Dermatology News

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A major challenge for clinical trials in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is how to get the placebo response rate down low enough that the effectiveness of a drug can actually be seen. Better patient selection may be the key.

Speaking at an international congress on SLE, Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, presented on how the heterogeneity of lupus is contributing to the ongoing failure of so many potential therapies in clinical trials.

“It’s a miracle that any drug has been successful in clinical trials,” she told the conference, comparing the few drugs approved for the treatment of lupus with the much larger numbers of approved, targeted biologics that are available for rheumatoid arthritis.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

The problem is that placebo response rates in clinical trials for lupus are high – well over 40% – Dr. Merrill said, and trials aren’t showing a big difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo arms. “If the placebo response is 40%, wouldn’t an effective drug help 80%?” she said. “If it also affects only 40%, does that mean it’s a failed drug?”

Dr. Merrill suggested that better patient selection could be key to achieving lower placebo response rates, which could in turn reveal if and in whom a drug might be effective. “If we could get the placebo response rate down, at least we’d be able to see a little bit better whether the drug is effective, even if it only could work in 50% of the patients,” she said.

Data from research done by the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation suggested that patients with SLE could be loosely categorized into seven different clusters based on patterns of gene expression in areas such as interferon expression and inflammation pathways.

For example, two of those clusters represented patients with high levels of expression for both interferons and inflammation. “Maybe those are the patients who’d want to be put in a trial for interferon inhibition,” Dr. Merrill said.

This was demonstrated in a trial of type 1 interferon inhibitor anifrolumab (Saphnelo), where patients were sorted into groups according to their level of interferon expression – either high or low – based on expression of certain interferon genes. This revealed that patients in the interferon-high group had a much higher treatment effect than patients in the interferon-low group. But the difference lay in the placebo response.

“The efficacy rate was not that different between the interferon-high and the interferon-low patients,” Dr. Merrill said. “The difference was in the placebo response rate – what they had managed to find was a great marker for sicker patients.”

This phenomenon is not limited to interferon-targeted therapies. Dr. Merrill cited another literature review which looked at subset studies within clinical trials that had delivered disappointing results. This showed consistently that patients who were considered more unwell, by virtue of higher SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) scores, for example, were more likely to show an effect of treatment.

“You begin to see bigger differences between treatment and placebo because the treatment rate might go up, but mostly because the placebo rate goes down,” she said.

Another issue that could be affecting both placebo and treatment response rates is background medication. “Subset analysis of people on less background drugs was showing lower placebo response rates and better differences between treatments and placebo,” Dr. Merrill said. For example, a recent phase 2 study of anifrolumab took the strategy of actively pursuing tapering of glucocorticoids in patients where that could be done safely. That achieved a lowering of the placebo response rate to the point where a greater difference could be seen between the placebo response and the treatment response rates.

The challenge for clinical trials is therefore to identify which patients to include. “If we could figure out which patients would be the most appropriate [to enroll to fit a particular drug’s mechanism of action], then we could really get ahead of the game,” she said.

The unique problem for lupus clinic trials is the heterogeneity of lupus as a disease, Dr. Merrill said in an interview. “We’re going to have to find combinations of treatments that fit right for each patient, and they won’t necessarily be one size fits all,” she said.

Dr. Merrill said that subset analyses at the phase 2 stage could help identify the patients who responded better to the treatment and could therefore be targeted in phase 3 trials. “Once you take that hypothesis, and if you can establish and validate it in phase 3, now you’ve got yourself a biomarker,” she said.

Richard A. Furie, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in New York, agreed that the high placebo response rate was a particular nemesis for researchers involved in lupus clinical trials.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Dr. Furie said it could be that selecting sicker patients is a solution to this, as had been suggested in the subset analysis of the anifrolumab studies – which he was involved in – that identified differences in the response rates between interferon-high and interferon-low patients.

