Article

A recent study, published in the March 2024 issue of Sleep Medicine, identified shift work as one of the risk factors for headache and migraine. The researchers conducted a meta-analysis, including seven studies and involving 422,869 participants. The authors defined shift work as characterized by individuals or teams working consecutively to exceed the standard 8-hour day. They reported that the pooled analysis revealed a significant association between shift work and an increased risk for headache. Specifically, they determined that "individuals working night shifts had a 44% higher risk of developing headaches and a higher incidence of migraines." The authors stated that this association did not establish any causal relationship, and they suggested that future research should investigate the impact of genetics or health behaviors, which could be considered shared risk factors.

An article that had been published in 2019 in Headache included two case reports detailing the effects of shift work on patients with migraine. The authors of the case reports stated that "in the two cases presented, shift work appeared to be associated with chronification of migraine and higher headache-related disability, despite optimal headache management and good patient adherence."^[1] They observed that "a switch to only day shifts promoted transition to an episodic, less disabling pattern of migraine."^[1] These publications both support the idea that, while patients may have an underlying predisposition to migraine, certain lifestyle factors can play a role in exacerbating symptoms.

Erenumab, one of the relatively new therapies for migraine, was found to have a potential link to worsening hypertension. According to an article published in February in Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, there has not been evidence of hypertension in preclinical models or clinical trials, yet postmarketing data suggest that erenumab may be associated with hypertension. The authors conducted an observational retrospective cohort study that included 335 patients who had been seen at a tertiary headache or neurology department. At baseline, 20.9% (70/335) of patients had a prior diagnosis of hypertension. The researchers observed that 23.3% (78/335) of the patients were found to have worsening hypertension, and 13 patients of the 225 who continued on erenumab experienced an improvement in their blood pressure. The authors noted that there was no association between worsening hypertension and preexisting hypertension, sex, body mass index, or age, but patients with atrial fibrillation were more likely to develop worsening hypertension (odds ratio 4.9; 95% CI 1.12-21.4; P = .035).

Consideration of a relationship between hypertension and anti-calcitonin gene–related peptide migraine (CGRP) therapies has been found in other studies as well. Results of a retrospective study conducted at the University Hospital of Modena, to explore the rate of hypertension among patients treated with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies, were published in April 2024 in Neurological Sciences (published online November 6, 2023). Those authors reported that no significant increase in blood pressure was detected overall, yet 5.7% of the patients developed a significant increase in their blood pressure.^[2] Specifically, the researchers reported that patients with preexisting hypertension were more likely to have a significant increase in blood pressure.^[2] The study authors of the Neurological Sciences publication suggested that patients with preexisting hypertension should be cautiously monitored for signs of hypertension. A more recent publication noted that "CGRP is involved in the regulation of vasomotor tone under physiologic and pathologic conditions, including hypertension," which could explain these findings. As the two studies noted different underlying risk factors for hypertension for patients taking anti-CGRP migraine therapies, it is important to monitor patients for signs of hypertension regardless of their underlying cardiovascular status.

Migraine was also noted to potentially be associated with an increased risk for cerebrovascular disease and stroke among women who have underlying cardiovascular disease risk factors. According to a cross-sectional analysis whose results were published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings in May 2023, women with migraine were significantly more likely to have severe hot flashes compared with women without migraine.^[3] Additionally, the authors stated that migraine was associated with a diagnosis of hypertension.^[3]

Results of a secondary data analysis of a subset of 1954 women in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study were published in the April 2024 issue of Menopause. After adjustment for age, race, estrogen use, oophorectomy, and hysterectomy, women with histories of migraine and persistent vasomotor symptoms were found to have a greater risk for cerebrovascular disease (hazard ratio [HR] 2.25; 95% CI 1.15-4.38), and stroke (HR 3.15; 95% CI 1.35-7.34), compared with women without migraine histories and with minimal vasomotor symptoms. After adjustment for cerebrovascular disease risk factors, the associations between migraine/vasomotor symptoms and cerebrovascular disease were attenuated (HR 1.51; 95% CI 0.73-3.10), and associations between migraine/vasomotor symptoms and stroke were similarly attenuated (HR 1.70; 95% CI 0.66-4.38). The authors of this research article concluded that migraine and persistent vasomotor symptoms are jointly associated with greater risk for cerebrovascular disease and stroke, particularly for women who already have traditional risk factors for cerebrovascular disease.

This new research brings the importance of managing migraine risk factors and symptoms to the forefront. Patients who experience migraine may have a higher risk for cerebrovascular disease. Minimizing migraine risk factors could potentially help reduce this risk for cerebrovascular disease for some patients, and effectively treating migraines may also play a role in reducing the risk for cerebrovascular disease. Some migraine therapies could worsen cardiovascular disease for some patients, however — particularly patients who already have underlying risk factors. Therefore, it is crucial for physicians to approach migraine care with a comprehensive strategy to reduce risk factors, assess underlying disease, and monitor for comorbidities.

Additional References

1. Sandoe CH, Sasikumar S, Lay C, Lawler V. The impact of shift work on migraine: A case series and narrative review. Headache. 2019;59:1631-1640. doi: 10.1111/head.13622  Source

2. Guerzoni S, Castro FL, Brovia D, Baraldi C, Pani L. Evaluation of the risk of hypertension in patients treated with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in a real-life study. Neurol Sci. 2024;45:1661-1668. doi: 10.1007/s10072-023-07167-z Source

3. Faubion SS, Smith T, Thielen J, et al. Association of migraine and vasomotor symptoms. Mayo Clin Proc. 2023;98:701-712. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2023.01.010 Source

A recent study, published in the March 2024 issue of Sleep Medicine, identified shift work as one of the risk factors for headache and migraine. The researchers conducted a meta-analysis, including seven studies and involving 422,869 participants. The authors defined shift work as characterized by individuals or teams working consecutively to exceed the standard 8-hour day. They reported that the pooled analysis revealed a significant association between shift work and an increased risk for headache. Specifically, they determined that "individuals working night shifts had a 44% higher risk of developing headaches and a higher incidence of migraines." The authors stated that this association did not establish any causal relationship, and they suggested that future research should investigate the impact of genetics or health behaviors, which could be considered shared risk factors.

An article that had been published in 2019 in Headache included two case reports detailing the effects of shift work on patients with migraine. The authors of the case reports stated that "in the two cases presented, shift work appeared to be associated with chronification of migraine and higher headache-related disability, despite optimal headache management and good patient adherence."^[1] They observed that "a switch to only day shifts promoted transition to an episodic, less disabling pattern of migraine."^[1] These publications both support the idea that, while patients may have an underlying predisposition to migraine, certain lifestyle factors can play a role in exacerbating symptoms.

Erenumab, one of the relatively new therapies for migraine, was found to have a potential link to worsening hypertension. According to an article published in February in Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, there has not been evidence of hypertension in preclinical models or clinical trials, yet postmarketing data suggest that erenumab may be associated with hypertension. The authors conducted an observational retrospective cohort study that included 335 patients who had been seen at a tertiary headache or neurology department. At baseline, 20.9% (70/335) of patients had a prior diagnosis of hypertension. The researchers observed that 23.3% (78/335) of the patients were found to have worsening hypertension, and 13 patients of the 225 who continued on erenumab experienced an improvement in their blood pressure. The authors noted that there was no association between worsening hypertension and preexisting hypertension, sex, body mass index, or age, but patients with atrial fibrillation were more likely to develop worsening hypertension (odds ratio 4.9; 95% CI 1.12-21.4; P = .035).

Consideration of a relationship between hypertension and anti-calcitonin gene–related peptide migraine (CGRP) therapies has been found in other studies as well. Results of a retrospective study conducted at the University Hospital of Modena, to explore the rate of hypertension among patients treated with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies, were published in April 2024 in Neurological Sciences (published online November 6, 2023). Those authors reported that no significant increase in blood pressure was detected overall, yet 5.7% of the patients developed a significant increase in their blood pressure.^[2] Specifically, the researchers reported that patients with preexisting hypertension were more likely to have a significant increase in blood pressure.^[2] The study authors of the Neurological Sciences publication suggested that patients with preexisting hypertension should be cautiously monitored for signs of hypertension. A more recent publication noted that "CGRP is involved in the regulation of vasomotor tone under physiologic and pathologic conditions, including hypertension," which could explain these findings. As the two studies noted different underlying risk factors for hypertension for patients taking anti-CGRP migraine therapies, it is important to monitor patients for signs of hypertension regardless of their underlying cardiovascular status.

Migraine was also noted to potentially be associated with an increased risk for cerebrovascular disease and stroke among women who have underlying cardiovascular disease risk factors. According to a cross-sectional analysis whose results were published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings in May 2023, women with migraine were significantly more likely to have severe hot flashes compared with women without migraine.^[3] Additionally, the authors stated that migraine was associated with a diagnosis of hypertension.^[3]

Results of a secondary data analysis of a subset of 1954 women in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study were published in the April 2024 issue of Menopause. After adjustment for age, race, estrogen use, oophorectomy, and hysterectomy, women with histories of migraine and persistent vasomotor symptoms were found to have a greater risk for cerebrovascular disease (hazard ratio [HR] 2.25; 95% CI 1.15-4.38), and stroke (HR 3.15; 95% CI 1.35-7.34), compared with women without migraine histories and with minimal vasomotor symptoms. After adjustment for cerebrovascular disease risk factors, the associations between migraine/vasomotor symptoms and cerebrovascular disease were attenuated (HR 1.51; 95% CI 0.73-3.10), and associations between migraine/vasomotor symptoms and stroke were similarly attenuated (HR 1.70; 95% CI 0.66-4.38). The authors of this research article concluded that migraine and persistent vasomotor symptoms are jointly associated with greater risk for cerebrovascular disease and stroke, particularly for women who already have traditional risk factors for cerebrovascular disease.

