Doug Brunk

SAN DIEGO – Patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) who start a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) appear to have rates of survival and respiratory-related hospitalization similar to those initiating a non-TNFi biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) or Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi), results from a large pharmacoepidemiologic study show.

“These results challenge some of the findings in prior literature that perhaps TNFi should be avoided in RA-ILD,” lead study investigator Bryant R. England, MD, PhD,  said in an interview. The findings were presented during a plenary session at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting.

Dr. England, associate professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said that while RA-ILD carries a poor prognosis, a paucity of evidence exists on the effectiveness and safety of disease-modifying therapies in this population.

It’s a pleasant surprise “to see that the investigators were unable to demonstrate a significant difference in the risk of respiratory hospitalization or death between people with RA-ILD initiating non-TNFi/JAKi versus TNFi. Here is a unique situation where a so called ‘negative’ study contributes important information. This study provides needed safety data, as they were unable to show that TNFi results in worsening of severe RA-ILD outcomes,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said when asked for comment on the study.

University of Toronto

“While this study does not address the use of these medications for the treatment of RA-ILD, these data suggest that TNFi may remain a treatment option for articular disease in people with RA-ILD,” said Dr. Johnson, who was not involved with the study.

For the study, Dr. England and colleagues drew from Veterans Health Administration data between 2006 and 2018 to identify patients with RA-ILD initiating TNFi or non-TNFi biologic/JAKi for the first time. Those who received ILD-focused therapies such as mycophenolate and antifibrotics were excluded from the analysis.

The researchers used validated administrative algorithms requiring multiple RA and ILD diagnostic codes to identify RA-ILD and used 1:1 propensity score matching to compare TNFi and non-TNFi biologic/JAKi factors such as health care use, comorbidities, and several RA-ILD factors, such as pretreatment forced vital capacity, obtained from electronic health records and administrative data. The primary outcome was a composite of time to respiratory-related hospitalization or death using Cox regression models.

Dr. England reported findings from 237 TNFi initiators and 237 non-TNFi/JAKi initiators. Their mean age was 68 years and 92% were male. After matching, the mean standardized differences of variables in the propensity score model improved, but a few variables remained slightly imbalanced, such as two markers of inflammation, inhaled corticosteroid use, and body mass index. The most frequently prescribed TNFi drugs were adalimumab (51%) and etanercept (37%), and the most frequently prescribed non-TNFi/JAKi drugs were rituximab (53%) and abatacept (28%).

The researchers observed no significant difference in the primary outcome between non-TNFi/JAKi and TNFi initiators (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.60). They also observed no significant differences in respiratory hospitalization, all-cause mortality, or respiratory-related death at 1 and 3 years. In sensitivity analyses with modified cohort eligibility requirements, no significant differences in outcomes were observed between non-TNFi/JAKi and TNFi initiators.

During his presentation at the meeting, Dr. England posed the question: Are TNFi drugs safe to be used in RA-ILD?

“The answer is: It’s complex,” he said. “Our findings don’t suggest that we should be systematically avoiding TNFis with every single person with RA-ILD. But that’s different than whether there are specific subpopulations of RA-ILD for which the choice of these therapies may differ. Unfortunately, we could not address that in this study. We also could not address whether TNFis have efficacy at stopping, slowing, or reversing progression of the ILD itself. This calls for us as a field to gather together and pursue clinical trials to try to generate robust evidence that can guide these important clinical decisions that we’re making with our patients.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its observational design. “So, despite best efforts to minimize bias with pharmacoepidemiologic designs and approaches, there could still be confounding and selection,” he said. “Additionally, RA-ILD is a heterogeneous disease characterized by different patterns and trajectories. While we did account for several RA- and ILD-related factors, we could not account for all heterogeneity in RA-ILD.”

When asked for comment on the study, session moderator Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, said that the study findings surprised her.

“Sometimes RA patients on TNFis were thought to have more new or worsening ILD vs. [those on] non-TNFi bDMARDs, but most [data were] from older studies where TNFis were used as initial bDMARD in sicker patients,” she told this news organization. “So, data were confounded previously. Even in this study, there may have been channeling bias as it was not a randomized controlled trial. We need a definitive randomized controlled trial to answer this question of what the most optimal therapy for RA-ILD is.”

Dr. England reports receiving consulting fees and research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, and several coauthors reported financial relationships from various pharmaceutical companies and medical publishers. Dr. Johnson reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pope reports being a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies. She has received grant/research support from AbbVie/Abbott and Eli Lilly and is an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) who start a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) appear to have rates of survival and respiratory-related hospitalization similar to those initiating a non-TNFi biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) or Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi), results from a large pharmacoepidemiologic study show.

“These results challenge some of the findings in prior literature that perhaps TNFi should be avoided in RA-ILD,” lead study investigator Bryant R. England, MD, PhD,  said in an interview. The findings were presented during a plenary session at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting.

Dr. England, associate professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said that while RA-ILD carries a poor prognosis, a paucity of evidence exists on the effectiveness and safety of disease-modifying therapies in this population.

It’s a pleasant surprise “to see that the investigators were unable to demonstrate a significant difference in the risk of respiratory hospitalization or death between people with RA-ILD initiating non-TNFi/JAKi versus TNFi. Here is a unique situation where a so called ‘negative’ study contributes important information. This study provides needed safety data, as they were unable to show that TNFi results in worsening of severe RA-ILD outcomes,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said when asked for comment on the study.

University of Toronto

“While this study does not address the use of these medications for the treatment of RA-ILD, these data suggest that TNFi may remain a treatment option for articular disease in people with RA-ILD,” said Dr. Johnson, who was not involved with the study.

For the study, Dr. England and colleagues drew from Veterans Health Administration data between 2006 and 2018 to identify patients with RA-ILD initiating TNFi or non-TNFi biologic/JAKi for the first time. Those who received ILD-focused therapies such as mycophenolate and antifibrotics were excluded from the analysis.

The researchers used validated administrative algorithms requiring multiple RA and ILD diagnostic codes to identify RA-ILD and used 1:1 propensity score matching to compare TNFi and non-TNFi biologic/JAKi factors such as health care use, comorbidities, and several RA-ILD factors, such as pretreatment forced vital capacity, obtained from electronic health records and administrative data. The primary outcome was a composite of time to respiratory-related hospitalization or death using Cox regression models.

Dr. England reported findings from 237 TNFi initiators and 237 non-TNFi/JAKi initiators. Their mean age was 68 years and 92% were male. After matching, the mean standardized differences of variables in the propensity score model improved, but a few variables remained slightly imbalanced, such as two markers of inflammation, inhaled corticosteroid use, and body mass index. The most frequently prescribed TNFi drugs were adalimumab (51%) and etanercept (37%), and the most frequently prescribed non-TNFi/JAKi drugs were rituximab (53%) and abatacept (28%).

The researchers observed no significant difference in the primary outcome between non-TNFi/JAKi and TNFi initiators (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.60). They also observed no significant differences in respiratory hospitalization, all-cause mortality, or respiratory-related death at 1 and 3 years. In sensitivity analyses with modified cohort eligibility requirements, no significant differences in outcomes were observed between non-TNFi/JAKi and TNFi initiators.

During his presentation at the meeting, Dr. England posed the question: Are TNFi drugs safe to be used in RA-ILD?

“The answer is: It’s complex,” he said. “Our findings don’t suggest that we should be systematically avoiding TNFis with every single person with RA-ILD. But that’s different than whether there are specific subpopulations of RA-ILD for which the choice of these therapies may differ. Unfortunately, we could not address that in this study. We also could not address whether TNFis have efficacy at stopping, slowing, or reversing progression of the ILD itself. This calls for us as a field to gather together and pursue clinical trials to try to generate robust evidence that can guide these important clinical decisions that we’re making with our patients.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its observational design. “So, despite best efforts to minimize bias with pharmacoepidemiologic designs and approaches, there could still be confounding and selection,” he said. “Additionally, RA-ILD is a heterogeneous disease characterized by different patterns and trajectories. While we did account for several RA- and ILD-related factors, we could not account for all heterogeneity in RA-ILD.”

When asked for comment on the study, session moderator Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, said that the study findings surprised her.

“Sometimes RA patients on TNFis were thought to have more new or worsening ILD vs. [those on] non-TNFi bDMARDs, but most [data were] from older studies where TNFis were used as initial bDMARD in sicker patients,” she told this news organization. “So, data were confounded previously. Even in this study, there may have been channeling bias as it was not a randomized controlled trial. We need a definitive randomized controlled trial to answer this question of what the most optimal therapy for RA-ILD is.”

Dr. England reports receiving consulting fees and research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, and several coauthors reported financial relationships from various pharmaceutical companies and medical publishers. Dr. Johnson reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pope reports being a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies. She has received grant/research support from AbbVie/Abbott and Eli Lilly and is an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) who start a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) appear to have rates of survival and respiratory-related hospitalization similar to those initiating a non-TNFi biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) or Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi), results from a large pharmacoepidemiologic study show.

“These results challenge some of the findings in prior literature that perhaps TNFi should be avoided in RA-ILD,” lead study investigator Bryant R. England, MD, PhD,  said in an interview. The findings were presented during a plenary session at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting.

Dr. England, associate professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said that while RA-ILD carries a poor prognosis, a paucity of evidence exists on the effectiveness and safety of disease-modifying therapies in this population.

It’s a pleasant surprise “to see that the investigators were unable to demonstrate a significant difference in the risk of respiratory hospitalization or death between people with RA-ILD initiating non-TNFi/JAKi versus TNFi. Here is a unique situation where a so called ‘negative’ study contributes important information. This study provides needed safety data, as they were unable to show that TNFi results in worsening of severe RA-ILD outcomes,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said when asked for comment on the study.

University of Toronto

“While this study does not address the use of these medications for the treatment of RA-ILD, these data suggest that TNFi may remain a treatment option for articular disease in people with RA-ILD,” said Dr. Johnson, who was not involved with the study.

For the study, Dr. England and colleagues drew from Veterans Health Administration data between 2006 and 2018 to identify patients with RA-ILD initiating TNFi or non-TNFi biologic/JAKi for the first time. Those who received ILD-focused therapies such as mycophenolate and antifibrotics were excluded from the analysis.

The researchers used validated administrative algorithms requiring multiple RA and ILD diagnostic codes to identify RA-ILD and used 1:1 propensity score matching to compare TNFi and non-TNFi biologic/JAKi factors such as health care use, comorbidities, and several RA-ILD factors, such as pretreatment forced vital capacity, obtained from electronic health records and administrative data. The primary outcome was a composite of time to respiratory-related hospitalization or death using Cox regression models.

Dr. England reported findings from 237 TNFi initiators and 237 non-TNFi/JAKi initiators. Their mean age was 68 years and 92% were male. After matching, the mean standardized differences of variables in the propensity score model improved, but a few variables remained slightly imbalanced, such as two markers of inflammation, inhaled corticosteroid use, and body mass index. The most frequently prescribed TNFi drugs were adalimumab (51%) and etanercept (37%), and the most frequently prescribed non-TNFi/JAKi drugs were rituximab (53%) and abatacept (28%).