But if that was the case, the challenge would be recruiting enough of any particular subset of patients. For example, relatively few patients in the anifrolumab trial were classified as interferon low.

If the interferon expression levels are a marker for patients who are sicker, that could serve as a way to better select patients for clinical trials, he said. But it would also make it harder to achieve recruitment targets.

“I think the major problem in SLE trials is that patients have inflated activity scores, so you can gain SLEDAI scores with a little alopecia and an oral ulcer,” he said. “You can start eliminating those parameters from counting towards entry, but then as soon as you do that, you’re going to have trouble recruiting.”

Dr. Merrill reported consulting for and receiving research support from a range of pharmaceutical companies including Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and anifrolumab manufacturer AstraZeneca. Dr. Furie reported financial relationships with Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Kezar Life Sciences, Kyverna Therapeutics, and Takeda.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A major challenge for clinical trials in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is how to get the placebo response rate down low enough that the effectiveness of a drug can actually be seen. Better patient selection may be the key.

Speaking at an international congress on SLE, Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, presented on how the heterogeneity of lupus is contributing to the ongoing failure of so many potential therapies in clinical trials.

“It’s a miracle that any drug has been successful in clinical trials,” she told the conference, comparing the few drugs approved for the treatment of lupus with the much larger numbers of approved, targeted biologics that are available for rheumatoid arthritis.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

The problem is that placebo response rates in clinical trials for lupus are high – well over 40% – Dr. Merrill said, and trials aren’t showing a big difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo arms. “If the placebo response is 40%, wouldn’t an effective drug help 80%?” she said. “If it also affects only 40%, does that mean it’s a failed drug?”

Dr. Merrill suggested that better patient selection could be key to achieving lower placebo response rates, which could in turn reveal if and in whom a drug might be effective. “If we could get the placebo response rate down, at least we’d be able to see a little bit better whether the drug is effective, even if it only could work in 50% of the patients,” she said.

Data from research done by the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation suggested that patients with SLE could be loosely categorized into seven different clusters based on patterns of gene expression in areas such as interferon expression and inflammation pathways.

For example, two of those clusters represented patients with high levels of expression for both interferons and inflammation. “Maybe those are the patients who’d want to be put in a trial for interferon inhibition,” Dr. Merrill said.

This was demonstrated in a trial of type 1 interferon inhibitor anifrolumab (Saphnelo), where patients were sorted into groups according to their level of interferon expression – either high or low – based on expression of certain interferon genes. This revealed that patients in the interferon-high group had a much higher treatment effect than patients in the interferon-low group. But the difference lay in the placebo response.

“The efficacy rate was not that different between the interferon-high and the interferon-low patients,” Dr. Merrill said. “The difference was in the placebo response rate – what they had managed to find was a great marker for sicker patients.”

This phenomenon is not limited to interferon-targeted therapies. Dr. Merrill cited another literature review which looked at subset studies within clinical trials that had delivered disappointing results. This showed consistently that patients who were considered more unwell, by virtue of higher SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) scores, for example, were more likely to show an effect of treatment.

“You begin to see bigger differences between treatment and placebo because the treatment rate might go up, but mostly because the placebo rate goes down,” she said.

Another issue that could be affecting both placebo and treatment response rates is background medication. “Subset analysis of people on less background drugs was showing lower placebo response rates and better differences between treatments and placebo,” Dr. Merrill said. For example, a recent phase 2 study of anifrolumab took the strategy of actively pursuing tapering of glucocorticoids in patients where that could be done safely. That achieved a lowering of the placebo response rate to the point where a greater difference could be seen between the placebo response and the treatment response rates.

The challenge for clinical trials is therefore to identify which patients to include. “If we could figure out which patients would be the most appropriate [to enroll to fit a particular drug’s mechanism of action], then we could really get ahead of the game,” she said.

The unique problem for lupus clinic trials is the heterogeneity of lupus as a disease, Dr. Merrill said in an interview. “We’re going to have to find combinations of treatments that fit right for each patient, and they won’t necessarily be one size fits all,” she said.

