Medical Dermatology

SAN DIEGO — After 24 weeks of treatment with subcutaneously administered sonelokimab 120 mg, about 43% of patients with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR75), defined as at least a 75% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count with no increase in abscess or draining tunnel count relative to baseline, results from a randomized clinical trial showed.

Sonelokimab is a novel humanized nanobody that selectively binds to interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, presenting author Brian Kirby, MD, a dermatologist at St. Vincent’s Private Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, said during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. Sonelokimab is smaller than traditional monoclonal antibodies, he said, “which means it may be able to penetrate tissues better and stay there longer.” It is being developed by MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, based in Zug, Switzerland

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

According to a press release from the company, nanobodies represent a new generation of targeted therapies derived from antibodies. They consist of one or more domains based on the small antigen-binding variable regions of heavy-chain-only antibodies.

In a phase 2 study known as the MIRA trial, researchers recruited 234 patients with moderate to severe HS to evaluate two different doses of sonelokimab (120 mg and 240 mg every 2 weeks) with a placebo control arm and adalimumab as an active reference arm. The primary endpoint of was the percentage of participants who achieved a HiSCR75. The study population included adults with Hurley Stage II or III HS who had HS lesions in 2 or more anatomical areas and a total abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count of 5 or more lesions; and had been treated with 2 or fewer biologics.

Dr. Kirby reported results from 67 patients in the sonelokimab 120 mg arm, 66 in the sonelokimab 240 mg arm, and 39 in the placebo arm. “It’s worth noting that the baseline AN count ranged between 12 and nearly 15, the mean draining tunnel count ranged between 2.9 and 3.7, and between 7% and 13% of patients were on concomitant antibiotics,” he said.

At 24 weeks, 43.3% of patients in the sonelokimab 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 75, compared with 34.8% of those in the sonelokimab 240 mg arm and 14.7% of those in the placebo arm, he reported. Meanwhile, 65.7% of patients in the sonelokimab 120 mg arm achieved an HiSCR 75, compared with 53% of those in the sonelokimab 240 mg arm and 27.9% of those in the placebo arm. Discontinuation rates were low and similar between treatment arms, with fewer than 10% of patients failing to complete week 24 of treatment.

In other findings, 69% of patients in the 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 50 at week 24 compared with 60.3% in the 240 mg arm; 56.9% in the 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 75 compared with 37.9% in the 240 mg arm; and 37.9% in the 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 75 compared with 27.6% in the 240 mg arm.

In addition, complete inflammatory remission as defined by the International HS Severity Score System (IHS4-100) continued to increase to week 24, with 24.1% of patients in the 120 mg arm achieving complete remission, compared with 15.5% of those in the 240 mg arm. Meaningful improvements in quality of life, skin pain, and HS symptoms reported by patients treated with sonelokimab were maintained or increased to week 24. Specifically, more than 60% of patients had a meaningful clinical improvement in their Dermatology Life Quality Index, over 45% had a minimum of a 30% increase in the Numerical Rating Scale **30, and more than 41% of patients reported absent or minimal symptoms on the Patient’s Global Impression of their Disease Severity, “which is a high bar to achieve in HS,” Dr. Kirby said.
 

No Serious Safety Signals Noted

There were no unexpected safety signals to week 24. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low, and there were no cases of inflammatory bowel disease. There were no serious infections, no major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) reports, and no significant abnormalities on liver function tests. “There were also no safety signals on suicidal behavior, attempted suicides, or completed suicides,” he said.

“As you would expect with in IL-17 inhibitor, there was a signal for candidiasis, but all cases were judged to be mild or moderate, and no cases led to discontinuation of treatment from the trial because of candidal infection.”

Based on these data, Dr. Kirby said that larger and longer-term phase 3 trials are planned to further examine the safety and efficacy of sonelokimab at the 120 mg dose for the treatment of moderate-to-severe HS.

One of the session moderators, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, asked Dr. Kirby why he thought the lower dose resulted in generally better outcomes compared with the higher dose.

“There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups,” Dr. Kirby responded. “The 120 mg dose we know is highly effective in psoriasis, so there may be a ceiling effect. This may also be due to population variability, but the bottom line is that the 120 mg dose performs extremely well.”

Dr. Kirby disclosed that he has received research support from/has been a principal investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including MoonLake Immunotherapeutics. Dr. Gelfand reported that he has been a consultant to and/or a member of the data safety monitoring board member for several pharmaceutical companies, including MoonLake.

SAN DIEGO — After 24 weeks of treatment with subcutaneously administered sonelokimab 120 mg, about 43% of patients with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR75), defined as at least a 75% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count with no increase in abscess or draining tunnel count relative to baseline, results from a randomized clinical trial showed.

Sonelokimab is a novel humanized nanobody that selectively binds to interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, presenting author Brian Kirby, MD, a dermatologist at St. Vincent’s Private Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, said during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. Sonelokimab is smaller than traditional monoclonal antibodies, he said, “which means it may be able to penetrate tissues better and stay there longer.” It is being developed by MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, based in Zug, Switzerland

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

According to a press release from the company, nanobodies represent a new generation of targeted therapies derived from antibodies. They consist of one or more domains based on the small antigen-binding variable regions of heavy-chain-only antibodies.

In a phase 2 study known as the MIRA trial, researchers recruited 234 patients with moderate to severe HS to evaluate two different doses of sonelokimab (120 mg and 240 mg every 2 weeks) with a placebo control arm and adalimumab as an active reference arm. The primary endpoint of was the percentage of participants who achieved a HiSCR75. The study population included adults with Hurley Stage II or III HS who had HS lesions in 2 or more anatomical areas and a total abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count of 5 or more lesions; and had been treated with 2 or fewer biologics.

Dr. Kirby reported results from 67 patients in the sonelokimab 120 mg arm, 66 in the sonelokimab 240 mg arm, and 39 in the placebo arm. “It’s worth noting that the baseline AN count ranged between 12 and nearly 15, the mean draining tunnel count ranged between 2.9 and 3.7, and between 7% and 13% of patients were on concomitant antibiotics,” he said.

At 24 weeks, 43.3% of patients in the sonelokimab 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 75, compared with 34.8% of those in the sonelokimab 240 mg arm and 14.7% of those in the placebo arm, he reported. Meanwhile, 65.7% of patients in the sonelokimab 120 mg arm achieved an HiSCR 75, compared with 53% of those in the sonelokimab 240 mg arm and 27.9% of those in the placebo arm. Discontinuation rates were low and similar between treatment arms, with fewer than 10% of patients failing to complete week 24 of treatment.

In other findings, 69% of patients in the 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 50 at week 24 compared with 60.3% in the 240 mg arm; 56.9% in the 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 75 compared with 37.9% in the 240 mg arm; and 37.9% in the 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 75 compared with 27.6% in the 240 mg arm.

In addition, complete inflammatory remission as defined by the International HS Severity Score System (IHS4-100) continued to increase to week 24, with 24.1% of patients in the 120 mg arm achieving complete remission, compared with 15.5% of those in the 240 mg arm. Meaningful improvements in quality of life, skin pain, and HS symptoms reported by patients treated with sonelokimab were maintained or increased to week 24. Specifically, more than 60% of patients had a meaningful clinical improvement in their Dermatology Life Quality Index, over 45% had a minimum of a 30% increase in the Numerical Rating Scale **30, and more than 41% of patients reported absent or minimal symptoms on the Patient’s Global Impression of their Disease Severity, “which is a high bar to achieve in HS,” Dr. Kirby said.
 

No Serious Safety Signals Noted

There were no unexpected safety signals to week 24. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low, and there were no cases of inflammatory bowel disease. There were no serious infections, no major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) reports, and no significant abnormalities on liver function tests. “There were also no safety signals on suicidal behavior, attempted suicides, or completed suicides,” he said.

“As you would expect with in IL-17 inhibitor, there was a signal for candidiasis, but all cases were judged to be mild or moderate, and no cases led to discontinuation of treatment from the trial because of candidal infection.”

Based on these data, Dr. Kirby said that larger and longer-term phase 3 trials are planned to further examine the safety and efficacy of sonelokimab at the 120 mg dose for the treatment of moderate-to-severe HS.

One of the session moderators, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, asked Dr. Kirby why he thought the lower dose resulted in generally better outcomes compared with the higher dose.

“There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups,” Dr. Kirby responded. “The 120 mg dose we know is highly effective in psoriasis, so there may be a ceiling effect. This may also be due to population variability, but the bottom line is that the 120 mg dose performs extremely well.”

Dr. Kirby disclosed that he has received research support from/has been a principal investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including MoonLake Immunotherapeutics. Dr. Gelfand reported that he has been a consultant to and/or a member of the data safety monitoring board member for several pharmaceutical companies, including MoonLake.

SAN DIEGO — After 24 weeks of treatment with subcutaneously administered sonelokimab 120 mg, about 43% of patients with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR75), defined as at least a 75% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count with no increase in abscess or draining tunnel count relative to baseline, results from a randomized clinical trial showed.

Sonelokimab is a novel humanized nanobody that selectively binds to interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, presenting author Brian Kirby, MD, a dermatologist at St. Vincent’s Private Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, said during a late-breaking abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. Sonelokimab is smaller than traditional monoclonal antibodies, he said, “which means it may be able to penetrate tissues better and stay there longer.” It is being developed by MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, based in Zug, Switzerland

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

According to a press release from the company, nanobodies represent a new generation of targeted therapies derived from antibodies. They consist of one or more domains based on the small antigen-binding variable regions of heavy-chain-only antibodies.

In a phase 2 study known as the MIRA trial, researchers recruited 234 patients with moderate to severe HS to evaluate two different doses of sonelokimab (120 mg and 240 mg every 2 weeks) with a placebo control arm and adalimumab as an active reference arm. The primary endpoint of was the percentage of participants who achieved a HiSCR75. The study population included adults with Hurley Stage II or III HS who had HS lesions in 2 or more anatomical areas and a total abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count of 5 or more lesions; and had been treated with 2 or fewer biologics.

Dr. Kirby reported results from 67 patients in the sonelokimab 120 mg arm, 66 in the sonelokimab 240 mg arm, and 39 in the placebo arm. “It’s worth noting that the baseline AN count ranged between 12 and nearly 15, the mean draining tunnel count ranged between 2.9 and 3.7, and between 7% and 13% of patients were on concomitant antibiotics,” he said.

At 24 weeks, 43.3% of patients in the sonelokimab 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 75, compared with 34.8% of those in the sonelokimab 240 mg arm and 14.7% of those in the placebo arm, he reported. Meanwhile, 65.7% of patients in the sonelokimab 120 mg arm achieved an HiSCR 75, compared with 53% of those in the sonelokimab 240 mg arm and 27.9% of those in the placebo arm. Discontinuation rates were low and similar between treatment arms, with fewer than 10% of patients failing to complete week 24 of treatment.

In other findings, 69% of patients in the 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 50 at week 24 compared with 60.3% in the 240 mg arm; 56.9% in the 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 75 compared with 37.9% in the 240 mg arm; and 37.9% in the 120 mg arm achieved a HiSCR 75 compared with 27.6% in the 240 mg arm.

In addition, complete inflammatory remission as defined by the International HS Severity Score System (IHS4-100) continued to increase to week 24, with 24.1% of patients in the 120 mg arm achieving complete remission, compared with 15.5% of those in the 240 mg arm. Meaningful improvements in quality of life, skin pain, and HS symptoms reported by patients treated with sonelokimab were maintained or increased to week 24. Specifically, more than 60% of patients had a meaningful clinical improvement in their Dermatology Life Quality Index, over 45% had a minimum of a 30% increase in the Numerical Rating Scale **30, and more than 41% of patients reported absent or minimal symptoms on the Patient’s Global Impression of their Disease Severity, “which is a high bar to achieve in HS,” Dr. Kirby said.
 

No Serious Safety Signals Noted

There were no unexpected safety signals to week 24. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low, and there were no cases of inflammatory bowel disease. There were no serious infections, no major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) reports, and no significant abnormalities on liver function tests. “There were also no safety signals on suicidal behavior, attempted suicides, or completed suicides,” he said.

“As you would expect with in IL-17 inhibitor, there was a signal for candidiasis, but all cases were judged to be mild or moderate, and no cases led to discontinuation of treatment from the trial because of candidal infection.”

Based on these data, Dr. Kirby said that larger and longer-term phase 3 trials are planned to further examine the safety and efficacy of sonelokimab at the 120 mg dose for the treatment of moderate-to-severe HS.

One of the session moderators, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, asked Dr. Kirby why he thought the lower dose resulted in generally better outcomes compared with the higher dose.

“There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups,” Dr. Kirby responded. “The 120 mg dose we know is highly effective in psoriasis, so there may be a ceiling effect. This may also be due to population variability, but the bottom line is that the 120 mg dose performs extremely well.”

Dr. Kirby disclosed that he has received research support from/has been a principal investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including MoonLake Immunotherapeutics. Dr. Gelfand reported that he has been a consultant to and/or a member of the data safety monitoring board member for several pharmaceutical companies, including MoonLake.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical experience of Mio Nakamura, MD, MS, providing dermatologic care to patients with personality disorders requires a certain level of flexibility and adaptability. 

“You want to recognize the personality disorder, understand that there are underlying conflicts and needs, and adjust accordingly,” Dr. Nakamura, clinical assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. 

Dr. Nakamura

Personality disorders, which she defined as enduring patterns of maladaptive thinking and behavior that deviate from the cultural norm, affect up to 15% of the general population and can be difficult “if not impossible to treat, which can be frustrating.” She shared her approach to providing dermatologic care for individuals with these three conditions: 

Borderline personality disorder (BPD). This condition is marked by instability in interpersonal relationships, self-image, and emotions. Affected individuals are usually impulsive and often demonstrate self-injurious conduct such as risky sexual behaviors, cutting, or suicide attempts. “They often express feelings of emptiness, a fear of abandonment, and they are labile and sensitive to environmental circumstances,” Dr. Nakamura said. “They can be needy and display inappropriate, intense anger.”

In her clinical experience, a patient’s presenting dermatologic complaint is often a “screen” to hide a real, inner psychological problem, “a need to fill the emptiness,” she explained. “They’re kind of lonely, and there is a fear of abandonment. Rejection is frequently perceived as abandonment, creating intense anger and other negative emotions such as splitting.”

She advises against providing tests, treatments, or procedures for individuals with BPD that are not clinically indicated. “If the test is negative, such patients may ask for further testing,” she said. “Especially for cosmetic procedures, the patient may be more dissatisfied with the outcome of a procedure compared to before. Don’t let the patient’s emotions cloud your judgment. Trying to reason with the patient is often ineffective.”

To avoid saying “no” to such patients, Dr. Nakamura recommended discussing other treatment options so that they don’t feel abandoned. “Show that you care,” she said. “Meet the patient’s emotional needs, which may be the real agenda, and schedule regular follow-ups.”

Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD). This condition is characterized by a preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and control. “OCPD individuals are excessively concerned with details, rules, and organization to the extent that the major point of the activity is often lost,” Dr. Nakamura said. “They can be over-conscientious with excessive regard for morality and ethics.”

Such patients often fear losing control, she continued, which can lead to anxiety, depression, and sometimes anger. During office visits with patients with OCPD, she recommends that dermatologists “focus on facts and knowledge to replace or subdue emotions. Knowledge and information give a sense of control over illness.” Her approach involves professional, structured encounters that include detailed explanations and plans. “Provide step-by-step written instructions and give specific reasons for the prescribed treatment,” Dr. Nakamura advised. “Schedule regular follow-up appointments.”

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). This condition is characterized by a grandiose sense of self-importance, in which the person believes that they are special, unique, and superior to others. These individuals have a sense of entitlement, fantasize about unlimited success or power, display a lack of empathy toward others, and show a constant need for admiration. “The patient’s personality traits are often a ‘screen’ to hide a real, inner psychological problem such as unrecognized low self-esteem or insecurity,” Dr. Nakamura said. “These patients need praise and a sense of power.”

To provide patients with NPD with “a sense of uniqueness,” she recommended engaging with them at a medical level as one might with a work colleague. “Such patients often respond better to respect and concern rather than warmth and caring,” she said. Asking them to make decisions about their care can also give them a sense of power: asking them, for example, about which type of topical steroid they might prefer from those in the same class, whether they prefer creams or ointments, and that they can choose to follow up in 4 weeks or 6 weeks. 

“Do not let the patient dictate the encounter [or] get under your skin,” Dr. Nakamura emphasized. “Be careful about rejecting the patient from your practice. Even though that is perfectly within your rights, it could lead to ‘narcissistic injury’ where the patient becomes very angry and wants to get back at you.”

Dr. Nakamura disclosed that she is an investigator for Amgen, argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Regeneron. She is also a member of the advisory board for argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical experience of Mio Nakamura, MD, MS, providing dermatologic care to patients with personality disorders requires a certain level of flexibility and adaptability. 

“You want to recognize the personality disorder, understand that there are underlying conflicts and needs, and adjust accordingly,” Dr. Nakamura, clinical assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. 

Dr. Nakamura

Personality disorders, which she defined as enduring patterns of maladaptive thinking and behavior that deviate from the cultural norm, affect up to 15% of the general population and can be difficult “if not impossible to treat, which can be frustrating.” She shared her approach to providing dermatologic care for individuals with these three conditions: 

Borderline personality disorder (BPD). This condition is marked by instability in interpersonal relationships, self-image, and emotions. Affected individuals are usually impulsive and often demonstrate self-injurious conduct such as risky sexual behaviors, cutting, or suicide attempts. “They often express feelings of emptiness, a fear of abandonment, and they are labile and sensitive to environmental circumstances,” Dr. Nakamura said. “They can be needy and display inappropriate, intense anger.”

In her clinical experience, a patient’s presenting dermatologic complaint is often a “screen” to hide a real, inner psychological problem, “a need to fill the emptiness,” she explained. “They’re kind of lonely, and there is a fear of abandonment. Rejection is frequently perceived as abandonment, creating intense anger and other negative emotions such as splitting.”

She advises against providing tests, treatments, or procedures for individuals with BPD that are not clinically indicated. “If the test is negative, such patients may ask for further testing,” she said. “Especially for cosmetic procedures, the patient may be more dissatisfied with the outcome of a procedure compared to before. Don’t let the patient’s emotions cloud your judgment. Trying to reason with the patient is often ineffective.”

To avoid saying “no” to such patients, Dr. Nakamura recommended discussing other treatment options so that they don’t feel abandoned. “Show that you care,” she said. “Meet the patient’s emotional needs, which may be the real agenda, and schedule regular follow-ups.”

Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD). This condition is characterized by a preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and control. “OCPD individuals are excessively concerned with details, rules, and organization to the extent that the major point of the activity is often lost,” Dr. Nakamura said. “They can be over-conscientious with excessive regard for morality and ethics.”

Such patients often fear losing control, she continued, which can lead to anxiety, depression, and sometimes anger. During office visits with patients with OCPD, she recommends that dermatologists “focus on facts and knowledge to replace or subdue emotions. Knowledge and information give a sense of control over illness.” Her approach involves professional, structured encounters that include detailed explanations and plans. “Provide step-by-step written instructions and give specific reasons for the prescribed treatment,” Dr. Nakamura advised. “Schedule regular follow-up appointments.”

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). This condition is characterized by a grandiose sense of self-importance, in which the person believes that they are special, unique, and superior to others. These individuals have a sense of entitlement, fantasize about unlimited success or power, display a lack of empathy toward others, and show a constant need for admiration. “The patient’s personality traits are often a ‘screen’ to hide a real, inner psychological problem such as unrecognized low self-esteem or insecurity,” Dr. Nakamura said. “These patients need praise and a sense of power.”

To provide patients with NPD with “a sense of uniqueness,” she recommended engaging with them at a medical level as one might with a work colleague. “Such patients often respond better to respect and concern rather than warmth and caring,” she said. Asking them to make decisions about their care can also give them a sense of power: asking them, for example, about which type of topical steroid they might prefer from those in the same class, whether they prefer creams or ointments, and that they can choose to follow up in 4 weeks or 6 weeks. 

“Do not let the patient dictate the encounter [or] get under your skin,” Dr. Nakamura emphasized. “Be careful about rejecting the patient from your practice. Even though that is perfectly within your rights, it could lead to ‘narcissistic injury’ where the patient becomes very angry and wants to get back at you.”

Dr. Nakamura disclosed that she is an investigator for Amgen, argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Regeneron. She is also a member of the advisory board for argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical experience of Mio Nakamura, MD, MS, providing dermatologic care to patients with personality disorders requires a certain level of flexibility and adaptability. 

“You want to recognize the personality disorder, understand that there are underlying conflicts and needs, and adjust accordingly,” Dr. Nakamura, clinical assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. 

Dr. Nakamura

Personality disorders, which she defined as enduring patterns of maladaptive thinking and behavior that deviate from the cultural norm, affect up to 15% of the general population and can be difficult “if not impossible to treat, which can be frustrating.” She shared her approach to providing dermatologic care for individuals with these three conditions: 

Borderline personality disorder (BPD). This condition is marked by instability in interpersonal relationships, self-image, and emotions. Affected individuals are usually impulsive and often demonstrate self-injurious conduct such as risky sexual behaviors, cutting, or suicide attempts. “They often express feelings of emptiness, a fear of abandonment, and they are labile and sensitive to environmental circumstances,” Dr. Nakamura said. “They can be needy and display inappropriate, intense anger.”

In her clinical experience, a patient’s presenting dermatologic complaint is often a “screen” to hide a real, inner psychological problem, “a need to fill the emptiness,” she explained. “They’re kind of lonely, and there is a fear of abandonment. Rejection is frequently perceived as abandonment, creating intense anger and other negative emotions such as splitting.”

She advises against providing tests, treatments, or procedures for individuals with BPD that are not clinically indicated. “If the test is negative, such patients may ask for further testing,” she said. “Especially for cosmetic procedures, the patient may be more dissatisfied with the outcome of a procedure compared to before. Don’t let the patient’s emotions cloud your judgment. Trying to reason with the patient is often ineffective.”

To avoid saying “no” to such patients, Dr. Nakamura recommended discussing other treatment options so that they don’t feel abandoned. “Show that you care,” she said. “Meet the patient’s emotional needs, which may be the real agenda, and schedule regular follow-ups.”

Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD). This condition is characterized by a preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and control. “OCPD individuals are excessively concerned with details, rules, and organization to the extent that the major point of the activity is often lost,” Dr. Nakamura said. “They can be over-conscientious with excessive regard for morality and ethics.”

Such patients often fear losing control, she continued, which can lead to anxiety, depression, and sometimes anger. During office visits with patients with OCPD, she recommends that dermatologists “focus on facts and knowledge to replace or subdue emotions. Knowledge and information give a sense of control over illness.” Her approach involves professional, structured encounters that include detailed explanations and plans. “Provide step-by-step written instructions and give specific reasons for the prescribed treatment,” Dr. Nakamura advised. “Schedule regular follow-up appointments.”

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). This condition is characterized by a grandiose sense of self-importance, in which the person believes that they are special, unique, and superior to others. These individuals have a sense of entitlement, fantasize about unlimited success or power, display a lack of empathy toward others, and show a constant need for admiration. “The patient’s personality traits are often a ‘screen’ to hide a real, inner psychological problem such as unrecognized low self-esteem or insecurity,” Dr. Nakamura said. “These patients need praise and a sense of power.”

To provide patients with NPD with “a sense of uniqueness,” she recommended engaging with them at a medical level as one might with a work colleague. “Such patients often respond better to respect and concern rather than warmth and caring,” she said. Asking them to make decisions about their care can also give them a sense of power: asking them, for example, about which type of topical steroid they might prefer from those in the same class, whether they prefer creams or ointments, and that they can choose to follow up in 4 weeks or 6 weeks. 

“Do not let the patient dictate the encounter [or] get under your skin,” Dr. Nakamura emphasized. “Be careful about rejecting the patient from your practice. Even though that is perfectly within your rights, it could lead to ‘narcissistic injury’ where the patient becomes very angry and wants to get back at you.”

Dr. Nakamura disclosed that she is an investigator for Amgen, argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Regeneron. She is also a member of the advisory board for argenx, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with daily exposure to spironolactone for dermatologic conditions showed no higher risk of developing breast or gynecologic cancer than that of unexposed women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Spironolactone, used off-label for several skin conditions in women, carries a warning about an increased tumor risk associated with high doses in rat models, and its antiandrogen properties have prompted hypotheses about a possible increased risk for breast or gynecologic cancers.
• The researchers reviewed data on 420 women with a history of spironolactone use for acne, hair loss, and hirsutism and 3272 women with no spironolactone use at the authors› institution. Their mean age ranged from 42 to 63 years; the majority were White, and 38% were non-White.
• Median spironolactone doses ranged from 25 mg to 225 mg; chart reviews included 5-year follow-up data from the first spironolactone exposure to allow time for tumor development.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 37 of the 420 women exposed to spironolactone developed any tumors, as did 546 of the 3272 with no spironolactone exposure.
• After the researchers controlled for age and race, women exposed to spironolactone were no more likely to develop a malignant tumor than a benign tumor, compared with unexposed women (odds ratio [OR], 0.48, P = .2).
• The risk for breast or uterine cancer was not significantly different in the spironolactone and non-spironolactone groups (OR, 0.95, P > .9).

IN PRACTICE:

“Women taking spironolactone for acne, hair loss, and hirsutism and who are at low risk of breast or gynecologic cancers may be counseled to have regular gynecology follow-up, but no more frequently than the general population,” but more studies are needed to evaluate risk over longer periods of time, the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Rachel C. Hill, BS, a student at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College, was the corresponding author. The study was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings were limited by the retrospective design, as well as the small number of spironolactone patients analyzed, the short follow-up period, the lack of information about spironolactone courses, and the inability to control for family history of malignancy.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and a grant from the Clinical and Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College awarded to Ms. Hill. None of the authors had relevant disclosures; Dr. Lipner disclosed serving as a consultant for Ortho-Dermatologics, Eli Lilly, Moberg Pharmaceuticals, and BelleTorus Corporation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with daily exposure to spironolactone for dermatologic conditions showed no higher risk of developing breast or gynecologic cancer than that of unexposed women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Spironolactone, used off-label for several skin conditions in women, carries a warning about an increased tumor risk associated with high doses in rat models, and its antiandrogen properties have prompted hypotheses about a possible increased risk for breast or gynecologic cancers.
• The researchers reviewed data on 420 women with a history of spironolactone use for acne, hair loss, and hirsutism and 3272 women with no spironolactone use at the authors› institution. Their mean age ranged from 42 to 63 years; the majority were White, and 38% were non-White.
• Median spironolactone doses ranged from 25 mg to 225 mg; chart reviews included 5-year follow-up data from the first spironolactone exposure to allow time for tumor development.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 37 of the 420 women exposed to spironolactone developed any tumors, as did 546 of the 3272 with no spironolactone exposure.
• After the researchers controlled for age and race, women exposed to spironolactone were no more likely to develop a malignant tumor than a benign tumor, compared with unexposed women (odds ratio [OR], 0.48, P = .2).
• The risk for breast or uterine cancer was not significantly different in the spironolactone and non-spironolactone groups (OR, 0.95, P > .9).

IN PRACTICE:

“Women taking spironolactone for acne, hair loss, and hirsutism and who are at low risk of breast or gynecologic cancers may be counseled to have regular gynecology follow-up, but no more frequently than the general population,” but more studies are needed to evaluate risk over longer periods of time, the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Rachel C. Hill, BS, a student at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College, was the corresponding author. The study was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings were limited by the retrospective design, as well as the small number of spironolactone patients analyzed, the short follow-up period, the lack of information about spironolactone courses, and the inability to control for family history of malignancy.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and a grant from the Clinical and Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College awarded to Ms. Hill. None of the authors had relevant disclosures; Dr. Lipner disclosed serving as a consultant for Ortho-Dermatologics, Eli Lilly, Moberg Pharmaceuticals, and BelleTorus Corporation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with daily exposure to spironolactone for dermatologic conditions showed no higher risk of developing breast or gynecologic cancer than that of unexposed women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Spironolactone, used off-label for several skin conditions in women, carries a warning about an increased tumor risk associated with high doses in rat models, and its antiandrogen properties have prompted hypotheses about a possible increased risk for breast or gynecologic cancers.
• The researchers reviewed data on 420 women with a history of spironolactone use for acne, hair loss, and hirsutism and 3272 women with no spironolactone use at the authors› institution. Their mean age ranged from 42 to 63 years; the majority were White, and 38% were non-White.
• Median spironolactone doses ranged from 25 mg to 225 mg; chart reviews included 5-year follow-up data from the first spironolactone exposure to allow time for tumor development.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 37 of the 420 women exposed to spironolactone developed any tumors, as did 546 of the 3272 with no spironolactone exposure.
• After the researchers controlled for age and race, women exposed to spironolactone were no more likely to develop a malignant tumor than a benign tumor, compared with unexposed women (odds ratio [OR], 0.48, P = .2).
• The risk for breast or uterine cancer was not significantly different in the spironolactone and non-spironolactone groups (OR, 0.95, P > .9).

IN PRACTICE:

“Women taking spironolactone for acne, hair loss, and hirsutism and who are at low risk of breast or gynecologic cancers may be counseled to have regular gynecology follow-up, but no more frequently than the general population,” but more studies are needed to evaluate risk over longer periods of time, the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Rachel C. Hill, BS, a student at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College, was the corresponding author. The study was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings were limited by the retrospective design, as well as the small number of spironolactone patients analyzed, the short follow-up period, the lack of information about spironolactone courses, and the inability to control for family history of malignancy.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and a grant from the Clinical and Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College awarded to Ms. Hill. None of the authors had relevant disclosures; Dr. Lipner disclosed serving as a consultant for Ortho-Dermatologics, Eli Lilly, Moberg Pharmaceuticals, and BelleTorus Corporation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A longitudinal study incorporating two validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools showed that compared with patients with epidermal chronic cutaneous graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), those with sclerotic and combination disease experienced worse symptoms and quality-of-life (QOL) impairment. Independent of potential confounders, these PROs moreover predicted non-relapse mortality for all three disease subtypes, making PROs potentially useful adjuncts for risk stratification and treatment decisions, the study authors said.