The researchers observed no significant difference in the primary outcome between non-TNFi/JAKi and TNFi initiators (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.60). They also observed no significant differences in respiratory hospitalization, all-cause mortality, or respiratory-related death at 1 and 3 years. In sensitivity analyses with modified cohort eligibility requirements, no significant differences in outcomes were observed between non-TNFi/JAKi and TNFi initiators.

During his presentation at the meeting, Dr. England posed the question: Are TNFi drugs safe to be used in RA-ILD?

“The answer is: It’s complex,” he said. “Our findings don’t suggest that we should be systematically avoiding TNFis with every single person with RA-ILD. But that’s different than whether there are specific subpopulations of RA-ILD for which the choice of these therapies may differ. Unfortunately, we could not address that in this study. We also could not address whether TNFis have efficacy at stopping, slowing, or reversing progression of the ILD itself. This calls for us as a field to gather together and pursue clinical trials to try to generate robust evidence that can guide these important clinical decisions that we’re making with our patients.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its observational design. “So, despite best efforts to minimize bias with pharmacoepidemiologic designs and approaches, there could still be confounding and selection,” he said. “Additionally, RA-ILD is a heterogeneous disease characterized by different patterns and trajectories. While we did account for several RA- and ILD-related factors, we could not account for all heterogeneity in RA-ILD.”

When asked for comment on the study, session moderator Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, said that the study findings surprised her.

“Sometimes RA patients on TNFis were thought to have more new or worsening ILD vs. [those on] non-TNFi bDMARDs, but most [data were] from older studies where TNFis were used as initial bDMARD in sicker patients,” she told this news organization. “So, data were confounded previously. Even in this study, there may have been channeling bias as it was not a randomized controlled trial. We need a definitive randomized controlled trial to answer this question of what the most optimal therapy for RA-ILD is.”

Dr. England reports receiving consulting fees and research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, and several coauthors reported financial relationships from various pharmaceutical companies and medical publishers. Dr. Johnson reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pope reports being a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies. She has received grant/research support from AbbVie/Abbott and Eli Lilly and is an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Pregnancy in patients with vasculitis had a higher risk for preterm delivery and preeclampsia/eclampsia – especially those with small-vessel vasculitis – compared with the general obstetric population, in a large analysis of administrative claims data presented at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting.

“We suspect that there is a relationship between the increased risk of these serious hypertensive disorders and preterm delivery, given the higher risk of medically indicated preterm delivery,” one the of the study authors, Audra Horomanski, MD, said in an interview prior to her presentation in a plenary session at the meeting.

Limited data exist on the risks of pregnancy in patients with systemic vasculitis, according to Dr. Horomanski, a rheumatologist who directs the Stanford Vasculitis Clinic at Stanford (Calif.) University. “The majority of what we do know comes from relatively small cohort studies,” she said. “This is the first U.S., nationwide database study looking at the risk of preterm delivery and other adverse pregnancy outcomes.”

Steve Fisch Photography

Hospital for Special Surgery

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Pregnancy in patients with vasculitis had a higher risk for preterm delivery and preeclampsia/eclampsia – especially those with small-vessel vasculitis – compared with the general obstetric population, in a large analysis of administrative claims data presented at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting.

“We suspect that there is a relationship between the increased risk of these serious hypertensive disorders and preterm delivery, given the higher risk of medically indicated preterm delivery,” one the of the study authors, Audra Horomanski, MD, said in an interview prior to her presentation in a plenary session at the meeting.

Limited data exist on the risks of pregnancy in patients with systemic vasculitis, according to Dr. Horomanski, a rheumatologist who directs the Stanford Vasculitis Clinic at Stanford (Calif.) University. “The majority of what we do know comes from relatively small cohort studies,” she said. “This is the first U.S., nationwide database study looking at the risk of preterm delivery and other adverse pregnancy outcomes.”

Steve Fisch Photography

Hospital for Special Surgery

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Pregnancy in patients with vasculitis had a higher risk for preterm delivery and preeclampsia/eclampsia – especially those with small-vessel vasculitis – compared with the general obstetric population, in a large analysis of administrative claims data presented at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting.

“We suspect that there is a relationship between the increased risk of these serious hypertensive disorders and preterm delivery, given the higher risk of medically indicated preterm delivery,” one the of the study authors, Audra Horomanski, MD, said in an interview prior to her presentation in a plenary session at the meeting.

Limited data exist on the risks of pregnancy in patients with systemic vasculitis, according to Dr. Horomanski, a rheumatologist who directs the Stanford Vasculitis Clinic at Stanford (Calif.) University. “The majority of what we do know comes from relatively small cohort studies,” she said. “This is the first U.S., nationwide database study looking at the risk of preterm delivery and other adverse pregnancy outcomes.”

Steve Fisch Photography

Hospital for Special Surgery

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

More than half of Mohs surgeons report at least one sharps injury in the past year, mostly self-inflicted, survey finds.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data on the incidence of sharps injuries among dermatologic surgeons is limited.
• In a cross-sectional analysis of anonymous survey responses from members of the American College of , researchers aimed to determine the incidence and types of sharps injuries among Mohs surgeons.
• The researchers used descriptive statistics for continuous and nominal variables (percentage and frequencies) to report survey data and Fisher exact or chi-square analysis of categorical variables to obtain P values.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 60 survey respondents, more than half (56.7%) were from single-specialty group practices, 26.6% were from academic practices, and fewer than half (43.3%) had been in practice for 15 or more years.
• In the past year, 56.7% of respondents experienced at least one sharps injury. Of these, 14.7% involved exposure to a blood-borne pathogen, which translated into an annual exposure risk of 7.6% for any given Mohs surgeon.
• The top two types of sharps injuries were self-inflicted suture needlestick (76.5%) and other types of self-inflicted needlestick injuries (26.5%).
• Of respondents who sustained a sharps injury, 44.1% did not report them, while 95% of all survey respondents said they had access to postexposure prophylaxis/protocols at their workplace.
• The researchers determined that the average annual rate of sharps injury was 0.87.

IN PRACTICE:

• “In best practices to prevent sharps injuries, the authors recommend that a standardized sharps handling protocol be developed and disseminated for dermatologic surgeons and their staff,” the researchers wrote.

STUDY DETAILS:

• Faezeh Talebi-Liasi, MD, and Jesse M. Lewin, MD, department of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, conducted the research. The study was published in Dermatologic Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

• The study’s cross-sectional observational design and small sample size was skewed toward single-specialty and academic practices.

DISCLOSURES:

• The authors reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

More than half of Mohs surgeons report at least one sharps injury in the past year, mostly self-inflicted, survey finds.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data on the incidence of sharps injuries among dermatologic surgeons is limited.
• In a cross-sectional analysis of anonymous survey responses from members of the American College of , researchers aimed to determine the incidence and types of sharps injuries among Mohs surgeons.
• The researchers used descriptive statistics for continuous and nominal variables (percentage and frequencies) to report survey data and Fisher exact or chi-square analysis of categorical variables to obtain P values.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 60 survey respondents, more than half (56.7%) were from single-specialty group practices, 26.6% were from academic practices, and fewer than half (43.3%) had been in practice for 15 or more years.
• In the past year, 56.7% of respondents experienced at least one sharps injury. Of these, 14.7% involved exposure to a blood-borne pathogen, which translated into an annual exposure risk of 7.6% for any given Mohs surgeon.
• The top two types of sharps injuries were self-inflicted suture needlestick (76.5%) and other types of self-inflicted needlestick injuries (26.5%).
• Of respondents who sustained a sharps injury, 44.1% did not report them, while 95% of all survey respondents said they had access to postexposure prophylaxis/protocols at their workplace.
• The researchers determined that the average annual rate of sharps injury was 0.87.

IN PRACTICE:

• “In best practices to prevent sharps injuries, the authors recommend that a standardized sharps handling protocol be developed and disseminated for dermatologic surgeons and their staff,” the researchers wrote.

STUDY DETAILS:

• Faezeh Talebi-Liasi, MD, and Jesse M. Lewin, MD, department of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, conducted the research. The study was published in Dermatologic Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

• The study’s cross-sectional observational design and small sample size was skewed toward single-specialty and academic practices.

DISCLOSURES:

• The authors reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

More than half of Mohs surgeons report at least one sharps injury in the past year, mostly self-inflicted, survey finds.

METHODOLOGY:

• Data on the incidence of sharps injuries among dermatologic surgeons is limited.
• In a cross-sectional analysis of anonymous survey responses from members of the American College of , researchers aimed to determine the incidence and types of sharps injuries among Mohs surgeons.
• The researchers used descriptive statistics for continuous and nominal variables (percentage and frequencies) to report survey data and Fisher exact or chi-square analysis of categorical variables to obtain P values.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 60 survey respondents, more than half (56.7%) were from single-specialty group practices, 26.6% were from academic practices, and fewer than half (43.3%) had been in practice for 15 or more years.
• In the past year, 56.7% of respondents experienced at least one sharps injury. Of these, 14.7% involved exposure to a blood-borne pathogen, which translated into an annual exposure risk of 7.6% for any given Mohs surgeon.
• The top two types of sharps injuries were self-inflicted suture needlestick (76.5%) and other types of self-inflicted needlestick injuries (26.5%).
• Of respondents who sustained a sharps injury, 44.1% did not report them, while 95% of all survey respondents said they had access to postexposure prophylaxis/protocols at their workplace.
• The researchers determined that the average annual rate of sharps injury was 0.87.

IN PRACTICE:

• “In best practices to prevent sharps injuries, the authors recommend that a standardized sharps handling protocol be developed and disseminated for dermatologic surgeons and their staff,” the researchers wrote.

STUDY DETAILS:

• Faezeh Talebi-Liasi, MD, and Jesse M. Lewin, MD, department of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, conducted the research. The study was published in Dermatologic Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

• The study’s cross-sectional observational design and small sample size was skewed toward single-specialty and academic practices.

DISCLOSURES:

• The authors reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Incipient ulceration in primary cutaneous melanoma may represent a more biologically aggressive disease population than truly nonulcerated tumors.

METHODOLOGY:

• The final cohort included 40 cases of incipient ulceration that were matched 1:2 with 80 nonulcerated controls and 80 ulcerated controls.
• The prognostic significance of incipient ulceration in cutaneous melanoma is unclear.
• Current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) guidelines classify incipient ulceration as nonulcerated.
• In a retrospective case-control study, researchers drew from the Melanoma Institute Australia database to identify resected primary cutaneous melanomas diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 that had slides available at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney and a Breslow thickness greater than 0 mm.
• Clinical outcomes compared between cases and controls were recurrence-free survival (RFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS).

