE trials as “comparable.”
Dr. King also was a principal investigator for the trials with baricitinib, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE AA-2, which were published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine. The trials for both drugs had similar designs and endpoints.
Deuruxolitinib and the THRIVE studies
In the THRIVE-AA2 trial, 517 adult patients were enrolled with moderate to severe alopecia areata, defined as a SALT (Severity of Alopecia Tool) score of ≥ 50%, which signifies a hair loss of at least 50%. Like THRIVE-AA1, patients participated at treatment centers in North America and Europe. About two-thirds were female. The mean age was 39 years. The majority of patients had complete or near complete hair loss at baseline.
“Many of these patients are the ones we have historically characterized as having alopecia totalis or universalis,” Dr. King said.
Participating patients were randomly assigned to 8 mg deuruxolitinib twice daily, 12 mg deuruxolitinib twice daily, or placebo. The primary endpoint was a SALT score of ≤ 20% at week 24.
At 24 weeks, almost no patients in the placebo group (1%) vs. 33% and 38% in the 8 mg and 12 mg twice-daily groups, respectively, met the primary endpoint. Each active treatment group was highly significant vs. placebo.
Of the responders, the majority achieved complete or near complete hair growth as defined by a SALT score of ≤ 10%, Dr. King reported.
Based on a graph that showed a relatively steep climb over the entire 24-week study period, deuruxolitinib “had a really fast onset of action,” Dr. King said. By week 8, which was the time of the first assessment, both doses of deuruxolitinib were superior to placebo.
The majority of patients had complete or significant loss of eyebrows and eye lashes at baseline, but more than two-thirds of these patients had regrowth by week 24, Dr. King said. Again, no significant regrowth was observed in the placebo arm.
On the Satisfaction of Hair Patient Reported Outcomes (SPRO), more than half of patients on both doses reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the improvement when evaluated at 24 weeks.
“The patient satisfaction overshot what one would expect by looking at the SALT scores, but a lot of subjects were at the precipice of the primary endpoint, sitting on SALT scores of 21, 25, or 30,” Dr. King said.
High participation in extension trial
More than 90% of the patients assigned to deuruxolitinib completed the trial and have entered an open-label extension (OLE). Dr. King credited the substantial rates of hair growth and the low rate of significant adverse events for the high rate of transition to OLE. Those who experienced the response were motivated to maintain it.
“This is a devastating disease. Patients want to get better,” Dr. King said.
There were no serious treatment-emergent adverse events associated with deuruxolitinib, including no thromboembolic events or other off-target events that have been reported previously with other JAK inhibitors in other disease states, such as rheumatoid arthritis. Although some adverse events, such as nasopharyngitis, were observed more often in those taking deuruxolitinib than placebo, there were “very few” discontinuations because of an adverse event, he said.
The data of THRIVE-AA2 are wholly compatible with the previously reported 706-patient THRIVE-AA1, according to Dr. King. In THRIVE-AA1, the primary endpoint of SALT ≤ 20% was reached by 29.6%, 41.5%, and 0.8% of the 8 mg, 12 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Patient satisfaction scores, safety, and tolerability were also similar, according to Dr. King.
The experience with deuruxolitinib in the THRIVE-AA phase 3 program is similar to the experience with baricitinib in the BRAVE-AA trials. Although they cannot be compared directly because of potential differences between study populations, the 4-mg dose of baricitinib also achieved SALT score ≤ 20 in about 35% of patients, he said. The proportion was lower in the 2-mg group but was also superior to the placebo group.
“JAK inhibitors are changing the paradigm of alopecia areata,” Dr. King said. Responding to a question about payers reluctant to reimburse therapies for a “cosmetic” condition, Dr. King added that the effective treatments are “changing the landscape of how we think about this disease.” Dr. King believes these kinds of data show that “we are literally transforming lives forever.”
Baricitinib and the BRAVE studies
When baricitinib received regulatory approval for alopecia areata last year, it was not just the first JAK inhibitor approved for this disease, but the first systemic therapy of any kind, according to Maryanne Senna, MD, an assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and the director of the Lahey Hair Loss Center of Excellence, Burlington, Mass. Dr. Senna was a clinical investigator of BRAVE-AA1, as well as of THRIVE-AA2.
Providing an update on the BRAVE-AA program, Dr. Senna reported 104-week data that appear to support the idea of a life-changing benefit from JAK inhibitor therapy. This is because the effects appear durable.
In the data she presented at the AAD, responders and mixed responders at 52 weeks were followed to 104 weeks. Mixed responders were defined as those without a SALT response of ≤ 20 at week 52 but who had achieved this degree of hair regrowth at some earlier point.
Of the responders, 90% maintained their response at 104 weeks. In addition, many of the mixed responders and patients with a partial response but who never achieved a SALT score ≤ 20% gained additional hair growth, including complete or near complete hair growth, when maintained on treatment over the 2 years of follow-up.
“The follow-up suggests that, if you keep patients on treatment, you can get many of them to a meaningful response,” she said.
Meanwhile, “there have been no new safety signals,” Dr. Senna said. She based this statement not only of the 104-week data but on follow-up of up to 3.6 years among patients who have remained on treatment after participating in previous studies.
According to Dr. Senna, the off-target events that have been reported previously in other diseases with other JAK inhibitors, such as major adverse cardiovascular events and thromboembolic events, have not so far been observed in the BRAVE-AA phase 3 program.
Baricitinib, much like all but one of the JAK inhibitors with dermatologic indications, carries a black box warning that lists multiple risks for drugs in this class, based on a rheumatoid arthritis study.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted deuruxolitinib Breakthrough Therapy designation for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe alopecia areata and Fast Track designation for the treatment of alopecia areata, according to its manufacturer Concert Pharmaceuticals.
Dr. King reports financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Concert Pharmaceuticals, which provided the funding for the THRIVE-AA trial program, and for Eli Lilly, which provided funding for the BRAVE-AA trial program. Dr. Senna reports financial relationships with Arena pharmaceuticals, Follica, and both Concert Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
from clinical trials of two drugs presented at a late-breaker research session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Based on phase 3 studies that document robust hair growth in about one third of patients, deuruxolitinib (CTP-543), an inhibitor of the JAK1 and JAK2 enzymes, has the potential to become the second JAK inhibitor available for the treatment of alopecia areata. If approved, it will join baricitinib (Olumiant), which received U.S. approval almost 1 year ago.