“These two findings highlight the importance of patient-reported outcomes in measuring this disease,” lead author Emily Baumrin, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. The study was published online February 28 in JAMA Dermatology.

Dr. Baumrin

Symptoms and QOL

The investigators monitored 436 patients from the Chronic GVHD Consortium until December 2020. The Lee Symptom Scale (LSS) skin subscale was used to evaluate symptom burden and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Bone Marrow Transplantation (FACT-BMT) was used to measure quality of life.

Patients with sclerotic GVHD and combination disease at diagnosis had significantly worse median LSS scores than did those with epidermal disease (25, 35, and 20 points, respectively; P = .01). Patients with sclerotic disease had worse median FACT-BMT scores versus those with epidermal involvement (104 versus 109 points, respectively; P = .08).

Although these scores improved with all skin subtypes, LSS skin subscale and FACT-BMT scores remained significantly worse (by 9.0 points and 6.1 points, respectively) for patients with combination and sclerotic disease versus those with epidermal disease after adjusting for potential confounders.

Regarding mortality, every 7-point worsening (clinically meaningful difference) in FACT-BMT score at diagnosis of skin chronic GVHD conferred 9.1% increases in odds of both all-cause mortality and non-relapse mortality, after adjustment for factors such as age and sex. Likewise, for every 11 points worsening (clinically meaningful difference) in LSS skin subscale scores at diagnosis, researchers observed odds increases of 10% in all-cause mortality and 16.4% in non-relapse mortality.

Because patients with combination disease had only slightly more epidermal body surface area (BSA) involvement but significantly higher symptom burden than the other subtypes, the authors added, combination disease may represent a distinct phenotype. “Since we’ve also shown that the severity of patient-reported outcomes is associated with mortality,” Dr. Baumrin said in the interview, “perhaps these patients are at the highest risk of mortality as well.”

A growing population

Although many might think of chronic GVHD as rare, she noted, the number of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) survivors living in the United States is growing. In a modeling study published in October of 2013 in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, authors predicted that by 2030, this figure will reach 502,000 — about half of whom will develop chronic GVHD, she said.

With more HCTs being performed each year and ongoing improvements in supportive care, patients are living longer post transplant. “Therefore, many transplant survivors are being taken care of in the community outside of transplant centers.”

Accordingly, Dr. Baumrin said, study findings are relevant to dermatologists in academic and transplant centers and the community who provide skin cancer screenings or other dermatologic care for transplant recipients. “Upon diagnosis of chronic GVHD, the evaluation of disease burden by patient-reported outcome measures may assist in assessing disease severity and response to treatments over time — and to stratify patients at higher risk for mortality and communicate that back to transplant physicians.”

Incorporating PROs into clinical practice might prove especially helpful for patients with sclerotic chronic cutaneous GVHD. Currently, clinicians assess cutaneous GVHD clinically, using parameters including skin thickness. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Skin Score, used in clinical trials, also measures BSA.

“The issue with sclerosis is, it’s hard to determine clinical severity based on physical examination alone,” Dr. Baumrin said. It can be difficult to quantify skin thickness and changes over time. “So it’s hard to detect improvements, which are often slow. Patient-reported outcome measures may be a more sensitive way to detect response to treatment than our clinical assessments, which are often crude for sclerotic disease.”

In a secondary analysis of the phase 2 clinical trial of belumosudil, a treatment for chronic GVHD, published in October 2022 in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, response rate was around 30% measured by NIH Skin Score and 77% by PROs. “Our clinical examination in sclerotic type disease falls short in terms of determining therapeutic benefit. PROs might complement those clinical measures,” she said.

Future research will involve determining and validating which PROs matter most clinically and to patients, added Dr. Baumrin. Although widely used in evaluating transplant patients, LSS skin subscale and FACT-BMT scores may not represent patients’ experience of living with cutaneous chronic GVHD as effectively as might other tools such as the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures, she explained.

Study strengths included authors’ use of well-validated PROs rather than novel unvalidated measures, Sandra A. Mitchell, PhD, CRNP, of the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, and Edward W. Cowen, MD, MHSc, of the Dermatology Branch at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), Bethesda, Maryland, wrote in an accompanying editorial in JAMA Dermatology. However, they added, incorporating causes of death might have revealed that the excess mortality associated with sclerotic disease stemmed at least partly from adverse effects of prolonged immunosuppression, particularly infection.

If future studies establish this to be the case, said Dr. Baumrin, reducing immunosuppression might be warranted for these patients. “And if death is primarily due to chronic GVHD itself, maybe we should treat more aggressively. PROs can help guide this decision.”

The study was supported by the NIH/NIAMS and the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Baumrin and three coauthors report no relevant financial relationships; other authors had disclosures related to several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Cowen had no disclosures.

A longitudinal study incorporating two validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools showed that compared with patients with epidermal chronic cutaneous graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), those with sclerotic and combination disease experienced worse symptoms and quality-of-life (QOL) impairment. Independent of potential confounders, these PROs moreover predicted non-relapse mortality for all three disease subtypes, making PROs potentially useful adjuncts for risk stratification and treatment decisions, the study authors said.

“These two findings highlight the importance of patient-reported outcomes in measuring this disease,” lead author Emily Baumrin, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. The study was published online February 28 in JAMA Dermatology.

Dr. Baumrin

Symptoms and QOL

The investigators monitored 436 patients from the Chronic GVHD Consortium until December 2020. The Lee Symptom Scale (LSS) skin subscale was used to evaluate symptom burden and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Bone Marrow Transplantation (FACT-BMT) was used to measure quality of life.

Patients with sclerotic GVHD and combination disease at diagnosis had significantly worse median LSS scores than did those with epidermal disease (25, 35, and 20 points, respectively; P = .01). Patients with sclerotic disease had worse median FACT-BMT scores versus those with epidermal involvement (104 versus 109 points, respectively; P = .08).

Although these scores improved with all skin subtypes, LSS skin subscale and FACT-BMT scores remained significantly worse (by 9.0 points and 6.1 points, respectively) for patients with combination and sclerotic disease versus those with epidermal disease after adjusting for potential confounders.

Regarding mortality, every 7-point worsening (clinically meaningful difference) in FACT-BMT score at diagnosis of skin chronic GVHD conferred 9.1% increases in odds of both all-cause mortality and non-relapse mortality, after adjustment for factors such as age and sex. Likewise, for every 11 points worsening (clinically meaningful difference) in LSS skin subscale scores at diagnosis, researchers observed odds increases of 10% in all-cause mortality and 16.4% in non-relapse mortality.

Because patients with combination disease had only slightly more epidermal body surface area (BSA) involvement but significantly higher symptom burden than the other subtypes, the authors added, combination disease may represent a distinct phenotype. “Since we’ve also shown that the severity of patient-reported outcomes is associated with mortality,” Dr. Baumrin said in the interview, “perhaps these patients are at the highest risk of mortality as well.”

A growing population

Although many might think of chronic GVHD as rare, she noted, the number of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) survivors living in the United States is growing. In a modeling study published in October of 2013 in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, authors predicted that by 2030, this figure will reach 502,000 — about half of whom will develop chronic GVHD, she said.

With more HCTs being performed each year and ongoing improvements in supportive care, patients are living longer post transplant. “Therefore, many transplant survivors are being taken care of in the community outside of transplant centers.”

Accordingly, Dr. Baumrin said, study findings are relevant to dermatologists in academic and transplant centers and the community who provide skin cancer screenings or other dermatologic care for transplant recipients. “Upon diagnosis of chronic GVHD, the evaluation of disease burden by patient-reported outcome measures may assist in assessing disease severity and response to treatments over time — and to stratify patients at higher risk for mortality and communicate that back to transplant physicians.”

Incorporating PROs into clinical practice might prove especially helpful for patients with sclerotic chronic cutaneous GVHD. Currently, clinicians assess cutaneous GVHD clinically, using parameters including skin thickness. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Skin Score, used in clinical trials, also measures BSA.

“The issue with sclerosis is, it’s hard to determine clinical severity based on physical examination alone,” Dr. Baumrin said. It can be difficult to quantify skin thickness and changes over time. “So it’s hard to detect improvements, which are often slow. Patient-reported outcome measures may be a more sensitive way to detect response to treatment than our clinical assessments, which are often crude for sclerotic disease.”

In a secondary analysis of the phase 2 clinical trial of belumosudil, a treatment for chronic GVHD, published in October 2022 in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, response rate was around 30% measured by NIH Skin Score and 77% by PROs. “Our clinical examination in sclerotic type disease falls short in terms of determining therapeutic benefit. PROs might complement those clinical measures,” she said.

Future research will involve determining and validating which PROs matter most clinically and to patients, added Dr. Baumrin. Although widely used in evaluating transplant patients, LSS skin subscale and FACT-BMT scores may not represent patients’ experience of living with cutaneous chronic GVHD as effectively as might other tools such as the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures, she explained.

Study strengths included authors’ use of well-validated PROs rather than novel unvalidated measures, Sandra A. Mitchell, PhD, CRNP, of the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, and Edward W. Cowen, MD, MHSc, of the Dermatology Branch at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), Bethesda, Maryland, wrote in an accompanying editorial in JAMA Dermatology. However, they added, incorporating causes of death might have revealed that the excess mortality associated with sclerotic disease stemmed at least partly from adverse effects of prolonged immunosuppression, particularly infection.

If future studies establish this to be the case, said Dr. Baumrin, reducing immunosuppression might be warranted for these patients. “And if death is primarily due to chronic GVHD itself, maybe we should treat more aggressively. PROs can help guide this decision.”

The study was supported by the NIH/NIAMS and the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Baumrin and three coauthors report no relevant financial relationships; other authors had disclosures related to several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Cowen had no disclosures.

A longitudinal study incorporating two validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools showed that compared with patients with epidermal chronic cutaneous graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), those with sclerotic and combination disease experienced worse symptoms and quality-of-life (QOL) impairment. Independent of potential confounders, these PROs moreover predicted non-relapse mortality for all three disease subtypes, making PROs potentially useful adjuncts for risk stratification and treatment decisions, the study authors said.

“These two findings highlight the importance of patient-reported outcomes in measuring this disease,” lead author Emily Baumrin, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. The study was published online February 28 in JAMA Dermatology.

Dr. Baumrin

Symptoms and QOL

The investigators monitored 436 patients from the Chronic GVHD Consortium until December 2020. The Lee Symptom Scale (LSS) skin subscale was used to evaluate symptom burden and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Bone Marrow Transplantation (FACT-BMT) was used to measure quality of life.

Patients with sclerotic GVHD and combination disease at diagnosis had significantly worse median LSS scores than did those with epidermal disease (25, 35, and 20 points, respectively; P = .01). Patients with sclerotic disease had worse median FACT-BMT scores versus those with epidermal involvement (104 versus 109 points, respectively; P = .08).

Although these scores improved with all skin subtypes, LSS skin subscale and FACT-BMT scores remained significantly worse (by 9.0 points and 6.1 points, respectively) for patients with combination and sclerotic disease versus those with epidermal disease after adjusting for potential confounders.

Regarding mortality, every 7-point worsening (clinically meaningful difference) in FACT-BMT score at diagnosis of skin chronic GVHD conferred 9.1% increases in odds of both all-cause mortality and non-relapse mortality, after adjustment for factors such as age and sex. Likewise, for every 11 points worsening (clinically meaningful difference) in LSS skin subscale scores at diagnosis, researchers observed odds increases of 10% in all-cause mortality and 16.4% in non-relapse mortality.

Because patients with combination disease had only slightly more epidermal body surface area (BSA) involvement but significantly higher symptom burden than the other subtypes, the authors added, combination disease may represent a distinct phenotype. “Since we’ve also shown that the severity of patient-reported outcomes is associated with mortality,” Dr. Baumrin said in the interview, “perhaps these patients are at the highest risk of mortality as well.”

A growing population

Although many might think of chronic GVHD as rare, she noted, the number of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) survivors living in the United States is growing. In a modeling study published in October of 2013 in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, authors predicted that by 2030, this figure will reach 502,000 — about half of whom will develop chronic GVHD, she said.

With more HCTs being performed each year and ongoing improvements in supportive care, patients are living longer post transplant. “Therefore, many transplant survivors are being taken care of in the community outside of transplant centers.”

Accordingly, Dr. Baumrin said, study findings are relevant to dermatologists in academic and transplant centers and the community who provide skin cancer screenings or other dermatologic care for transplant recipients. “Upon diagnosis of chronic GVHD, the evaluation of disease burden by patient-reported outcome measures may assist in assessing disease severity and response to treatments over time — and to stratify patients at higher risk for mortality and communicate that back to transplant physicians.”

Incorporating PROs into clinical practice might prove especially helpful for patients with sclerotic chronic cutaneous GVHD. Currently, clinicians assess cutaneous GVHD clinically, using parameters including skin thickness. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Skin Score, used in clinical trials, also measures BSA.

“The issue with sclerosis is, it’s hard to determine clinical severity based on physical examination alone,” Dr. Baumrin said. It can be difficult to quantify skin thickness and changes over time. “So it’s hard to detect improvements, which are often slow. Patient-reported outcome measures may be a more sensitive way to detect response to treatment than our clinical assessments, which are often crude for sclerotic disease.”

In a secondary analysis of the phase 2 clinical trial of belumosudil, a treatment for chronic GVHD, published in October 2022 in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, response rate was around 30% measured by NIH Skin Score and 77% by PROs. “Our clinical examination in sclerotic type disease falls short in terms of determining therapeutic benefit. PROs might complement those clinical measures,” she said.

Future research will involve determining and validating which PROs matter most clinically and to patients, added Dr. Baumrin. Although widely used in evaluating transplant patients, LSS skin subscale and FACT-BMT scores may not represent patients’ experience of living with cutaneous chronic GVHD as effectively as might other tools such as the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures, she explained.

Study strengths included authors’ use of well-validated PROs rather than novel unvalidated measures, Sandra A. Mitchell, PhD, CRNP, of the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, and Edward W. Cowen, MD, MHSc, of the Dermatology Branch at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), Bethesda, Maryland, wrote in an accompanying editorial in JAMA Dermatology. However, they added, incorporating causes of death might have revealed that the excess mortality associated with sclerotic disease stemmed at least partly from adverse effects of prolonged immunosuppression, particularly infection.

If future studies establish this to be the case, said Dr. Baumrin, reducing immunosuppression might be warranted for these patients. “And if death is primarily due to chronic GVHD itself, maybe we should treat more aggressively. PROs can help guide this decision.”