TAKEAWAY:

• The median Breslow depth was 2.8 mm for incipient cases, compared with 1.0 mm for nonulcerated melanomas and 5.3 mm for ulcerated melanomas, while the median tumor mitotic rate was 5.0 per mm² for incipient cases, compared with 1 per mm² in nonulcerated controls and 9 per mm² in ulcerated controls.
• On univariable analyses, compared with patients with incipiently ulcerated cases, patients with nonulcerated tumors had significantly better OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49) and RFS (HR, 0.37), while patients with ulcerated tumors showed worse RFS (HR, 1.67).
• On multivariable analyses, no differences in survival outcomes were observed, perhaps due to the moderate number of incipient ulceration cases included in the study, the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future editions of the AJCC staging system should consider acknowledging this interpretive challenge and provide guidance on how primary melanomas with incipient ulceration should be classified,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Richard A. Scolyer, MD, a pathologist at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia, is the senior author on the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations of the study include its retrospective design and the relatively small number of cases that met criteria for inclusion.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Scolyer disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and personal fees from MetaOptima, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Evaxion, Provectus, QBiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline, all outside the submitted work. Four coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Incipient ulceration in primary cutaneous melanoma may represent a more biologically aggressive disease population than truly nonulcerated tumors.

METHODOLOGY:

• The final cohort included 40 cases of incipient ulceration that were matched 1:2 with 80 nonulcerated controls and 80 ulcerated controls.
• The prognostic significance of incipient ulceration in cutaneous melanoma is unclear.
• Current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) guidelines classify incipient ulceration as nonulcerated.
• In a retrospective case-control study, researchers drew from the Melanoma Institute Australia database to identify resected primary cutaneous melanomas diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 that had slides available at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney and a Breslow thickness greater than 0 mm.
• Clinical outcomes compared between cases and controls were recurrence-free survival (RFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS).

TAKEAWAY:

• The median Breslow depth was 2.8 mm for incipient cases, compared with 1.0 mm for nonulcerated melanomas and 5.3 mm for ulcerated melanomas, while the median tumor mitotic rate was 5.0 per mm² for incipient cases, compared with 1 per mm² in nonulcerated controls and 9 per mm² in ulcerated controls.
• On univariable analyses, compared with patients with incipiently ulcerated cases, patients with nonulcerated tumors had significantly better OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49) and RFS (HR, 0.37), while patients with ulcerated tumors showed worse RFS (HR, 1.67).
• On multivariable analyses, no differences in survival outcomes were observed, perhaps due to the moderate number of incipient ulceration cases included in the study, the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future editions of the AJCC staging system should consider acknowledging this interpretive challenge and provide guidance on how primary melanomas with incipient ulceration should be classified,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Richard A. Scolyer, MD, a pathologist at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia, is the senior author on the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations of the study include its retrospective design and the relatively small number of cases that met criteria for inclusion.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Scolyer disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and personal fees from MetaOptima, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Evaxion, Provectus, QBiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline, all outside the submitted work. Four coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Incipient ulceration in primary cutaneous melanoma may represent a more biologically aggressive disease population than truly nonulcerated tumors.

METHODOLOGY:

• The final cohort included 40 cases of incipient ulceration that were matched 1:2 with 80 nonulcerated controls and 80 ulcerated controls.
• The prognostic significance of incipient ulceration in cutaneous melanoma is unclear.
• Current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) guidelines classify incipient ulceration as nonulcerated.
• In a retrospective case-control study, researchers drew from the Melanoma Institute Australia database to identify resected primary cutaneous melanomas diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 that had slides available at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney and a Breslow thickness greater than 0 mm.
• Clinical outcomes compared between cases and controls were recurrence-free survival (RFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS).

TAKEAWAY:

• The median Breslow depth was 2.8 mm for incipient cases, compared with 1.0 mm for nonulcerated melanomas and 5.3 mm for ulcerated melanomas, while the median tumor mitotic rate was 5.0 per mm² for incipient cases, compared with 1 per mm² in nonulcerated controls and 9 per mm² in ulcerated controls.
• On univariable analyses, compared with patients with incipiently ulcerated cases, patients with nonulcerated tumors had significantly better OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49) and RFS (HR, 0.37), while patients with ulcerated tumors showed worse RFS (HR, 1.67).
• On multivariable analyses, no differences in survival outcomes were observed, perhaps due to the moderate number of incipient ulceration cases included in the study, the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future editions of the AJCC staging system should consider acknowledging this interpretive challenge and provide guidance on how primary melanomas with incipient ulceration should be classified,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Richard A. Scolyer, MD, a pathologist at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia, is the senior author on the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations of the study include its retrospective design and the relatively small number of cases that met criteria for inclusion.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Scolyer disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and personal fees from MetaOptima, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Evaxion, Provectus, QBiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline, all outside the submitted work. Four coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Pregnant women with anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies at titer levels of less than 1,000 ELISA units per mL are at minimal to no risk for fetal atrioventricular (AV) block and may be able to forgo traditional echocardiographic heart rhythm monitoring, results from an ongoing, prospective, multicenter trial demonstrated.

However, pregnant patients with higher titer antibodies seem to be at greatest risk for fetal AV block and may benefit from ambulatory fetal heart rhythm monitoring (FHRM), which can detect emergent AV block, according to the study findings. The findings were published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology and will be presented Nov. 13 at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 Annual Meeting by Jill P. Buyon, MD, a rheumatologist who directs the division of rheumatology and the Lupus Center at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“While anti-Ro antibodies have been known to be associated with AV block for decades, it has become increasingly clear that antibody titers matter,” Dr. Buyon said in an interview.

For the investigation, which is the largest of its kind, researchers at 22 sites drew from the large multiracial national study of pregnant women, Surveillance To Prevent AV Block Likely to Occur Quickly (STOP BLOQ), to address the impact of anti-Ro titers and use of frequent ambulatory FHRM on outcomes in women with no previously affected children and those at risk for recurrence. Monitoring occurred during the second trimester of pregnancy (from 17 weeks through 26 weeks) and consisted of daily fetal home testing by mothers using handheld, commercially available Doppler devices.

These were followed up by weekly or biweekly echocardiograms, and ultrasound tests to evaluate fetal heart rhythm and function, as well as to show any structural problems. Three times per day, the pregnant women texted the Doppler sound recordings in real time to a pediatric cardiologist, who immediately ordered an additional echocardiogram in cases of irregular or slowing fetal heart rates. If second-degree heart block was detected, drug therapy was initiated.
 

No AV block seen with low anti-Ro titers

Dr. Buyon, who led the study with Bettina Cuneo, MD, clinical scholar and professor of surgery and pediatrics at the University of Arizona in Tucson, presented findings from 413 pregnant subjects with a mean age of 33 years who finished monitoring surveillance: 152 women had low titers of both anti-Ro60 and –Ro52 (defined as < 1,000 ELISA units per mL), and 261 women with titers above the threshold for either antibody (defined as ≥ 1,000 ELISA units per mL). Of the 152 women with low titers of both anti-Ro60 and –Ro52, none of the pregnancies past 26 weeks resulted in AV block. Of the 261 women with titers above the threshold for either antibody, 10 of the pregnancies resulted in AV block (3.8%). The incidence of AV block increased with higher antibody titer levels, reaching 7.7% for those in the top quartile for anti–60-kD SSA/Ro; this increased to 27.3% in study participants with a previous child who had AV block, although numbers in this category were small.

Analysis of cumulative FHRM recordings between surveillance echocardiograms revealed that no case of second-degree or third-degree AV block was missed. In addition, 70% of AV blocks detected by FHRM were second-degree and all occurred less than 12 hours from normal FHRM and within another 45 minutes to 4.5 hours to echocardiogram. The one case of second/third-degree and two cases of third-degree AV block were diagnosed by urgent echocardiogram more than 17 to 72 hours from a previously normal FHRM episode.
 

Other factors besides high anti-Ro titer likely play a role

“STOP BLOQ nicely demonstrates that low titer is associated with a very low risk AV block, and intense monitoring may not be needed,” Dr. Buyon told this news organization. “However, high titer is not the whole answer since even women with the very highest titers can have healthy babies. This report also shows that titers stay constant through pregnancies in the same mother, whether there is the complication of AV block or not. This suggests other factors contribute to AV block.”

She added that FHRM can be easily performed by the mother, but at this time is still best interpreted by a cardiologist. “FHRM detected all cases of AV block, which can happen in hours,” she said. “FHRM should decrease the need for frequent echocardiograms. Some mothers do have more difficulty in deciding whether the baby’s heart is beating irregularly. We need [to improve our teaching] and for how best to have a cardiologist or trained listener interpret. FHRM can be done by the mother but needs interpretation by a cardiologist until we develop a device which can identify abnormalities.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that a commercial test for anti-SSA/Ro antibody levels is not available to all clinicians. “Try to find a lab that measures high titer anti-Ro antibodies, but if not, then use one of the common commercial tests such as the BioPlex 2000 autoimmune panels and consider decreased surveillance if titer is < 8,” Dr. Buyon advised.

Vaneet K. Sandhu, MD, a rheumatologist with Loma Linda (Calif.) Medical Center, who was asked to comment on the work, said that the study not only justifies the limited use of FHRM in those with high titer antibodies (followed by urgent fetal echocardiography where indicated), but also risk stratification for fetal AV block.

Loma Linda University Health

“For years, we have recommended frequent fetal echocardiography testing in pregnant women with positive anti-SSA/Ro,” Dr. Sandhu said. “This study tells us we need to look deeper. On one hand, recognizing that low titer anti-Ro antibodies do not confer a risk of AV block is cost effective. On the other hand, while the titer of the antibody appears to contribute to fetal AV block, we need to delve deeper into additional factors contributing to fetal AV block risk in order to better navigate our surveillance methods.”

The study was supported by NIH grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Sandhu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

SAN DIEGO – Pregnant women with anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies at titer levels of less than 1,000 ELISA units per mL are at minimal to no risk for fetal atrioventricular (AV) block and may be able to forgo traditional echocardiographic heart rhythm monitoring, results from an ongoing, prospective, multicenter trial demonstrated.

However, pregnant patients with higher titer antibodies seem to be at greatest risk for fetal AV block and may benefit from ambulatory fetal heart rhythm monitoring (FHRM), which can detect emergent AV block, according to the study findings. The findings were published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology and will be presented Nov. 13 at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 Annual Meeting by Jill P. Buyon, MD, a rheumatologist who directs the division of rheumatology and the Lupus Center at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“While anti-Ro antibodies have been known to be associated with AV block for decades, it has become increasingly clear that antibody titers matter,” Dr. Buyon said in an interview.

For the investigation, which is the largest of its kind, researchers at 22 sites drew from the large multiracial national study of pregnant women, Surveillance To Prevent AV Block Likely to Occur Quickly (STOP BLOQ), to address the impact of anti-Ro titers and use of frequent ambulatory FHRM on outcomes in women with no previously affected children and those at risk for recurrence. Monitoring occurred during the second trimester of pregnancy (from 17 weeks through 26 weeks) and consisted of daily fetal home testing by mothers using handheld, commercially available Doppler devices.

These were followed up by weekly or biweekly echocardiograms, and ultrasound tests to evaluate fetal heart rhythm and function, as well as to show any structural problems. Three times per day, the pregnant women texted the Doppler sound recordings in real time to a pediatric cardiologist, who immediately ordered an additional echocardiogram in cases of irregular or slowing fetal heart rates. If second-degree heart block was detected, drug therapy was initiated.
 