Dr. Merrill said that subset analyses at the phase 2 stage could help identify the patients who responded better to the treatment and could therefore be targeted in phase 3 trials. “Once you take that hypothesis, and if you can establish and validate it in phase 3, now you’ve got yourself a biomarker,” she said.

Richard A. Furie, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in New York, agreed that the high placebo response rate was a particular nemesis for researchers involved in lupus clinical trials.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Dr. Furie said it could be that selecting sicker patients is a solution to this, as had been suggested in the subset analysis of the anifrolumab studies – which he was involved in – that identified differences in the response rates between interferon-high and interferon-low patients.

But if that was the case, the challenge would be recruiting enough of any particular subset of patients. For example, relatively few patients in the anifrolumab trial were classified as interferon low.

If the interferon expression levels are a marker for patients who are sicker, that could serve as a way to better select patients for clinical trials, he said. But it would also make it harder to achieve recruitment targets.

“I think the major problem in SLE trials is that patients have inflated activity scores, so you can gain SLEDAI scores with a little alopecia and an oral ulcer,” he said. “You can start eliminating those parameters from counting towards entry, but then as soon as you do that, you’re going to have trouble recruiting.”

Dr. Merrill reported consulting for and receiving research support from a range of pharmaceutical companies including Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and anifrolumab manufacturer AstraZeneca. Dr. Furie reported financial relationships with Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Kezar Life Sciences, Kyverna Therapeutics, and Takeda.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A major challenge for clinical trials in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is how to get the placebo response rate down low enough that the effectiveness of a drug can actually be seen. Better patient selection may be the key.

Speaking at an international congress on SLE, Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, presented on how the heterogeneity of lupus is contributing to the ongoing failure of so many potential therapies in clinical trials.

“It’s a miracle that any drug has been successful in clinical trials,” she told the conference, comparing the few drugs approved for the treatment of lupus with the much larger numbers of approved, targeted biologics that are available for rheumatoid arthritis.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

The problem is that placebo response rates in clinical trials for lupus are high – well over 40% – Dr. Merrill said, and trials aren’t showing a big difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo arms. “If the placebo response is 40%, wouldn’t an effective drug help 80%?” she said. “If it also affects only 40%, does that mean it’s a failed drug?”

Dr. Merrill suggested that better patient selection could be key to achieving lower placebo response rates, which could in turn reveal if and in whom a drug might be effective. “If we could get the placebo response rate down, at least we’d be able to see a little bit better whether the drug is effective, even if it only could work in 50% of the patients,” she said.

Data from research done by the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation suggested that patients with SLE could be loosely categorized into seven different clusters based on patterns of gene expression in areas such as interferon expression and inflammation pathways.

For example, two of those clusters represented patients with high levels of expression for both interferons and inflammation. “Maybe those are the patients who’d want to be put in a trial for interferon inhibition,” Dr. Merrill said.

This was demonstrated in a trial of type 1 interferon inhibitor anifrolumab (Saphnelo), where patients were sorted into groups according to their level of interferon expression – either high or low – based on expression of certain interferon genes. This revealed that patients in the interferon-high group had a much higher treatment effect than patients in the interferon-low group. But the difference lay in the placebo response.

“The efficacy rate was not that different between the interferon-high and the interferon-low patients,” Dr. Merrill said. “The difference was in the placebo response rate – what they had managed to find was a great marker for sicker patients.”

This phenomenon is not limited to interferon-targeted therapies. Dr. Merrill cited another literature review which looked at subset studies within clinical trials that had delivered disappointing results. This showed consistently that patients who were considered more unwell, by virtue of higher SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) scores, for example, were more likely to show an effect of treatment.

“You begin to see bigger differences between treatment and placebo because the treatment rate might go up, but mostly because the placebo rate goes down,” she said.