This new research brings the importance of managing migraine risk factors and symptoms to the forefront. Patients who experience migraine may have a higher risk for cerebrovascular disease. Minimizing migraine risk factors could potentially help reduce this risk for cerebrovascular disease for some patients, and effectively treating migraines may also play a role in reducing the risk for cerebrovascular disease. Some migraine therapies could worsen cardiovascular disease for some patients, however — particularly patients who already have underlying risk factors. Therefore, it is crucial for physicians to approach migraine care with a comprehensive strategy to reduce risk factors, assess underlying disease, and monitor for comorbidities.

Additional References

1. Sandoe CH, Sasikumar S, Lay C, Lawler V. The impact of shift work on migraine: A case series and narrative review. Headache. 2019;59:1631-1640. doi: 10.1111/head.13622  Source

2. Guerzoni S, Castro FL, Brovia D, Baraldi C, Pani L. Evaluation of the risk of hypertension in patients treated with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in a real-life study. Neurol Sci. 2024;45:1661-1668. doi: 10.1007/s10072-023-07167-z Source

3. Faubion SS, Smith T, Thielen J, et al. Association of migraine and vasomotor symptoms. Mayo Clin Proc. 2023;98:701-712. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2023.01.010 Source

A recent study, published in the March 2024 issue of Sleep Medicine, identified shift work as one of the risk factors for headache and migraine. The researchers conducted a meta-analysis, including seven studies and involving 422,869 participants. The authors defined shift work as characterized by individuals or teams working consecutively to exceed the standard 8-hour day. They reported that the pooled analysis revealed a significant association between shift work and an increased risk for headache. Specifically, they determined that "individuals working night shifts had a 44% higher risk of developing headaches and a higher incidence of migraines." The authors stated that this association did not establish any causal relationship, and they suggested that future research should investigate the impact of genetics or health behaviors, which could be considered shared risk factors.

An article that had been published in 2019 in Headache included two case reports detailing the effects of shift work on patients with migraine. The authors of the case reports stated that "in the two cases presented, shift work appeared to be associated with chronification of migraine and higher headache-related disability, despite optimal headache management and good patient adherence."^[1] They observed that "a switch to only day shifts promoted transition to an episodic, less disabling pattern of migraine."^[1] These publications both support the idea that, while patients may have an underlying predisposition to migraine, certain lifestyle factors can play a role in exacerbating symptoms.

Erenumab, one of the relatively new therapies for migraine, was found to have a potential link to worsening hypertension. According to an article published in February in Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, there has not been evidence of hypertension in preclinical models or clinical trials, yet postmarketing data suggest that erenumab may be associated with hypertension. The authors conducted an observational retrospective cohort study that included 335 patients who had been seen at a tertiary headache or neurology department. At baseline, 20.9% (70/335) of patients had a prior diagnosis of hypertension. The researchers observed that 23.3% (78/335) of the patients were found to have worsening hypertension, and 13 patients of the 225 who continued on erenumab experienced an improvement in their blood pressure. The authors noted that there was no association between worsening hypertension and preexisting hypertension, sex, body mass index, or age, but patients with atrial fibrillation were more likely to develop worsening hypertension (odds ratio 4.9; 95% CI 1.12-21.4; P = .035).

Consideration of a relationship between hypertension and anti-calcitonin gene–related peptide migraine (CGRP) therapies has been found in other studies as well. Results of a retrospective study conducted at the University Hospital of Modena, to explore the rate of hypertension among patients treated with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies, were published in April 2024 in Neurological Sciences (published online November 6, 2023). Those authors reported that no significant increase in blood pressure was detected overall, yet 5.7% of the patients developed a significant increase in their blood pressure.^[2] Specifically, the researchers reported that patients with preexisting hypertension were more likely to have a significant increase in blood pressure.^[2] The study authors of the Neurological Sciences publication suggested that patients with preexisting hypertension should be cautiously monitored for signs of hypertension. A more recent publication noted that "CGRP is involved in the regulation of vasomotor tone under physiologic and pathologic conditions, including hypertension," which could explain these findings. As the two studies noted different underlying risk factors for hypertension for patients taking anti-CGRP migraine therapies, it is important to monitor patients for signs of hypertension regardless of their underlying cardiovascular status.

Migraine was also noted to potentially be associated with an increased risk for cerebrovascular disease and stroke among women who have underlying cardiovascular disease risk factors. According to a cross-sectional analysis whose results were published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings in May 2023, women with migraine were significantly more likely to have severe hot flashes compared with women without migraine.^[3] Additionally, the authors stated that migraine was associated with a diagnosis of hypertension.^[3]

Results of a secondary data analysis of a subset of 1954 women in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study were published in the April 2024 issue of Menopause. After adjustment for age, race, estrogen use, oophorectomy, and hysterectomy, women with histories of migraine and persistent vasomotor symptoms were found to have a greater risk for cerebrovascular disease (hazard ratio [HR] 2.25; 95% CI 1.15-4.38), and stroke (HR 3.15; 95% CI 1.35-7.34), compared with women without migraine histories and with minimal vasomotor symptoms. After adjustment for cerebrovascular disease risk factors, the associations between migraine/vasomotor symptoms and cerebrovascular disease were attenuated (HR 1.51; 95% CI 0.73-3.10), and associations between migraine/vasomotor symptoms and stroke were similarly attenuated (HR 1.70; 95% CI 0.66-4.38). The authors of this research article concluded that migraine and persistent vasomotor symptoms are jointly associated with greater risk for cerebrovascular disease and stroke, particularly for women who already have traditional risk factors for cerebrovascular disease.

This new research brings the importance of managing migraine risk factors and symptoms to the forefront. Patients who experience migraine may have a higher risk for cerebrovascular disease. Minimizing migraine risk factors could potentially help reduce this risk for cerebrovascular disease for some patients, and effectively treating migraines may also play a role in reducing the risk for cerebrovascular disease. Some migraine therapies could worsen cardiovascular disease for some patients, however — particularly patients who already have underlying risk factors. Therefore, it is crucial for physicians to approach migraine care with a comprehensive strategy to reduce risk factors, assess underlying disease, and monitor for comorbidities.

Additional References

1. Sandoe CH, Sasikumar S, Lay C, Lawler V. The impact of shift work on migraine: A case series and narrative review. Headache. 2019;59:1631-1640. doi: 10.1111/head.13622  Source

2. Guerzoni S, Castro FL, Brovia D, Baraldi C, Pani L. Evaluation of the risk of hypertension in patients treated with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in a real-life study. Neurol Sci. 2024;45:1661-1668. doi: 10.1007/s10072-023-07167-z Source

3. Faubion SS, Smith T, Thielen J, et al. Association of migraine and vasomotor symptoms. Mayo Clin Proc. 2023;98:701-712. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2023.01.010 Source

For anyone (physicians included) concerned about whether generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools will take your job, the likely answer is no—but those who use generative AI will have an advantage, according to Faranak (Fara) Kamangar, MD, Department Chair, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, who presented on AI at the 2024 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, San Diego, California.

Dr. Kamangar is a dermatologist and inventor of DermGPT, an AI tool created specifically to help health care providers with clinical tasks to increase productivity. According to Dr. Kamangar, “For every 8 hours of scheduled patient time, ambulatory physicians spend more than 5 hours on the [electronic health record].” Her advice is to use AI when you can to complete clinical tasks and move on.

DermGPT utilizes a learned language model that is based on dermatology knowledge acquired from more than 3000 peer-reviewed articles and texts (eg, systematic literature reviews, other published sources in the field of dermatology). Search output includes citations so that users can confirm that the answers and sources are accurate. “Still, with all of these safeguards, all AI models can create inaccuracies and it is important to proofread all content,” says Dr. Kamangar.

During her presentation, Dr. Kamangar gave the following examples of potentially useful DermGPT prompts for dermatologists:

• Can you help me write a response to a denial letter to an insurance company for upadacitinib in a patient with atopic dermatitis?
• I am seeing a patient with blisters. What is the differential diagnosis?
• I am prescribing bimekizumab. What labs do I need to check?

Other potential time-saving uses for a dermatologist include:

• prior authorization letters
• coding support
• responses to common patient messages
• letters of recommendation
• information on new treatments.

In Dr. Kamangar’s practice, they have been able to save at least 30 to 60 minutes at the end of the day that is usually spent updating the electronic health record. “This allows us to complete the clinic day much earlier and does not leave work that will spill over to the next day,” she shares. “During my workday, I have [DermGPT] open on my computer, and as clinical tasks arise, if they require more information or assistance, I turn to DermGPT to help de-escalate the task from a moderate to difficult level to an easy task that can be easily managed.”

The next stage of health technology—AI—is here, and physicians are understandably cautious. Board-certified dermatologists, dermatology residents, fellows, and medical students can try DermGPT for free at https://www.dermgpt.com/.

Dr. Kamangar is the founder of DermGPT.

Melissa Sears is the Director, Editorial, of Cutis.

For anyone (physicians included) concerned about whether generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools will take your job, the likely answer is no—but those who use generative AI will have an advantage, according to Faranak (Fara) Kamangar, MD, Department Chair, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, who presented on AI at the 2024 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, San Diego, California.

Dr. Kamangar is a dermatologist and inventor of DermGPT, an AI tool created specifically to help health care providers with clinical tasks to increase productivity. According to Dr. Kamangar, “For every 8 hours of scheduled patient time, ambulatory physicians spend more than 5 hours on the [electronic health record].” Her advice is to use AI when you can to complete clinical tasks and move on.

DermGPT utilizes a learned language model that is based on dermatology knowledge acquired from more than 3000 peer-reviewed articles and texts (eg, systematic literature reviews, other published sources in the field of dermatology). Search output includes citations so that users can confirm that the answers and sources are accurate. “Still, with all of these safeguards, all AI models can create inaccuracies and it is important to proofread all content,” says Dr. Kamangar.