No AV block seen with low anti-Ro titers

Dr. Buyon, who led the study with Bettina Cuneo, MD, clinical scholar and professor of surgery and pediatrics at the University of Arizona in Tucson, presented findings from 413 pregnant subjects with a mean age of 33 years who finished monitoring surveillance: 152 women had low titers of both anti-Ro60 and –Ro52 (defined as < 1,000 ELISA units per mL), and 261 women with titers above the threshold for either antibody (defined as ≥ 1,000 ELISA units per mL). Of the 152 women with low titers of both anti-Ro60 and –Ro52, none of the pregnancies past 26 weeks resulted in AV block. Of the 261 women with titers above the threshold for either antibody, 10 of the pregnancies resulted in AV block (3.8%). The incidence of AV block increased with higher antibody titer levels, reaching 7.7% for those in the top quartile for anti–60-kD SSA/Ro; this increased to 27.3% in study participants with a previous child who had AV block, although numbers in this category were small.

Analysis of cumulative FHRM recordings between surveillance echocardiograms revealed that no case of second-degree or third-degree AV block was missed. In addition, 70% of AV blocks detected by FHRM were second-degree and all occurred less than 12 hours from normal FHRM and within another 45 minutes to 4.5 hours to echocardiogram. The one case of second/third-degree and two cases of third-degree AV block were diagnosed by urgent echocardiogram more than 17 to 72 hours from a previously normal FHRM episode.
 

Other factors besides high anti-Ro titer likely play a role

“STOP BLOQ nicely demonstrates that low titer is associated with a very low risk AV block, and intense monitoring may not be needed,” Dr. Buyon told this news organization. “However, high titer is not the whole answer since even women with the very highest titers can have healthy babies. This report also shows that titers stay constant through pregnancies in the same mother, whether there is the complication of AV block or not. This suggests other factors contribute to AV block.”

She added that FHRM can be easily performed by the mother, but at this time is still best interpreted by a cardiologist. “FHRM detected all cases of AV block, which can happen in hours,” she said. “FHRM should decrease the need for frequent echocardiograms. Some mothers do have more difficulty in deciding whether the baby’s heart is beating irregularly. We need [to improve our teaching] and for how best to have a cardiologist or trained listener interpret. FHRM can be done by the mother but needs interpretation by a cardiologist until we develop a device which can identify abnormalities.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that a commercial test for anti-SSA/Ro antibody levels is not available to all clinicians. “Try to find a lab that measures high titer anti-Ro antibodies, but if not, then use one of the common commercial tests such as the BioPlex 2000 autoimmune panels and consider decreased surveillance if titer is < 8,” Dr. Buyon advised.

Vaneet K. Sandhu, MD, a rheumatologist with Loma Linda (Calif.) Medical Center, who was asked to comment on the work, said that the study not only justifies the limited use of FHRM in those with high titer antibodies (followed by urgent fetal echocardiography where indicated), but also risk stratification for fetal AV block.

Loma Linda University Health

“For years, we have recommended frequent fetal echocardiography testing in pregnant women with positive anti-SSA/Ro,” Dr. Sandhu said. “This study tells us we need to look deeper. On one hand, recognizing that low titer anti-Ro antibodies do not confer a risk of AV block is cost effective. On the other hand, while the titer of the antibody appears to contribute to fetal AV block, we need to delve deeper into additional factors contributing to fetal AV block risk in order to better navigate our surveillance methods.”

The study was supported by NIH grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Sandhu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

SAN DIEGO – Pregnant women with anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies at titer levels of less than 1,000 ELISA units per mL are at minimal to no risk for fetal atrioventricular (AV) block and may be able to forgo traditional echocardiographic heart rhythm monitoring, results from an ongoing, prospective, multicenter trial demonstrated.

However, pregnant patients with higher titer antibodies seem to be at greatest risk for fetal AV block and may benefit from ambulatory fetal heart rhythm monitoring (FHRM), which can detect emergent AV block, according to the study findings. The findings were published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology and will be presented Nov. 13 at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 Annual Meeting by Jill P. Buyon, MD, a rheumatologist who directs the division of rheumatology and the Lupus Center at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“While anti-Ro antibodies have been known to be associated with AV block for decades, it has become increasingly clear that antibody titers matter,” Dr. Buyon said in an interview.

For the investigation, which is the largest of its kind, researchers at 22 sites drew from the large multiracial national study of pregnant women, Surveillance To Prevent AV Block Likely to Occur Quickly (STOP BLOQ), to address the impact of anti-Ro titers and use of frequent ambulatory FHRM on outcomes in women with no previously affected children and those at risk for recurrence. Monitoring occurred during the second trimester of pregnancy (from 17 weeks through 26 weeks) and consisted of daily fetal home testing by mothers using handheld, commercially available Doppler devices.

These were followed up by weekly or biweekly echocardiograms, and ultrasound tests to evaluate fetal heart rhythm and function, as well as to show any structural problems. Three times per day, the pregnant women texted the Doppler sound recordings in real time to a pediatric cardiologist, who immediately ordered an additional echocardiogram in cases of irregular or slowing fetal heart rates. If second-degree heart block was detected, drug therapy was initiated.
 

No AV block seen with low anti-Ro titers

Dr. Buyon, who led the study with Bettina Cuneo, MD, clinical scholar and professor of surgery and pediatrics at the University of Arizona in Tucson, presented findings from 413 pregnant subjects with a mean age of 33 years who finished monitoring surveillance: 152 women had low titers of both anti-Ro60 and –Ro52 (defined as < 1,000 ELISA units per mL), and 261 women with titers above the threshold for either antibody (defined as ≥ 1,000 ELISA units per mL). Of the 152 women with low titers of both anti-Ro60 and –Ro52, none of the pregnancies past 26 weeks resulted in AV block. Of the 261 women with titers above the threshold for either antibody, 10 of the pregnancies resulted in AV block (3.8%). The incidence of AV block increased with higher antibody titer levels, reaching 7.7% for those in the top quartile for anti–60-kD SSA/Ro; this increased to 27.3% in study participants with a previous child who had AV block, although numbers in this category were small.

Analysis of cumulative FHRM recordings between surveillance echocardiograms revealed that no case of second-degree or third-degree AV block was missed. In addition, 70% of AV blocks detected by FHRM were second-degree and all occurred less than 12 hours from normal FHRM and within another 45 minutes to 4.5 hours to echocardiogram. The one case of second/third-degree and two cases of third-degree AV block were diagnosed by urgent echocardiogram more than 17 to 72 hours from a previously normal FHRM episode.
 

Other factors besides high anti-Ro titer likely play a role

“STOP BLOQ nicely demonstrates that low titer is associated with a very low risk AV block, and intense monitoring may not be needed,” Dr. Buyon told this news organization. “However, high titer is not the whole answer since even women with the very highest titers can have healthy babies. This report also shows that titers stay constant through pregnancies in the same mother, whether there is the complication of AV block or not. This suggests other factors contribute to AV block.”

She added that FHRM can be easily performed by the mother, but at this time is still best interpreted by a cardiologist. “FHRM detected all cases of AV block, which can happen in hours,” she said. “FHRM should decrease the need for frequent echocardiograms. Some mothers do have more difficulty in deciding whether the baby’s heart is beating irregularly. We need [to improve our teaching] and for how best to have a cardiologist or trained listener interpret. FHRM can be done by the mother but needs interpretation by a cardiologist until we develop a device which can identify abnormalities.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that a commercial test for anti-SSA/Ro antibody levels is not available to all clinicians. “Try to find a lab that measures high titer anti-Ro antibodies, but if not, then use one of the common commercial tests such as the BioPlex 2000 autoimmune panels and consider decreased surveillance if titer is < 8,” Dr. Buyon advised.

Vaneet K. Sandhu, MD, a rheumatologist with Loma Linda (Calif.) Medical Center, who was asked to comment on the work, said that the study not only justifies the limited use of FHRM in those with high titer antibodies (followed by urgent fetal echocardiography where indicated), but also risk stratification for fetal AV block.

Loma Linda University Health

“For years, we have recommended frequent fetal echocardiography testing in pregnant women with positive anti-SSA/Ro,” Dr. Sandhu said. “This study tells us we need to look deeper. On one hand, recognizing that low titer anti-Ro antibodies do not confer a risk of AV block is cost effective. On the other hand, while the titer of the antibody appears to contribute to fetal AV block, we need to delve deeper into additional factors contributing to fetal AV block risk in order to better navigate our surveillance methods.”

The study was supported by NIH grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Sandhu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

When topical treatment does not control atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults, a range of advanced treatments may improve outcomes and can be considered, according to new evidence-based guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD)..

The guidelines cover approved and off-label uses of systemic therapies and phototherapy, including new treatments that have become available since the last guidelines were published almost a decade ago. These include biologics and oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as older oral or injectable immunomodulators and antimetabolites, oral antibiotics, antihistamines, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors. The guidelines rate the existing evidence as “strong” for dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib. They also conditionally recommend phototherapy, as well as cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, and mycophenolate, but recommend against the use of systemic corticosteroids.

The guidelines update the AAD’s 2014 recommendations for managing AD in adults with phototherapy and systemic therapies. “At that time, prednisone – universally agreed to be the least appropriate chronic therapy for AD – was the only Food and Drug Administration–approved agent,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, who cochaired a 14-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the guidelines, told this news organization. “This was the driver.”

The latest guidelines were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
 

Broad evidence review

Dr. Sidbury, chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, guidelines cochair Dawn M. R. Davis, MD, a dermatologist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues conducted a systematic evidence review of phototherapy such as narrowband and broadband UVB and systemic therapies, including biologics such as dupilumab and tralokinumab, JAK inhibitors such as upadacitinib and abrocitinib, and immunosuppressants such as methotrexate and azathioprine.

Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.
 

Recommendations, future studies

Of the 11 evidence-based recommendations of therapies for adults with AD refractory to topical medications, the work group ranks 5 as “strong” based on the evidence and the rest as “conditional.” “Strong” implies the benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens, they apply to most patients in most circumstances, and they fall under good clinical practice. “Conditional” means the benefits and risks are closely balanced for most patients, “but the appropriate action may different depending on the patient or other stakeholder values,” the authors wrote.

In their remarks about phototherapy, the work group noted that most published literature on the topic “reports on the efficacy and safety of narrow band UVB. Wherever possible, use a light source that minimizes the potential for harm under the supervision of a qualified clinician.”

In their remarks about cyclosporine, they noted that evidence suggests an initial dose of 3 mg/kg per day to 5 mg/kg per day is effective, but that the Food and Drug Administration has not approved cyclosporine for use in AD. “The FDA has approved limited-term use (up to 1 year) in psoriasis,” they wrote. “Comorbidities or drug interactions that may exacerbate toxicity make this intervention inappropriate for select patients.” The work group noted that significant research gaps remain in phototherapy, especially trials that compare different phototherapy modalities and those that compare phototherapy with other AD treatment strategies.