In his talk on THRIVE-AA2, a phase 3 trial of the investigational medicine deuruxolitinib, the principal investigator, Brett A. King, MD, PhD, displayed several before-and-after photos and said, “The photos tell the whole story. This is why there is so much excitement about these drugs.”
THRIVE-AA2 was the second of two phase 3 studies of deuruxolitinib. King was a principal investigator for both pivotal trials, called THRIVE-AA1 and THRIVE AA-2. He characterized the results of the two THRIVE trials as “comparable.”
Dr. King also was a principal investigator for the trials with baricitinib, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE AA-2, which were published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine. The trials for both drugs had similar designs and endpoints.
Deuruxolitinib and the THRIVE studies
In the THRIVE-AA2 trial, 517 adult patients were enrolled with moderate to severe alopecia areata, defined as a SALT (Severity of Alopecia Tool) score of ≥ 50%, which signifies a hair loss of at least 50%. Like THRIVE-AA1, patients participated at treatment centers in North America and Europe. About two-thirds were female. The mean age was 39 years. The majority of patients had complete or near complete hair loss at baseline.
“Many of these patients are the ones we have historically characterized as having alopecia totalis or universalis,” Dr. King said.
Participating patients were randomly assigned to 8 mg deuruxolitinib twice daily, 12 mg deuruxolitinib twice daily, or placebo. The primary endpoint was a SALT score of ≤ 20% at week 24.
At 24 weeks, almost no patients in the placebo group (1%) vs. 33% and 38% in the 8 mg and 12 mg twice-daily groups, respectively, met the primary endpoint. Each active treatment group was highly significant vs. placebo.
Of the responders, the majority achieved complete or near complete hair growth as defined by a SALT score of ≤ 10%, Dr. King reported.
Based on a graph that showed a relatively steep climb over the entire 24-week study period, deuruxolitinib “had a really fast onset of action,” Dr. King said. By week 8, which was the time of the first assessment, both doses of deuruxolitinib were superior to placebo.
The majority of patients had complete or significant loss of eyebrows and eye lashes at baseline, but more than two-thirds of these patients had regrowth by week 24, Dr. King said. Again, no significant regrowth was observed in the placebo arm.
On the Satisfaction of Hair Patient Reported Outcomes (SPRO), more than half of patients on both doses reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the improvement when evaluated at 24 weeks.
“The patient satisfaction overshot what one would expect by looking at the SALT scores, but a lot of subjects were at the precipice of the primary endpoint, sitting on SALT scores of 21, 25, or 30,” Dr. King said.
High participation in extension trial
More than 90% of the patients assigned to deuruxolitinib completed the trial and have entered an open-label extension (OLE). Dr. King credited the substantial rates of hair growth and the low rate of significant adverse events for the high rate of transition to OLE. Those who experienced the response were motivated to maintain it.
“This is a devastating disease. Patients want to get better,” Dr. King said.
There were no serious treatment-emergent adverse events associated with deuruxolitinib, including no thromboembolic events or other off-target events that have been reported previously with other JAK inhibitors in other disease states, such as rheumatoid arthritis. Although some adverse events, such as nasopharyngitis, were observed more often in those taking deuruxolitinib than placebo, there were “very few” discontinuations because of an adverse event, he said.
The data of THRIVE-AA2 are wholly compatible with the previously reported 706-patient THRIVE-AA1, according to Dr. King. In THRIVE-AA1, the primary endpoint of SALT ≤ 20% was reached by 29.6%, 41.5%, and 0.8% of the 8 mg, 12 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Patient satisfaction scores, safety, and tolerability were also similar, according to Dr. King.
The experience with deuruxolitinib in the THRIVE-AA phase 3 program is similar to the experience with baricitinib in the BRAVE-AA trials. Although they cannot be compared directly because of potential differences between study populations, the 4-mg dose of baricitinib also achieved SALT score ≤ 20 in about 35% of patients, he said. The proportion was lower in the 2-mg group but was also superior to the placebo group.
“JAK inhibitors are changing the paradigm of alopecia areata,” Dr. King said. Responding to a question about payers reluctant to reimburse therapies for a “cosmetic” condition, Dr. King added that the effective treatments are “changing the landscape of how we think about this disease.” Dr. King believes these kinds of data show that “we are literally transforming lives forever.”
Baricitinib and the BRAVE studies
When baricitinib received regulatory approval for alopecia areata last year, it was not just the first JAK inhibitor approved for this disease, but the first systemic therapy of any kind, according to Maryanne Senna, MD, an assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and the director of the Lahey Hair Loss Center of Excellence, Burlington, Mass. Dr. Senna was a clinical investigator of BRAVE-AA1, as well as of THRIVE-AA2.
Providing an update on the BRAVE-AA program, Dr. Senna reported 104-week data that appear to support the idea of a life-changing benefit from JAK inhibitor therapy. This is because the effects appear durable.
In the data she presented at the AAD, responders and mixed responders at 52 weeks were followed to 104 weeks. Mixed responders were defined as those without a SALT response of ≤ 20 at week 52 but who had achieved this degree of hair regrowth at some earlier point.
Of the responders, 90% maintained their response at 104 weeks. In addition, many of the mixed responders and patients with a partial response but who never achieved a SALT score ≤ 20% gained additional hair growth, including complete or near complete hair growth, when maintained on treatment over the 2 years of follow-up.
“The follow-up suggests that, if you keep patients on treatment, you can get many of them to a meaningful response,” she said.
Meanwhile, “there have been no new safety signals,” Dr. Senna said. She based this statement not only of the 104-week data but on follow-up of up to 3.6 years among patients who have remained on treatment after participating in previous studies.
According to Dr. Senna, the off-target events that have been reported previously in other diseases with other JAK inhibitors, such as major adverse cardiovascular events and thromboembolic events, have not so far been observed in the BRAVE-AA phase 3 program.
Baricitinib, much like all but one of the JAK inhibitors with dermatologic indications, carries a black box warning that lists multiple risks for drugs in this class, based on a rheumatoid arthritis study.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted deuruxolitinib Breakthrough Therapy designation for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe alopecia areata and Fast Track designation for the treatment of alopecia areata, according to its manufacturer Concert Pharmaceuticals.