Another issue that could be affecting both placebo and treatment response rates is background medication. “Subset analysis of people on less background drugs was showing lower placebo response rates and better differences between treatments and placebo,” Dr. Merrill said. For example, a recent phase 2 study of anifrolumab took the strategy of actively pursuing tapering of glucocorticoids in patients where that could be done safely. That achieved a lowering of the placebo response rate to the point where a greater difference could be seen between the placebo response and the treatment response rates.

The challenge for clinical trials is therefore to identify which patients to include. “If we could figure out which patients would be the most appropriate [to enroll to fit a particular drug’s mechanism of action], then we could really get ahead of the game,” she said.

The unique problem for lupus clinic trials is the heterogeneity of lupus as a disease, Dr. Merrill said in an interview. “We’re going to have to find combinations of treatments that fit right for each patient, and they won’t necessarily be one size fits all,” she said.

Dr. Merrill said that subset analyses at the phase 2 stage could help identify the patients who responded better to the treatment and could therefore be targeted in phase 3 trials. “Once you take that hypothesis, and if you can establish and validate it in phase 3, now you’ve got yourself a biomarker,” she said.

Richard A. Furie, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in New York, agreed that the high placebo response rate was a particular nemesis for researchers involved in lupus clinical trials.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Dr. Furie said it could be that selecting sicker patients is a solution to this, as had been suggested in the subset analysis of the anifrolumab studies – which he was involved in – that identified differences in the response rates between interferon-high and interferon-low patients.

But if that was the case, the challenge would be recruiting enough of any particular subset of patients. For example, relatively few patients in the anifrolumab trial were classified as interferon low.

If the interferon expression levels are a marker for patients who are sicker, that could serve as a way to better select patients for clinical trials, he said. But it would also make it harder to achieve recruitment targets.

“I think the major problem in SLE trials is that patients have inflated activity scores, so you can gain SLEDAI scores with a little alopecia and an oral ulcer,” he said. “You can start eliminating those parameters from counting towards entry, but then as soon as you do that, you’re going to have trouble recruiting.”

Dr. Merrill reported consulting for and receiving research support from a range of pharmaceutical companies including Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and anifrolumab manufacturer AstraZeneca. Dr. Furie reported financial relationships with Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Kezar Life Sciences, Kyverna Therapeutics, and Takeda.

Infections were the most common adverse events associated with the use of microwave energy devices for hyperhidrosis over a 9-year period, an analysis of reports submitted to the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database showed.

While microwave energy devices (MEDs) are used to treat hyperhidrosis, the largest MED clinical trial included only 101 patients, Samantha Jo Albucker and Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, wrote in a research letter reporting the results.

For the study, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Ms. Albucker, a student at Tulane University, New Orleans, and Dr. Lipner, associate professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, searched the MAUDE database between Feb. 28, 2013, and Dec. 29, 2022, for adverse events (AEs) involving MEDs for hyperhidrosis treatment. Of the 502 medical device reports identified over the study period, the axilla was the most frequent injury site in 50.4% of cases. The three most common complications were infections (45.4%); neurological symptoms including neuropathy, nerve damage, and numbness (21.7%); and burns/ulcerations/erosions (19.1%).

In other findings, 2.4% of patients required hospitalization, most often because of infection (83.3%), followed by burn and coma (8.3% each). The average symptom onset was 2 months postprocedure, and the most common treatment was antibiotics in 62.2% of cases, followed by incision and drainage/aspiration in 21.7% of cases.

A codiagnosis of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) was reported in 5.4% of all medical device reports. The researchers noted that in a published randomized clinical trial of eight HS patients undergoing MED treatment to assess the effect on HS symptoms, the treatment showed no clinical advantage. In addition, they referred to two case reports describing new-onset HS after MED treatment for hyperhidrosis.