The study was supported by the NIH/NIAMS and the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Baumrin and three coauthors report no relevant financial relationships; other authors had disclosures related to several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Cowen had no disclosures.

Patients with recalcitrant hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) who self-administered intravenous ertapenem for an average of 13 weeks experienced improvements in clinical and inflammatory markers, and expressed satisfaction at the completion of treatment, a retrospective study showed.

“These findings suggest a course of 12 to 16 weeks of ertapenem may be appropriate as a new standard length of therapy in HS patients, which is at least twice the current recommendation of the North American treatment guidelines,” wrote corresponding author Steven R. Cohen, MD, MPH, of the departments of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and his coauthors. The results were published online February 14, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

In an earlier study , some of the same researchers evaluated the efficacy of daily IV ertapenem for 6 weeks in seven patients with HS. The patients experienced “notable remediation of disease that was rapidly lost within 1 month of withdrawal.”

Elsevier

Key outcome measures of interest were the HS Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score (a 6-point scale ranging from clear to very severe) and a numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain (an 11-point scale in which a score of 0 indicates no pain and a score of 10 indicates the worst possible pain) and markers of inflammation such as leukocytes, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein (CRP), and interleukin (IL)-6. The researchers measured these outcomes at baseline, the midcourse of IV ertapenem treatment, at the end of the course, and post therapy.

Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

The mean age of the patients was 35.8 years, 62.2% were female, and 60.2% were Black. The mean treatment duration was 13.1 weeks and the mean posttherapy follow-up occurred after a mean of 7.8 weeks.

Between baseline and posttherapy follow-up, the HS PGA scores dropped from a mean of 3.9 to 2.7 and the NRS for pain dropped from 4.2 to 1.8 (P < .001 for both associations). Markers of inflammation also dropped between baseline and post therapy.

Specifically, values for CRP dropped from 5.4 to 2.4 mg/dL; IL-6 dropped from 25.2 to 13.7, and leukocytes dropped from 11.3 to 10.0 (P < .001 for all associations). Among the 76 patients who participated in a follow-up telephone survey, 63 (80.3%) reported medium to high satisfaction with their course of ertapenem, and 69 (90.8%) said they would recommend the treatment to other patients with HS.

The authors noted certain limitations of their study, including its retrospective, single-center design, the lack of a control group, and the fact that the HS-PGA scores at each visit did not meet the threshold of a 2-point decrease that is considered a clinically meaningful in the medical literature.

The definitive mechanism of ertapenem efficacy remains elusive, the authors pointed out. “Although oral antibiotics are generally accepted as a core therapeutic approach to HS, much less is known about the efficacy of IV antibiotics, especially ertapenem, a parenteral carbapenem possessing activity against many gram-positive bacteria, gram-negative bacteria, and anaerobic organisms,” they wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Haley B. Naik, MD, MHSc, a dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said that adopting prolonged courses of ertapenem treatment “comes with substantial individual and public health considerations”.

Courtesy Dr. Naik

“Even though HS is a noninfectious disease, microbes might play a role in inciting HS immune dysregulation, prompting the inclusion of antimicrobial therapy in treatment regimens. However, broad-spectrum antibiotics for HS are associated with high levels of antibiotic resistance,” she wrote. Prolonged use of ertapenem and other carbapenems in HS treatment “will likely increase antimicrobial resistance, thereby limiting management of both HS and comorbid infections.”

Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, a dermatologist who directs the HS clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who was asked to comment on the study, said that, despite significant advances in the management of HS over the past decade, there are still patients who do not respond adequately to standard treatments.

For these patients, IV ertapenem can serve as a valuable bridge to a longer-term therapeutic option, “be it surgery or escalated immunomodulation,” such as dual biologic therapy, she said. “In my personal experience, IV ertapenem, which like the authors I also typically use for a 12-week course, delivers impressive and fast results even in the worst disease cases.

“It can be difficult to maintain the therapeutic benefit of ertapenem after it is discontinued, which is why patients should be on concomitant medications as they were in this study and have a post-ertapenem treatment plan in place,” said Dr. Hsiao, who was not involved with the study. “Hopefully, we will be able to one day understand why ertapenem is so effective for HS and be able to harness that benefit for patients without concern for antimicrobial resistance.”

Dr. Cohen reported receiving personal fees from Verrica Pharmaceuticals and belonging to the Board of Trustees of the American Skin Association outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Naik reported having received grants from AbbVie and the National Institutes of Health; personal fees from Novartis, UCB, Boehringer Ingelheim, 23andMe, Aristea Therapeutics, Medscape, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, DAVA Oncology, and Pfizer; and shares from Radera during the conduct of the study. She is a board member of the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation. Dr. Hsiao disclosed that she is a member of the board of directors for the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation. She has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aclaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Novartis, UCB, as a speaker for AbbVie, Novartis, and UCB, and as an investigator for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Incyte.

Patients with recalcitrant hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) who self-administered intravenous ertapenem for an average of 13 weeks experienced improvements in clinical and inflammatory markers, and expressed satisfaction at the completion of treatment, a retrospective study showed.

“These findings suggest a course of 12 to 16 weeks of ertapenem may be appropriate as a new standard length of therapy in HS patients, which is at least twice the current recommendation of the North American treatment guidelines,” wrote corresponding author Steven R. Cohen, MD, MPH, of the departments of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and his coauthors. The results were published online February 14, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

In an earlier study , some of the same researchers evaluated the efficacy of daily IV ertapenem for 6 weeks in seven patients with HS. The patients experienced “notable remediation of disease that was rapidly lost within 1 month of withdrawal.”

Elsevier

Key outcome measures of interest were the HS Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score (a 6-point scale ranging from clear to very severe) and a numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain (an 11-point scale in which a score of 0 indicates no pain and a score of 10 indicates the worst possible pain) and markers of inflammation such as leukocytes, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein (CRP), and interleukin (IL)-6. The researchers measured these outcomes at baseline, the midcourse of IV ertapenem treatment, at the end of the course, and post therapy.

Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

The mean age of the patients was 35.8 years, 62.2% were female, and 60.2% were Black. The mean treatment duration was 13.1 weeks and the mean posttherapy follow-up occurred after a mean of 7.8 weeks.

Between baseline and posttherapy follow-up, the HS PGA scores dropped from a mean of 3.9 to 2.7 and the NRS for pain dropped from 4.2 to 1.8 (P < .001 for both associations). Markers of inflammation also dropped between baseline and post therapy.

Specifically, values for CRP dropped from 5.4 to 2.4 mg/dL; IL-6 dropped from 25.2 to 13.7, and leukocytes dropped from 11.3 to 10.0 (P < .001 for all associations). Among the 76 patients who participated in a follow-up telephone survey, 63 (80.3%) reported medium to high satisfaction with their course of ertapenem, and 69 (90.8%) said they would recommend the treatment to other patients with HS.

The authors noted certain limitations of their study, including its retrospective, single-center design, the lack of a control group, and the fact that the HS-PGA scores at each visit did not meet the threshold of a 2-point decrease that is considered a clinically meaningful in the medical literature.

The definitive mechanism of ertapenem efficacy remains elusive, the authors pointed out. “Although oral antibiotics are generally accepted as a core therapeutic approach to HS, much less is known about the efficacy of IV antibiotics, especially ertapenem, a parenteral carbapenem possessing activity against many gram-positive bacteria, gram-negative bacteria, and anaerobic organisms,” they wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Haley B. Naik, MD, MHSc, a dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said that adopting prolonged courses of ertapenem treatment “comes with substantial individual and public health considerations”.

Courtesy Dr. Naik

“Even though HS is a noninfectious disease, microbes might play a role in inciting HS immune dysregulation, prompting the inclusion of antimicrobial therapy in treatment regimens. However, broad-spectrum antibiotics for HS are associated with high levels of antibiotic resistance,” she wrote. Prolonged use of ertapenem and other carbapenems in HS treatment “will likely increase antimicrobial resistance, thereby limiting management of both HS and comorbid infections.”

Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, a dermatologist who directs the HS clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who was asked to comment on the study, said that, despite significant advances in the management of HS over the past decade, there are still patients who do not respond adequately to standard treatments.

For these patients, IV ertapenem can serve as a valuable bridge to a longer-term therapeutic option, “be it surgery or escalated immunomodulation,” such as dual biologic therapy, she said. “In my personal experience, IV ertapenem, which like the authors I also typically use for a 12-week course, delivers impressive and fast results even in the worst disease cases.

“It can be difficult to maintain the therapeutic benefit of ertapenem after it is discontinued, which is why patients should be on concomitant medications as they were in this study and have a post-ertapenem treatment plan in place,” said Dr. Hsiao, who was not involved with the study. “Hopefully, we will be able to one day understand why ertapenem is so effective for HS and be able to harness that benefit for patients without concern for antimicrobial resistance.”

Dr. Cohen reported receiving personal fees from Verrica Pharmaceuticals and belonging to the Board of Trustees of the American Skin Association outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Naik reported having received grants from AbbVie and the National Institutes of Health; personal fees from Novartis, UCB, Boehringer Ingelheim, 23andMe, Aristea Therapeutics, Medscape, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, DAVA Oncology, and Pfizer; and shares from Radera during the conduct of the study. She is a board member of the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation. Dr. Hsiao disclosed that she is a member of the board of directors for the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation. She has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aclaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Novartis, UCB, as a speaker for AbbVie, Novartis, and UCB, and as an investigator for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Incyte.

Patients with recalcitrant hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) who self-administered intravenous ertapenem for an average of 13 weeks experienced improvements in clinical and inflammatory markers, and expressed satisfaction at the completion of treatment, a retrospective study showed.

“These findings suggest a course of 12 to 16 weeks of ertapenem may be appropriate as a new standard length of therapy in HS patients, which is at least twice the current recommendation of the North American treatment guidelines,” wrote corresponding author Steven R. Cohen, MD, MPH, of the departments of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and his coauthors. The results were published online February 14, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

In an earlier study , some of the same researchers evaluated the efficacy of daily IV ertapenem for 6 weeks in seven patients with HS. The patients experienced “notable remediation of disease that was rapidly lost within 1 month of withdrawal.”

Elsevier

Key outcome measures of interest were the HS Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score (a 6-point scale ranging from clear to very severe) and a numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain (an 11-point scale in which a score of 0 indicates no pain and a score of 10 indicates the worst possible pain) and markers of inflammation such as leukocytes, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein (CRP), and interleukin (IL)-6. The researchers measured these outcomes at baseline, the midcourse of IV ertapenem treatment, at the end of the course, and post therapy.

Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

The mean age of the patients was 35.8 years, 62.2% were female, and 60.2% were Black. The mean treatment duration was 13.1 weeks and the mean posttherapy follow-up occurred after a mean of 7.8 weeks.

Between baseline and posttherapy follow-up, the HS PGA scores dropped from a mean of 3.9 to 2.7 and the NRS for pain dropped from 4.2 to 1.8 (P < .001 for both associations). Markers of inflammation also dropped between baseline and post therapy.

Specifically, values for CRP dropped from 5.4 to 2.4 mg/dL; IL-6 dropped from 25.2 to 13.7, and leukocytes dropped from 11.3 to 10.0 (P < .001 for all associations). Among the 76 patients who participated in a follow-up telephone survey, 63 (80.3%) reported medium to high satisfaction with their course of ertapenem, and 69 (90.8%) said they would recommend the treatment to other patients with HS.

The authors noted certain limitations of their study, including its retrospective, single-center design, the lack of a control group, and the fact that the HS-PGA scores at each visit did not meet the threshold of a 2-point decrease that is considered a clinically meaningful in the medical literature.

The definitive mechanism of ertapenem efficacy remains elusive, the authors pointed out. “Although oral antibiotics are generally accepted as a core therapeutic approach to HS, much less is known about the efficacy of IV antibiotics, especially ertapenem, a parenteral carbapenem possessing activity against many gram-positive bacteria, gram-negative bacteria, and anaerobic organisms,” they wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Haley B. Naik, MD, MHSc, a dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said that adopting prolonged courses of ertapenem treatment “comes with substantial individual and public health considerations”.

Courtesy Dr. Naik

“Even though HS is a noninfectious disease, microbes might play a role in inciting HS immune dysregulation, prompting the inclusion of antimicrobial therapy in treatment regimens. However, broad-spectrum antibiotics for HS are associated with high levels of antibiotic resistance,” she wrote. Prolonged use of ertapenem and other carbapenems in HS treatment “will likely increase antimicrobial resistance, thereby limiting management of both HS and comorbid infections.”

Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, a dermatologist who directs the HS clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who was asked to comment on the study, said that, despite significant advances in the management of HS over the past decade, there are still patients who do not respond adequately to standard treatments.

For these patients, IV ertapenem can serve as a valuable bridge to a longer-term therapeutic option, “be it surgery or escalated immunomodulation,” such as dual biologic therapy, she said. “In my personal experience, IV ertapenem, which like the authors I also typically use for a 12-week course, delivers impressive and fast results even in the worst disease cases.

“It can be difficult to maintain the therapeutic benefit of ertapenem after it is discontinued, which is why patients should be on concomitant medications as they were in this study and have a post-ertapenem treatment plan in place,” said Dr. Hsiao, who was not involved with the study. “Hopefully, we will be able to one day understand why ertapenem is so effective for HS and be able to harness that benefit for patients without concern for antimicrobial resistance.”

Dr. Cohen reported receiving personal fees from Verrica Pharmaceuticals and belonging to the Board of Trustees of the American Skin Association outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Naik reported having received grants from AbbVie and the National Institutes of Health; personal fees from Novartis, UCB, Boehringer Ingelheim, 23andMe, Aristea Therapeutics, Medscape, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, DAVA Oncology, and Pfizer; and shares from Radera during the conduct of the study. She is a board member of the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation. Dr. Hsiao disclosed that she is a member of the board of directors for the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation. She has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aclaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Novartis, UCB, as a speaker for AbbVie, Novartis, and UCB, and as an investigator for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Incyte.

TOPLINE:

Skin conditions burden many children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to the authors of a single-center study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Little is known about the prevalence of IBD-associated skin lesions and their association with IBD severity in children ages 18 and younger.Researchers retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 425 children and adolescents with  (CD) or ulcerative  (UC) at one or more dermatologic diagnoses who were seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, between 1999 and 2017.
• Of the children studied, 53% were male, 64.9% had CD, and 42.8% had one or more cutaneous infections.
• They used the chi-square/Fischer’s exact test to compare categorical outcomes between patients with CD and UC and to detect differences in IBD/CD/UC disease severity and skin conditions.
• Researchers retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 425 children and adolescents with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) at one or more dermatologic diagnoses who were seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, between 1999 and 2017.
• Of the children studied, 53% were male, 64.9% had CD, and 42.8% had one or more cutaneous infections.
• They used the chi-square/Fischer’s exact test to compare categorical outcomes between patients with CD and UC and to detect differences in IBD/CD/UC disease severity and skin conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most common noninfectious dermatologic condition among the 425 children and adolescents was  (30.8%), followed by eczema (15.8%) and perianal skin tags (14.6%).
• Angular cheilitis was more common among those with CD than those with UC (7.2% vs 2%, respectively; P = .024) as was keratosis pilaris (6.9% vs 0.7%; P = .003), and perianal skin complications such as skin tags (20.3% vs 4%), fistulas (13.4% vs 2.7%), and abscesses (13.4% vs 2%; P < .001 for all associations).
• Fungal skin infections were more frequently diagnosed in children with UC than those with CD (15.4% vs 8%; P = .017).
• The researchers observed that the severity of IBD correlated with a higher prevalence of perianal fistula (P = .003), perianal region abscess (P = .041), psoriasis (P < .001), and pyoderma gangrenosum (P = .003).