Dr. King reports financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Concert Pharmaceuticals, which provided the funding for the THRIVE-AA trial program, and for Eli Lilly, which provided funding for the BRAVE-AA trial program. Dr. Senna reports financial relationships with Arena pharmaceuticals, Follica, and both Concert Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
from clinical trials of two drugs presented at a late-breaker research session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Based on phase 3 studies that document robust hair growth in about one third of patients, deuruxolitinib (CTP-543), an inhibitor of the JAK1 and JAK2 enzymes, has the potential to become the second JAK inhibitor available for the treatment of alopecia areata. If approved, it will join baricitinib (Olumiant), which received U.S. approval almost 1 year ago.
In his talk on THRIVE-AA2, a phase 3 trial of the investigational medicine deuruxolitinib, the principal investigator, Brett A. King, MD, PhD, displayed several before-and-after photos and said, “The photos tell the whole story. This is why there is so much excitement about these drugs.”
THRIVE-AA2 was the second of two phase 3 studies of deuruxolitinib. King was a principal investigator for both pivotal trials, called THRIVE-AA1 and THRIVE AA-2. He characterized the results of the two THRIVE trials as “comparable.”
Dr. King also was a principal investigator for the trials with baricitinib, called BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE AA-2, which were published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine. The trials for both drugs had similar designs and endpoints.
Deuruxolitinib and the THRIVE studies
In the THRIVE-AA2 trial, 517 adult patients were enrolled with moderate to severe alopecia areata, defined as a SALT (Severity of Alopecia Tool) score of ≥ 50%, which signifies a hair loss of at least 50%. Like THRIVE-AA1, patients participated at treatment centers in North America and Europe. About two-thirds were female. The mean age was 39 years. The majority of patients had complete or near complete hair loss at baseline.
“Many of these patients are the ones we have historically characterized as having alopecia totalis or universalis,” Dr. King said.
Participating patients were randomly assigned to 8 mg deuruxolitinib twice daily, 12 mg deuruxolitinib twice daily, or placebo. The primary endpoint was a SALT score of ≤ 20% at week 24.
At 24 weeks, almost no patients in the placebo group (1%) vs. 33% and 38% in the 8 mg and 12 mg twice-daily groups, respectively, met the primary endpoint. Each active treatment group was highly significant vs. placebo.
Of the responders, the majority achieved complete or near complete hair growth as defined by a SALT score of ≤ 10%, Dr. King reported.
Based on a graph that showed a relatively steep climb over the entire 24-week study period, deuruxolitinib “had a really fast onset of action,” Dr. King said. By week 8, which was the time of the first assessment, both doses of deuruxolitinib were superior to placebo.
The majority of patients had complete or significant loss of eyebrows and eye lashes at baseline, but more than two-thirds of these patients had regrowth by week 24, Dr. King said. Again, no significant regrowth was observed in the placebo arm.
On the Satisfaction of Hair Patient Reported Outcomes (SPRO), more than half of patients on both doses reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the improvement when evaluated at 24 weeks.
“The patient satisfaction overshot what one would expect by looking at the SALT scores, but a lot of subjects were at the precipice of the primary endpoint, sitting on SALT scores of 21, 25, or 30,” Dr. King said.
High participation in extension trial
More than 90% of the patients assigned to deuruxolitinib completed the trial and have entered an open-label extension (OLE). Dr. King credited the substantial rates of hair growth and the low rate of significant adverse events for the high rate of transition to OLE. Those who experienced the response were motivated to maintain it.
“This is a devastating disease. Patients want to get better,” Dr. King said.
There were no serious treatment-emergent adverse events associated with deuruxolitinib, including no thromboembolic events or other off-target events that have been reported previously with other JAK inhibitors in other disease states, such as rheumatoid arthritis. Although some adverse events, such as nasopharyngitis, were observed more often in those taking deuruxolitinib than placebo, there were “very few” discontinuations because of an adverse event, he said.
The data of THRIVE-AA2 are wholly compatible with the previously reported 706-patient THRIVE-AA1, according to Dr. King. In THRIVE-AA1, the primary endpoint of SALT ≤ 20% was reached by 29.6%, 41.5%, and 0.8% of the 8 mg, 12 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Patient satisfaction scores, safety, and tolerability were also similar, according to Dr. King.
The experience with deuruxolitinib in the THRIVE-AA phase 3 program is similar to the experience with baricitinib in the BRAVE-AA trials. Although they cannot be compared directly because of potential differences between study populations, the 4-mg dose of baricitinib also achieved SALT score ≤ 20 in about 35% of patients, he said. The proportion was lower in the 2-mg group but was also superior to the placebo group.
“JAK inhibitors are changing the paradigm of alopecia areata,” Dr. King said. Responding to a question about payers reluctant to reimburse therapies for a “cosmetic” condition, Dr. King added that the effective treatments are “changing the landscape of how we think about this disease.” Dr. King believes these kinds of data show that “we are literally transforming lives forever.”
Baricitinib and the BRAVE studies
When baricitinib received regulatory approval for alopecia areata last year, it was not just the first JAK inhibitor approved for this disease, but the first systemic therapy of any kind, according to Maryanne Senna, MD, an assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and the director of the Lahey Hair Loss Center of Excellence, Burlington, Mass. Dr. Senna was a clinical investigator of BRAVE-AA1, as well as of THRIVE-AA2.
Providing an update on the BRAVE-AA program, Dr. Senna reported 104-week data that appear to support the idea of a life-changing benefit from JAK inhibitor therapy. This is because the effects appear durable.
In the data she presented at the AAD, responders and mixed responders at 52 weeks were followed to 104 weeks. Mixed responders were defined as those without a SALT response of ≤ 20 at week 52 but who had achieved this degree of hair regrowth at some earlier point.
Of the responders, 90% maintained their response at 104 weeks. In addition, many of the mixed responders and patients with a partial response but who never achieved a SALT score ≤ 20% gained additional hair growth, including complete or near complete hair growth, when maintained on treatment over the 2 years of follow-up.
“The follow-up suggests that, if you keep patients on treatment, you can get many of them to a meaningful response,” she said.
Meanwhile, “there have been no new safety signals,” Dr. Senna said. She based this statement not only of the 104-week data but on follow-up of up to 3.6 years among patients who have remained on treatment after participating in previous studies.
According to Dr. Senna, the off-target events that have been reported previously in other diseases with other JAK inhibitors, such as major adverse cardiovascular events and thromboembolic events, have not so far been observed in the BRAVE-AA phase 3 program.