During her presentation, Dr. Kamangar gave the following examples of potentially useful DermGPT prompts for dermatologists:

• Can you help me write a response to a denial letter to an insurance company for upadacitinib in a patient with atopic dermatitis?
• I am seeing a patient with blisters. What is the differential diagnosis?
• I am prescribing bimekizumab. What labs do I need to check?

Other potential time-saving uses for a dermatologist include:

• prior authorization letters
• coding support
• responses to common patient messages
• letters of recommendation
• information on new treatments.

In Dr. Kamangar’s practice, they have been able to save at least 30 to 60 minutes at the end of the day that is usually spent updating the electronic health record. “This allows us to complete the clinic day much earlier and does not leave work that will spill over to the next day,” she shares. “During my workday, I have [DermGPT] open on my computer, and as clinical tasks arise, if they require more information or assistance, I turn to DermGPT to help de-escalate the task from a moderate to difficult level to an easy task that can be easily managed.”

The next stage of health technology—AI—is here, and physicians are understandably cautious. Board-certified dermatologists, dermatology residents, fellows, and medical students can try DermGPT for free at https://www.dermgpt.com/.

Dr. Kamangar is the founder of DermGPT.

Melissa Sears is the Director, Editorial, of Cutis.

For anyone (physicians included) concerned about whether generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools will take your job, the likely answer is no—but those who use generative AI will have an advantage, according to Faranak (Fara) Kamangar, MD, Department Chair, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, who presented on AI at the 2024 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, San Diego, California.

Dr. Kamangar is a dermatologist and inventor of DermGPT, an AI tool created specifically to help health care providers with clinical tasks to increase productivity. According to Dr. Kamangar, “For every 8 hours of scheduled patient time, ambulatory physicians spend more than 5 hours on the [electronic health record].” Her advice is to use AI when you can to complete clinical tasks and move on.

DermGPT utilizes a learned language model that is based on dermatology knowledge acquired from more than 3000 peer-reviewed articles and texts (eg, systematic literature reviews, other published sources in the field of dermatology). Search output includes citations so that users can confirm that the answers and sources are accurate. “Still, with all of these safeguards, all AI models can create inaccuracies and it is important to proofread all content,” says Dr. Kamangar.

During her presentation, Dr. Kamangar gave the following examples of potentially useful DermGPT prompts for dermatologists:

• Can you help me write a response to a denial letter to an insurance company for upadacitinib in a patient with atopic dermatitis?
• I am seeing a patient with blisters. What is the differential diagnosis?
• I am prescribing bimekizumab. What labs do I need to check?

Other potential time-saving uses for a dermatologist include:

• prior authorization letters
• coding support
• responses to common patient messages
• letters of recommendation
• information on new treatments.

In Dr. Kamangar’s practice, they have been able to save at least 30 to 60 minutes at the end of the day that is usually spent updating the electronic health record. “This allows us to complete the clinic day much earlier and does not leave work that will spill over to the next day,” she shares. “During my workday, I have [DermGPT] open on my computer, and as clinical tasks arise, if they require more information or assistance, I turn to DermGPT to help de-escalate the task from a moderate to difficult level to an easy task that can be easily managed.”

The next stage of health technology—AI—is here, and physicians are understandably cautious. Board-certified dermatologists, dermatology residents, fellows, and medical students can try DermGPT for free at https://www.dermgpt.com/.

Dr. Kamangar is the founder of DermGPT.

Melissa Sears is the Director, Editorial, of Cutis.

Read More

Read More

Read More

After PsA onset, early diagnosis and management leads to better long-term outcomes. These prior observations were confirmed in a study by Snoeck Henkemans and colleagues that included 708 newly diagnosed patients with PsA naive to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) who were followed up for 3 years or more. Patients with a short (<12 weeks) vs long delay (>1 year) in PsA diagnosis after symptom onset were more likely to achieve minimum disease activity (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.37-4.76). Thus, longer delay in diagnosing PsA is associated with worse clinical outcomes.

Bimekizumab is a novel biologic therapy that inhibits interleukins (IL)-17A and -17F and is efficacious in the treatment of psoriasis, PsA, and axial spondyloarthritis. However, the effectiveness in PsA vis-à-vis other IL-17A inhibitors is not known. In the absence of a formal head-to-head study, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons is a method to evaluate comparative effectiveness. Such a study by Mease and colleagues included the data of patients with PsA who were biological DMARD–naive or who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR), and who received bimekizumab from the BE OPTIMAL (n = 236) and BE COMPLETE (n = 146) trials and secukinumab from the FUTURE 2 trial (n = 200). They demonstrated that, in the biological DMARD–naive subgroup, the probability of achieving at least 70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response was two times higher with bimekizumab (160 mg every 4 weeks) vs secukinumab (150 mg or 300 mg every 4 weeks) at week 52. In the TNFi-IR subgroup, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response compared with 150 mg secukinumab for ACR20, ACR70, and minimal disease activity outcomes and a greater likelihood of response compared with 300 mg secukinumab for ACR50 and minimal disease activity. Thus, bimekizumab is at least as effective as secukinumab in PsA. Formal head-to-head studies comparing bimekizumab with other IL-17A inhibitors are required.

Distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint involvement is an important manifestation of PsA and is closely related to nail dystrophy in the adjacent nail. Ixekizumab is another biologic that targets IL-17A. In a post hoc analysis of the SPIRIT-H2H study, McGonagle and colleagues confirmed that over 96% of patients with PsA and simultaneous DIP joint involvement reported adjacent nail psoriasis. When compared with adalimumab, ixekizumab led to greater improvements in DIP involvement and adjacent nail psoriasis as early as week 12 (38.8% vs 28.4%; P < .0001), with improvements sustained up to week 52 (64.9% vs 57.5%; P = .0055). This probably reflects a greater effectiveness of IL-17A inhibition in treating skin and nail psoriasis compared with TNFi.

Finally, in a population-based retrospective cohort study that included 13,905 patients with PsA (n = 1672) or rheumatoid arthritis (n = 12,233) who did not have any previous history of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), Meng and colleagues showed that the incidence rates of MACE were similar in patients with PsA and rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, cardiovascular risk management should be similarly aggressive in patients with PsA and rheumatoid arthritis.

After PsA onset, early diagnosis and management leads to better long-term outcomes. These prior observations were confirmed in a study by Snoeck Henkemans and colleagues that included 708 newly diagnosed patients with PsA naive to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) who were followed up for 3 years or more. Patients with a short (<12 weeks) vs long delay (>1 year) in PsA diagnosis after symptom onset were more likely to achieve minimum disease activity (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.37-4.76). Thus, longer delay in diagnosing PsA is associated with worse clinical outcomes.

Bimekizumab is a novel biologic therapy that inhibits interleukins (IL)-17A and -17F and is efficacious in the treatment of psoriasis, PsA, and axial spondyloarthritis. However, the effectiveness in PsA vis-à-vis other IL-17A inhibitors is not known. In the absence of a formal head-to-head study, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons is a method to evaluate comparative effectiveness. Such a study by Mease and colleagues included the data of patients with PsA who were biological DMARD–naive or who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR), and who received bimekizumab from the BE OPTIMAL (n = 236) and BE COMPLETE (n = 146) trials and secukinumab from the FUTURE 2 trial (n = 200). They demonstrated that, in the biological DMARD–naive subgroup, the probability of achieving at least 70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response was two times higher with bimekizumab (160 mg every 4 weeks) vs secukinumab (150 mg or 300 mg every 4 weeks) at week 52. In the TNFi-IR subgroup, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response compared with 150 mg secukinumab for ACR20, ACR70, and minimal disease activity outcomes and a greater likelihood of response compared with 300 mg secukinumab for ACR50 and minimal disease activity. Thus, bimekizumab is at least as effective as secukinumab in PsA. Formal head-to-head studies comparing bimekizumab with other IL-17A inhibitors are required.

Distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint involvement is an important manifestation of PsA and is closely related to nail dystrophy in the adjacent nail. Ixekizumab is another biologic that targets IL-17A. In a post hoc analysis of the SPIRIT-H2H study, McGonagle and colleagues confirmed that over 96% of patients with PsA and simultaneous DIP joint involvement reported adjacent nail psoriasis. When compared with adalimumab, ixekizumab led to greater improvements in DIP involvement and adjacent nail psoriasis as early as week 12 (38.8% vs 28.4%; P < .0001), with improvements sustained up to week 52 (64.9% vs 57.5%; P = .0055). This probably reflects a greater effectiveness of IL-17A inhibition in treating skin and nail psoriasis compared with TNFi.

Finally, in a population-based retrospective cohort study that included 13,905 patients with PsA (n = 1672) or rheumatoid arthritis (n = 12,233) who did not have any previous history of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), Meng and colleagues showed that the incidence rates of MACE were similar in patients with PsA and rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, cardiovascular risk management should be similarly aggressive in patients with PsA and rheumatoid arthritis.

After PsA onset, early diagnosis and management leads to better long-term outcomes. These prior observations were confirmed in a study by Snoeck Henkemans and colleagues that included 708 newly diagnosed patients with PsA naive to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) who were followed up for 3 years or more. Patients with a short (<12 weeks) vs long delay (>1 year) in PsA diagnosis after symptom onset were more likely to achieve minimum disease activity (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.37-4.76). Thus, longer delay in diagnosing PsA is associated with worse clinical outcomes.