“Larger clinical trials would also be helpful for cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, and mycophenolate to improve the certainty of evidence for those medications,” they added. “Furthermore, formal cost-effectiveness analyses comparing older to newer treatments are needed.”

They recommended the inclusion of active comparator arms in randomized, controlled trials as new systemic therapies continue to be developed and tested.

The work group ranked the level of evidence they reviewed for the therapies from very low to moderate. No therapy was judged to have high evidence. They also cited the short duration of most randomized controlled trials of phototherapy.

Using the guidelines in clinical care

According to Dr. Davis, the topic of which agent if any should be considered “first line” generated robust discussion among the work group members.

“When there are not robust head-to-head trials – and there are not – it is often opinion that governs this decision, and opinion should not, when possible, govern a guideline,” Dr. Davis said. “Accordingly, we determined based upon the evidence agents – plural – that deserve to be considered ‘first line’ but not a single agent.”

In her opinion, the top three considerations regarding use of systemic therapy for AD relate to patient selection and shared decision making. One, standard therapy has failed. Two, diagnosis is assured. And three, “steroid phobia should be considered,” and patients should be “fully informed of risks and benefits of both treating and not treating,” she said.

Dr. Sidbury reported that he serves as an advisory board member for Pfizer, a principal investigator for Regeneron, an investigator for Brickell Biotech and Galderma USA, and a consultant for Galderma Global and Micreos. Dr. Davis reported having no relevant disclosures. Other work group members reported having financial disclosures with many pharmaceutical companies. The study was supported by internal funds from the American Academy of Dermatology.

When topical treatment does not control atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults, a range of advanced treatments may improve outcomes and can be considered, according to new evidence-based guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD)..

The guidelines cover approved and off-label uses of systemic therapies and phototherapy, including new treatments that have become available since the last guidelines were published almost a decade ago. These include biologics and oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as older oral or injectable immunomodulators and antimetabolites, oral antibiotics, antihistamines, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors. The guidelines rate the existing evidence as “strong” for dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib. They also conditionally recommend phototherapy, as well as cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, and mycophenolate, but recommend against the use of systemic corticosteroids.

The guidelines update the AAD’s 2014 recommendations for managing AD in adults with phototherapy and systemic therapies. “At that time, prednisone – universally agreed to be the least appropriate chronic therapy for AD – was the only Food and Drug Administration–approved agent,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, who cochaired a 14-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the guidelines, told this news organization. “This was the driver.”

The latest guidelines were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
 

Broad evidence review

Dr. Sidbury, chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, guidelines cochair Dawn M. R. Davis, MD, a dermatologist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues conducted a systematic evidence review of phototherapy such as narrowband and broadband UVB and systemic therapies, including biologics such as dupilumab and tralokinumab, JAK inhibitors such as upadacitinib and abrocitinib, and immunosuppressants such as methotrexate and azathioprine.

Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.
 

Recommendations, future studies

Of the 11 evidence-based recommendations of therapies for adults with AD refractory to topical medications, the work group ranks 5 as “strong” based on the evidence and the rest as “conditional.” “Strong” implies the benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens, they apply to most patients in most circumstances, and they fall under good clinical practice. “Conditional” means the benefits and risks are closely balanced for most patients, “but the appropriate action may different depending on the patient or other stakeholder values,” the authors wrote.

In their remarks about phototherapy, the work group noted that most published literature on the topic “reports on the efficacy and safety of narrow band UVB. Wherever possible, use a light source that minimizes the potential for harm under the supervision of a qualified clinician.”

In their remarks about cyclosporine, they noted that evidence suggests an initial dose of 3 mg/kg per day to 5 mg/kg per day is effective, but that the Food and Drug Administration has not approved cyclosporine for use in AD. “The FDA has approved limited-term use (up to 1 year) in psoriasis,” they wrote. “Comorbidities or drug interactions that may exacerbate toxicity make this intervention inappropriate for select patients.” The work group noted that significant research gaps remain in phototherapy, especially trials that compare different phototherapy modalities and those that compare phototherapy with other AD treatment strategies.

“Larger clinical trials would also be helpful for cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, and mycophenolate to improve the certainty of evidence for those medications,” they added. “Furthermore, formal cost-effectiveness analyses comparing older to newer treatments are needed.”

They recommended the inclusion of active comparator arms in randomized, controlled trials as new systemic therapies continue to be developed and tested.

The work group ranked the level of evidence they reviewed for the therapies from very low to moderate. No therapy was judged to have high evidence. They also cited the short duration of most randomized controlled trials of phototherapy.

Using the guidelines in clinical care

According to Dr. Davis, the topic of which agent if any should be considered “first line” generated robust discussion among the work group members.

“When there are not robust head-to-head trials – and there are not – it is often opinion that governs this decision, and opinion should not, when possible, govern a guideline,” Dr. Davis said. “Accordingly, we determined based upon the evidence agents – plural – that deserve to be considered ‘first line’ but not a single agent.”

In her opinion, the top three considerations regarding use of systemic therapy for AD relate to patient selection and shared decision making. One, standard therapy has failed. Two, diagnosis is assured. And three, “steroid phobia should be considered,” and patients should be “fully informed of risks and benefits of both treating and not treating,” she said.

Dr. Sidbury reported that he serves as an advisory board member for Pfizer, a principal investigator for Regeneron, an investigator for Brickell Biotech and Galderma USA, and a consultant for Galderma Global and Micreos. Dr. Davis reported having no relevant disclosures. Other work group members reported having financial disclosures with many pharmaceutical companies. The study was supported by internal funds from the American Academy of Dermatology.

When topical treatment does not control atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults, a range of advanced treatments may improve outcomes and can be considered, according to new evidence-based guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD)..

The guidelines cover approved and off-label uses of systemic therapies and phototherapy, including new treatments that have become available since the last guidelines were published almost a decade ago. These include biologics and oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as older oral or injectable immunomodulators and antimetabolites, oral antibiotics, antihistamines, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors. The guidelines rate the existing evidence as “strong” for dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib. They also conditionally recommend phototherapy, as well as cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, and mycophenolate, but recommend against the use of systemic corticosteroids.

The guidelines update the AAD’s 2014 recommendations for managing AD in adults with phototherapy and systemic therapies. “At that time, prednisone – universally agreed to be the least appropriate chronic therapy for AD – was the only Food and Drug Administration–approved agent,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, who cochaired a 14-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the guidelines, told this news organization. “This was the driver.”

The latest guidelines were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
 

Broad evidence review

Dr. Sidbury, chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, guidelines cochair Dawn M. R. Davis, MD, a dermatologist at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues conducted a systematic evidence review of phototherapy such as narrowband and broadband UVB and systemic therapies, including biologics such as dupilumab and tralokinumab, JAK inhibitors such as upadacitinib and abrocitinib, and immunosuppressants such as methotrexate and azathioprine.

Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.
 

Recommendations, future studies

Of the 11 evidence-based recommendations of therapies for adults with AD refractory to topical medications, the work group ranks 5 as “strong” based on the evidence and the rest as “conditional.” “Strong” implies the benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens, they apply to most patients in most circumstances, and they fall under good clinical practice. “Conditional” means the benefits and risks are closely balanced for most patients, “but the appropriate action may different depending on the patient or other stakeholder values,” the authors wrote.

In their remarks about phototherapy, the work group noted that most published literature on the topic “reports on the efficacy and safety of narrow band UVB. Wherever possible, use a light source that minimizes the potential for harm under the supervision of a qualified clinician.”

In their remarks about cyclosporine, they noted that evidence suggests an initial dose of 3 mg/kg per day to 5 mg/kg per day is effective, but that the Food and Drug Administration has not approved cyclosporine for use in AD. “The FDA has approved limited-term use (up to 1 year) in psoriasis,” they wrote. “Comorbidities or drug interactions that may exacerbate toxicity make this intervention inappropriate for select patients.” The work group noted that significant research gaps remain in phototherapy, especially trials that compare different phototherapy modalities and those that compare phototherapy with other AD treatment strategies.

“Larger clinical trials would also be helpful for cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, and mycophenolate to improve the certainty of evidence for those medications,” they added. “Furthermore, formal cost-effectiveness analyses comparing older to newer treatments are needed.”

They recommended the inclusion of active comparator arms in randomized, controlled trials as new systemic therapies continue to be developed and tested.

The work group ranked the level of evidence they reviewed for the therapies from very low to moderate. No therapy was judged to have high evidence. They also cited the short duration of most randomized controlled trials of phototherapy.

Using the guidelines in clinical care

According to Dr. Davis, the topic of which agent if any should be considered “first line” generated robust discussion among the work group members.

“When there are not robust head-to-head trials – and there are not – it is often opinion that governs this decision, and opinion should not, when possible, govern a guideline,” Dr. Davis said. “Accordingly, we determined based upon the evidence agents – plural – that deserve to be considered ‘first line’ but not a single agent.”

In her opinion, the top three considerations regarding use of systemic therapy for AD relate to patient selection and shared decision making. One, standard therapy has failed. Two, diagnosis is assured. And three, “steroid phobia should be considered,” and patients should be “fully informed of risks and benefits of both treating and not treating,” she said.

Dr. Sidbury reported that he serves as an advisory board member for Pfizer, a principal investigator for Regeneron, an investigator for Brickell Biotech and Galderma USA, and a consultant for Galderma Global and Micreos. Dr. Davis reported having no relevant disclosures. Other work group members reported having financial disclosures with many pharmaceutical companies. The study was supported by internal funds from the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dermatopathologists tend to render “more severe diagnoses for skin biopsy cases of melanocytic lesions” more often than general pathologists, results from an exploratory study showed.

The findings “could in part play a role in the rising incidence of early-stage melanoma with low risk of progression or patient morbidity, thereby contributing to increasing rates of overdiagnosis,” researchers led by co–senior authors Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Raymond L. Barnhill, MD, MBA, of the Institut Curie, Paris, wrote in their study, published online in JAMA Dermatology.

To investigate the characteristics associated with rendering higher-grade diagnoses, including invasive melanoma, the researchers drew from two national data sets: the Melanoma Pathology (M-Path) study, conducted from July 2013 to May 2016, and the Reducing Errors in Melanocytic Interpretations (REMI) study, conducted from August 2018 to March 2021. In both studies, pathologists who interpreted melanocytic lesions in their clinical practices interpreted study cases in glass slide format. For the current study, researchers used logistic regression to examine the association of pathologist characteristics with diagnosis of a study case as higher grade (including severely dysplastic and melanoma in situ) vs. lower grade (including mild to moderately dysplastic nevi) and diagnosis of invasive melanoma vs. any less severe diagnosis.

A total of 338 pathologists were included in the analysis. Of these, 113 were general pathologists and 225 were dermatopathologists (those who were board certified and/or fellowship trained in dermatopathology).

The researchers found that, compared with general pathologists, dermatopathologists were 2.63 times more likely to render higher-grade diagnoses and 1.95 times more likely to diagnose invasive melanoma (P < .001 for both associations). Diagnoses of stage pT1a melanomas with no mitotic activity completely accounted for the difference between dermatopathologists and general pathologists in diagnosing invasive melanoma.