IN PRACTICE:

“Early identification of common dermatologic conditions in children and adolescents with IBD and recognizing their characteristic associations may alter management and improve skin-related outcomes in this patient population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Megha M. Tollefson, MD, of the Department of Dermatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues conducted the research, which was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The single-center design and the fact that database studies are subject to extraction error. There was no age- and sex-matched cohort to determine whether the prevalence of cutaneous infections, acne, eczema, and other inflammatory disorders was truly increased in IBD.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Skin conditions burden many children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to the authors of a single-center study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Little is known about the prevalence of IBD-associated skin lesions and their association with IBD severity in children ages 18 and younger.Researchers retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 425 children and adolescents with  (CD) or ulcerative  (UC) at one or more dermatologic diagnoses who were seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, between 1999 and 2017.
• Of the children studied, 53% were male, 64.9% had CD, and 42.8% had one or more cutaneous infections.
• They used the chi-square/Fischer’s exact test to compare categorical outcomes between patients with CD and UC and to detect differences in IBD/CD/UC disease severity and skin conditions.
• Researchers retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 425 children and adolescents with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) at one or more dermatologic diagnoses who were seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, between 1999 and 2017.
• Of the children studied, 53% were male, 64.9% had CD, and 42.8% had one or more cutaneous infections.
• They used the chi-square/Fischer’s exact test to compare categorical outcomes between patients with CD and UC and to detect differences in IBD/CD/UC disease severity and skin conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most common noninfectious dermatologic condition among the 425 children and adolescents was  (30.8%), followed by eczema (15.8%) and perianal skin tags (14.6%).
• Angular cheilitis was more common among those with CD than those with UC (7.2% vs 2%, respectively; P = .024) as was keratosis pilaris (6.9% vs 0.7%; P = .003), and perianal skin complications such as skin tags (20.3% vs 4%), fistulas (13.4% vs 2.7%), and abscesses (13.4% vs 2%; P < .001 for all associations).
• Fungal skin infections were more frequently diagnosed in children with UC than those with CD (15.4% vs 8%; P = .017).
• The researchers observed that the severity of IBD correlated with a higher prevalence of perianal fistula (P = .003), perianal region abscess (P = .041), psoriasis (P < .001), and pyoderma gangrenosum (P = .003).

IN PRACTICE:

“Early identification of common dermatologic conditions in children and adolescents with IBD and recognizing their characteristic associations may alter management and improve skin-related outcomes in this patient population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Megha M. Tollefson, MD, of the Department of Dermatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues conducted the research, which was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The single-center design and the fact that database studies are subject to extraction error. There was no age- and sex-matched cohort to determine whether the prevalence of cutaneous infections, acne, eczema, and other inflammatory disorders was truly increased in IBD.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Skin conditions burden many children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to the authors of a single-center study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Little is known about the prevalence of IBD-associated skin lesions and their association with IBD severity in children ages 18 and younger.Researchers retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 425 children and adolescents with  (CD) or ulcerative  (UC) at one or more dermatologic diagnoses who were seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, between 1999 and 2017.
• Of the children studied, 53% were male, 64.9% had CD, and 42.8% had one or more cutaneous infections.
• They used the chi-square/Fischer’s exact test to compare categorical outcomes between patients with CD and UC and to detect differences in IBD/CD/UC disease severity and skin conditions.
• Researchers retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 425 children and adolescents with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) at one or more dermatologic diagnoses who were seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, between 1999 and 2017.
• Of the children studied, 53% were male, 64.9% had CD, and 42.8% had one or more cutaneous infections.
• They used the chi-square/Fischer’s exact test to compare categorical outcomes between patients with CD and UC and to detect differences in IBD/CD/UC disease severity and skin conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most common noninfectious dermatologic condition among the 425 children and adolescents was  (30.8%), followed by eczema (15.8%) and perianal skin tags (14.6%).
• Angular cheilitis was more common among those with CD than those with UC (7.2% vs 2%, respectively; P = .024) as was keratosis pilaris (6.9% vs 0.7%; P = .003), and perianal skin complications such as skin tags (20.3% vs 4%), fistulas (13.4% vs 2.7%), and abscesses (13.4% vs 2%; P < .001 for all associations).
• Fungal skin infections were more frequently diagnosed in children with UC than those with CD (15.4% vs 8%; P = .017).
• The researchers observed that the severity of IBD correlated with a higher prevalence of perianal fistula (P = .003), perianal region abscess (P = .041), psoriasis (P < .001), and pyoderma gangrenosum (P = .003).

IN PRACTICE:

“Early identification of common dermatologic conditions in children and adolescents with IBD and recognizing their characteristic associations may alter management and improve skin-related outcomes in this patient population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Megha M. Tollefson, MD, of the Department of Dermatology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues conducted the research, which was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The single-center design and the fact that database studies are subject to extraction error. There was no age- and sex-matched cohort to determine whether the prevalence of cutaneous infections, acne, eczema, and other inflammatory disorders was truly increased in IBD.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On February 14, 2024, Galderma announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted its Biologics License Application (BLA) for nemolizumab for the treatment of patients with prurigo nodularis and for adolescents and adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

A first-in-class investigational monoclonal antibody specifically designed to inhibit interleukin (IL) IL-31 signaling, nemolizumab has also been granted FDA Priority Review for prurigo nodularis, according to a press release from the company. The European Medicines Agency has also accepted Galderma’s Marketing Authorization Applications for nemolizumab for both prurigo nodularis and atopic dermatitis.

The regulatory developments follow data from the phase III OLYMPIA clinical trial program, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of nemolizumab administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks in patients with prurigo nodularis (NCT04501679 and NCT04501666). According to the press release, in OLYMPIA 1 and 2, 58% and 56% of patients, respectively, achieved at least a least four-point reduction in itch intensity as measured by the peak-pruritus numerical rating scale (PP-NRS), compared with 17% and 21% in the placebo groups (P < .0001). At the same time, 26% and 38% of nemolizumab-treated patients reached clearance or almost-clearance of skin lesions on the investigator’s global assessment (IGA) score, compared with 7% and 11% in the placebo groups (P < .0001).

On February 14, 2024, Galderma announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted its Biologics License Application (BLA) for nemolizumab for the treatment of patients with prurigo nodularis and for adolescents and adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

A first-in-class investigational monoclonal antibody specifically designed to inhibit interleukin (IL) IL-31 signaling, nemolizumab has also been granted FDA Priority Review for prurigo nodularis, according to a press release from the company. The European Medicines Agency has also accepted Galderma’s Marketing Authorization Applications for nemolizumab for both prurigo nodularis and atopic dermatitis.

The regulatory developments follow data from the phase III OLYMPIA clinical trial program, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of nemolizumab administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks in patients with prurigo nodularis (NCT04501679 and NCT04501666). According to the press release, in OLYMPIA 1 and 2, 58% and 56% of patients, respectively, achieved at least a least four-point reduction in itch intensity as measured by the peak-pruritus numerical rating scale (PP-NRS), compared with 17% and 21% in the placebo groups (P < .0001). At the same time, 26% and 38% of nemolizumab-treated patients reached clearance or almost-clearance of skin lesions on the investigator’s global assessment (IGA) score, compared with 7% and 11% in the placebo groups (P < .0001).

On February 14, 2024, Galderma announced that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted its Biologics License Application (BLA) for nemolizumab for the treatment of patients with prurigo nodularis and for adolescents and adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

A first-in-class investigational monoclonal antibody specifically designed to inhibit interleukin (IL) IL-31 signaling, nemolizumab has also been granted FDA Priority Review for prurigo nodularis, according to a press release from the company. The European Medicines Agency has also accepted Galderma’s Marketing Authorization Applications for nemolizumab for both prurigo nodularis and atopic dermatitis.

The regulatory developments follow data from the phase III OLYMPIA clinical trial program, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of nemolizumab administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks in patients with prurigo nodularis (NCT04501679 and NCT04501666). According to the press release, in OLYMPIA 1 and 2, 58% and 56% of patients, respectively, achieved at least a least four-point reduction in itch intensity as measured by the peak-pruritus numerical rating scale (PP-NRS), compared with 17% and 21% in the placebo groups (P < .0001). At the same time, 26% and 38% of nemolizumab-treated patients reached clearance or almost-clearance of skin lesions on the investigator’s global assessment (IGA) score, compared with 7% and 11% in the placebo groups (P < .0001).

Pretreatment testing of patients starting systemic immunomodulatory therapies for chronic skin diseases fell short of recommendations, based on an analysis of more than 120,000 individuals in a national commercial insurance claims database.

Because of concerns for the potential reactivation of tuberculosis or hepatitis B or C, or for an increased risk for infections, myelosuppression, and hepatoxicity in the wake of immunomodulator use, some medical societies recommend screening patients for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis before starting these medications, wrote Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

“Conducting this study was crucial because of the increasing use of systemic immunomodulatory agents for chronic inflammatory skin diseases and the recognized need for pretreatment testing to prevent complications,” coauthor Denys Shay, a PhD candidate in population health sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

“Despite recommendations from professional societies, there was a lack of clarity on how consistently these guidelines were being followed in the United States. This study aimed to fill that gap in knowledge, providing a comprehensive view of current practices and highlighting areas for improvement,” he said.

In the study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, he and his coauthors identified 122,308 adults in the United States with psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, or atopic dermatitis who started an immunomodulatory agent, including methotrexate (28,684 patients), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors (40,965), ustekinumab (12,841), interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors (6116), IL-17A inhibitors (9799), dupilumab (7787), and apremilast (16,116). The data were from a commercial insurance claims database from December 31, 2002, to December 31, 2020.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent recommended screening lab tests including tuberculosis, hepatitis, liver function, complete blood cell counts (CBCs), and lipid panels within 6 months before treatment initiation and during the first 2 years of treatment. The median age of the study population was 49 years, and 52.1% were male.

A CBC was the most common pretreatment test across treatments, performed in 41%-69% of patients before starting treatment. Tuberculosis screening occurred in 11%-59% of patients within 6 months of initiating treatment, and 3%-26% had updated tests after 1 year. Similarly, 13%-41% of patients underwent hepatitis screening prior to treatment.

The highest levels of pretreatment testing occurred for TNF-alpha inhibitors, ustekinumab, IL-17A inhibitors, and IL-23 inhibitors, with similar patterns, while the lowest levels of testing occurred with apremilast and dupilumab.

Testing prevalence before starting apremilast and after a year of treatment was 15%-45% and 9%-36%, respectively. Testing before initiation and a year into treatment with dupilumab was 11%-41% and 3%-25%, respectively.

The findings were limited by several factors including the descriptive design, which does not allow for evaluation of the testing practices, the researchers said.

However, the results show the extent of patients with chronic inflammatory skin diseases (CISDs) who do not undergo pretreatment testing, and research is needed to create testing practices on the basis of recommendations for each agent and incorporating each patient’s history and clinical profile, they concluded.

“The finding that less than 60% of patients received recommended pretreatment testing was initially somewhat surprising,” Shay said in the interview. “However, the context provided by higher rates of baseline testing within the 6-12 months before treatment initiation and the potential for additional testing not captured by the dataset — such as hospital stays — suggests that the gap may not be as large as this estimate,” he said.

“The key message for clinicians is that there are considerable variations in laboratory testing practices with regard to the initiation of systemic immunomodulatory agents in patients with CISDs,” Shay said. “This represents a divergence from existing testing guidelines.”

“Further research is needed to understand the reasons for the variations in pretreatment testing practices and whether this heterogeneity affects patient outcomes,” he added.

Resist Routine Testing

The study findings represent a call to action in the form of ongoing assessment of the safety, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness of pretreatment testing, wrote Clinton W. Enos, MD, Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, and Abby S. Van Voorhees, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, in an accompanying editorial.

The data in the current study suggesting less frequent laboratory testing compared with current guidelines could stem from a high comfort level with many of the therapies that have been available and in use for many years, they noted. Clinicians’ lack of knowledge of the laboratory screening and monitoring guidelines also may play a role, they said.

However, the authors cautioned against routine checking of laboratory results “without purpose” and without attention to their clinical utility and cost. “A thorough medical history is essential and can serve as a sensitive indicator of which patients are more at risk for diseases such as TB or hepatitis, thereby allowing for more meaningful laboratory screening use,” they said.

Evidence supporting prescreening labs for the spectrum of systemic agents used in dermatology varies considerably, “some trapped in time and carried forward for decades until finally questioned, others rooted in treatment mechanism and clinical data,” Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

The study elucidated the current state of clinical practice, said Friedman, who was not involved with the study. This includes screening even if the label says it is not necessary and letting screening slide when guidelines say otherwise — even if the guidelines are outdated and insurance requires certain metrics prior to approval, he said.

Looking ahead, “we need better consensus and even better communication/education on said guidance,” Dr. Friedman said. “Clear, concise, evidenced-based, and expert-validated guidance to ensure we are meaningfully using medical resources” is what is needed, he added. “It will certainly take a village, and close collaboration between the industry and practitioners is key to success.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Shay had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Schneeweiss disclosed grants from UCB Pharma and AbbVie to Brigham and Women’s Hospital outside the submitted work. Other authors disclosed receiving personal fees from Aetion and grants from UCB Pharma and Takeda outside the submitted work; grants from Amarin, Kowa, Novartis, and Pfizer outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Hims & Hers, AbbVie, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Digital Diagnostics, Lilly, Equillium, ASLAN, Boehringer Ingelheim, ACOM, Olaplex, and Legacy Healthcare during the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Editorial author Dr. Enos disclosed serving as an investigator for Amgen and Castle Biosciences and receiving grants from Arcutis Biotherapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Van Voorhees disclosed an honorarium outside the submitted work.

Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pretreatment testing of patients starting systemic immunomodulatory therapies for chronic skin diseases fell short of recommendations, based on an analysis of more than 120,000 individuals in a national commercial insurance claims database.

Because of concerns for the potential reactivation of tuberculosis or hepatitis B or C, or for an increased risk for infections, myelosuppression, and hepatoxicity in the wake of immunomodulator use, some medical societies recommend screening patients for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis before starting these medications, wrote Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

“Conducting this study was crucial because of the increasing use of systemic immunomodulatory agents for chronic inflammatory skin diseases and the recognized need for pretreatment testing to prevent complications,” coauthor Denys Shay, a PhD candidate in population health sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

“Despite recommendations from professional societies, there was a lack of clarity on how consistently these guidelines were being followed in the United States. This study aimed to fill that gap in knowledge, providing a comprehensive view of current practices and highlighting areas for improvement,” he said.