Bimekizumab is a novel biologic therapy that inhibits interleukins (IL)-17A and -17F and is efficacious in the treatment of psoriasis, PsA, and axial spondyloarthritis. However, the effectiveness in PsA vis-à-vis other IL-17A inhibitors is not known. In the absence of a formal head-to-head study, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons is a method to evaluate comparative effectiveness. Such a study by Mease and colleagues included the data of patients with PsA who were biological DMARD–naive or who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR), and who received bimekizumab from the BE OPTIMAL (n = 236) and BE COMPLETE (n = 146) trials and secukinumab from the FUTURE 2 trial (n = 200). They demonstrated that, in the biological DMARD–naive subgroup, the probability of achieving at least 70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response was two times higher with bimekizumab (160 mg every 4 weeks) vs secukinumab (150 mg or 300 mg every 4 weeks) at week 52. In the TNFi-IR subgroup, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response compared with 150 mg secukinumab for ACR20, ACR70, and minimal disease activity outcomes and a greater likelihood of response compared with 300 mg secukinumab for ACR50 and minimal disease activity. Thus, bimekizumab is at least as effective as secukinumab in PsA. Formal head-to-head studies comparing bimekizumab with other IL-17A inhibitors are required.

Distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint involvement is an important manifestation of PsA and is closely related to nail dystrophy in the adjacent nail. Ixekizumab is another biologic that targets IL-17A. In a post hoc analysis of the SPIRIT-H2H study, McGonagle and colleagues confirmed that over 96% of patients with PsA and simultaneous DIP joint involvement reported adjacent nail psoriasis. When compared with adalimumab, ixekizumab led to greater improvements in DIP involvement and adjacent nail psoriasis as early as week 12 (38.8% vs 28.4%; P < .0001), with improvements sustained up to week 52 (64.9% vs 57.5%; P = .0055). This probably reflects a greater effectiveness of IL-17A inhibition in treating skin and nail psoriasis compared with TNFi.

Finally, in a population-based retrospective cohort study that included 13,905 patients with PsA (n = 1672) or rheumatoid arthritis (n = 12,233) who did not have any previous history of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), Meng and colleagues showed that the incidence rates of MACE were similar in patients with PsA and rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, cardiovascular risk management should be similarly aggressive in patients with PsA and rheumatoid arthritis.

A positive family history of cancer and obesity are established risk factors for development of breast cancer among women.^[4,5] A population-based cohort study that included 15,055 Chinese women evaluated the association and interaction between body mass index (BMI) and family history of cancer on the risk for breast cancer (Cao et al). The incidence risk for breast cancer was highest in the group with obesity vs the group with normal weight (adjusted HR 2.09; 95% CI 1.42-3.07), and those with a family history of cancer also had an increased risk vs those without a family history of cancer (adjusted HR 1.63; 95% CI 1.22-2.49). Furthermore, women with a BMI ≥ 24 and family history of cancer had a higher risk for breast cancer development compared with women with a BMI < 24 and no family history of cancer (adjusted HR 2.06; 95% CI 1.39-3.06). This study indicates a heightened breast cancer risk when cancer family history and obesity coexist, suggesting the importance of addressing modifiable risk factors and targeting lifestyle interventions in this population.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), although exhibiting its own heterogeneity, has various features that differentiate this subtype from luminal breast cancers. For example, TNBC generally has a more aggressive course, increased responsiveness to chemotherapy, and earlier pattern of recurrence compared with hormone receptor–positive disease. Prior studies have also shown that established breast cancer risk factors reflect those for the luminal A subtype, whereas those for TNBC are less consistent.^[6] A meta-analysis that included 33 studies evaluated the association between traditional breast cancer risk factors and TNBC incidence (Kumar et al). Family history (odds ratio [OR] 1.55; 95% CI 1.34-1.81; P < .001), longer duration of oral contraceptive use (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.08-1.55; P < .001), and higher breast density (OR 2.19; 95% CI 1.67-2.88; P < .001) were significantly associated with an increased risk for TNBC. Factors including later age at menarche, later age at first birth, and breastfeeding were associated with reduced risk for TNBC. Furthermore, there was no significant association with parity, menopausal hormone therapy, alcohol, smoking, and BMI. This study highlights distinct risk factors that may contribute to a higher risk for TNBC, and future research will be valuable to better elucidate the mechanisms at play and to further understand the differences within this subtype itself.

Additional References

1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast, ovarian, and pancreatic. Version 3.2024. Source 
2. Saadatmand S, Geuzinge HA, Rutgers EJT, et al; on behalf of the FaMRIsc study group. MRI versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women with familial risk (FaMRIsc): A multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1136-1147. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30275-X  Source
3. Warner E, Zhu S, Plewes DB, et al. Breast cancer mortality among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in a magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography screening program. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12:3479. doi: 10.3390/cancers12113479 Source
4. Picon-Ruiz M, Morata-Tarifa C, Valle-Goffin JJ, et al. Obesity and adverse breast cancer risk and outcome: Mechanistic insights and strategies for intervention. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:378-397. doi: 10.3322/caac.21405 Source
5. Engmann NJ, Golmakani MK, Miglioretti DL, et al; for the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Population-attributable risk proportion of clinical risk factors for breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1228-1236. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6326 Source
6. Barnard ME, Boeke CE, Tamimi RM. Established breast cancer risk factors and risk of intrinsic tumor subtypes. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. 2015;1856:73-85. doi: 10.1016/j.bbcan.2015.0002 Source

A positive family history of cancer and obesity are established risk factors for development of breast cancer among women.^[4,5] A population-based cohort study that included 15,055 Chinese women evaluated the association and interaction between body mass index (BMI) and family history of cancer on the risk for breast cancer (Cao et al). The incidence risk for breast cancer was highest in the group with obesity vs the group with normal weight (adjusted HR 2.09; 95% CI 1.42-3.07), and those with a family history of cancer also had an increased risk vs those without a family history of cancer (adjusted HR 1.63; 95% CI 1.22-2.49). Furthermore, women with a BMI ≥ 24 and family history of cancer had a higher risk for breast cancer development compared with women with a BMI < 24 and no family history of cancer (adjusted HR 2.06; 95% CI 1.39-3.06). This study indicates a heightened breast cancer risk when cancer family history and obesity coexist, suggesting the importance of addressing modifiable risk factors and targeting lifestyle interventions in this population.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), although exhibiting its own heterogeneity, has various features that differentiate this subtype from luminal breast cancers. For example, TNBC generally has a more aggressive course, increased responsiveness to chemotherapy, and earlier pattern of recurrence compared with hormone receptor–positive disease. Prior studies have also shown that established breast cancer risk factors reflect those for the luminal A subtype, whereas those for TNBC are less consistent.^[6] A meta-analysis that included 33 studies evaluated the association between traditional breast cancer risk factors and TNBC incidence (Kumar et al). Family history (odds ratio [OR] 1.55; 95% CI 1.34-1.81; P < .001), longer duration of oral contraceptive use (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.08-1.55; P < .001), and higher breast density (OR 2.19; 95% CI 1.67-2.88; P < .001) were significantly associated with an increased risk for TNBC. Factors including later age at menarche, later age at first birth, and breastfeeding were associated with reduced risk for TNBC. Furthermore, there was no significant association with parity, menopausal hormone therapy, alcohol, smoking, and BMI. This study highlights distinct risk factors that may contribute to a higher risk for TNBC, and future research will be valuable to better elucidate the mechanisms at play and to further understand the differences within this subtype itself.

Additional References

1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast, ovarian, and pancreatic. Version 3.2024. Source 
2. Saadatmand S, Geuzinge HA, Rutgers EJT, et al; on behalf of the FaMRIsc study group. MRI versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women with familial risk (FaMRIsc): A multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1136-1147. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30275-X  Source
3. Warner E, Zhu S, Plewes DB, et al. Breast cancer mortality among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in a magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography screening program. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12:3479. doi: 10.3390/cancers12113479 Source
4. Picon-Ruiz M, Morata-Tarifa C, Valle-Goffin JJ, et al. Obesity and adverse breast cancer risk and outcome: Mechanistic insights and strategies for intervention. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:378-397. doi: 10.3322/caac.21405 Source
5. Engmann NJ, Golmakani MK, Miglioretti DL, et al; for the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Population-attributable risk proportion of clinical risk factors for breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1228-1236. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6326 Source
6. Barnard ME, Boeke CE, Tamimi RM. Established breast cancer risk factors and risk of intrinsic tumor subtypes. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. 2015;1856:73-85. doi: 10.1016/j.bbcan.2015.0002 Source

A positive family history of cancer and obesity are established risk factors for development of breast cancer among women.^[4,5] A population-based cohort study that included 15,055 Chinese women evaluated the association and interaction between body mass index (BMI) and family history of cancer on the risk for breast cancer (Cao et al). The incidence risk for breast cancer was highest in the group with obesity vs the group with normal weight (adjusted HR 2.09; 95% CI 1.42-3.07), and those with a family history of cancer also had an increased risk vs those without a family history of cancer (adjusted HR 1.63; 95% CI 1.22-2.49). Furthermore, women with a BMI ≥ 24 and family history of cancer had a higher risk for breast cancer development compared with women with a BMI < 24 and no family history of cancer (adjusted HR 2.06; 95% CI 1.39-3.06). This study indicates a heightened breast cancer risk when cancer family history and obesity coexist, suggesting the importance of addressing modifiable risk factors and targeting lifestyle interventions in this population.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), although exhibiting its own heterogeneity, has various features that differentiate this subtype from luminal breast cancers. For example, TNBC generally has a more aggressive course, increased responsiveness to chemotherapy, and earlier pattern of recurrence compared with hormone receptor–positive disease. Prior studies have also shown that established breast cancer risk factors reflect those for the luminal A subtype, whereas those for TNBC are less consistent.^[6] A meta-analysis that included 33 studies evaluated the association between traditional breast cancer risk factors and TNBC incidence (Kumar et al). Family history (odds ratio [OR] 1.55; 95% CI 1.34-1.81; P < .001), longer duration of oral contraceptive use (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.08-1.55; P < .001), and higher breast density (OR 2.19; 95% CI 1.67-2.88; P < .001) were significantly associated with an increased risk for TNBC. Factors including later age at menarche, later age at first birth, and breastfeeding were associated with reduced risk for TNBC. Furthermore, there was no significant association with parity, menopausal hormone therapy, alcohol, smoking, and BMI. This study highlights distinct risk factors that may contribute to a higher risk for TNBC, and future research will be valuable to better elucidate the mechanisms at play and to further understand the differences within this subtype itself.