For the analysis limited to the 225 dermatopathologists, those with a higher practice caseload of melanocytic lesions were more likely to assign higher-grade diagnoses (odds ratio for trend, 1.27; P = .02), while those affiliated with an academic center had lower odds of diagnosing invasive melanoma (OR, 0.61; P = .049).

The researchers acknowledged limitations of their analysis, including the lack of data on patient outcomes, “so we could not make conclusions about the clinical outcome of any particular diagnosis by a study participant,” they wrote. “While our analyses revealed pathologist characteristics associated with assigning more vs. less severe diagnoses of melanocytic lesions, we could not conclude that any particular diagnosis by a study participant was overcalling or undercalling. However, the epidemiologic evidence that melanoma is overdiagnosed suggests that overcalling by some pathologists may be contributing to increasing rates of low-risk melanoma diagnoses.”

In an accompanying editorial, authors Klaus J. Busam, MD, of the department of pathology and laboratory medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, Pedram Gerami, MD, of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, and Richard A. Scolyer, MD, of the Melanoma Institute, Wollstonecraft, Australia, wrote that the study findings “raise the question of whether subspecialization in dermatopathology may be a factor contributing to the epidemiologic phenomenon of overdiagnosis – that is, the discordance in the rise of melanoma incidence and relatively constant annual mortality rates over many decades. The findings also invite a discussion about strategies to minimize harm from overdiagnosis for both patients and the health care system.”

To minimize misdiagnoses, they continued, efforts to facilitate diagnostic accuracy should be encouraged. “Excisional (rather than partial) biopsies and provision of relevant clinical information would facilitate rendering of the correct histopathologic diagnosis,” they wrote. “When the diagnosis is uncertain, this is best acknowledged. If felt necessary, a reexcision of a lesion with an uncertain diagnosis can be recommended without upgrading the diagnosis.”

In addition, “improvements in prognosis are needed beyond American Joint Committee on Cancer staging,” they noted. “This will likely require a multimodal approach with novel methods, including artificial intelligence and biomarkers that help distinguish low-risk melanomas, for which a conservative approach may be appropriate, from those that require surgical intervention.”

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and by the National Institutes of Health. One author disclosed receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study, and another disclosed serving as editor in chief of Primary Care topics at UpToDate; other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Busam reported receiving nonfinancial support from the American Society of Dermatopathology. Dr. Gerami reported receiving consulting fees from Castle Biosciences. Dr. Scolyer reported receiving an investigator grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia during the conduct of the study and personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

Dermatopathologists tend to render “more severe diagnoses for skin biopsy cases of melanocytic lesions” more often than general pathologists, results from an exploratory study showed.

The findings “could in part play a role in the rising incidence of early-stage melanoma with low risk of progression or patient morbidity, thereby contributing to increasing rates of overdiagnosis,” researchers led by co–senior authors Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Raymond L. Barnhill, MD, MBA, of the Institut Curie, Paris, wrote in their study, published online in JAMA Dermatology.

To investigate the characteristics associated with rendering higher-grade diagnoses, including invasive melanoma, the researchers drew from two national data sets: the Melanoma Pathology (M-Path) study, conducted from July 2013 to May 2016, and the Reducing Errors in Melanocytic Interpretations (REMI) study, conducted from August 2018 to March 2021. In both studies, pathologists who interpreted melanocytic lesions in their clinical practices interpreted study cases in glass slide format. For the current study, researchers used logistic regression to examine the association of pathologist characteristics with diagnosis of a study case as higher grade (including severely dysplastic and melanoma in situ) vs. lower grade (including mild to moderately dysplastic nevi) and diagnosis of invasive melanoma vs. any less severe diagnosis.

A total of 338 pathologists were included in the analysis. Of these, 113 were general pathologists and 225 were dermatopathologists (those who were board certified and/or fellowship trained in dermatopathology).

The researchers found that, compared with general pathologists, dermatopathologists were 2.63 times more likely to render higher-grade diagnoses and 1.95 times more likely to diagnose invasive melanoma (P < .001 for both associations). Diagnoses of stage pT1a melanomas with no mitotic activity completely accounted for the difference between dermatopathologists and general pathologists in diagnosing invasive melanoma.

For the analysis limited to the 225 dermatopathologists, those with a higher practice caseload of melanocytic lesions were more likely to assign higher-grade diagnoses (odds ratio for trend, 1.27; P = .02), while those affiliated with an academic center had lower odds of diagnosing invasive melanoma (OR, 0.61; P = .049).

The researchers acknowledged limitations of their analysis, including the lack of data on patient outcomes, “so we could not make conclusions about the clinical outcome of any particular diagnosis by a study participant,” they wrote. “While our analyses revealed pathologist characteristics associated with assigning more vs. less severe diagnoses of melanocytic lesions, we could not conclude that any particular diagnosis by a study participant was overcalling or undercalling. However, the epidemiologic evidence that melanoma is overdiagnosed suggests that overcalling by some pathologists may be contributing to increasing rates of low-risk melanoma diagnoses.”

In an accompanying editorial, authors Klaus J. Busam, MD, of the department of pathology and laboratory medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, Pedram Gerami, MD, of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, and Richard A. Scolyer, MD, of the Melanoma Institute, Wollstonecraft, Australia, wrote that the study findings “raise the question of whether subspecialization in dermatopathology may be a factor contributing to the epidemiologic phenomenon of overdiagnosis – that is, the discordance in the rise of melanoma incidence and relatively constant annual mortality rates over many decades. The findings also invite a discussion about strategies to minimize harm from overdiagnosis for both patients and the health care system.”

To minimize misdiagnoses, they continued, efforts to facilitate diagnostic accuracy should be encouraged. “Excisional (rather than partial) biopsies and provision of relevant clinical information would facilitate rendering of the correct histopathologic diagnosis,” they wrote. “When the diagnosis is uncertain, this is best acknowledged. If felt necessary, a reexcision of a lesion with an uncertain diagnosis can be recommended without upgrading the diagnosis.”

In addition, “improvements in prognosis are needed beyond American Joint Committee on Cancer staging,” they noted. “This will likely require a multimodal approach with novel methods, including artificial intelligence and biomarkers that help distinguish low-risk melanomas, for which a conservative approach may be appropriate, from those that require surgical intervention.”

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and by the National Institutes of Health. One author disclosed receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study, and another disclosed serving as editor in chief of Primary Care topics at UpToDate; other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Busam reported receiving nonfinancial support from the American Society of Dermatopathology. Dr. Gerami reported receiving consulting fees from Castle Biosciences. Dr. Scolyer reported receiving an investigator grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia during the conduct of the study and personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

Dermatopathologists tend to render “more severe diagnoses for skin biopsy cases of melanocytic lesions” more often than general pathologists, results from an exploratory study showed.

The findings “could in part play a role in the rising incidence of early-stage melanoma with low risk of progression or patient morbidity, thereby contributing to increasing rates of overdiagnosis,” researchers led by co–senior authors Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Raymond L. Barnhill, MD, MBA, of the Institut Curie, Paris, wrote in their study, published online in JAMA Dermatology.

To investigate the characteristics associated with rendering higher-grade diagnoses, including invasive melanoma, the researchers drew from two national data sets: the Melanoma Pathology (M-Path) study, conducted from July 2013 to May 2016, and the Reducing Errors in Melanocytic Interpretations (REMI) study, conducted from August 2018 to March 2021. In both studies, pathologists who interpreted melanocytic lesions in their clinical practices interpreted study cases in glass slide format. For the current study, researchers used logistic regression to examine the association of pathologist characteristics with diagnosis of a study case as higher grade (including severely dysplastic and melanoma in situ) vs. lower grade (including mild to moderately dysplastic nevi) and diagnosis of invasive melanoma vs. any less severe diagnosis.

A total of 338 pathologists were included in the analysis. Of these, 113 were general pathologists and 225 were dermatopathologists (those who were board certified and/or fellowship trained in dermatopathology).

The researchers found that, compared with general pathologists, dermatopathologists were 2.63 times more likely to render higher-grade diagnoses and 1.95 times more likely to diagnose invasive melanoma (P < .001 for both associations). Diagnoses of stage pT1a melanomas with no mitotic activity completely accounted for the difference between dermatopathologists and general pathologists in diagnosing invasive melanoma.

For the analysis limited to the 225 dermatopathologists, those with a higher practice caseload of melanocytic lesions were more likely to assign higher-grade diagnoses (odds ratio for trend, 1.27; P = .02), while those affiliated with an academic center had lower odds of diagnosing invasive melanoma (OR, 0.61; P = .049).

The researchers acknowledged limitations of their analysis, including the lack of data on patient outcomes, “so we could not make conclusions about the clinical outcome of any particular diagnosis by a study participant,” they wrote. “While our analyses revealed pathologist characteristics associated with assigning more vs. less severe diagnoses of melanocytic lesions, we could not conclude that any particular diagnosis by a study participant was overcalling or undercalling. However, the epidemiologic evidence that melanoma is overdiagnosed suggests that overcalling by some pathologists may be contributing to increasing rates of low-risk melanoma diagnoses.”

In an accompanying editorial, authors Klaus J. Busam, MD, of the department of pathology and laboratory medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, Pedram Gerami, MD, of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, and Richard A. Scolyer, MD, of the Melanoma Institute, Wollstonecraft, Australia, wrote that the study findings “raise the question of whether subspecialization in dermatopathology may be a factor contributing to the epidemiologic phenomenon of overdiagnosis – that is, the discordance in the rise of melanoma incidence and relatively constant annual mortality rates over many decades. The findings also invite a discussion about strategies to minimize harm from overdiagnosis for both patients and the health care system.”

To minimize misdiagnoses, they continued, efforts to facilitate diagnostic accuracy should be encouraged. “Excisional (rather than partial) biopsies and provision of relevant clinical information would facilitate rendering of the correct histopathologic diagnosis,” they wrote. “When the diagnosis is uncertain, this is best acknowledged. If felt necessary, a reexcision of a lesion with an uncertain diagnosis can be recommended without upgrading the diagnosis.”

In addition, “improvements in prognosis are needed beyond American Joint Committee on Cancer staging,” they noted. “This will likely require a multimodal approach with novel methods, including artificial intelligence and biomarkers that help distinguish low-risk melanomas, for which a conservative approach may be appropriate, from those that require surgical intervention.”

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and by the National Institutes of Health. One author disclosed receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study, and another disclosed serving as editor in chief of Primary Care topics at UpToDate; other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Busam reported receiving nonfinancial support from the American Society of Dermatopathology. Dr. Gerami reported receiving consulting fees from Castle Biosciences. Dr. Scolyer reported receiving an investigator grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia during the conduct of the study and personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

TOPLINE:

Most patients with psoriasis are not participating in highly shared decision-making (SDM) with clinicians about their care.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers drew from the 2014-2017 and 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) to identify 3,715,027 patients with psoriasis, to evaluate the association between SDM (a patient-centered approach to selecting treatment on the basis of a discussion between the clinician and patient) and satisfaction with care.
• SDM was determined by patient responses on a 4-point Likert scale to seven MEPS variables, including the question, “How often did doctors or other health providers listen carefully to you?”
• Patient satisfaction with care was measured with a MEPS variable that asked respondents to rate their health care providers on a scale of 1-10.
• Researchers used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between SDM and demographic and clinical characteristics in patients with psoriasis, and multiple linear regression analysis to assess the association between SDM and patient satisfaction with care.