Baricitinib, much like all but one of the JAK inhibitors with dermatologic indications, carries a black box warning that lists multiple risks for drugs in this class, based on a rheumatoid arthritis study.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted deuruxolitinib Breakthrough Therapy designation for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe alopecia areata and Fast Track designation for the treatment of alopecia areata, according to its manufacturer Concert Pharmaceuticals.
Dr. King reports financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Concert Pharmaceuticals, which provided the funding for the THRIVE-AA trial program, and for Eli Lilly, which provided funding for the BRAVE-AA trial program. Dr. Senna reports financial relationships with Arena pharmaceuticals, Follica, and both Concert Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AT AAD 2023
Pilot study evaluates sensitive skin burden in persons of color
NEW ORLEANS – .
Respondents also reported high rates of reactions to skin care products marketed for sensitive skin, and most said they had visited a dermatologist about their condition.
Those are among the key findings of a pilot study designed to assess the prevalence, symptom burden, and behaviors of self-identified persons of color with sensitive skin, which senior author Adam Friedman, MD, and colleagues defined as a subjective syndrome of cutaneous hyperreactivity to otherwise innocuous stimuli. “Improved understanding of sensitive skin is essential, and we encourage additional research into pathophysiology and creating a consensus definition for sensitive skin,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during an e-poster session. The findings were also reported online in JAAD International.
In May of 2022, Dr. Friedman, first author Erika McCormick, a 4th-year medical student at George Washington University, and colleagues invited individuals attending a community health fair in an undeserved area of Washington, to complete the Sensitive Scale-10 (SS-10) and to answer other questions after receiving a brief education about sensitive skin. Of the 58 respondents, 78% were female, and 86% self-identified as a person of color.
“Our study population predominantly self-identified as Black, which only represents one piece of those who would be characterized as persons of color,” Dr. Friedman said. “That said, improved representation of both our study population, and furthermore persons of color, in all aspects of dermatology research is crucial to at a minimum ensure generalizability of findings to the U.S. population, and research on sensitive skin is but one component of this.”
Nearly two-thirds of all respondents (63.8%) reported having an underlying skin condition, most commonly acne (21%), eczema (17%), and rosacea (6%). More than half (57%) reported sensitive skin, 27% of whom reported no other skin disease. Individuals with sensitive skin had higher mean SS-10 scores, compared with those with nonsensitive skin (14.61 vs. 4.32; P = .002) and burning was the main symptom among those with sensitive skin (56%), followed by itch (50%), redness (39%), dryness (39%) and pain (17%).
Compared with those who did not meet criteria for sensitive skin, those who did were more likely to report a personal history of allergy (56.25% vs. 8.33%; P = .0002) and were nearly seven times more likely to have seen a dermatologist about their concerns (odds ratio, 6.857; P = .0012).
In other findings limited to respondents with sensitive skin, 72% who reported reactions to general consumer skin care products also reported reacting to products marketed for sensitive skin, and 94% reported reactivity to at least one trigger, most commonly extreme temperatures (34%), stress (34%), sweat (33%), sun exposure (29%), and diet (28%). “We were particularly surprised by the high rates of reactivity to skin care products designed for and marketed to those suffering with sensitive skin,” Ms. McCormick told this news organization. “Importantly, there is currently no federal or legal standard regulating ingredients in products marketed for sensitive skin, and many products lack testing in sensitive skin specifically. Our data suggest an opportunity for improvement of sensitive skin care.”
She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size. “Reconducting this survey in a larger population will help validate our findings,” she said.
The research was supported by two independent research grants from Galderma: one supporting Ms. McCormick with a Sensitive Skin Research Fellowship and the other a Sensitive Skin Research Acceleration Fund. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – .
Respondents also reported high rates of reactions to skin care products marketed for sensitive skin, and most said they had visited a dermatologist about their condition.
Those are among the key findings of a pilot study designed to assess the prevalence, symptom burden, and behaviors of self-identified persons of color with sensitive skin, which senior author Adam Friedman, MD, and colleagues defined as a subjective syndrome of cutaneous hyperreactivity to otherwise innocuous stimuli. “Improved understanding of sensitive skin is essential, and we encourage additional research into pathophysiology and creating a consensus definition for sensitive skin,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during an e-poster session. The findings were also reported online in JAAD International.
In May of 2022, Dr. Friedman, first author Erika McCormick, a 4th-year medical student at George Washington University, and colleagues invited individuals attending a community health fair in an undeserved area of Washington, to complete the Sensitive Scale-10 (SS-10) and to answer other questions after receiving a brief education about sensitive skin. Of the 58 respondents, 78% were female, and 86% self-identified as a person of color.
“Our study population predominantly self-identified as Black, which only represents one piece of those who would be characterized as persons of color,” Dr. Friedman said. “That said, improved representation of both our study population, and furthermore persons of color, in all aspects of dermatology research is crucial to at a minimum ensure generalizability of findings to the U.S. population, and research on sensitive skin is but one component of this.”
Nearly two-thirds of all respondents (63.8%) reported having an underlying skin condition, most commonly acne (21%), eczema (17%), and rosacea (6%). More than half (57%) reported sensitive skin, 27% of whom reported no other skin disease. Individuals with sensitive skin had higher mean SS-10 scores, compared with those with nonsensitive skin (14.61 vs. 4.32; P = .002) and burning was the main symptom among those with sensitive skin (56%), followed by itch (50%), redness (39%), dryness (39%) and pain (17%).
Compared with those who did not meet criteria for sensitive skin, those who did were more likely to report a personal history of allergy (56.25% vs. 8.33%; P = .0002) and were nearly seven times more likely to have seen a dermatologist about their concerns (odds ratio, 6.857; P = .0012).
In other findings limited to respondents with sensitive skin, 72% who reported reactions to general consumer skin care products also reported reacting to products marketed for sensitive skin, and 94% reported reactivity to at least one trigger, most commonly extreme temperatures (34%), stress (34%), sweat (33%), sun exposure (29%), and diet (28%). “We were particularly surprised by the high rates of reactivity to skin care products designed for and marketed to those suffering with sensitive skin,” Ms. McCormick told this news organization. “Importantly, there is currently no federal or legal standard regulating ingredients in products marketed for sensitive skin, and many products lack testing in sensitive skin specifically. Our data suggest an opportunity for improvement of sensitive skin care.”