Additional References

1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast, ovarian, and pancreatic. Version 3.2024. Source 
2. Saadatmand S, Geuzinge HA, Rutgers EJT, et al; on behalf of the FaMRIsc study group. MRI versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women with familial risk (FaMRIsc): A multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1136-1147. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30275-X  Source
3. Warner E, Zhu S, Plewes DB, et al. Breast cancer mortality among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in a magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography screening program. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12:3479. doi: 10.3390/cancers12113479 Source
4. Picon-Ruiz M, Morata-Tarifa C, Valle-Goffin JJ, et al. Obesity and adverse breast cancer risk and outcome: Mechanistic insights and strategies for intervention. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:378-397. doi: 10.3322/caac.21405 Source
5. Engmann NJ, Golmakani MK, Miglioretti DL, et al; for the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Population-attributable risk proportion of clinical risk factors for breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1228-1236. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6326 Source
6. Barnard ME, Boeke CE, Tamimi RM. Established breast cancer risk factors and risk of intrinsic tumor subtypes. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. 2015;1856:73-85. doi: 10.1016/j.bbcan.2015.0002 Source

The Diagnosis: Blastic Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cell Neoplasm

Cutaneous plasmacytoma initially was suspected because of the patient’s history of monoclonal gammopathy as well as angiosarcoma due to the purpuric vascular appearance of the lesions. However, histopathology revealed a pleomorphic cellular dermal infiltrate characterized by atypical cells with mediumlarge nuclei, fine chromatin, and small nucleoli; the cells also had little cytoplasm (Figure). The infiltrate did not involve the epidermis but extended into the subcutaneous tissue. Immunohistochemistry revealed that the cells were positive for CD45, CD43, CD4, CD7, CD56, CD123, CD33, T-cell leukemia/lymphoma protein 1, and CD68. The cells were negative for CD2, CD3, CD5, CD8, T-cell intracellular antigen 1, CD13, CD15, CD19, CD20, CD21, CD23, cyclin D1, Bcl-2, Bcl-6, CD10, PAX5, MUM1, lysozyme, myeloperoxidase, perforin, granzyme B, CD57, CD34, CD117, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase, activin receptorlike kinase 1 βF1, Epstein-Barr virus– encoded small RNA, CD30, CD163, and pancytokeratin. Thus, the clinical and histopathologic findings led to a diagnosis of blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN), a rare and aggressive hematologic malignancy.

Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm affects males older than 60 years.¹ It is characterized by the clonal proliferation of precursor plasmacytoid dendritic cells—otherwise known as professional type I interferonproducing cells or plasmacytoid monocytes—of myeloid origin. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells have been renamed on several occasions, reflecting uncertainties of their histogenesis. The diagnosis of BPDCN requires a biopsy showing the morphology of plasmacytoid dendritic blast cells and immunophenotypic criteria established by either immunohistochemistry or flow cytometry.^2,3 Tumor cells morphologically show an immature blastic appearance, and the diagnosis rests upon the demonstration of CD4 and CD56, together with markers more restricted to plasmacytoid dendritic cells (eg, BDCA-2, CD123, T-cell leukemia/lymphoma protein 1, CD2AP, BCL11A) and negativity for lymphoid and myeloid lineage–associated antigens.^1,4

Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasms account for less than 1% of all hematopoietic neoplasms. Cutaneous lesions occur in 64% of patients with the disease and often are the reason patients seek medical care.⁵ Clinical findings include numerous erythematous and violaceous papules, nodules, and plaques that resemble purpura or vasculitis. Cutaneous lesions can vary in size from a few millimeters to 10 cm and vary in color. Moreover, patients often present with bruiselike patches, disseminated lesions, or mucosal lesions.¹ Extracutaneous involvement includes lymphadenopathy, splenomegaly, and cytopenia caused by bone marrow infiltration, which may be present at diagnosis or during disease progression. Bone marrow involvement often is present with thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neutropenia. One-third of patients with BPDCN have central nervous system involvement and no disease relapse.⁶ Other affected sites include the liver, lungs, tonsils, soft tissues, and eyes. Patients with BPDCN may present with a history of myeloid neoplasms, such as acute/chronic myeloid leukemia, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, or myelodysplastic syndrome.⁴ Our case highlights the importance of skin biopsy for making the correct diagnosis, as BPDCN manifests with cutaneous lesions that are nonspecific for neoplastic or nonneoplastic etiologies.

Given the aggressive nature of BPDCN, along with its potential for acute leukemic transformation, treatment has been challenging due to both poor response rates and lack of consensus and treatment strategies. Historically, patients who have received high-dose acute leukemia–based chemotherapy followed by an allogeneic stem cell transplant during the first remission appeared to have the best outcomes.⁷ Conventional treatments have included surgical excision with radiation and various leukemia-based chemotherapy regimens, with hyper- CVAD (fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone-methotrexate, and cytarabine) being the most commonly used regimen.^7,8 Venetoclax, a B-cell lymphoma 2 protein inhibitor, has shown promise when used in combination with hyper-CVAD. For older patients who may not tolerate aggressive chemotherapy, hypomethylating agents are preferred for their tolerability. Although tagraxofusp, a CD123-directed cytotoxin, has been utilized, Sapienza et al⁹ demonstrated an association with capillary leak syndrome.

Leukemia cutis is characterized by infiltration of the skin by malignant leukocytes, often associated with a prior diagnosis of systemic leukemia or myelodysplasia. Extramedullary accumulation of leukemic cells typically is referred to as myeloid sarcoma, while leukemia cutis serves as a general term for specific skin involvement.¹⁰ In rare instances, cutaneous lesions may manifest as the initial sign of systemic disease.

Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas comprise a diverse group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas that manifest as malignant monoclonal T-lymphocyte infiltration in the skin. Mycosis fungoides, Sézary syndrome, and primary cutaneous peripheral T-cell lymphomas are among the key subtypes. Histologically, differentiating these conditions from benign inflammatory disorders can be challenging due to subtle features such as haloed lymphocytes, epidermotropism, and Pautrier microabscesses seen in mycosis fungoides.¹¹

Multiple myeloma involves monoclonal plasma cell proliferation, primarily affecting bone and bone marrow. Extramedullary plasmacytomas can occur outside these sites through hematogenous spread or adjacent infiltration, while metastatic plasmacytomas result from metastasis. Cutaneous plasmacytomas may arise from hematogenous dissemination or infiltration from neighboring structures.¹²

Extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type, manifests as aggressive mid-facial necrotizing lesions with extranodal involvement, notably in the nasal/paranasal area. These lesions can cause local destruction of cartilage, bone, and soft tissues and may progress through stages or arise de novo. Diagnostic challenges arise from the historical variety of terms used to describe extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, including midline lethal granuloma and lymphomatoid granulomatosis.¹³

The Diagnosis: Blastic Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cell Neoplasm

Cutaneous plasmacytoma initially was suspected because of the patient’s history of monoclonal gammopathy as well as angiosarcoma due to the purpuric vascular appearance of the lesions. However, histopathology revealed a pleomorphic cellular dermal infiltrate characterized by atypical cells with mediumlarge nuclei, fine chromatin, and small nucleoli; the cells also had little cytoplasm (Figure). The infiltrate did not involve the epidermis but extended into the subcutaneous tissue. Immunohistochemistry revealed that the cells were positive for CD45, CD43, CD4, CD7, CD56, CD123, CD33, T-cell leukemia/lymphoma protein 1, and CD68. The cells were negative for CD2, CD3, CD5, CD8, T-cell intracellular antigen 1, CD13, CD15, CD19, CD20, CD21, CD23, cyclin D1, Bcl-2, Bcl-6, CD10, PAX5, MUM1, lysozyme, myeloperoxidase, perforin, granzyme B, CD57, CD34, CD117, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase, activin receptorlike kinase 1 βF1, Epstein-Barr virus– encoded small RNA, CD30, CD163, and pancytokeratin. Thus, the clinical and histopathologic findings led to a diagnosis of blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN), a rare and aggressive hematologic malignancy.

Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm affects males older than 60 years.¹ It is characterized by the clonal proliferation of precursor plasmacytoid dendritic cells—otherwise known as professional type I interferonproducing cells or plasmacytoid monocytes—of myeloid origin. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells have been renamed on several occasions, reflecting uncertainties of their histogenesis. The diagnosis of BPDCN requires a biopsy showing the morphology of plasmacytoid dendritic blast cells and immunophenotypic criteria established by either immunohistochemistry or flow cytometry.^2,3 Tumor cells morphologically show an immature blastic appearance, and the diagnosis rests upon the demonstration of CD4 and CD56, together with markers more restricted to plasmacytoid dendritic cells (eg, BDCA-2, CD123, T-cell leukemia/lymphoma protein 1, CD2AP, BCL11A) and negativity for lymphoid and myeloid lineage–associated antigens.^1,4

Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasms account for less than 1% of all hematopoietic neoplasms. Cutaneous lesions occur in 64% of patients with the disease and often are the reason patients seek medical care.⁵ Clinical findings include numerous erythematous and violaceous papules, nodules, and plaques that resemble purpura or vasculitis. Cutaneous lesions can vary in size from a few millimeters to 10 cm and vary in color. Moreover, patients often present with bruiselike patches, disseminated lesions, or mucosal lesions.¹ Extracutaneous involvement includes lymphadenopathy, splenomegaly, and cytopenia caused by bone marrow infiltration, which may be present at diagnosis or during disease progression. Bone marrow involvement often is present with thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neutropenia. One-third of patients with BPDCN have central nervous system involvement and no disease relapse.⁶ Other affected sites include the liver, lungs, tonsils, soft tissues, and eyes. Patients with BPDCN may present with a history of myeloid neoplasms, such as acute/chronic myeloid leukemia, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, or myelodysplastic syndrome.⁴ Our case highlights the importance of skin biopsy for making the correct diagnosis, as BPDCN manifests with cutaneous lesions that are nonspecific for neoplastic or nonneoplastic etiologies.