In the study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, he and his coauthors identified 122,308 adults in the United States with psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, or atopic dermatitis who started an immunomodulatory agent, including methotrexate (28,684 patients), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors (40,965), ustekinumab (12,841), interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors (6116), IL-17A inhibitors (9799), dupilumab (7787), and apremilast (16,116). The data were from a commercial insurance claims database from December 31, 2002, to December 31, 2020.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent recommended screening lab tests including tuberculosis, hepatitis, liver function, complete blood cell counts (CBCs), and lipid panels within 6 months before treatment initiation and during the first 2 years of treatment. The median age of the study population was 49 years, and 52.1% were male.

A CBC was the most common pretreatment test across treatments, performed in 41%-69% of patients before starting treatment. Tuberculosis screening occurred in 11%-59% of patients within 6 months of initiating treatment, and 3%-26% had updated tests after 1 year. Similarly, 13%-41% of patients underwent hepatitis screening prior to treatment.

The highest levels of pretreatment testing occurred for TNF-alpha inhibitors, ustekinumab, IL-17A inhibitors, and IL-23 inhibitors, with similar patterns, while the lowest levels of testing occurred with apremilast and dupilumab.

Testing prevalence before starting apremilast and after a year of treatment was 15%-45% and 9%-36%, respectively. Testing before initiation and a year into treatment with dupilumab was 11%-41% and 3%-25%, respectively.

The findings were limited by several factors including the descriptive design, which does not allow for evaluation of the testing practices, the researchers said.

However, the results show the extent of patients with chronic inflammatory skin diseases (CISDs) who do not undergo pretreatment testing, and research is needed to create testing practices on the basis of recommendations for each agent and incorporating each patient’s history and clinical profile, they concluded.

“The finding that less than 60% of patients received recommended pretreatment testing was initially somewhat surprising,” Shay said in the interview. “However, the context provided by higher rates of baseline testing within the 6-12 months before treatment initiation and the potential for additional testing not captured by the dataset — such as hospital stays — suggests that the gap may not be as large as this estimate,” he said.

“The key message for clinicians is that there are considerable variations in laboratory testing practices with regard to the initiation of systemic immunomodulatory agents in patients with CISDs,” Shay said. “This represents a divergence from existing testing guidelines.”

“Further research is needed to understand the reasons for the variations in pretreatment testing practices and whether this heterogeneity affects patient outcomes,” he added.

Resist Routine Testing

The study findings represent a call to action in the form of ongoing assessment of the safety, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness of pretreatment testing, wrote Clinton W. Enos, MD, Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, and Abby S. Van Voorhees, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, in an accompanying editorial.

The data in the current study suggesting less frequent laboratory testing compared with current guidelines could stem from a high comfort level with many of the therapies that have been available and in use for many years, they noted. Clinicians’ lack of knowledge of the laboratory screening and monitoring guidelines also may play a role, they said.

However, the authors cautioned against routine checking of laboratory results “without purpose” and without attention to their clinical utility and cost. “A thorough medical history is essential and can serve as a sensitive indicator of which patients are more at risk for diseases such as TB or hepatitis, thereby allowing for more meaningful laboratory screening use,” they said.

Evidence supporting prescreening labs for the spectrum of systemic agents used in dermatology varies considerably, “some trapped in time and carried forward for decades until finally questioned, others rooted in treatment mechanism and clinical data,” Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

The study elucidated the current state of clinical practice, said Friedman, who was not involved with the study. This includes screening even if the label says it is not necessary and letting screening slide when guidelines say otherwise — even if the guidelines are outdated and insurance requires certain metrics prior to approval, he said.

Looking ahead, “we need better consensus and even better communication/education on said guidance,” Dr. Friedman said. “Clear, concise, evidenced-based, and expert-validated guidance to ensure we are meaningfully using medical resources” is what is needed, he added. “It will certainly take a village, and close collaboration between the industry and practitioners is key to success.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Shay had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Schneeweiss disclosed grants from UCB Pharma and AbbVie to Brigham and Women’s Hospital outside the submitted work. Other authors disclosed receiving personal fees from Aetion and grants from UCB Pharma and Takeda outside the submitted work; grants from Amarin, Kowa, Novartis, and Pfizer outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Hims & Hers, AbbVie, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Digital Diagnostics, Lilly, Equillium, ASLAN, Boehringer Ingelheim, ACOM, Olaplex, and Legacy Healthcare during the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Editorial author Dr. Enos disclosed serving as an investigator for Amgen and Castle Biosciences and receiving grants from Arcutis Biotherapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Van Voorhees disclosed an honorarium outside the submitted work.

Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pretreatment testing of patients starting systemic immunomodulatory therapies for chronic skin diseases fell short of recommendations, based on an analysis of more than 120,000 individuals in a national commercial insurance claims database.

Because of concerns for the potential reactivation of tuberculosis or hepatitis B or C, or for an increased risk for infections, myelosuppression, and hepatoxicity in the wake of immunomodulator use, some medical societies recommend screening patients for hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and tuberculosis before starting these medications, wrote Maria C. Schneeweiss, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues.

“Conducting this study was crucial because of the increasing use of systemic immunomodulatory agents for chronic inflammatory skin diseases and the recognized need for pretreatment testing to prevent complications,” coauthor Denys Shay, a PhD candidate in population health sciences at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

“Despite recommendations from professional societies, there was a lack of clarity on how consistently these guidelines were being followed in the United States. This study aimed to fill that gap in knowledge, providing a comprehensive view of current practices and highlighting areas for improvement,” he said.

In the study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, he and his coauthors identified 122,308 adults in the United States with psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, or atopic dermatitis who started an immunomodulatory agent, including methotrexate (28,684 patients), tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors (40,965), ustekinumab (12,841), interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors (6116), IL-17A inhibitors (9799), dupilumab (7787), and apremilast (16,116). The data were from a commercial insurance claims database from December 31, 2002, to December 31, 2020.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent recommended screening lab tests including tuberculosis, hepatitis, liver function, complete blood cell counts (CBCs), and lipid panels within 6 months before treatment initiation and during the first 2 years of treatment. The median age of the study population was 49 years, and 52.1% were male.

A CBC was the most common pretreatment test across treatments, performed in 41%-69% of patients before starting treatment. Tuberculosis screening occurred in 11%-59% of patients within 6 months of initiating treatment, and 3%-26% had updated tests after 1 year. Similarly, 13%-41% of patients underwent hepatitis screening prior to treatment.

The highest levels of pretreatment testing occurred for TNF-alpha inhibitors, ustekinumab, IL-17A inhibitors, and IL-23 inhibitors, with similar patterns, while the lowest levels of testing occurred with apremilast and dupilumab.

Testing prevalence before starting apremilast and after a year of treatment was 15%-45% and 9%-36%, respectively. Testing before initiation and a year into treatment with dupilumab was 11%-41% and 3%-25%, respectively.

The findings were limited by several factors including the descriptive design, which does not allow for evaluation of the testing practices, the researchers said.

However, the results show the extent of patients with chronic inflammatory skin diseases (CISDs) who do not undergo pretreatment testing, and research is needed to create testing practices on the basis of recommendations for each agent and incorporating each patient’s history and clinical profile, they concluded.

“The finding that less than 60% of patients received recommended pretreatment testing was initially somewhat surprising,” Shay said in the interview. “However, the context provided by higher rates of baseline testing within the 6-12 months before treatment initiation and the potential for additional testing not captured by the dataset — such as hospital stays — suggests that the gap may not be as large as this estimate,” he said.

“The key message for clinicians is that there are considerable variations in laboratory testing practices with regard to the initiation of systemic immunomodulatory agents in patients with CISDs,” Shay said. “This represents a divergence from existing testing guidelines.”

“Further research is needed to understand the reasons for the variations in pretreatment testing practices and whether this heterogeneity affects patient outcomes,” he added.

Resist Routine Testing

The study findings represent a call to action in the form of ongoing assessment of the safety, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness of pretreatment testing, wrote Clinton W. Enos, MD, Ana Ormaza Vera, MD, and Abby S. Van Voorhees, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, in an accompanying editorial.

The data in the current study suggesting less frequent laboratory testing compared with current guidelines could stem from a high comfort level with many of the therapies that have been available and in use for many years, they noted. Clinicians’ lack of knowledge of the laboratory screening and monitoring guidelines also may play a role, they said.

However, the authors cautioned against routine checking of laboratory results “without purpose” and without attention to their clinical utility and cost. “A thorough medical history is essential and can serve as a sensitive indicator of which patients are more at risk for diseases such as TB or hepatitis, thereby allowing for more meaningful laboratory screening use,” they said.

Evidence supporting prescreening labs for the spectrum of systemic agents used in dermatology varies considerably, “some trapped in time and carried forward for decades until finally questioned, others rooted in treatment mechanism and clinical data,” Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

The study elucidated the current state of clinical practice, said Friedman, who was not involved with the study. This includes screening even if the label says it is not necessary and letting screening slide when guidelines say otherwise — even if the guidelines are outdated and insurance requires certain metrics prior to approval, he said.

Looking ahead, “we need better consensus and even better communication/education on said guidance,” Dr. Friedman said. “Clear, concise, evidenced-based, and expert-validated guidance to ensure we are meaningfully using medical resources” is what is needed, he added. “It will certainly take a village, and close collaboration between the industry and practitioners is key to success.”

The study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Shay had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lead author Dr. Schneeweiss disclosed grants from UCB Pharma and AbbVie to Brigham and Women’s Hospital outside the submitted work. Other authors disclosed receiving personal fees from Aetion and grants from UCB Pharma and Takeda outside the submitted work; grants from Amarin, Kowa, Novartis, and Pfizer outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Hims & Hers, AbbVie, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Digital Diagnostics, Lilly, Equillium, ASLAN, Boehringer Ingelheim, ACOM, Olaplex, and Legacy Healthcare during the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Editorial author Dr. Enos disclosed serving as an investigator for Amgen and Castle Biosciences and receiving grants from Arcutis Biotherapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr. Van Voorhees disclosed an honorarium outside the submitted work.

Dr. Friedman had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Less than half of the dermatology residents surveyed reported specific training on management of sensitive skin, according to a survey of approximately 200 residents.

Although sensitive skin affects an estimated 40%-70% of the population, knowledge of the pathophysiology of sensitive skin is incomplete, and consensus is lacking as to the best diagnosis and treatment strategies, and the inclusion of sensitive skin education in dermatology curricula has not been examined, according to Erika T. McCormick, BS, and Adam Friedman, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, DC.

For the study, published in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, they developed a 26-question survey for dermatology residents that asked about sensitive skin in dermatology residency training. Participants came from the Orlando Dermatology, Aesthetic, and Surgical Conference email list.

Survey respondents included 214 residents at various levels of training at programs across the United States; 67.1% were female, 92.1% were aged 25-34 years, and 85.5% were in academic or university programs.

Overall, 99% of respondents believed that sensitive skin issues should be part of their residency training to some extent, and 84% reported experiences with patients for whom the chief presenting complaint was sensitive skin.

However, fewer than half (48%) of the residents reported specific resident education in sensitive skin, while 51% reported nonspecific education about sensitive skin education in the context of other skin diseases, and 1% reported no education about sensitive skin.

Less than one-quarter of the respondents who received any sensitive skin education reported feeling comfortable in their ability to diagnose, evaluate, and manage sensitive skin, while those with sensitive skin–specific education were significantly more likely to describe themselves as “very knowledgeable.”

As for treatment approaches, residents with specific sensitive skin education were more likely than were those without sensitive skin–specific training to ask patients about allergies and past reactions to skin products, and to counsel them about environmental triggers.

Notably, 96% of the respondents were not familiar with the Sensitive Skin (SS) Scale–10, a validated measure of sensitive skin severity.

The most common challenges in care of patients with sensitive skin were assessing improvement over time, reported by 25% of respondents, recommending products (23%), and prescribing/medical management (22%). The topics residents expressed most interest in learning about were product recommendations (78%), patient counseling (77%), reviewing research on sensitive skin (70%), diagnosing sensitive skin (67%), using the SS-10 (48%), and clinical research updates (40%).

The findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports, the researchers noted. However, the results highlight the lack of consensus in treatment of sensitive skin and the need to address this knowledge gap at the residency level, they said.
 

Improving Tools for Practice

“Many practice patterns and approaches are forged in the fires of training,” corresponding author Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology and residency program director at George Washington University, said in an interview. “Identifying gaps, especially for heavily prevalent issues, questions, and concerns such as sensitive skin that residents will encounter in practice is important to ensure an educated workforce,” he said.

Education on sensitive skin is lacking because, until recently, research and clinical guidance have been lacking, Dr. Friedman said. The root of the problem is that sensitive skin is mainly considered a symptom, rather than an independent condition, he explained. “Depending on the study, the prevalence of sensitive skin has been reported as high as 70%, with roughly 40% of these patients having no primary skin condition,” he said. This means sensitive skin can be both a symptom and a condition, which causes confusion for clinicians and patients, he added.

“Therefore, in order to overcome this gap, the condition itself at a minimum needs a standard definition and a way to diagnosis, which we fortunately have in the validated research tool known as the SS-10,” said Dr. Friedman.

Almost all residents surveyed in the current study had never heard of the SS-10, but more than half found it to be useful after learning of it through the study survey, he noted.

Looking ahead, greater elucidation of the pathophysiology of sensitive skin is needed to effectively pursue studies of products and treatments for these patients, but the SS-10 can be used to define and monitor the condition to evaluate improvement, he added.

The study was funded by an independent fellowship grant from Galderma. Ms. McCormick is supported by an unrestricted fellowship grant funded by Galderma. Dr. Friedman has served as a consultant for Galderma.

Less than half of the dermatology residents surveyed reported specific training on management of sensitive skin, according to a survey of approximately 200 residents.

Although sensitive skin affects an estimated 40%-70% of the population, knowledge of the pathophysiology of sensitive skin is incomplete, and consensus is lacking as to the best diagnosis and treatment strategies, and the inclusion of sensitive skin education in dermatology curricula has not been examined, according to Erika T. McCormick, BS, and Adam Friedman, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, DC.

For the study, published in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, they developed a 26-question survey for dermatology residents that asked about sensitive skin in dermatology residency training. Participants came from the Orlando Dermatology, Aesthetic, and Surgical Conference email list.

Survey respondents included 214 residents at various levels of training at programs across the United States; 67.1% were female, 92.1% were aged 25-34 years, and 85.5% were in academic or university programs.

Overall, 99% of respondents believed that sensitive skin issues should be part of their residency training to some extent, and 84% reported experiences with patients for whom the chief presenting complaint was sensitive skin.

However, fewer than half (48%) of the residents reported specific resident education in sensitive skin, while 51% reported nonspecific education about sensitive skin education in the context of other skin diseases, and 1% reported no education about sensitive skin.