She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size. “Reconducting this survey in a larger population will help validate our findings,” she said.
The research was supported by two independent research grants from Galderma: one supporting Ms. McCormick with a Sensitive Skin Research Fellowship and the other a Sensitive Skin Research Acceleration Fund. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – .
Respondents also reported high rates of reactions to skin care products marketed for sensitive skin, and most said they had visited a dermatologist about their condition.
Those are among the key findings of a pilot study designed to assess the prevalence, symptom burden, and behaviors of self-identified persons of color with sensitive skin, which senior author Adam Friedman, MD, and colleagues defined as a subjective syndrome of cutaneous hyperreactivity to otherwise innocuous stimuli. “Improved understanding of sensitive skin is essential, and we encourage additional research into pathophysiology and creating a consensus definition for sensitive skin,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during an e-poster session. The findings were also reported online in JAAD International.
In May of 2022, Dr. Friedman, first author Erika McCormick, a 4th-year medical student at George Washington University, and colleagues invited individuals attending a community health fair in an undeserved area of Washington, to complete the Sensitive Scale-10 (SS-10) and to answer other questions after receiving a brief education about sensitive skin. Of the 58 respondents, 78% were female, and 86% self-identified as a person of color.
“Our study population predominantly self-identified as Black, which only represents one piece of those who would be characterized as persons of color,” Dr. Friedman said. “That said, improved representation of both our study population, and furthermore persons of color, in all aspects of dermatology research is crucial to at a minimum ensure generalizability of findings to the U.S. population, and research on sensitive skin is but one component of this.”
Nearly two-thirds of all respondents (63.8%) reported having an underlying skin condition, most commonly acne (21%), eczema (17%), and rosacea (6%). More than half (57%) reported sensitive skin, 27% of whom reported no other skin disease. Individuals with sensitive skin had higher mean SS-10 scores, compared with those with nonsensitive skin (14.61 vs. 4.32; P = .002) and burning was the main symptom among those with sensitive skin (56%), followed by itch (50%), redness (39%), dryness (39%) and pain (17%).
Compared with those who did not meet criteria for sensitive skin, those who did were more likely to report a personal history of allergy (56.25% vs. 8.33%; P = .0002) and were nearly seven times more likely to have seen a dermatologist about their concerns (odds ratio, 6.857; P = .0012).
In other findings limited to respondents with sensitive skin, 72% who reported reactions to general consumer skin care products also reported reacting to products marketed for sensitive skin, and 94% reported reactivity to at least one trigger, most commonly extreme temperatures (34%), stress (34%), sweat (33%), sun exposure (29%), and diet (28%). “We were particularly surprised by the high rates of reactivity to skin care products designed for and marketed to those suffering with sensitive skin,” Ms. McCormick told this news organization. “Importantly, there is currently no federal or legal standard regulating ingredients in products marketed for sensitive skin, and many products lack testing in sensitive skin specifically. Our data suggest an opportunity for improvement of sensitive skin care.”
She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size. “Reconducting this survey in a larger population will help validate our findings,” she said.
The research was supported by two independent research grants from Galderma: one supporting Ms. McCormick with a Sensitive Skin Research Fellowship and the other a Sensitive Skin Research Acceleration Fund. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.
AT AAD 2023
Expert shares her tips for diagnosing, treating onychomycosis
NEW ORLEANS – .
“The PAS [periodic acid-Schiff] stain is very popular because it can identify the presence or absence of fungal elements, but a fungal culture will identify the organism living in the nail,” Dr. Elewski, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “You also could do a PCR to identify the organism, with or without a KOH or PAS stain. It is often helpful to know what organism is causing the infection.”
While waiting for lab results, there are three clinical clues to look for – the first being that an infection likely resides in the toenail. “You almost never see dermatophyte onychomycosis in the fingernails without it being in the toenails, too,” Dr. Elewski said.
The presence of tinea pedis is a second clinical clue. “Sometimes it’s subtle, so I will ask the patient, ‘Have you been treating yourself for athlete’s foot?’ If they say ‘no, I’ve never had it,’ put down on your list that it’s unlikely they have onychomycosis. How is the fungus going to jump from the floor into the nail without taking a little vacation on the bottom of the foot? It just isn’t going to happen.”
The presence of dermatophytoma is the third clinical clue. “These are dermatophyte abscesses encased in a biofilm, and they’re really hard to treat,” she said.
Treatments
Clinicians typically turn to one of three oral drugs for treating onychomycosis: terbinafine, itraconazole, and fluconazole, Dr. Elewski noted. Referring to terbinafine as “the gold standard,” she said that she typically writes a prescription for 90 250-mg pills. “When I give terbinafine, I often do baseline liver profiling, depending on the patient’s age, their state of health, their comorbidities, and other medications they’re taking,” she said. “If they’re 18 years old and otherwise healthy, I probably don’t.” While she generally prescribes 90 pills, she added, “keep in mind that 90 pills are not going to cure everybody. I see the patient 4 months later because the drug should stay in the nail for 30 days or more at therapeutic levels after you take that 90-day course.”
Another option is itraconazole, which can be taken at a dose of 200 mg a day for 12 weeks, or at a pulse dose, where patients take 400 mg every day for 1 week, 1 week a month, for 4 consecutive months. “I’ll often do a baseline liver profile with itraconazole, too,” Dr. Elewski said. “I don’t think you have to, but it makes sense if it’s feasible for you. Decide that based on each patient.”
Itraconazole can’t be given concomitantly with statins because of the potential for rhabdomyolysis. For patients taking statins, she consults with their physicians to make sure it’s safe to stop the statin a couple of days before and after their scheduled pulse dose of itraconazole. “This involves 1 week per month of taking itraconazole without the statin,” she said. “Or they could stop statins for the time you treat, if cleared by their doctor.”
As for fluconazole, Dr. Elewski usually prescribes 200 mg once or twice per week until the nail is normal. She offers patients the mnemonic for “Fungal Fridays” or Toesdays” as a way for them to remember which day to take the fluconazole.
According to data in the package inserts, rates of complete and mycologic cures are 38% and 70% for terbinafine, respectively, 14% and 54% for itraconazole, and 37% to 48% and 47% to 62% for fluconazole. “These cures are not 100% based on the standard course [of the drug],” Dr. Elewski noted. “I don’t use the standard course. I believe in treating to terminate. You want to kill the fungus.”