TAKEAWAY:

• The average SDM score was 3.6 out of 4, and the average satisfaction with care score was 8.6 out of 10.
• However, only about 42% of the cohort reported a high SDM, defined as a score of 3.9 or greater.
• After adjusting for covariates, the researchers found that patients who had high SDM had, on average, 85% higher satisfaction with care (P < .001).
• Compared with men, women had about 27% higher satisfaction with care (P = .023), whereas non-Hispanic patients had lower satisfaction with care compared with Hispanic patients (P = .037).

IN PRACTICE:

“It is important to construct a framework for carrying out SDM with patients with psoriasis to enhance clinician-patient communication and improve patient outcomes,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, chief of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, led the research. The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The ability to measure SDM in patients with psoriasis was limited by the seven items from MEPS. The diagnosis of psoriasis was based on self-report.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr. Armstrong disclosed that she has served as a research investigator and/or scientific adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Arcutis, ASLAN, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, EPI, Incyte, Leo, UCB, Janssen, Lilly, Nimbus, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun, Dermavant, Dermira, Sanofi, Regeneron, Pfizer, and Modmed.

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

TOPLINE:

Most patients with psoriasis are not participating in highly shared decision-making (SDM) with clinicians about their care.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers drew from the 2014-2017 and 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) to identify 3,715,027 patients with psoriasis, to evaluate the association between SDM (a patient-centered approach to selecting treatment on the basis of a discussion between the clinician and patient) and satisfaction with care.
• SDM was determined by patient responses on a 4-point Likert scale to seven MEPS variables, including the question, “How often did doctors or other health providers listen carefully to you?”
• Patient satisfaction with care was measured with a MEPS variable that asked respondents to rate their health care providers on a scale of 1-10.
• Researchers used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between SDM and demographic and clinical characteristics in patients with psoriasis, and multiple linear regression analysis to assess the association between SDM and patient satisfaction with care.

TAKEAWAY:

• The average SDM score was 3.6 out of 4, and the average satisfaction with care score was 8.6 out of 10.
• However, only about 42% of the cohort reported a high SDM, defined as a score of 3.9 or greater.
• After adjusting for covariates, the researchers found that patients who had high SDM had, on average, 85% higher satisfaction with care (P < .001).
• Compared with men, women had about 27% higher satisfaction with care (P = .023), whereas non-Hispanic patients had lower satisfaction with care compared with Hispanic patients (P = .037).

IN PRACTICE:

“It is important to construct a framework for carrying out SDM with patients with psoriasis to enhance clinician-patient communication and improve patient outcomes,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, chief of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, led the research. The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The ability to measure SDM in patients with psoriasis was limited by the seven items from MEPS. The diagnosis of psoriasis was based on self-report.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr. Armstrong disclosed that she has served as a research investigator and/or scientific adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Arcutis, ASLAN, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, EPI, Incyte, Leo, UCB, Janssen, Lilly, Nimbus, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun, Dermavant, Dermira, Sanofi, Regeneron, Pfizer, and Modmed.

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

TOPLINE:

Most patients with psoriasis are not participating in highly shared decision-making (SDM) with clinicians about their care.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers drew from the 2014-2017 and 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) to identify 3,715,027 patients with psoriasis, to evaluate the association between SDM (a patient-centered approach to selecting treatment on the basis of a discussion between the clinician and patient) and satisfaction with care.
• SDM was determined by patient responses on a 4-point Likert scale to seven MEPS variables, including the question, “How often did doctors or other health providers listen carefully to you?”
• Patient satisfaction with care was measured with a MEPS variable that asked respondents to rate their health care providers on a scale of 1-10.
• Researchers used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between SDM and demographic and clinical characteristics in patients with psoriasis, and multiple linear regression analysis to assess the association between SDM and patient satisfaction with care.

TAKEAWAY:

• The average SDM score was 3.6 out of 4, and the average satisfaction with care score was 8.6 out of 10.
• However, only about 42% of the cohort reported a high SDM, defined as a score of 3.9 or greater.
• After adjusting for covariates, the researchers found that patients who had high SDM had, on average, 85% higher satisfaction with care (P < .001).
• Compared with men, women had about 27% higher satisfaction with care (P = .023), whereas non-Hispanic patients had lower satisfaction with care compared with Hispanic patients (P = .037).

IN PRACTICE:

“It is important to construct a framework for carrying out SDM with patients with psoriasis to enhance clinician-patient communication and improve patient outcomes,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, chief of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, led the research. The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The ability to measure SDM in patients with psoriasis was limited by the seven items from MEPS. The diagnosis of psoriasis was based on self-report.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr. Armstrong disclosed that she has served as a research investigator and/or scientific adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Arcutis, ASLAN, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, EPI, Incyte, Leo, UCB, Janssen, Lilly, Nimbus, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun, Dermavant, Dermira, Sanofi, Regeneron, Pfizer, and Modmed.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved secukinumab for adults with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

The development, which was announced Oct. 31, makes secukinumab the first and only interleukin (IL)–17A inhibitor approved by the FDA for HS, which affects an estimated 1% of the worldwide population. It joins the tumor necrosis factor blocker adalimumab as the only FDA-approved treatment options for HS.

Secukinumab (Cosentyx) was previously approved by the FDA for treatment of  moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in adults, and several other indications including psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

Approval for HS was based on the pivotal phase 3 SUNSHINE and SUNRISE trials, which had a combined enrollment of more than 1,000 patients with HS in 40 countries. The studies evaluated efficacy, safety, and tolerability of two dose regimens of the drug in adults with moderate to severe HS at 16 weeks and up to 52 weeks.

According to a press release from Novartis announcing the approval, results at week 16 showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) when treated with secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks, compared with placebo: 44.5% vs. 29.4%, respectively, in the SUNSHINE trial and 38.3.% vs. 26.1% in the SUNRISE trial (P < .05 for both associations).

Similarly, results at week 16 showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved an HiSCR when treated with secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks, compared with placebo: 41.3% vs. 29.4% in the SUNSHINE trial and 42.5% vs. 26.1% in the SUNRISE trial (P < .05 for both associations).

In addition, in an exploratory analysis out to 52 weeks, HiSCR values observed at week 16 following either dose regimen of secukinumab were improved over time up to week 52. In SUNSHINE, the values improved by 56.4% in patients treated with secukinumab every 3 weeks and by 56.3% in those treated with secukinumab every 4 weeks. In SUNRISE, the values improved by 65% in patients who were treated with secukinumab every 2 weeks and by 62.2% in those who were treated with the drug every 4 weeks.

In an interview, Haley Naik, MD, a dermatologist who directs the hidradenitis suppurativa program at the University of California, San Francisco, characterized the approval as a win for HS patients. “Patients now not only have a second option for approved therapy for HS, but also an option that raises the bar for what we can expect from therapeutic response,” she told this news organization. “I am excited to see a novel therapy that improves HS and quality of life for patients make it through the regulatory pipeline.”

Dr. Naik disclosed that she has received grant support from AbbVie; consulting fees from 23andme, AbbVie, Aristea Therapeutics, Nimbus Therapeutics, Medscape, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, DAVA Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Union Chimique Belge, and Novartis; investigator fees from Pfizer; and holds shares in Radera. She is also an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology and a board member of the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved secukinumab for adults with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

The development, which was announced Oct. 31, makes secukinumab the first and only interleukin (IL)–17A inhibitor approved by the FDA for HS, which affects an estimated 1% of the worldwide population. It joins the tumor necrosis factor blocker adalimumab as the only FDA-approved treatment options for HS.

Secukinumab (Cosentyx) was previously approved by the FDA for treatment of  moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in adults, and several other indications including psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

Approval for HS was based on the pivotal phase 3 SUNSHINE and SUNRISE trials, which had a combined enrollment of more than 1,000 patients with HS in 40 countries. The studies evaluated efficacy, safety, and tolerability of two dose regimens of the drug in adults with moderate to severe HS at 16 weeks and up to 52 weeks.

According to a press release from Novartis announcing the approval, results at week 16 showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) when treated with secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks, compared with placebo: 44.5% vs. 29.4%, respectively, in the SUNSHINE trial and 38.3.% vs. 26.1% in the SUNRISE trial (P < .05 for both associations).

Similarly, results at week 16 showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved an HiSCR when treated with secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks, compared with placebo: 41.3% vs. 29.4% in the SUNSHINE trial and 42.5% vs. 26.1% in the SUNRISE trial (P < .05 for both associations).

In addition, in an exploratory analysis out to 52 weeks, HiSCR values observed at week 16 following either dose regimen of secukinumab were improved over time up to week 52. In SUNSHINE, the values improved by 56.4% in patients treated with secukinumab every 3 weeks and by 56.3% in those treated with secukinumab every 4 weeks. In SUNRISE, the values improved by 65% in patients who were treated with secukinumab every 2 weeks and by 62.2% in those who were treated with the drug every 4 weeks.

In an interview, Haley Naik, MD, a dermatologist who directs the hidradenitis suppurativa program at the University of California, San Francisco, characterized the approval as a win for HS patients. “Patients now not only have a second option for approved therapy for HS, but also an option that raises the bar for what we can expect from therapeutic response,” she told this news organization. “I am excited to see a novel therapy that improves HS and quality of life for patients make it through the regulatory pipeline.”

Dr. Naik disclosed that she has received grant support from AbbVie; consulting fees from 23andme, AbbVie, Aristea Therapeutics, Nimbus Therapeutics, Medscape, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, DAVA Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Union Chimique Belge, and Novartis; investigator fees from Pfizer; and holds shares in Radera. She is also an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology and a board member of the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved secukinumab for adults with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

The development, which was announced Oct. 31, makes secukinumab the first and only interleukin (IL)–17A inhibitor approved by the FDA for HS, which affects an estimated 1% of the worldwide population. It joins the tumor necrosis factor blocker adalimumab as the only FDA-approved treatment options for HS.

Secukinumab (Cosentyx) was previously approved by the FDA for treatment of  moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in adults, and several other indications including psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

Approval for HS was based on the pivotal phase 3 SUNSHINE and SUNRISE trials, which had a combined enrollment of more than 1,000 patients with HS in 40 countries. The studies evaluated efficacy, safety, and tolerability of two dose regimens of the drug in adults with moderate to severe HS at 16 weeks and up to 52 weeks.

According to a press release from Novartis announcing the approval, results at week 16 showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) when treated with secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks, compared with placebo: 44.5% vs. 29.4%, respectively, in the SUNSHINE trial and 38.3.% vs. 26.1% in the SUNRISE trial (P < .05 for both associations).