“Therefore, we recommend questioning patients about HS history and examining for HS clinical findings before performing MED for hyperhidrosis,” they wrote, adding that the data, “taken together, suggests that avoidance of MED treatment of hyperhidrosis in HS patients is prudent and alternative treatments may be prescribed.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including uncompleted medical device reports, patient reporting, and unverified causes of adverse events. “Large multicenter studies are needed to corroborate our results,” they concluded.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that primary idiopathic hyperhidrosis is a common medical condition that is often overlooked as a legitimate concern, and causes a quality-of-life burden. “Even with the striking numbers in the millions, there are limited treatment options available for axillary let alone other forms of primary hyperhidrosis,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study.

“Therefore, for the short treatment list we have, it is important to have some predictive power with respect to clinical impact to provide realistic expectations as well as potential adverse events to ensure best practices and meaningful patient guidance. In this research letter, our colleagues highlight complications that can ensue from microwave therapy for hyperhidrosis and the frequency of said adverse events. Knowing these data is half the battle, and I for one would not have assumed infection was number one on the list of adverse events.”

Ms. Albucker had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Lipner disclosed that she has served as a consultant for Ortho Dermatologics, Hoth Therapeutics, BelleTorus Corporation, and Moberg Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he is a consultant and/or advisory board member for Medscape/SanovaWorks, Oakstone Institute, L’Oréal, La Roche Posay, Galderma, Aveeno, Ortho Dermatologic, Microcures, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Hoth Therapeutics, Zylo Therapeutics, BMS, Vial, Janssen, Novocure, Dermavant, Regeneron/Sanofi, and Incyte. He has also received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Lilly, Janssen, Incyte, and Galderma.

Infections were the most common adverse events associated with the use of microwave energy devices for hyperhidrosis over a 9-year period, an analysis of reports submitted to the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database showed.

While microwave energy devices (MEDs) are used to treat hyperhidrosis, the largest MED clinical trial included only 101 patients, Samantha Jo Albucker and Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, wrote in a research letter reporting the results.

For the study, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Ms. Albucker, a student at Tulane University, New Orleans, and Dr. Lipner, associate professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, searched the MAUDE database between Feb. 28, 2013, and Dec. 29, 2022, for adverse events (AEs) involving MEDs for hyperhidrosis treatment. Of the 502 medical device reports identified over the study period, the axilla was the most frequent injury site in 50.4% of cases. The three most common complications were infections (45.4%); neurological symptoms including neuropathy, nerve damage, and numbness (21.7%); and burns/ulcerations/erosions (19.1%).

In other findings, 2.4% of patients required hospitalization, most often because of infection (83.3%), followed by burn and coma (8.3% each). The average symptom onset was 2 months postprocedure, and the most common treatment was antibiotics in 62.2% of cases, followed by incision and drainage/aspiration in 21.7% of cases.

A codiagnosis of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) was reported in 5.4% of all medical device reports. The researchers noted that in a published randomized clinical trial of eight HS patients undergoing MED treatment to assess the effect on HS symptoms, the treatment showed no clinical advantage. In addition, they referred to two case reports describing new-onset HS after MED treatment for hyperhidrosis.

“Therefore, we recommend questioning patients about HS history and examining for HS clinical findings before performing MED for hyperhidrosis,” they wrote, adding that the data, “taken together, suggests that avoidance of MED treatment of hyperhidrosis in HS patients is prudent and alternative treatments may be prescribed.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including uncompleted medical device reports, patient reporting, and unverified causes of adverse events. “Large multicenter studies are needed to corroborate our results,” they concluded.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that primary idiopathic hyperhidrosis is a common medical condition that is often overlooked as a legitimate concern, and causes a quality-of-life burden. “Even with the striking numbers in the millions, there are limited treatment options available for axillary let alone other forms of primary hyperhidrosis,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study.

“Therefore, for the short treatment list we have, it is important to have some predictive power with respect to clinical impact to provide realistic expectations as well as potential adverse events to ensure best practices and meaningful patient guidance. In this research letter, our colleagues highlight complications that can ensue from microwave therapy for hyperhidrosis and the frequency of said adverse events. Knowing these data is half the battle, and I for one would not have assumed infection was number one on the list of adverse events.”