Given the aggressive nature of BPDCN, along with its potential for acute leukemic transformation, treatment has been challenging due to both poor response rates and lack of consensus and treatment strategies. Historically, patients who have received high-dose acute leukemia–based chemotherapy followed by an allogeneic stem cell transplant during the first remission appeared to have the best outcomes.⁷ Conventional treatments have included surgical excision with radiation and various leukemia-based chemotherapy regimens, with hyper- CVAD (fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone-methotrexate, and cytarabine) being the most commonly used regimen.^7,8 Venetoclax, a B-cell lymphoma 2 protein inhibitor, has shown promise when used in combination with hyper-CVAD. For older patients who may not tolerate aggressive chemotherapy, hypomethylating agents are preferred for their tolerability. Although tagraxofusp, a CD123-directed cytotoxin, has been utilized, Sapienza et al⁹ demonstrated an association with capillary leak syndrome.

Leukemia cutis is characterized by infiltration of the skin by malignant leukocytes, often associated with a prior diagnosis of systemic leukemia or myelodysplasia. Extramedullary accumulation of leukemic cells typically is referred to as myeloid sarcoma, while leukemia cutis serves as a general term for specific skin involvement.¹⁰ In rare instances, cutaneous lesions may manifest as the initial sign of systemic disease.

Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas comprise a diverse group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas that manifest as malignant monoclonal T-lymphocyte infiltration in the skin. Mycosis fungoides, Sézary syndrome, and primary cutaneous peripheral T-cell lymphomas are among the key subtypes. Histologically, differentiating these conditions from benign inflammatory disorders can be challenging due to subtle features such as haloed lymphocytes, epidermotropism, and Pautrier microabscesses seen in mycosis fungoides.¹¹

Multiple myeloma involves monoclonal plasma cell proliferation, primarily affecting bone and bone marrow. Extramedullary plasmacytomas can occur outside these sites through hematogenous spread or adjacent infiltration, while metastatic plasmacytomas result from metastasis. Cutaneous plasmacytomas may arise from hematogenous dissemination or infiltration from neighboring structures.¹²

Extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type, manifests as aggressive mid-facial necrotizing lesions with extranodal involvement, notably in the nasal/paranasal area. These lesions can cause local destruction of cartilage, bone, and soft tissues and may progress through stages or arise de novo. Diagnostic challenges arise from the historical variety of terms used to describe extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, including midline lethal granuloma and lymphomatoid granulomatosis.¹³

The Diagnosis: Blastic Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cell Neoplasm

Cutaneous plasmacytoma initially was suspected because of the patient’s history of monoclonal gammopathy as well as angiosarcoma due to the purpuric vascular appearance of the lesions. However, histopathology revealed a pleomorphic cellular dermal infiltrate characterized by atypical cells with mediumlarge nuclei, fine chromatin, and small nucleoli; the cells also had little cytoplasm (Figure). The infiltrate did not involve the epidermis but extended into the subcutaneous tissue. Immunohistochemistry revealed that the cells were positive for CD45, CD43, CD4, CD7, CD56, CD123, CD33, T-cell leukemia/lymphoma protein 1, and CD68. The cells were negative for CD2, CD3, CD5, CD8, T-cell intracellular antigen 1, CD13, CD15, CD19, CD20, CD21, CD23, cyclin D1, Bcl-2, Bcl-6, CD10, PAX5, MUM1, lysozyme, myeloperoxidase, perforin, granzyme B, CD57, CD34, CD117, terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase, activin receptorlike kinase 1 βF1, Epstein-Barr virus– encoded small RNA, CD30, CD163, and pancytokeratin. Thus, the clinical and histopathologic findings led to a diagnosis of blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN), a rare and aggressive hematologic malignancy.

Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm affects males older than 60 years.¹ It is characterized by the clonal proliferation of precursor plasmacytoid dendritic cells—otherwise known as professional type I interferonproducing cells or plasmacytoid monocytes—of myeloid origin. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells have been renamed on several occasions, reflecting uncertainties of their histogenesis. The diagnosis of BPDCN requires a biopsy showing the morphology of plasmacytoid dendritic blast cells and immunophenotypic criteria established by either immunohistochemistry or flow cytometry.^2,3 Tumor cells morphologically show an immature blastic appearance, and the diagnosis rests upon the demonstration of CD4 and CD56, together with markers more restricted to plasmacytoid dendritic cells (eg, BDCA-2, CD123, T-cell leukemia/lymphoma protein 1, CD2AP, BCL11A) and negativity for lymphoid and myeloid lineage–associated antigens.^1,4

Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasms account for less than 1% of all hematopoietic neoplasms. Cutaneous lesions occur in 64% of patients with the disease and often are the reason patients seek medical care.⁵ Clinical findings include numerous erythematous and violaceous papules, nodules, and plaques that resemble purpura or vasculitis. Cutaneous lesions can vary in size from a few millimeters to 10 cm and vary in color. Moreover, patients often present with bruiselike patches, disseminated lesions, or mucosal lesions.¹ Extracutaneous involvement includes lymphadenopathy, splenomegaly, and cytopenia caused by bone marrow infiltration, which may be present at diagnosis or during disease progression. Bone marrow involvement often is present with thrombocytopenia, anemia, and neutropenia. One-third of patients with BPDCN have central nervous system involvement and no disease relapse.⁶ Other affected sites include the liver, lungs, tonsils, soft tissues, and eyes. Patients with BPDCN may present with a history of myeloid neoplasms, such as acute/chronic myeloid leukemia, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, or myelodysplastic syndrome.⁴ Our case highlights the importance of skin biopsy for making the correct diagnosis, as BPDCN manifests with cutaneous lesions that are nonspecific for neoplastic or nonneoplastic etiologies.

Given the aggressive nature of BPDCN, along with its potential for acute leukemic transformation, treatment has been challenging due to both poor response rates and lack of consensus and treatment strategies. Historically, patients who have received high-dose acute leukemia–based chemotherapy followed by an allogeneic stem cell transplant during the first remission appeared to have the best outcomes.⁷ Conventional treatments have included surgical excision with radiation and various leukemia-based chemotherapy regimens, with hyper- CVAD (fractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone-methotrexate, and cytarabine) being the most commonly used regimen.^7,8 Venetoclax, a B-cell lymphoma 2 protein inhibitor, has shown promise when used in combination with hyper-CVAD. For older patients who may not tolerate aggressive chemotherapy, hypomethylating agents are preferred for their tolerability. Although tagraxofusp, a CD123-directed cytotoxin, has been utilized, Sapienza et al⁹ demonstrated an association with capillary leak syndrome.

Leukemia cutis is characterized by infiltration of the skin by malignant leukocytes, often associated with a prior diagnosis of systemic leukemia or myelodysplasia. Extramedullary accumulation of leukemic cells typically is referred to as myeloid sarcoma, while leukemia cutis serves as a general term for specific skin involvement.¹⁰ In rare instances, cutaneous lesions may manifest as the initial sign of systemic disease.

Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas comprise a diverse group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas that manifest as malignant monoclonal T-lymphocyte infiltration in the skin. Mycosis fungoides, Sézary syndrome, and primary cutaneous peripheral T-cell lymphomas are among the key subtypes. Histologically, differentiating these conditions from benign inflammatory disorders can be challenging due to subtle features such as haloed lymphocytes, epidermotropism, and Pautrier microabscesses seen in mycosis fungoides.¹¹

Multiple myeloma involves monoclonal plasma cell proliferation, primarily affecting bone and bone marrow. Extramedullary plasmacytomas can occur outside these sites through hematogenous spread or adjacent infiltration, while metastatic plasmacytomas result from metastasis. Cutaneous plasmacytomas may arise from hematogenous dissemination or infiltration from neighboring structures.¹²

Extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type, manifests as aggressive mid-facial necrotizing lesions with extranodal involvement, notably in the nasal/paranasal area. These lesions can cause local destruction of cartilage, bone, and soft tissues and may progress through stages or arise de novo. Diagnostic challenges arise from the historical variety of terms used to describe extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma, including midline lethal granuloma and lymphomatoid granulomatosis.¹³

Not everyone with AD treated with dupilumab gets clear or almost clear in clinical trials. The study by Cork and colleagues looked to see whether those patients who did not get to clear or almost clear were still having clinically meaningful improvement. To test this, the investigators looked at patients who still had mild or worse disease and then at the proportion of those patients at week 16 who achieved a composite endpoint encompassing clinically meaningful changes in AD signs, symptoms, and quality of life: ≥50% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index or ≥4-point reduction in worst scratch/itch numerical rating scale, or ≥6-point reduction in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index/Infants' Dermatitis Quality of Life Index. Significantly more patients, both clinically and statistically significantly more, receiving dupilumab vs placebo achieved the composite endpoint (77.7% vs 24.6%; P < .0001). 

The "success rate" reported in clinical trials underestimates how often patients can be successfully treated with dupilumab. I don't need a complicated composite outcome to know this. I just use the standardized 2-point Patient Global Assessment measure. I ask patients, "How are you doing?" If they say "Great," that's success. If they say, "Not so good," that's failure. I think about 80% of patients with AD treated with dupilumab have success based on this standard.