Less than one-quarter of the respondents who received any sensitive skin education reported feeling comfortable in their ability to diagnose, evaluate, and manage sensitive skin, while those with sensitive skin–specific education were significantly more likely to describe themselves as “very knowledgeable.”

As for treatment approaches, residents with specific sensitive skin education were more likely than were those without sensitive skin–specific training to ask patients about allergies and past reactions to skin products, and to counsel them about environmental triggers.

Notably, 96% of the respondents were not familiar with the Sensitive Skin (SS) Scale–10, a validated measure of sensitive skin severity.

The most common challenges in care of patients with sensitive skin were assessing improvement over time, reported by 25% of respondents, recommending products (23%), and prescribing/medical management (22%). The topics residents expressed most interest in learning about were product recommendations (78%), patient counseling (77%), reviewing research on sensitive skin (70%), diagnosing sensitive skin (67%), using the SS-10 (48%), and clinical research updates (40%).

The findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports, the researchers noted. However, the results highlight the lack of consensus in treatment of sensitive skin and the need to address this knowledge gap at the residency level, they said.
 

Improving Tools for Practice

“Many practice patterns and approaches are forged in the fires of training,” corresponding author Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology and residency program director at George Washington University, said in an interview. “Identifying gaps, especially for heavily prevalent issues, questions, and concerns such as sensitive skin that residents will encounter in practice is important to ensure an educated workforce,” he said.

Education on sensitive skin is lacking because, until recently, research and clinical guidance have been lacking, Dr. Friedman said. The root of the problem is that sensitive skin is mainly considered a symptom, rather than an independent condition, he explained. “Depending on the study, the prevalence of sensitive skin has been reported as high as 70%, with roughly 40% of these patients having no primary skin condition,” he said. This means sensitive skin can be both a symptom and a condition, which causes confusion for clinicians and patients, he added.

“Therefore, in order to overcome this gap, the condition itself at a minimum needs a standard definition and a way to diagnosis, which we fortunately have in the validated research tool known as the SS-10,” said Dr. Friedman.

Almost all residents surveyed in the current study had never heard of the SS-10, but more than half found it to be useful after learning of it through the study survey, he noted.

Looking ahead, greater elucidation of the pathophysiology of sensitive skin is needed to effectively pursue studies of products and treatments for these patients, but the SS-10 can be used to define and monitor the condition to evaluate improvement, he added.

The study was funded by an independent fellowship grant from Galderma. Ms. McCormick is supported by an unrestricted fellowship grant funded by Galderma. Dr. Friedman has served as a consultant for Galderma.

Less than half of the dermatology residents surveyed reported specific training on management of sensitive skin, according to a survey of approximately 200 residents.

Although sensitive skin affects an estimated 40%-70% of the population, knowledge of the pathophysiology of sensitive skin is incomplete, and consensus is lacking as to the best diagnosis and treatment strategies, and the inclusion of sensitive skin education in dermatology curricula has not been examined, according to Erika T. McCormick, BS, and Adam Friedman, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, DC.

For the study, published in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, they developed a 26-question survey for dermatology residents that asked about sensitive skin in dermatology residency training. Participants came from the Orlando Dermatology, Aesthetic, and Surgical Conference email list.

Survey respondents included 214 residents at various levels of training at programs across the United States; 67.1% were female, 92.1% were aged 25-34 years, and 85.5% were in academic or university programs.

Overall, 99% of respondents believed that sensitive skin issues should be part of their residency training to some extent, and 84% reported experiences with patients for whom the chief presenting complaint was sensitive skin.

However, fewer than half (48%) of the residents reported specific resident education in sensitive skin, while 51% reported nonspecific education about sensitive skin education in the context of other skin diseases, and 1% reported no education about sensitive skin.

Less than one-quarter of the respondents who received any sensitive skin education reported feeling comfortable in their ability to diagnose, evaluate, and manage sensitive skin, while those with sensitive skin–specific education were significantly more likely to describe themselves as “very knowledgeable.”

As for treatment approaches, residents with specific sensitive skin education were more likely than were those without sensitive skin–specific training to ask patients about allergies and past reactions to skin products, and to counsel them about environmental triggers.

Notably, 96% of the respondents were not familiar with the Sensitive Skin (SS) Scale–10, a validated measure of sensitive skin severity.

The most common challenges in care of patients with sensitive skin were assessing improvement over time, reported by 25% of respondents, recommending products (23%), and prescribing/medical management (22%). The topics residents expressed most interest in learning about were product recommendations (78%), patient counseling (77%), reviewing research on sensitive skin (70%), diagnosing sensitive skin (67%), using the SS-10 (48%), and clinical research updates (40%).

The findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports, the researchers noted. However, the results highlight the lack of consensus in treatment of sensitive skin and the need to address this knowledge gap at the residency level, they said.
 

Improving Tools for Practice

“Many practice patterns and approaches are forged in the fires of training,” corresponding author Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology and residency program director at George Washington University, said in an interview. “Identifying gaps, especially for heavily prevalent issues, questions, and concerns such as sensitive skin that residents will encounter in practice is important to ensure an educated workforce,” he said.

Education on sensitive skin is lacking because, until recently, research and clinical guidance have been lacking, Dr. Friedman said. The root of the problem is that sensitive skin is mainly considered a symptom, rather than an independent condition, he explained. “Depending on the study, the prevalence of sensitive skin has been reported as high as 70%, with roughly 40% of these patients having no primary skin condition,” he said. This means sensitive skin can be both a symptom and a condition, which causes confusion for clinicians and patients, he added.

“Therefore, in order to overcome this gap, the condition itself at a minimum needs a standard definition and a way to diagnosis, which we fortunately have in the validated research tool known as the SS-10,” said Dr. Friedman.

Almost all residents surveyed in the current study had never heard of the SS-10, but more than half found it to be useful after learning of it through the study survey, he noted.

Looking ahead, greater elucidation of the pathophysiology of sensitive skin is needed to effectively pursue studies of products and treatments for these patients, but the SS-10 can be used to define and monitor the condition to evaluate improvement, he added.

The study was funded by an independent fellowship grant from Galderma. Ms. McCormick is supported by an unrestricted fellowship grant funded by Galderma. Dr. Friedman has served as a consultant for Galderma.

The patient had an advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) on the face that seemed to be affecting the facial nerve, ruling out aggressive surgery. When Mohs surgery failed to clear the tumor, radiation was ordered. But the best option — an immune checkpoint inhibitor — could not be administered because the patient was a lung transplant recipient.

Although approved for metastatic cSCC, immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with a higher potential for rejection of an organ transplant.

“The feeling is that the risk of rejection is just too great if we were to try to give an immune checkpoint inhibitor,” said Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery at Yale Dermatology–Branford, in Connecticut, who was treating the patient. Dr. Christensen consulted with the transplant team, and together they decided to switch the patient to sirolimus, an immunosuppressant that has been shown to have less risk of promoting skin cancer in those who take the medication. Sirolimus, however, is not as well tolerated as the usual first-line immunosuppressant, tacrolimus.

Dr. Christensen

Dr. Bottomley

Reducing Risk Factors

Dr. Bottomley said that there’s also been renewed effort to identify how to reduce cSCC risk in transplant recipients through recently developed consensus guidelines and a proposed decision framework developed by Dr. Bottomley and colleagues. The evidence will help clinicians have “greater confidence in making early interventions,” he said.

Currently, solid organ transplant patients are told to reduce sun exposure, in part because the majority of cSCCs occur in sun-exposed areas, such as the head and neck, and ultraviolet radiation leads to mutations. “Sun protection is critical,” Dr. Christensen said. That’s especially true in younger transplant recipients, who may have decades of sun exposure, he said.

The immunosuppressive medications also increase cancer risk, for a variety of reasons. One of the more-commonly used immunosuppressants in the past, azathioprine, is itself carcinogenic. Other antirejection medications, such as tacrolimus and mycophenolate, may also induce mutagenic changes that give rise to malignancies, according to the paper by Dr. Bibee, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.

Both Dr. Bibee, in her paper, and Dr. Arron, in an interview, noted that voriconazole, an antifungal used to prevent Aspergillus infection after lung transplant, has been associated with an increase in cSCC in lung transplant recipients.

Dr. Arron

In addition, immunosuppression essentially “blocks the body’s immune system from recognizing that there are abnormal cancerous cells present,” Dr. Arron, a dermatologist in private practice in Burlingame, California, told this news organization.

Previously, while at the High-Risk Skin Cancer Program at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Dr. Arron and others studied whether human papillomavirus (HPV) might play a role in spurring the development of cSCC formation in the immunocompromised. HPV is highly prevalent on the skin, but the virus found on the skin tends to be composed of lower-risk strains.

“In our research, we did not find any biologic mechanism by which this virus might be driving these cancers,” said Dr. Arron, although she said that some researchers “feel very strongly that HPV must be in some way a driver.”

Dr. Bottomley believes that HPV’s role has not been completely determined. The excess incidence of cSCC suggests a virus might be involved, as has been seen with excess risk of lymphoma in patients with Epstein-Barr virus, he said.

Some of his research is focusing on whether advanced immune aging is an independent risk factor for subsequent cSCC development in solid organ transplant recipients. The immune system undergoes changes as people age, and the speed of this process varies from patient to patient, which means immune age can be different from chronological age, said Dr. Bottomley. “We’re still exploring why immune aging should predispose you to cSCC,” he said.
 

When to Intervene?

Transplant patients are followed by dermatologists at regular intervals. But guidelines are not consistent on the recommended timing of those intervals.

Dr. Arron and colleagues in 2019 created a risk prediction module that recommended frequency of follow-up based on low, medium, high, or very high risk. The tool is available to clinicians in an app called SUNTRAC, or the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator.

A question that Dr. Arron said dermatologists and transplant specialists have wrangled with: How early can they intervene to prevent further lesions?

In the 2022 decision framework paper in Transplant International, Dr. Bottomley and dermatology colleagues from around the world attempted to better delineate when and how clinicians should intervene when a cSCC is first detected. That first cSCC “should be regarded as a ‘red flag’ heralding an increased risk of further skin cancers and possibly internal malignancies,” the authors wrote. That moment is “a key opportunity to proactively consider secondary preventive strategies,” they wrote, but noted that the best interventions and “their sequencing remain unclear,” indicating the need for further research.
 

Coordinating With the Transplant Team

A key strategy to help prevent cSCC development — suggested in Dr. Bottomley’s paper, and by Dr. Arron and Dr. Christensen — is to consult with the transplant team on potentially changing a patient’s immunosuppressive medication or reducing the dose.

Dr. Arron said that a decade ago, it was somewhat of a novel concept, requiring data-sharing and making personal connections with the transplant team to forge trusting relationships. By the time she left UCSF a few years ago, she said, “the transplant program was very much on board with preventing and treating skin cancer and oftentimes they were making changes even before I would suggest them.”

Suggesting a change or dose reduction is not undertaken lightly. “Our transplant physician colleagues are balancing multiple problems in very sick patients, of which skin cancer might be one, but not the most pressing one in the setting of other transplant complications,” said Dr. Arron.

Dr. Bottomley said that “as transplant physicians, we very much respect and value the input of our dermatology colleagues,” but agreed that many factors “outside malignancy risk” must be weighed when considering changing an immunosuppressive regimen.

In a Delphi Consensus Statement on prevention of cSCC in organ transplant recipients, published in 2021 in JAMA Dermatology, the authors recommended having discussions about immunosuppression with transplant specialists, but did not make a recommendation on what strategy to use. The consensus panel said it preferred “to defer this decision to transplant physicians.”

Acitretin a Go, Nicotinamide Not So Much

Outside of changing an immunosuppressive regimen, among the interventions for secondary prevention are acitretin, the systemic retinoid, and nicotinamide, a form of niacin.

Dr. Christensen conducted a small retrospective investigation evaluating the effectiveness of acitretin in reducing cSCC in both immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients who had received care at Yale, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Acitretin reduced invasive cSCC by about 75% in both patient groups — a surprising result for the immunocompetent group, but well-established in patients who have had a solid organ transplant. But acitretin had no effect on cSCC in situ or basal cell carcinoma. “The benefit of acitretin is primarily in preventing the invasive SCC,” said Dr. Christensen, which is why he tends to reserve it for patients who have already had several cSCCs.

“It’s not a completely benign medication,” he said, noting the need for monitoring for cholesterol and liver function.

Several years ago, a study in immunocompetent patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that nicotinamide (also known as niacinamide) reduced the rate of nonmelonoma skin cancer by 23%, giving clinicians hope that it might also be a low-risk, low-cost cancer preventive for solid organ transplant patients. But enthusiasm has dampened since a 2023 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the vitamin did not reduce cSCCs in transplant recipients.

Dr. Christensen said he believes the most-recent study wasn’t powered to detect a 25% reduction in cancers. “It’s certainly possible that it still works exactly the same way in transplant patients that it does in immunocompetent patients,” he said. “There’s very little risk of recommending it to patients for general prevention. But it probably has a very modest effect in many,” he said.

Dr. Arron agreed, saying, “it may be that we simply need bigger studies to achieve that statistical significance.” Even so, she said she would not use the therapy “until there is more evidence supporting the use of nicotinamide in transplant recipients.”

Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for advanced cSCC; nivolumab is another drug in the same class that has not yet been approved for cSCC. But “there’s always been a fear — and a legitimate fear — that if you gave those to organ transplant recipients they would reject their organ,” said Dr. Christensen.

Patients who take the checkpoint inhibitors may first have to stop taking their antirejection drugs, leaving them at risk. It also appears that the checkpoint inhibitors themselves contribute to organ rejection. Recent studies suggest that “the rate of organ rejection is only about 30% to 40%,” with the checkpoint inhibitors, said Dr. Christensen. “Obviously that’s still not an ideal outcome,” he said, but noted that with patients who have inoperable metastatic cSCC, “immune therapy can be a good option.”

Dr. Christensen reported no disclosures. Dr. Bottomley has previously received speaker fees and an educational grant from Astellas. Dr. Arron disclosed ties with Regeneron, Castle Biosciences, and Enspectra Health, not specific to transplantation.

The patient had an advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) on the face that seemed to be affecting the facial nerve, ruling out aggressive surgery. When Mohs surgery failed to clear the tumor, radiation was ordered. But the best option — an immune checkpoint inhibitor — could not be administered because the patient was a lung transplant recipient.

Although approved for metastatic cSCC, immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with a higher potential for rejection of an organ transplant.

“The feeling is that the risk of rejection is just too great if we were to try to give an immune checkpoint inhibitor,” said Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery at Yale Dermatology–Branford, in Connecticut, who was treating the patient. Dr. Christensen consulted with the transplant team, and together they decided to switch the patient to sirolimus, an immunosuppressant that has been shown to have less risk of promoting skin cancer in those who take the medication. Sirolimus, however, is not as well tolerated as the usual first-line immunosuppressant, tacrolimus.