Ms. Albucker had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Lipner disclosed that she has served as a consultant for Ortho Dermatologics, Hoth Therapeutics, BelleTorus Corporation, and Moberg Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he is a consultant and/or advisory board member for Medscape/SanovaWorks, Oakstone Institute, L’Oréal, La Roche Posay, Galderma, Aveeno, Ortho Dermatologic, Microcures, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Hoth Therapeutics, Zylo Therapeutics, BMS, Vial, Janssen, Novocure, Dermavant, Regeneron/Sanofi, and Incyte. He has also received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Lilly, Janssen, Incyte, and Galderma.

Infections were the most common adverse events associated with the use of microwave energy devices for hyperhidrosis over a 9-year period, an analysis of reports submitted to the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database showed.

While microwave energy devices (MEDs) are used to treat hyperhidrosis, the largest MED clinical trial included only 101 patients, Samantha Jo Albucker and Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, wrote in a research letter reporting the results.

For the study, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Ms. Albucker, a student at Tulane University, New Orleans, and Dr. Lipner, associate professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, searched the MAUDE database between Feb. 28, 2013, and Dec. 29, 2022, for adverse events (AEs) involving MEDs for hyperhidrosis treatment. Of the 502 medical device reports identified over the study period, the axilla was the most frequent injury site in 50.4% of cases. The three most common complications were infections (45.4%); neurological symptoms including neuropathy, nerve damage, and numbness (21.7%); and burns/ulcerations/erosions (19.1%).

In other findings, 2.4% of patients required hospitalization, most often because of infection (83.3%), followed by burn and coma (8.3% each). The average symptom onset was 2 months postprocedure, and the most common treatment was antibiotics in 62.2% of cases, followed by incision and drainage/aspiration in 21.7% of cases.

A codiagnosis of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) was reported in 5.4% of all medical device reports. The researchers noted that in a published randomized clinical trial of eight HS patients undergoing MED treatment to assess the effect on HS symptoms, the treatment showed no clinical advantage. In addition, they referred to two case reports describing new-onset HS after MED treatment for hyperhidrosis.

“Therefore, we recommend questioning patients about HS history and examining for HS clinical findings before performing MED for hyperhidrosis,” they wrote, adding that the data, “taken together, suggests that avoidance of MED treatment of hyperhidrosis in HS patients is prudent and alternative treatments may be prescribed.”

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including uncompleted medical device reports, patient reporting, and unverified causes of adverse events. “Large multicenter studies are needed to corroborate our results,” they concluded.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that primary idiopathic hyperhidrosis is a common medical condition that is often overlooked as a legitimate concern, and causes a quality-of-life burden. “Even with the striking numbers in the millions, there are limited treatment options available for axillary let alone other forms of primary hyperhidrosis,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study.

“Therefore, for the short treatment list we have, it is important to have some predictive power with respect to clinical impact to provide realistic expectations as well as potential adverse events to ensure best practices and meaningful patient guidance. In this research letter, our colleagues highlight complications that can ensue from microwave therapy for hyperhidrosis and the frequency of said adverse events. Knowing these data is half the battle, and I for one would not have assumed infection was number one on the list of adverse events.”

Ms. Albucker had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Lipner disclosed that she has served as a consultant for Ortho Dermatologics, Hoth Therapeutics, BelleTorus Corporation, and Moberg Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Friedman disclosed that he is a consultant and/or advisory board member for Medscape/SanovaWorks, Oakstone Institute, L’Oréal, La Roche Posay, Galderma, Aveeno, Ortho Dermatologic, Microcures, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Hoth Therapeutics, Zylo Therapeutics, BMS, Vial, Janssen, Novocure, Dermavant, Regeneron/Sanofi, and Incyte. He has also received grants from Pfizer, the Dermatology Foundation, Lilly, Janssen, Incyte, and Galderma.