Resistant dermatophytes ‘are coming’
Halting treatment with an oral drug at a particular time point instead of when the nail is fungal-free likely contributes to resistant strains, she added, noting that she has at least two dozen patients in her practice with dermatophyte resistance documented in labs. “We need to be antifungal stewards, because resistant dermatophytes are coming to us,” she said. “They’re here already, and we don’t want it to be endemic in the U.S.”
In a published study from 2020, researchers from India enrolled 200 patients with relapsing tinea corporis, tinea cruris, and tinea faciei and allocated 50 each to treatment with either fluconazole, griseofulvin, itraconazole, or terbinafine. At week 4, all treatment arms had cure rates of less than 8%. At week 8, the cure rates were 42% for fluconazole, 16% for griseofulvin, 28% for terbinafine, and 66% for itraconazole.
Based in part on these study findings, Dr. Elewski said that she has become more aggressive in her therapeutic approach, including treating some of her patients on terbinafine for a minimum of 6 months. “If that’s not enough, I keep treating,” she said. “But, patients may not respond to terbinafine; we see resistance. So, itraconazole may be our best drug going forward for treating onychomycosis. You just have to watch out for side effects of itraconazole, mainly drug-drug interactions.”
Dr. Elewski reported having no relevant financial disclosures related to her presentation.
NEW ORLEANS – .
“The PAS [periodic acid-Schiff] stain is very popular because it can identify the presence or absence of fungal elements, but a fungal culture will identify the organism living in the nail,” Dr. Elewski, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “You also could do a PCR to identify the organism, with or without a KOH or PAS stain. It is often helpful to know what organism is causing the infection.”
While waiting for lab results, there are three clinical clues to look for – the first being that an infection likely resides in the toenail. “You almost never see dermatophyte onychomycosis in the fingernails without it being in the toenails, too,” Dr. Elewski said.
The presence of tinea pedis is a second clinical clue. “Sometimes it’s subtle, so I will ask the patient, ‘Have you been treating yourself for athlete’s foot?’ If they say ‘no, I’ve never had it,’ put down on your list that it’s unlikely they have onychomycosis. How is the fungus going to jump from the floor into the nail without taking a little vacation on the bottom of the foot? It just isn’t going to happen.”
The presence of dermatophytoma is the third clinical clue. “These are dermatophyte abscesses encased in a biofilm, and they’re really hard to treat,” she said.
Treatments
Clinicians typically turn to one of three oral drugs for treating onychomycosis: terbinafine, itraconazole, and fluconazole, Dr. Elewski noted. Referring to terbinafine as “the gold standard,” she said that she typically writes a prescription for 90 250-mg pills. “When I give terbinafine, I often do baseline liver profiling, depending on the patient’s age, their state of health, their comorbidities, and other medications they’re taking,” she said. “If they’re 18 years old and otherwise healthy, I probably don’t.” While she generally prescribes 90 pills, she added, “keep in mind that 90 pills are not going to cure everybody. I see the patient 4 months later because the drug should stay in the nail for 30 days or more at therapeutic levels after you take that 90-day course.”
Another option is itraconazole, which can be taken at a dose of 200 mg a day for 12 weeks, or at a pulse dose, where patients take 400 mg every day for 1 week, 1 week a month, for 4 consecutive months. “I’ll often do a baseline liver profile with itraconazole, too,” Dr. Elewski said. “I don’t think you have to, but it makes sense if it’s feasible for you. Decide that based on each patient.”
Itraconazole can’t be given concomitantly with statins because of the potential for rhabdomyolysis. For patients taking statins, she consults with their physicians to make sure it’s safe to stop the statin a couple of days before and after their scheduled pulse dose of itraconazole. “This involves 1 week per month of taking itraconazole without the statin,” she said. “Or they could stop statins for the time you treat, if cleared by their doctor.”
As for fluconazole, Dr. Elewski usually prescribes 200 mg once or twice per week until the nail is normal. She offers patients the mnemonic for “Fungal Fridays” or Toesdays” as a way for them to remember which day to take the fluconazole.
According to data in the package inserts, rates of complete and mycologic cures are 38% and 70% for terbinafine, respectively, 14% and 54% for itraconazole, and 37% to 48% and 47% to 62% for fluconazole. “These cures are not 100% based on the standard course [of the drug],” Dr. Elewski noted. “I don’t use the standard course. I believe in treating to terminate. You want to kill the fungus.”
Resistant dermatophytes ‘are coming’
Halting treatment with an oral drug at a particular time point instead of when the nail is fungal-free likely contributes to resistant strains, she added, noting that she has at least two dozen patients in her practice with dermatophyte resistance documented in labs. “We need to be antifungal stewards, because resistant dermatophytes are coming to us,” she said. “They’re here already, and we don’t want it to be endemic in the U.S.”
In a published study from 2020, researchers from India enrolled 200 patients with relapsing tinea corporis, tinea cruris, and tinea faciei and allocated 50 each to treatment with either fluconazole, griseofulvin, itraconazole, or terbinafine. At week 4, all treatment arms had cure rates of less than 8%. At week 8, the cure rates were 42% for fluconazole, 16% for griseofulvin, 28% for terbinafine, and 66% for itraconazole.
Based in part on these study findings, Dr. Elewski said that she has become more aggressive in her therapeutic approach, including treating some of her patients on terbinafine for a minimum of 6 months. “If that’s not enough, I keep treating,” she said. “But, patients may not respond to terbinafine; we see resistance. So, itraconazole may be our best drug going forward for treating onychomycosis. You just have to watch out for side effects of itraconazole, mainly drug-drug interactions.”
Dr. Elewski reported having no relevant financial disclosures related to her presentation.
NEW ORLEANS – .
“The PAS [periodic acid-Schiff] stain is very popular because it can identify the presence or absence of fungal elements, but a fungal culture will identify the organism living in the nail,” Dr. Elewski, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “You also could do a PCR to identify the organism, with or without a KOH or PAS stain. It is often helpful to know what organism is causing the infection.”
While waiting for lab results, there are three clinical clues to look for – the first being that an infection likely resides in the toenail. “You almost never see dermatophyte onychomycosis in the fingernails without it being in the toenails, too,” Dr. Elewski said.