Hand dermatitis can be quite resistant to treatment. Even making a diagnosis can be challenging, as psoriasis and dermatitis of the hands looks so similar to me (and when I used to send biopsies and ask the pathologist whether it's dermatitis or psoriasis, invariably the dermatopathologist responded "yes"). The study by Kamphuis and colleagues examined the efficacy of abrocitinib in just over 100 patients with hand eczema who were enrolled in the BioDay registry. Such registries are very helpful for assessing real-world results. The drug seemed reasonably successful, with only about 30% discontinuing treatment. About two thirds of the discontinuations were due to inefficacy and about one third to an adverse event.

I think there's real value in prescribing the treatments patients want. Studies like the one by Ameen and colleagues, using a discrete-choice methodology, allows one to determine patients' average preferences. In this study, the discrete-choice approach found that patients prefer safety over other attributes. Some years ago, my colleagues and I queried patients to get a sense of their quantitative preferences for different treatments. Our study also found that patients preferred safety over other attributes. However, when we asked them to choose among different treatment options, they didn't choose the safest one. I think they believe that they prefer safety, but I'm not sure they really do. In any case, the average preference of the entire population of people with AD isn't really all that important when we've got just one patient sitting in front of us. It's that particular patient's preference that should drive the treatment plan.

Not everyone with AD treated with dupilumab gets clear or almost clear in clinical trials. The study by Cork and colleagues looked to see whether those patients who did not get to clear or almost clear were still having clinically meaningful improvement. To test this, the investigators looked at patients who still had mild or worse disease and then at the proportion of those patients at week 16 who achieved a composite endpoint encompassing clinically meaningful changes in AD signs, symptoms, and quality of life: ≥50% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index or ≥4-point reduction in worst scratch/itch numerical rating scale, or ≥6-point reduction in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index/Infants' Dermatitis Quality of Life Index. Significantly more patients, both clinically and statistically significantly more, receiving dupilumab vs placebo achieved the composite endpoint (77.7% vs 24.6%; P < .0001). 

The "success rate" reported in clinical trials underestimates how often patients can be successfully treated with dupilumab. I don't need a complicated composite outcome to know this. I just use the standardized 2-point Patient Global Assessment measure. I ask patients, "How are you doing?" If they say "Great," that's success. If they say, "Not so good," that's failure. I think about 80% of patients with AD treated with dupilumab have success based on this standard.

Hand dermatitis can be quite resistant to treatment. Even making a diagnosis can be challenging, as psoriasis and dermatitis of the hands looks so similar to me (and when I used to send biopsies and ask the pathologist whether it's dermatitis or psoriasis, invariably the dermatopathologist responded "yes"). The study by Kamphuis and colleagues examined the efficacy of abrocitinib in just over 100 patients with hand eczema who were enrolled in the BioDay registry. Such registries are very helpful for assessing real-world results. The drug seemed reasonably successful, with only about 30% discontinuing treatment. About two thirds of the discontinuations were due to inefficacy and about one third to an adverse event.

I think there's real value in prescribing the treatments patients want. Studies like the one by Ameen and colleagues, using a discrete-choice methodology, allows one to determine patients' average preferences. In this study, the discrete-choice approach found that patients prefer safety over other attributes. Some years ago, my colleagues and I queried patients to get a sense of their quantitative preferences for different treatments. Our study also found that patients preferred safety over other attributes. However, when we asked them to choose among different treatment options, they didn't choose the safest one. I think they believe that they prefer safety, but I'm not sure they really do. In any case, the average preference of the entire population of people with AD isn't really all that important when we've got just one patient sitting in front of us. It's that particular patient's preference that should drive the treatment plan.

Not everyone with AD treated with dupilumab gets clear or almost clear in clinical trials. The study by Cork and colleagues looked to see whether those patients who did not get to clear or almost clear were still having clinically meaningful improvement. To test this, the investigators looked at patients who still had mild or worse disease and then at the proportion of those patients at week 16 who achieved a composite endpoint encompassing clinically meaningful changes in AD signs, symptoms, and quality of life: ≥50% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index or ≥4-point reduction in worst scratch/itch numerical rating scale, or ≥6-point reduction in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index/Infants' Dermatitis Quality of Life Index. Significantly more patients, both clinically and statistically significantly more, receiving dupilumab vs placebo achieved the composite endpoint (77.7% vs 24.6%; P < .0001). 

The "success rate" reported in clinical trials underestimates how often patients can be successfully treated with dupilumab. I don't need a complicated composite outcome to know this. I just use the standardized 2-point Patient Global Assessment measure. I ask patients, "How are you doing?" If they say "Great," that's success. If they say, "Not so good," that's failure. I think about 80% of patients with AD treated with dupilumab have success based on this standard.

Hand dermatitis can be quite resistant to treatment. Even making a diagnosis can be challenging, as psoriasis and dermatitis of the hands looks so similar to me (and when I used to send biopsies and ask the pathologist whether it's dermatitis or psoriasis, invariably the dermatopathologist responded "yes"). The study by Kamphuis and colleagues examined the efficacy of abrocitinib in just over 100 patients with hand eczema who were enrolled in the BioDay registry. Such registries are very helpful for assessing real-world results. The drug seemed reasonably successful, with only about 30% discontinuing treatment. About two thirds of the discontinuations were due to inefficacy and about one third to an adverse event.

I think there's real value in prescribing the treatments patients want. Studies like the one by Ameen and colleagues, using a discrete-choice methodology, allows one to determine patients' average preferences. In this study, the discrete-choice approach found that patients prefer safety over other attributes. Some years ago, my colleagues and I queried patients to get a sense of their quantitative preferences for different treatments. Our study also found that patients preferred safety over other attributes. However, when we asked them to choose among different treatment options, they didn't choose the safest one. I think they believe that they prefer safety, but I'm not sure they really do. In any case, the average preference of the entire population of people with AD isn't really all that important when we've got just one patient sitting in front of us. It's that particular patient's preference that should drive the treatment plan.

Nicholas J. Silvestri, MD: Hi there. My name is Dr Nick Silvestri, and I'm at the University of Buffalo. Today, I'd like to answer a few questions that I commonly receive from colleagues about the treatment of myasthenia gravis. As you know, over the past several years, we've had many new treatments approved to treat myasthenia gravis. One of the common questions that I get is, how do these new treatments fit into my treatment paradigm? 

First and foremost, I'd like to say that we've been very successful at treating myasthenia gravis for many years. The mainstay of therapy has typically been acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, corticosteroids, and nonsteroidal immunosuppressants. These medicines by and large have helped control the disease in many, but maybe not all, patients. 

The good news about these treatments is they're very efficacious, and as I said, they are able to treat most patients with myasthenia gravis. But the bad news on these medications is that they can have some serious short- and long-term consequences. So as I think about the treatment paradigm right now in 2024 and treating patients with myasthenia gravis, I typically start with prednisone or corticosteroids and transition patients onto an oral immunosuppressant. 

But because it takes about a year for those oral immunosuppressants to become effective, I'm typically using steroids as a bridge. The goal, really, is to have patients on an oral immunosuppressant alone at the 1-year mark or thereabouts so that we don't have patients on steroids. 

When it comes to the new therapies, one of the things that I'm doing is I'm using them, if a patient does not respond to an oral immunosuppressant or in situations where patients have medical comorbidities that make me not want to use steroids or use steroids at high doses. 

Specifically, FcRn antagonists are often used as next-line therapy after an oral immunosuppressant fails or if I don't feel comfortable using prednisone at the outset and possibly bringing the patient to the oral immunosuppressant. The rationale behind this is that these medications are effective. They've been shown to be effective in clinical trials. They work fairly quickly, usually within 2-4 weeks. They're convenient for patients. And they have a pretty good safety profile. 

The major side effects with the FcRn antagonists tend to be an increased risk for infection, which is true for most medications used to treat myasthenia gravis. One is associated with headache. And they can be associated with joint pains and infusion issues as well. But by and large, they are well tolerated. So again, if a patient is not responding to an oral immunosuppressant or it has toxicity or side effects, or I'm leery of using prednisone, I'll typically use an FcRn antagonist. 

The other main class of medications is complement inhibitors. There are three complement inhibitors approved to use in the United States. Complement inhibitors are also very effective medications. I've used them with success in a number of patients, and I think that the paradigm is shifting. 

I've used complement inhibitors, as with the FcRn antagonists, in patients who aren't responding to the first line of therapy or if they have toxicity. I've also used complement inhibitors in instances where patients have not responded very robustly to FcRn antagonists, which thankfully is the minority of patients, but it's worth noting. 

I view the treatment paradigm for 2024 as oral immunosuppressant first, then FcRn antagonist next, and then complement inhibitor next. But to be truthful, we don't have head-to-head comparisons right now. What works for one patient may not work for another. In myasthenia gravis, it would be great to have biomarkers that allow us to predict who would respond to what form of therapy better. 

In other words, it would be great to be able to send off a test to know whether a patient would respond to an oral immunosuppressant better than perhaps to one of the newer therapies, or whether a patient would respond to an FcRn antagonist better than a complement inhibitor or vice versa. That's really one of the gold standards or holy grails in the treatment of myasthenia gravis. 

Another thing that comes up in relation to the first question has to do with, what patient characteristics do I keep in mind when selecting therapies? There's a couple of things. I think that first and foremost, many of our patients with myasthenia gravis are women of childbearing age. So we want to be mindful that many pregnancies are not planned, and be careful when we're choosing therapies that might have a role or might be deleterious to fetuses. 