Delivering microdose incision-site injections of clindamycin significantly reduced the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in skin cancer surgery.

However, prophylaxis with flucloxacillin did not significantly lower SSI rates, compared with not using incision site antibiotics.

The rate of postoperative SSIs was 2.1% in the clindamycin arm, vs. 5.7% in the control arm and 5.3% in the flucloxacillin arm.

“Based on these results, we recommend the routine adoption of incisional microdosed clindamycin for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery,” Maple Goh, MBChB, of the Auckland Regional Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Auckland, New Zealand, and the coauthors conclude. “This strategy appears suitable for widespread implementation because of the magnitude of the effect observed and the absence of adverse events.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

Skin cancer surgery carries a high risk of SSIs, which represent costly yet largely preventable complications of surgery. Despite the risk, there’s a lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials of the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing SSI rates among patients undergoing skin cancer surgery. Previous studies have investigated incisional antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce SSIs with Mohs micrographic surgery, but these surgeries represent a relatively small proportion of overall skin cancer surgeries.

To understand whether this benefit extends to more general skin cancer surgeries, investigators recruited patients from a high-volume skin cancer center in New Zealand who were treated from February to July 2019. In the double-blind, prospective PICASSo trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive an incision site injection of buffered local anesthetic alone (control group), buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of flucloxacillin (500 mcg/mL), or buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of clindamycin (500 mcg/mL). The most common surgery type was excision and direct closure (approximately 80% in all arms), and the mean volume injected per length of direct closure was 1.5 mL/cm.

The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative SSIs, defined as a postoperative wound infection score of 5 or more. The SSI rate was calculated as the number of lesions with SSIs per total number of lesions in the group.

Overall, 681 patients with 1,133 total lesions were included in the study. Compared with the control arm, the rate of postoperative SSIs was nearly threefold lower among patients who received clindamycin, –2.1% (9 of 422) vs. 5.7% (22 of 388) in the control arm (P = .01 for clindamycin vs. control).

However, flucloxacillin did not demonstrate the same effectiveness. The flucloxacillin arm and the control arm demonstrated similar postoperative SSI rates – 5.3% (17 of 323) vs. 5.7%.

The results were similar after adjusting for baseline differences and lesion ulceration.

The researchers also found that the proportion of lesions that required postoperative systemic antibiotics was four times higher among the control arm, in comparison with the clindamycin arm (8% vs. 2.1%; P < .001). It was two times higher than in the flucloxacillin arm (8% vs. 4%; P = .03).

Treatment with microdoses of incisional flucloxacillin and clindamycin was safe and well tolerated.

The researchers speculated that clindamycin’s greater effectiveness may come down to its slightly broader coverage of commonly cultured bacteria in skin and soft tissue infections, including community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clindamycin is known to have more efficacy against anaerobic bacteria that may be lurking in chronically ulcerated skin lesions and is associated with less local tissue inflammation, compared with flucloxacillin.

Overall, “clindamycin was significantly more effective at preventing SSI than flucloxacillin in our study,” the authors conclude. They note that the use of clindamycin as a first-line prophylaxis agent against SSIs for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery is a practical option.

“These results establish evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in one of the most common surgical interventions performed worldwide, where they have been previously absent,” the researchers say.

The authors of an editorial published with the study underscore other advantages of incisional microdosing with antibiotics.

“One advantage of cutaneous antibiotic administration is improved drug delivery to poorly perfused tissue, which would have limited reach by the systemic circulation,” wrote Amanda R. Sergesketter, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Scott T. Hollenbeck, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“While not evaluated in this study, local antibiotic delivery may be especially relevant to larger and more complex wounds,” the editorialists say. They note that the next step for future studies should be to evaluate prophylaxis in more complex situations.