The presence of tinea pedis is a second clinical clue. “Sometimes it’s subtle, so I will ask the patient, ‘Have you been treating yourself for athlete’s foot?’ If they say ‘no, I’ve never had it,’ put down on your list that it’s unlikely they have onychomycosis. How is the fungus going to jump from the floor into the nail without taking a little vacation on the bottom of the foot? It just isn’t going to happen.”
The presence of dermatophytoma is the third clinical clue. “These are dermatophyte abscesses encased in a biofilm, and they’re really hard to treat,” she said.
Treatments
Clinicians typically turn to one of three oral drugs for treating onychomycosis: terbinafine, itraconazole, and fluconazole, Dr. Elewski noted. Referring to terbinafine as “the gold standard,” she said that she typically writes a prescription for 90 250-mg pills. “When I give terbinafine, I often do baseline liver profiling, depending on the patient’s age, their state of health, their comorbidities, and other medications they’re taking,” she said. “If they’re 18 years old and otherwise healthy, I probably don’t.” While she generally prescribes 90 pills, she added, “keep in mind that 90 pills are not going to cure everybody. I see the patient 4 months later because the drug should stay in the nail for 30 days or more at therapeutic levels after you take that 90-day course.”
Another option is itraconazole, which can be taken at a dose of 200 mg a day for 12 weeks, or at a pulse dose, where patients take 400 mg every day for 1 week, 1 week a month, for 4 consecutive months. “I’ll often do a baseline liver profile with itraconazole, too,” Dr. Elewski said. “I don’t think you have to, but it makes sense if it’s feasible for you. Decide that based on each patient.”
Itraconazole can’t be given concomitantly with statins because of the potential for rhabdomyolysis. For patients taking statins, she consults with their physicians to make sure it’s safe to stop the statin a couple of days before and after their scheduled pulse dose of itraconazole. “This involves 1 week per month of taking itraconazole without the statin,” she said. “Or they could stop statins for the time you treat, if cleared by their doctor.”
As for fluconazole, Dr. Elewski usually prescribes 200 mg once or twice per week until the nail is normal. She offers patients the mnemonic for “Fungal Fridays” or Toesdays” as a way for them to remember which day to take the fluconazole.
According to data in the package inserts, rates of complete and mycologic cures are 38% and 70% for terbinafine, respectively, 14% and 54% for itraconazole, and 37% to 48% and 47% to 62% for fluconazole. “These cures are not 100% based on the standard course [of the drug],” Dr. Elewski noted. “I don’t use the standard course. I believe in treating to terminate. You want to kill the fungus.”
Resistant dermatophytes ‘are coming’
Halting treatment with an oral drug at a particular time point instead of when the nail is fungal-free likely contributes to resistant strains, she added, noting that she has at least two dozen patients in her practice with dermatophyte resistance documented in labs. “We need to be antifungal stewards, because resistant dermatophytes are coming to us,” she said. “They’re here already, and we don’t want it to be endemic in the U.S.”
In a published study from 2020, researchers from India enrolled 200 patients with relapsing tinea corporis, tinea cruris, and tinea faciei and allocated 50 each to treatment with either fluconazole, griseofulvin, itraconazole, or terbinafine. At week 4, all treatment arms had cure rates of less than 8%. At week 8, the cure rates were 42% for fluconazole, 16% for griseofulvin, 28% for terbinafine, and 66% for itraconazole.
Based in part on these study findings, Dr. Elewski said that she has become more aggressive in her therapeutic approach, including treating some of her patients on terbinafine for a minimum of 6 months. “If that’s not enough, I keep treating,” she said. “But, patients may not respond to terbinafine; we see resistance. So, itraconazole may be our best drug going forward for treating onychomycosis. You just have to watch out for side effects of itraconazole, mainly drug-drug interactions.”
Dr. Elewski reported having no relevant financial disclosures related to her presentation.
AT AAD 2023
Rash and edema
Lab work was ordered and came back within normal range, except for an elevated white blood cell count (19,700/mm3; reference range, 4500-13,500/mm3). His mild systemic symptoms, skin lesions without blistering or necrosis, acral edema, and the absence of lymphadenopathy pointed to a diagnosis of urticaria multiforme.
Urticaria multiforme, also called acute annular urticaria or acute urticarial hypersensitivity syndrome, is a histamine-mediated hypersensitivity reaction characterized by transient annular, polycyclic, urticarial lesions with central ecchymosis. It typically manifests in children ages 4 months to 4 years and begins with small erythematous macules, papules, and plaques that progress to large blanchable wheals with dusky blue centers.1-3 Lesions are usually located on the face, trunk, and extremities and are often pruritic (60%-94%).1-3 The rash generally lasts 2 to 12 days.1,3
Patients often report a preceding viral illness, otitis media, recent use of antibiotics, or recent immunizations. Patients also often have associated facial or acral edema (72%).1 Children with significant edema of the feet may find walking difficult, which should not be confused with arthritis or arthralgias.
The diagnosis is made clinically and should not require a skin biopsy or extensive laboratory testing. When performed, laboratory studies—including CBC, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, and urinalysis—are routinely normal. The differential diagnosis in this case included erythema multiforme, Henoch-Schönlein purpura, serum sickness-like reaction, and urticarial vasculitis.1,2,4
Treatment consists of discontinuing any offending agent (if suspected) and using systemic H1 or H2 antihistamines for symptom relief. Systemic steroids should only be given in refractory cases.
Our patient’s amoxicillin was discontinued, and he was started on a 14-day course of cetirizine 5 mg bid and hydroxyzine 10 mg at bedtime. He was also started on triamcinolone 0.1% cream to be applied twice daily for 1 week. During his 3-day hospital stay, his fever resolved, and his rash and edema improved.
During an outpatient follow-up visit with a pediatric dermatologist 2 weeks after discharge, the patient’s rash was still present and dermatographism was noted. In light of this, his parents were instructed to continue giving the cetirizine and hydroxyzine once daily for an additional 2 weeks and to return as needed.
This case was adapted from: Cook JS, Angles A, Morley E. Urticaria and edema in a 2-year-old boy. J Fam Pract. 2021;70:353-355.
Photos courtesy of Jeffrey S. Cook, MD, FAAFP
1. Shah KN, Honig PJ, Yan AC. “Urticaria multiforme”: a case series and review of acute annular urticarial hypersensitivity syndromes in children. Pediatrics. 2007;119:e1177-e1183. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-1553
2. Emer JJ, Bernardo SG, Kovalerchik O, et al. Urticaria multiforme. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2013;6:34-39.