Similarly, results at week 16 showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved an HiSCR when treated with secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks, compared with placebo: 41.3% vs. 29.4% in the SUNSHINE trial and 42.5% vs. 26.1% in the SUNRISE trial (P < .05 for both associations).

In addition, in an exploratory analysis out to 52 weeks, HiSCR values observed at week 16 following either dose regimen of secukinumab were improved over time up to week 52. In SUNSHINE, the values improved by 56.4% in patients treated with secukinumab every 3 weeks and by 56.3% in those treated with secukinumab every 4 weeks. In SUNRISE, the values improved by 65% in patients who were treated with secukinumab every 2 weeks and by 62.2% in those who were treated with the drug every 4 weeks.

In an interview, Haley Naik, MD, a dermatologist who directs the hidradenitis suppurativa program at the University of California, San Francisco, characterized the approval as a win for HS patients. “Patients now not only have a second option for approved therapy for HS, but also an option that raises the bar for what we can expect from therapeutic response,” she told this news organization. “I am excited to see a novel therapy that improves HS and quality of life for patients make it through the regulatory pipeline.”

Dr. Naik disclosed that she has received grant support from AbbVie; consulting fees from 23andme, AbbVie, Aristea Therapeutics, Nimbus Therapeutics, Medscape, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, DAVA Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Union Chimique Belge, and Novartis; investigator fees from Pfizer; and holds shares in Radera. She is also an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology and a board member of the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation.

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

Short-term use of JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication appears to not be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolic events (VTE), results from a systematic literature review, and meta-analysis showed.

“There remains a knowledge gap regarding the risk of JAK inhibitor use and VTE and/or MACE in the dermatologic population,” researchers led by Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, wrote in their study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology . “Pooled safety studies suggest that the risk of MACE and VTE may be lower in patients treated with JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication than the risk observed in the ORAL Surveillance study, which may be related to the younger age and better health status of those enrolled in trials for dermatologic indications.” The results of that study, which included patients with rheumatoid arthritis only, resulted in the addition of a boxed warning in the labels for topical and oral JAK inhibitors regarding the increased risk of MACE, VTE, serious infections, malignancies, and death .

For the review – thought to be the first to specifically evaluate these risks for dermatologic indications – the researchers searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through April 1, 2023, for phase 3 dermatology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the risk of MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality with JAK inhibitors, compared with placebo or an active comparator in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory skin diseases. They followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used a random-effects model and the DerSimonian-Laird method to calculate adverse events with odds ratios.

The database search yielded 35 RCTs with a total of 20,651 patients. Their mean age was 38.5 years, 54% were male, and the mean follow-up time was 4.9 months. Of the 35 trials, most (21) involved patients with atopic dermatitis, followed by psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (9 trials), alopecia areata (3 trials) and vitiligo (2 trials).

The researchers found no significant difference between JAK inhibitors and placebo/active comparator in composite MACE and all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.57) or in VTE (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.04).

In a secondary analysis, which included additional psoriatic arthritis RCTs, no significant differences between the treatment and placebo/active comparator groups were observed. Similarly, subgroup analyses of oral versus topical JAK inhibitors and a sensitivity analysis that excluded pediatric trials showed no significant differences between patients exposed to JAK inhibitors and those not exposed.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the review, including the lack of access to patient-level data, the fact that most trials only included short-term follow-up, and that the findings have limited generalizability to an older patient population. “It remains unclear if the cardiovascular risks of JAK inhibitors are primarily due to patient level cardiovascular risk factors or are drug mediated,” they concluded. “Dermatologists should carefully select patients and assess baseline cardiovascular risk factors when considering JAK therapy. Cardiovascular risk assessment should continue for the duration of treatment.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the center for eczema and itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study results, characterized the findings as reassuring to dermatologists who may be reluctant to initiate therapy with JAK inhibitors based on concerns about safety signals for MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality.

“These data systematically show that across medications and across conditions, there doesn’t appear to be an increased signal for these events during the short-term, placebo-controlled period which generally spans a few months in most studies,” he told this news organization. The findings, he added, “align well with our clinical experience to date for JAK inhibitor use in inflammatory skin disease. Short-term safety, particularly in relation to boxed warning events such MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality, have generally been favorable with real-world use. It’s good to have a rigorous statistical analysis to refer to when setting patient expectations.”

However, he noted that these data only examined short-term safety during the placebo or active comparator-controlled periods. “Considering that events like MACE or VTE may take many months or years to manifest, continued long-term data generation is needed to fully answer the question of risk,” he said.

Dr. Garshick disclosed that he received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Several other coauthors reported having advisory board roles and/or having received funding or support from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, investigator, and/or a member of the advisory board for several pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop JAK inhibitors.

Short-term use of JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication appears to not be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolic events (VTE), results from a systematic literature review, and meta-analysis showed.

“There remains a knowledge gap regarding the risk of JAK inhibitor use and VTE and/or MACE in the dermatologic population,” researchers led by Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, wrote in their study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology . “Pooled safety studies suggest that the risk of MACE and VTE may be lower in patients treated with JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication than the risk observed in the ORAL Surveillance study, which may be related to the younger age and better health status of those enrolled in trials for dermatologic indications.” The results of that study, which included patients with rheumatoid arthritis only, resulted in the addition of a boxed warning in the labels for topical and oral JAK inhibitors regarding the increased risk of MACE, VTE, serious infections, malignancies, and death .

For the review – thought to be the first to specifically evaluate these risks for dermatologic indications – the researchers searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through April 1, 2023, for phase 3 dermatology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the risk of MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality with JAK inhibitors, compared with placebo or an active comparator in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory skin diseases. They followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used a random-effects model and the DerSimonian-Laird method to calculate adverse events with odds ratios.

The database search yielded 35 RCTs with a total of 20,651 patients. Their mean age was 38.5 years, 54% were male, and the mean follow-up time was 4.9 months. Of the 35 trials, most (21) involved patients with atopic dermatitis, followed by psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (9 trials), alopecia areata (3 trials) and vitiligo (2 trials).

The researchers found no significant difference between JAK inhibitors and placebo/active comparator in composite MACE and all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.57) or in VTE (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.04).

In a secondary analysis, which included additional psoriatic arthritis RCTs, no significant differences between the treatment and placebo/active comparator groups were observed. Similarly, subgroup analyses of oral versus topical JAK inhibitors and a sensitivity analysis that excluded pediatric trials showed no significant differences between patients exposed to JAK inhibitors and those not exposed.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the review, including the lack of access to patient-level data, the fact that most trials only included short-term follow-up, and that the findings have limited generalizability to an older patient population. “It remains unclear if the cardiovascular risks of JAK inhibitors are primarily due to patient level cardiovascular risk factors or are drug mediated,” they concluded. “Dermatologists should carefully select patients and assess baseline cardiovascular risk factors when considering JAK therapy. Cardiovascular risk assessment should continue for the duration of treatment.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the center for eczema and itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study results, characterized the findings as reassuring to dermatologists who may be reluctant to initiate therapy with JAK inhibitors based on concerns about safety signals for MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality.

“These data systematically show that across medications and across conditions, there doesn’t appear to be an increased signal for these events during the short-term, placebo-controlled period which generally spans a few months in most studies,” he told this news organization. The findings, he added, “align well with our clinical experience to date for JAK inhibitor use in inflammatory skin disease. Short-term safety, particularly in relation to boxed warning events such MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality, have generally been favorable with real-world use. It’s good to have a rigorous statistical analysis to refer to when setting patient expectations.”

However, he noted that these data only examined short-term safety during the placebo or active comparator-controlled periods. “Considering that events like MACE or VTE may take many months or years to manifest, continued long-term data generation is needed to fully answer the question of risk,” he said.

Dr. Garshick disclosed that he received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Several other coauthors reported having advisory board roles and/or having received funding or support from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, investigator, and/or a member of the advisory board for several pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop JAK inhibitors.

Short-term use of JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication appears to not be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolic events (VTE), results from a systematic literature review, and meta-analysis showed.

“There remains a knowledge gap regarding the risk of JAK inhibitor use and VTE and/or MACE in the dermatologic population,” researchers led by Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, wrote in their study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology . “Pooled safety studies suggest that the risk of MACE and VTE may be lower in patients treated with JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication than the risk observed in the ORAL Surveillance study, which may be related to the younger age and better health status of those enrolled in trials for dermatologic indications.” The results of that study, which included patients with rheumatoid arthritis only, resulted in the addition of a boxed warning in the labels for topical and oral JAK inhibitors regarding the increased risk of MACE, VTE, serious infections, malignancies, and death .

For the review – thought to be the first to specifically evaluate these risks for dermatologic indications – the researchers searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through April 1, 2023, for phase 3 dermatology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the risk of MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality with JAK inhibitors, compared with placebo or an active comparator in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory skin diseases. They followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used a random-effects model and the DerSimonian-Laird method to calculate adverse events with odds ratios.

The database search yielded 35 RCTs with a total of 20,651 patients. Their mean age was 38.5 years, 54% were male, and the mean follow-up time was 4.9 months. Of the 35 trials, most (21) involved patients with atopic dermatitis, followed by psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (9 trials), alopecia areata (3 trials) and vitiligo (2 trials).

The researchers found no significant difference between JAK inhibitors and placebo/active comparator in composite MACE and all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.57) or in VTE (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.04).

In a secondary analysis, which included additional psoriatic arthritis RCTs, no significant differences between the treatment and placebo/active comparator groups were observed. Similarly, subgroup analyses of oral versus topical JAK inhibitors and a sensitivity analysis that excluded pediatric trials showed no significant differences between patients exposed to JAK inhibitors and those not exposed.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the review, including the lack of access to patient-level data, the fact that most trials only included short-term follow-up, and that the findings have limited generalizability to an older patient population. “It remains unclear if the cardiovascular risks of JAK inhibitors are primarily due to patient level cardiovascular risk factors or are drug mediated,” they concluded. “Dermatologists should carefully select patients and assess baseline cardiovascular risk factors when considering JAK therapy. Cardiovascular risk assessment should continue for the duration of treatment.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the center for eczema and itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study results, characterized the findings as reassuring to dermatologists who may be reluctant to initiate therapy with JAK inhibitors based on concerns about safety signals for MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality.

“These data systematically show that across medications and across conditions, there doesn’t appear to be an increased signal for these events during the short-term, placebo-controlled period which generally spans a few months in most studies,” he told this news organization. The findings, he added, “align well with our clinical experience to date for JAK inhibitor use in inflammatory skin disease. Short-term safety, particularly in relation to boxed warning events such MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality, have generally been favorable with real-world use. It’s good to have a rigorous statistical analysis to refer to when setting patient expectations.”

However, he noted that these data only examined short-term safety during the placebo or active comparator-controlled periods. “Considering that events like MACE or VTE may take many months or years to manifest, continued long-term data generation is needed to fully answer the question of risk,” he said.

Dr. Garshick disclosed that he received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Several other coauthors reported having advisory board roles and/or having received funding or support from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, investigator, and/or a member of the advisory board for several pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop JAK inhibitors.