This is particularly true with oral immunosuppressants, many of which are contraindicated in pregnancy. But medical comorbidities in general are helpful to understand. Again, using the corticosteroid example, in patients with high blood pressure, diabetes, or osteoporosis, I'm very leery about corticosteroids and may use one of the newer therapies earlier on. 

Another aspect is patient preference. We have oral therapies, we have intravenous therapies, we now have subcutaneous therapies. Route of administration is very important to consider as well, not only for patient comfort — some patients may prefer intravenous routes of administration vs subcutaneous — but also for patient convenience. 

Many of our patients with myasthenia gravis have very busy lives, with full-time jobs and other responsibilities, such as parenting or taking care of parents that are maybe older in age. So I think that tolerability and convenience are very important to getting patients the therapies they need and allowing patients the flexibility and convenience to be able to live their lives as well. 

I hope this was helpful to you. I look forward to speaking with you again at some point in the very near future. Stay well. 

Nicholas J. Silvestri, MD: Hi there. My name is Dr Nick Silvestri, and I'm at the University of Buffalo. Today, I'd like to answer a few questions that I commonly receive from colleagues about the treatment of myasthenia gravis. As you know, over the past several years, we've had many new treatments approved to treat myasthenia gravis. One of the common questions that I get is, how do these new treatments fit into my treatment paradigm? 

First and foremost, I'd like to say that we've been very successful at treating myasthenia gravis for many years. The mainstay of therapy has typically been acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, corticosteroids, and nonsteroidal immunosuppressants. These medicines by and large have helped control the disease in many, but maybe not all, patients. 

The good news about these treatments is they're very efficacious, and as I said, they are able to treat most patients with myasthenia gravis. But the bad news on these medications is that they can have some serious short- and long-term consequences. So as I think about the treatment paradigm right now in 2024 and treating patients with myasthenia gravis, I typically start with prednisone or corticosteroids and transition patients onto an oral immunosuppressant. 

But because it takes about a year for those oral immunosuppressants to become effective, I'm typically using steroids as a bridge. The goal, really, is to have patients on an oral immunosuppressant alone at the 1-year mark or thereabouts so that we don't have patients on steroids. 

When it comes to the new therapies, one of the things that I'm doing is I'm using them, if a patient does not respond to an oral immunosuppressant or in situations where patients have medical comorbidities that make me not want to use steroids or use steroids at high doses. 

Specifically, FcRn antagonists are often used as next-line therapy after an oral immunosuppressant fails or if I don't feel comfortable using prednisone at the outset and possibly bringing the patient to the oral immunosuppressant. The rationale behind this is that these medications are effective. They've been shown to be effective in clinical trials. They work fairly quickly, usually within 2-4 weeks. They're convenient for patients. And they have a pretty good safety profile. 

The major side effects with the FcRn antagonists tend to be an increased risk for infection, which is true for most medications used to treat myasthenia gravis. One is associated with headache. And they can be associated with joint pains and infusion issues as well. But by and large, they are well tolerated. So again, if a patient is not responding to an oral immunosuppressant or it has toxicity or side effects, or I'm leery of using prednisone, I'll typically use an FcRn antagonist. 

The other main class of medications is complement inhibitors. There are three complement inhibitors approved to use in the United States. Complement inhibitors are also very effective medications. I've used them with success in a number of patients, and I think that the paradigm is shifting. 

I've used complement inhibitors, as with the FcRn antagonists, in patients who aren't responding to the first line of therapy or if they have toxicity. I've also used complement inhibitors in instances where patients have not responded very robustly to FcRn antagonists, which thankfully is the minority of patients, but it's worth noting. 

I view the treatment paradigm for 2024 as oral immunosuppressant first, then FcRn antagonist next, and then complement inhibitor next. But to be truthful, we don't have head-to-head comparisons right now. What works for one patient may not work for another. In myasthenia gravis, it would be great to have biomarkers that allow us to predict who would respond to what form of therapy better. 

In other words, it would be great to be able to send off a test to know whether a patient would respond to an oral immunosuppressant better than perhaps to one of the newer therapies, or whether a patient would respond to an FcRn antagonist better than a complement inhibitor or vice versa. That's really one of the gold standards or holy grails in the treatment of myasthenia gravis. 

Another thing that comes up in relation to the first question has to do with, what patient characteristics do I keep in mind when selecting therapies? There's a couple of things. I think that first and foremost, many of our patients with myasthenia gravis are women of childbearing age. So we want to be mindful that many pregnancies are not planned, and be careful when we're choosing therapies that might have a role or might be deleterious to fetuses. 

This is particularly true with oral immunosuppressants, many of which are contraindicated in pregnancy. But medical comorbidities in general are helpful to understand. Again, using the corticosteroid example, in patients with high blood pressure, diabetes, or osteoporosis, I'm very leery about corticosteroids and may use one of the newer therapies earlier on. 

Another aspect is patient preference. We have oral therapies, we have intravenous therapies, we now have subcutaneous therapies. Route of administration is very important to consider as well, not only for patient comfort — some patients may prefer intravenous routes of administration vs subcutaneous — but also for patient convenience. 

Many of our patients with myasthenia gravis have very busy lives, with full-time jobs and other responsibilities, such as parenting or taking care of parents that are maybe older in age. So I think that tolerability and convenience are very important to getting patients the therapies they need and allowing patients the flexibility and convenience to be able to live their lives as well. 

I hope this was helpful to you. I look forward to speaking with you again at some point in the very near future. Stay well. 

Nicholas J. Silvestri, MD: Hi there. My name is Dr Nick Silvestri, and I'm at the University of Buffalo. Today, I'd like to answer a few questions that I commonly receive from colleagues about the treatment of myasthenia gravis. As you know, over the past several years, we've had many new treatments approved to treat myasthenia gravis. One of the common questions that I get is, how do these new treatments fit into my treatment paradigm? 

First and foremost, I'd like to say that we've been very successful at treating myasthenia gravis for many years. The mainstay of therapy has typically been acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, corticosteroids, and nonsteroidal immunosuppressants. These medicines by and large have helped control the disease in many, but maybe not all, patients. 

The good news about these treatments is they're very efficacious, and as I said, they are able to treat most patients with myasthenia gravis. But the bad news on these medications is that they can have some serious short- and long-term consequences. So as I think about the treatment paradigm right now in 2024 and treating patients with myasthenia gravis, I typically start with prednisone or corticosteroids and transition patients onto an oral immunosuppressant. 

But because it takes about a year for those oral immunosuppressants to become effective, I'm typically using steroids as a bridge. The goal, really, is to have patients on an oral immunosuppressant alone at the 1-year mark or thereabouts so that we don't have patients on steroids. 

When it comes to the new therapies, one of the things that I'm doing is I'm using them, if a patient does not respond to an oral immunosuppressant or in situations where patients have medical comorbidities that make me not want to use steroids or use steroids at high doses. 

Specifically, FcRn antagonists are often used as next-line therapy after an oral immunosuppressant fails or if I don't feel comfortable using prednisone at the outset and possibly bringing the patient to the oral immunosuppressant. The rationale behind this is that these medications are effective. They've been shown to be effective in clinical trials. They work fairly quickly, usually within 2-4 weeks. They're convenient for patients. And they have a pretty good safety profile. 

The major side effects with the FcRn antagonists tend to be an increased risk for infection, which is true for most medications used to treat myasthenia gravis. One is associated with headache. And they can be associated with joint pains and infusion issues as well. But by and large, they are well tolerated. So again, if a patient is not responding to an oral immunosuppressant or it has toxicity or side effects, or I'm leery of using prednisone, I'll typically use an FcRn antagonist. 

The other main class of medications is complement inhibitors. There are three complement inhibitors approved to use in the United States. Complement inhibitors are also very effective medications. I've used them with success in a number of patients, and I think that the paradigm is shifting. 

I've used complement inhibitors, as with the FcRn antagonists, in patients who aren't responding to the first line of therapy or if they have toxicity. I've also used complement inhibitors in instances where patients have not responded very robustly to FcRn antagonists, which thankfully is the minority of patients, but it's worth noting. 

I view the treatment paradigm for 2024 as oral immunosuppressant first, then FcRn antagonist next, and then complement inhibitor next. But to be truthful, we don't have head-to-head comparisons right now. What works for one patient may not work for another. In myasthenia gravis, it would be great to have biomarkers that allow us to predict who would respond to what form of therapy better. 

In other words, it would be great to be able to send off a test to know whether a patient would respond to an oral immunosuppressant better than perhaps to one of the newer therapies, or whether a patient would respond to an FcRn antagonist better than a complement inhibitor or vice versa. That's really one of the gold standards or holy grails in the treatment of myasthenia gravis. 

Another thing that comes up in relation to the first question has to do with, what patient characteristics do I keep in mind when selecting therapies? There's a couple of things. I think that first and foremost, many of our patients with myasthenia gravis are women of childbearing age. So we want to be mindful that many pregnancies are not planned, and be careful when we're choosing therapies that might have a role or might be deleterious to fetuses. 

This is particularly true with oral immunosuppressants, many of which are contraindicated in pregnancy. But medical comorbidities in general are helpful to understand. Again, using the corticosteroid example, in patients with high blood pressure, diabetes, or osteoporosis, I'm very leery about corticosteroids and may use one of the newer therapies earlier on. 

Another aspect is patient preference. We have oral therapies, we have intravenous therapies, we now have subcutaneous therapies. Route of administration is very important to consider as well, not only for patient comfort — some patients may prefer intravenous routes of administration vs subcutaneous — but also for patient convenience. 

Many of our patients with myasthenia gravis have very busy lives, with full-time jobs and other responsibilities, such as parenting or taking care of parents that are maybe older in age. So I think that tolerability and convenience are very important to getting patients the therapies they need and allowing patients the flexibility and convenience to be able to live their lives as well. 

I hope this was helpful to you. I look forward to speaking with you again at some point in the very near future. Stay well.