3. Starnes L, Patel T, Skinner RB. Urticaria multiforme – a case report. Pediatr Dermatol. 2011; 28:436-438. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1470.2011.01311.x
4. Reamy BV, Williams PM, Lindsay TJ. Henoch-Schönlein purpura. Am Fam Physician. 2009;80:697-704.
Lab work was ordered and came back within normal range, except for an elevated white blood cell count (19,700/mm3; reference range, 4500-13,500/mm3). His mild systemic symptoms, skin lesions without blistering or necrosis, acral edema, and the absence of lymphadenopathy pointed to a diagnosis of urticaria multiforme.
Urticaria multiforme, also called acute annular urticaria or acute urticarial hypersensitivity syndrome, is a histamine-mediated hypersensitivity reaction characterized by transient annular, polycyclic, urticarial lesions with central ecchymosis. It typically manifests in children ages 4 months to 4 years and begins with small erythematous macules, papules, and plaques that progress to large blanchable wheals with dusky blue centers.1-3 Lesions are usually located on the face, trunk, and extremities and are often pruritic (60%-94%).1-3 The rash generally lasts 2 to 12 days.1,3
Patients often report a preceding viral illness, otitis media, recent use of antibiotics, or recent immunizations. Patients also often have associated facial or acral edema (72%).1 Children with significant edema of the feet may find walking difficult, which should not be confused with arthritis or arthralgias.
The diagnosis is made clinically and should not require a skin biopsy or extensive laboratory testing. When performed, laboratory studies—including CBC, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, and urinalysis—are routinely normal. The differential diagnosis in this case included erythema multiforme, Henoch-Schönlein purpura, serum sickness-like reaction, and urticarial vasculitis.1,2,4
Treatment consists of discontinuing any offending agent (if suspected) and using systemic H1 or H2 antihistamines for symptom relief. Systemic steroids should only be given in refractory cases.
Our patient’s amoxicillin was discontinued, and he was started on a 14-day course of cetirizine 5 mg bid and hydroxyzine 10 mg at bedtime. He was also started on triamcinolone 0.1% cream to be applied twice daily for 1 week. During his 3-day hospital stay, his fever resolved, and his rash and edema improved.
During an outpatient follow-up visit with a pediatric dermatologist 2 weeks after discharge, the patient’s rash was still present and dermatographism was noted. In light of this, his parents were instructed to continue giving the cetirizine and hydroxyzine once daily for an additional 2 weeks and to return as needed.
This case was adapted from: Cook JS, Angles A, Morley E. Urticaria and edema in a 2-year-old boy. J Fam Pract. 2021;70:353-355.
Photos courtesy of Jeffrey S. Cook, MD, FAAFP
Lab work was ordered and came back within normal range, except for an elevated white blood cell count (19,700/mm3; reference range, 4500-13,500/mm3). His mild systemic symptoms, skin lesions without blistering or necrosis, acral edema, and the absence of lymphadenopathy pointed to a diagnosis of urticaria multiforme.
Urticaria multiforme, also called acute annular urticaria or acute urticarial hypersensitivity syndrome, is a histamine-mediated hypersensitivity reaction characterized by transient annular, polycyclic, urticarial lesions with central ecchymosis. It typically manifests in children ages 4 months to 4 years and begins with small erythematous macules, papules, and plaques that progress to large blanchable wheals with dusky blue centers.1-3 Lesions are usually located on the face, trunk, and extremities and are often pruritic (60%-94%).1-3 The rash generally lasts 2 to 12 days.1,3
Patients often report a preceding viral illness, otitis media, recent use of antibiotics, or recent immunizations. Patients also often have associated facial or acral edema (72%).1 Children with significant edema of the feet may find walking difficult, which should not be confused with arthritis or arthralgias.
The diagnosis is made clinically and should not require a skin biopsy or extensive laboratory testing. When performed, laboratory studies—including CBC, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, and urinalysis—are routinely normal. The differential diagnosis in this case included erythema multiforme, Henoch-Schönlein purpura, serum sickness-like reaction, and urticarial vasculitis.1,2,4
Treatment consists of discontinuing any offending agent (if suspected) and using systemic H1 or H2 antihistamines for symptom relief. Systemic steroids should only be given in refractory cases.
Our patient’s amoxicillin was discontinued, and he was started on a 14-day course of cetirizine 5 mg bid and hydroxyzine 10 mg at bedtime. He was also started on triamcinolone 0.1% cream to be applied twice daily for 1 week. During his 3-day hospital stay, his fever resolved, and his rash and edema improved.
During an outpatient follow-up visit with a pediatric dermatologist 2 weeks after discharge, the patient’s rash was still present and dermatographism was noted. In light of this, his parents were instructed to continue giving the cetirizine and hydroxyzine once daily for an additional 2 weeks and to return as needed.
This case was adapted from: Cook JS, Angles A, Morley E. Urticaria and edema in a 2-year-old boy. J Fam Pract. 2021;70:353-355.
Photos courtesy of Jeffrey S. Cook, MD, FAAFP
1. Shah KN, Honig PJ, Yan AC. “Urticaria multiforme”: a case series and review of acute annular urticarial hypersensitivity syndromes in children. Pediatrics. 2007;119:e1177-e1183. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-1553
2. Emer JJ, Bernardo SG, Kovalerchik O, et al. Urticaria multiforme. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2013;6:34-39.
3. Starnes L, Patel T, Skinner RB. Urticaria multiforme – a case report. Pediatr Dermatol. 2011; 28:436-438. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1470.2011.01311.x
4. Reamy BV, Williams PM, Lindsay TJ. Henoch-Schönlein purpura. Am Fam Physician. 2009;80:697-704.
1. Shah KN, Honig PJ, Yan AC. “Urticaria multiforme”: a case series and review of acute annular urticarial hypersensitivity syndromes in children. Pediatrics. 2007;119:e1177-e1183. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-1553
2. Emer JJ, Bernardo SG, Kovalerchik O, et al. Urticaria multiforme. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2013;6:34-39.
3. Starnes L, Patel T, Skinner RB. Urticaria multiforme – a case report. Pediatr Dermatol. 2011; 28:436-438. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1470.2011.01311.x
4. Reamy BV, Williams PM, Lindsay TJ. Henoch-Schönlein purpura. Am Fam Physician. 2009;80:697-704.