Dr. Christensen

Dr. Bottomley

Reducing Risk Factors

Dr. Bottomley said that there’s also been renewed effort to identify how to reduce cSCC risk in transplant recipients through recently developed consensus guidelines and a proposed decision framework developed by Dr. Bottomley and colleagues. The evidence will help clinicians have “greater confidence in making early interventions,” he said.

Currently, solid organ transplant patients are told to reduce sun exposure, in part because the majority of cSCCs occur in sun-exposed areas, such as the head and neck, and ultraviolet radiation leads to mutations. “Sun protection is critical,” Dr. Christensen said. That’s especially true in younger transplant recipients, who may have decades of sun exposure, he said.

The immunosuppressive medications also increase cancer risk, for a variety of reasons. One of the more-commonly used immunosuppressants in the past, azathioprine, is itself carcinogenic. Other antirejection medications, such as tacrolimus and mycophenolate, may also induce mutagenic changes that give rise to malignancies, according to the paper by Dr. Bibee, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.

Both Dr. Bibee, in her paper, and Dr. Arron, in an interview, noted that voriconazole, an antifungal used to prevent Aspergillus infection after lung transplant, has been associated with an increase in cSCC in lung transplant recipients.

Dr. Arron

In addition, immunosuppression essentially “blocks the body’s immune system from recognizing that there are abnormal cancerous cells present,” Dr. Arron, a dermatologist in private practice in Burlingame, California, told this news organization.

Previously, while at the High-Risk Skin Cancer Program at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Dr. Arron and others studied whether human papillomavirus (HPV) might play a role in spurring the development of cSCC formation in the immunocompromised. HPV is highly prevalent on the skin, but the virus found on the skin tends to be composed of lower-risk strains.

“In our research, we did not find any biologic mechanism by which this virus might be driving these cancers,” said Dr. Arron, although she said that some researchers “feel very strongly that HPV must be in some way a driver.”

Dr. Bottomley believes that HPV’s role has not been completely determined. The excess incidence of cSCC suggests a virus might be involved, as has been seen with excess risk of lymphoma in patients with Epstein-Barr virus, he said.

Some of his research is focusing on whether advanced immune aging is an independent risk factor for subsequent cSCC development in solid organ transplant recipients. The immune system undergoes changes as people age, and the speed of this process varies from patient to patient, which means immune age can be different from chronological age, said Dr. Bottomley. “We’re still exploring why immune aging should predispose you to cSCC,” he said.
 

When to Intervene?

Transplant patients are followed by dermatologists at regular intervals. But guidelines are not consistent on the recommended timing of those intervals.

Dr. Arron and colleagues in 2019 created a risk prediction module that recommended frequency of follow-up based on low, medium, high, or very high risk. The tool is available to clinicians in an app called SUNTRAC, or the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator.

A question that Dr. Arron said dermatologists and transplant specialists have wrangled with: How early can they intervene to prevent further lesions?

In the 2022 decision framework paper in Transplant International, Dr. Bottomley and dermatology colleagues from around the world attempted to better delineate when and how clinicians should intervene when a cSCC is first detected. That first cSCC “should be regarded as a ‘red flag’ heralding an increased risk of further skin cancers and possibly internal malignancies,” the authors wrote. That moment is “a key opportunity to proactively consider secondary preventive strategies,” they wrote, but noted that the best interventions and “their sequencing remain unclear,” indicating the need for further research.
 

Coordinating With the Transplant Team

A key strategy to help prevent cSCC development — suggested in Dr. Bottomley’s paper, and by Dr. Arron and Dr. Christensen — is to consult with the transplant team on potentially changing a patient’s immunosuppressive medication or reducing the dose.

Dr. Arron said that a decade ago, it was somewhat of a novel concept, requiring data-sharing and making personal connections with the transplant team to forge trusting relationships. By the time she left UCSF a few years ago, she said, “the transplant program was very much on board with preventing and treating skin cancer and oftentimes they were making changes even before I would suggest them.”

Suggesting a change or dose reduction is not undertaken lightly. “Our transplant physician colleagues are balancing multiple problems in very sick patients, of which skin cancer might be one, but not the most pressing one in the setting of other transplant complications,” said Dr. Arron.

Dr. Bottomley said that “as transplant physicians, we very much respect and value the input of our dermatology colleagues,” but agreed that many factors “outside malignancy risk” must be weighed when considering changing an immunosuppressive regimen.

In a Delphi Consensus Statement on prevention of cSCC in organ transplant recipients, published in 2021 in JAMA Dermatology, the authors recommended having discussions about immunosuppression with transplant specialists, but did not make a recommendation on what strategy to use. The consensus panel said it preferred “to defer this decision to transplant physicians.”

Acitretin a Go, Nicotinamide Not So Much

Outside of changing an immunosuppressive regimen, among the interventions for secondary prevention are acitretin, the systemic retinoid, and nicotinamide, a form of niacin.

Dr. Christensen conducted a small retrospective investigation evaluating the effectiveness of acitretin in reducing cSCC in both immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients who had received care at Yale, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Acitretin reduced invasive cSCC by about 75% in both patient groups — a surprising result for the immunocompetent group, but well-established in patients who have had a solid organ transplant. But acitretin had no effect on cSCC in situ or basal cell carcinoma. “The benefit of acitretin is primarily in preventing the invasive SCC,” said Dr. Christensen, which is why he tends to reserve it for patients who have already had several cSCCs.

“It’s not a completely benign medication,” he said, noting the need for monitoring for cholesterol and liver function.

Several years ago, a study in immunocompetent patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that nicotinamide (also known as niacinamide) reduced the rate of nonmelonoma skin cancer by 23%, giving clinicians hope that it might also be a low-risk, low-cost cancer preventive for solid organ transplant patients. But enthusiasm has dampened since a 2023 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the vitamin did not reduce cSCCs in transplant recipients.

Dr. Christensen said he believes the most-recent study wasn’t powered to detect a 25% reduction in cancers. “It’s certainly possible that it still works exactly the same way in transplant patients that it does in immunocompetent patients,” he said. “There’s very little risk of recommending it to patients for general prevention. But it probably has a very modest effect in many,” he said.

Dr. Arron agreed, saying, “it may be that we simply need bigger studies to achieve that statistical significance.” Even so, she said she would not use the therapy “until there is more evidence supporting the use of nicotinamide in transplant recipients.”

Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for advanced cSCC; nivolumab is another drug in the same class that has not yet been approved for cSCC. But “there’s always been a fear — and a legitimate fear — that if you gave those to organ transplant recipients they would reject their organ,” said Dr. Christensen.

Patients who take the checkpoint inhibitors may first have to stop taking their antirejection drugs, leaving them at risk. It also appears that the checkpoint inhibitors themselves contribute to organ rejection. Recent studies suggest that “the rate of organ rejection is only about 30% to 40%,” with the checkpoint inhibitors, said Dr. Christensen. “Obviously that’s still not an ideal outcome,” he said, but noted that with patients who have inoperable metastatic cSCC, “immune therapy can be a good option.”

Dr. Christensen reported no disclosures. Dr. Bottomley has previously received speaker fees and an educational grant from Astellas. Dr. Arron disclosed ties with Regeneron, Castle Biosciences, and Enspectra Health, not specific to transplantation.

The patient had an advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) on the face that seemed to be affecting the facial nerve, ruling out aggressive surgery. When Mohs surgery failed to clear the tumor, radiation was ordered. But the best option — an immune checkpoint inhibitor — could not be administered because the patient was a lung transplant recipient.

Although approved for metastatic cSCC, immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with a higher potential for rejection of an organ transplant.

“The feeling is that the risk of rejection is just too great if we were to try to give an immune checkpoint inhibitor,” said Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery at Yale Dermatology–Branford, in Connecticut, who was treating the patient. Dr. Christensen consulted with the transplant team, and together they decided to switch the patient to sirolimus, an immunosuppressant that has been shown to have less risk of promoting skin cancer in those who take the medication. Sirolimus, however, is not as well tolerated as the usual first-line immunosuppressant, tacrolimus.

Dr. Christensen

Dr. Bottomley

Reducing Risk Factors

Dr. Bottomley said that there’s also been renewed effort to identify how to reduce cSCC risk in transplant recipients through recently developed consensus guidelines and a proposed decision framework developed by Dr. Bottomley and colleagues. The evidence will help clinicians have “greater confidence in making early interventions,” he said.

Currently, solid organ transplant patients are told to reduce sun exposure, in part because the majority of cSCCs occur in sun-exposed areas, such as the head and neck, and ultraviolet radiation leads to mutations. “Sun protection is critical,” Dr. Christensen said. That’s especially true in younger transplant recipients, who may have decades of sun exposure, he said.

The immunosuppressive medications also increase cancer risk, for a variety of reasons. One of the more-commonly used immunosuppressants in the past, azathioprine, is itself carcinogenic. Other antirejection medications, such as tacrolimus and mycophenolate, may also induce mutagenic changes that give rise to malignancies, according to the paper by Dr. Bibee, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.

Both Dr. Bibee, in her paper, and Dr. Arron, in an interview, noted that voriconazole, an antifungal used to prevent Aspergillus infection after lung transplant, has been associated with an increase in cSCC in lung transplant recipients.

Dr. Arron

In addition, immunosuppression essentially “blocks the body’s immune system from recognizing that there are abnormal cancerous cells present,” Dr. Arron, a dermatologist in private practice in Burlingame, California, told this news organization.

Previously, while at the High-Risk Skin Cancer Program at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Dr. Arron and others studied whether human papillomavirus (HPV) might play a role in spurring the development of cSCC formation in the immunocompromised. HPV is highly prevalent on the skin, but the virus found on the skin tends to be composed of lower-risk strains.

“In our research, we did not find any biologic mechanism by which this virus might be driving these cancers,” said Dr. Arron, although she said that some researchers “feel very strongly that HPV must be in some way a driver.”

Dr. Bottomley believes that HPV’s role has not been completely determined. The excess incidence of cSCC suggests a virus might be involved, as has been seen with excess risk of lymphoma in patients with Epstein-Barr virus, he said.

Some of his research is focusing on whether advanced immune aging is an independent risk factor for subsequent cSCC development in solid organ transplant recipients. The immune system undergoes changes as people age, and the speed of this process varies from patient to patient, which means immune age can be different from chronological age, said Dr. Bottomley. “We’re still exploring why immune aging should predispose you to cSCC,” he said.
 

When to Intervene?

Transplant patients are followed by dermatologists at regular intervals. But guidelines are not consistent on the recommended timing of those intervals.

Dr. Arron and colleagues in 2019 created a risk prediction module that recommended frequency of follow-up based on low, medium, high, or very high risk. The tool is available to clinicians in an app called SUNTRAC, or the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator.

A question that Dr. Arron said dermatologists and transplant specialists have wrangled with: How early can they intervene to prevent further lesions?

In the 2022 decision framework paper in Transplant International, Dr. Bottomley and dermatology colleagues from around the world attempted to better delineate when and how clinicians should intervene when a cSCC is first detected. That first cSCC “should be regarded as a ‘red flag’ heralding an increased risk of further skin cancers and possibly internal malignancies,” the authors wrote. That moment is “a key opportunity to proactively consider secondary preventive strategies,” they wrote, but noted that the best interventions and “their sequencing remain unclear,” indicating the need for further research.
 

Coordinating With the Transplant Team

A key strategy to help prevent cSCC development — suggested in Dr. Bottomley’s paper, and by Dr. Arron and Dr. Christensen — is to consult with the transplant team on potentially changing a patient’s immunosuppressive medication or reducing the dose.

Dr. Arron said that a decade ago, it was somewhat of a novel concept, requiring data-sharing and making personal connections with the transplant team to forge trusting relationships. By the time she left UCSF a few years ago, she said, “the transplant program was very much on board with preventing and treating skin cancer and oftentimes they were making changes even before I would suggest them.”

Suggesting a change or dose reduction is not undertaken lightly. “Our transplant physician colleagues are balancing multiple problems in very sick patients, of which skin cancer might be one, but not the most pressing one in the setting of other transplant complications,” said Dr. Arron.

Dr. Bottomley said that “as transplant physicians, we very much respect and value the input of our dermatology colleagues,” but agreed that many factors “outside malignancy risk” must be weighed when considering changing an immunosuppressive regimen.

In a Delphi Consensus Statement on prevention of cSCC in organ transplant recipients, published in 2021 in JAMA Dermatology, the authors recommended having discussions about immunosuppression with transplant specialists, but did not make a recommendation on what strategy to use. The consensus panel said it preferred “to defer this decision to transplant physicians.”

Acitretin a Go, Nicotinamide Not So Much

Outside of changing an immunosuppressive regimen, among the interventions for secondary prevention are acitretin, the systemic retinoid, and nicotinamide, a form of niacin.

Dr. Christensen conducted a small retrospective investigation evaluating the effectiveness of acitretin in reducing cSCC in both immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients who had received care at Yale, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Acitretin reduced invasive cSCC by about 75% in both patient groups — a surprising result for the immunocompetent group, but well-established in patients who have had a solid organ transplant. But acitretin had no effect on cSCC in situ or basal cell carcinoma. “The benefit of acitretin is primarily in preventing the invasive SCC,” said Dr. Christensen, which is why he tends to reserve it for patients who have already had several cSCCs.

“It’s not a completely benign medication,” he said, noting the need for monitoring for cholesterol and liver function.

Several years ago, a study in immunocompetent patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that nicotinamide (also known as niacinamide) reduced the rate of nonmelonoma skin cancer by 23%, giving clinicians hope that it might also be a low-risk, low-cost cancer preventive for solid organ transplant patients. But enthusiasm has dampened since a 2023 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the vitamin did not reduce cSCCs in transplant recipients.

Dr. Christensen said he believes the most-recent study wasn’t powered to detect a 25% reduction in cancers. “It’s certainly possible that it still works exactly the same way in transplant patients that it does in immunocompetent patients,” he said. “There’s very little risk of recommending it to patients for general prevention. But it probably has a very modest effect in many,” he said.

Dr. Arron agreed, saying, “it may be that we simply need bigger studies to achieve that statistical significance.” Even so, she said she would not use the therapy “until there is more evidence supporting the use of nicotinamide in transplant recipients.”

Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for advanced cSCC; nivolumab is another drug in the same class that has not yet been approved for cSCC. But “there’s always been a fear — and a legitimate fear — that if you gave those to organ transplant recipients they would reject their organ,” said Dr. Christensen.

Patients who take the checkpoint inhibitors may first have to stop taking their antirejection drugs, leaving them at risk. It also appears that the checkpoint inhibitors themselves contribute to organ rejection. Recent studies suggest that “the rate of organ rejection is only about 30% to 40%,” with the checkpoint inhibitors, said Dr. Christensen. “Obviously that’s still not an ideal outcome,” he said, but noted that with patients who have inoperable metastatic cSCC, “immune therapy can be a good option.”

Dr. Christensen reported no disclosures. Dr. Bottomley has previously received speaker fees and an educational grant from Astellas. Dr. Arron disclosed ties with Regeneron, Castle Biosciences, and Enspectra Health, not specific to transplantation.