“Such studies should be considered enthusiastically, given the clearly favorable impact on surgical site infections demonstrated in the PICASSo trial,” Dr. Sergesketter and Dr. Hollenbeck said.

The study was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Health Research Council. Dr. Hollenbeck reported educational grants to Duke University from Allergan, Acelity, Synovis, Integra, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, Cook, KLs Martin, Bard, VOptix, Scanlan, True Digital Surgery, Nautilus, Mitaka, Checkpoint Surgical, and Omniguide, and he is a founder and equity holder for InSoma Bio, a premarket company focused on tissue regeneration.

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

Delivering microdose incision-site injections of clindamycin significantly reduced the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in skin cancer surgery.

However, prophylaxis with flucloxacillin did not significantly lower SSI rates, compared with not using incision site antibiotics.

The rate of postoperative SSIs was 2.1% in the clindamycin arm, vs. 5.7% in the control arm and 5.3% in the flucloxacillin arm.

“Based on these results, we recommend the routine adoption of incisional microdosed clindamycin for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery,” Maple Goh, MBChB, of the Auckland Regional Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Auckland, New Zealand, and the coauthors conclude. “This strategy appears suitable for widespread implementation because of the magnitude of the effect observed and the absence of adverse events.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

Skin cancer surgery carries a high risk of SSIs, which represent costly yet largely preventable complications of surgery. Despite the risk, there’s a lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials of the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing SSI rates among patients undergoing skin cancer surgery. Previous studies have investigated incisional antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce SSIs with Mohs micrographic surgery, but these surgeries represent a relatively small proportion of overall skin cancer surgeries.

To understand whether this benefit extends to more general skin cancer surgeries, investigators recruited patients from a high-volume skin cancer center in New Zealand who were treated from February to July 2019. In the double-blind, prospective PICASSo trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive an incision site injection of buffered local anesthetic alone (control group), buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of flucloxacillin (500 mcg/mL), or buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of clindamycin (500 mcg/mL). The most common surgery type was excision and direct closure (approximately 80% in all arms), and the mean volume injected per length of direct closure was 1.5 mL/cm.

The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative SSIs, defined as a postoperative wound infection score of 5 or more. The SSI rate was calculated as the number of lesions with SSIs per total number of lesions in the group.

Overall, 681 patients with 1,133 total lesions were included in the study. Compared with the control arm, the rate of postoperative SSIs was nearly threefold lower among patients who received clindamycin, –2.1% (9 of 422) vs. 5.7% (22 of 388) in the control arm (P = .01 for clindamycin vs. control).

However, flucloxacillin did not demonstrate the same effectiveness. The flucloxacillin arm and the control arm demonstrated similar postoperative SSI rates – 5.3% (17 of 323) vs. 5.7%.

The results were similar after adjusting for baseline differences and lesion ulceration.

The researchers also found that the proportion of lesions that required postoperative systemic antibiotics was four times higher among the control arm, in comparison with the clindamycin arm (8% vs. 2.1%; P < .001). It was two times higher than in the flucloxacillin arm (8% vs. 4%; P = .03).

Treatment with microdoses of incisional flucloxacillin and clindamycin was safe and well tolerated.

The researchers speculated that clindamycin’s greater effectiveness may come down to its slightly broader coverage of commonly cultured bacteria in skin and soft tissue infections, including community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clindamycin is known to have more efficacy against anaerobic bacteria that may be lurking in chronically ulcerated skin lesions and is associated with less local tissue inflammation, compared with flucloxacillin.

Overall, “clindamycin was significantly more effective at preventing SSI than flucloxacillin in our study,” the authors conclude. They note that the use of clindamycin as a first-line prophylaxis agent against SSIs for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery is a practical option.

“These results establish evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in one of the most common surgical interventions performed worldwide, where they have been previously absent,” the researchers say.

The authors of an editorial published with the study underscore other advantages of incisional microdosing with antibiotics.

“One advantage of cutaneous antibiotic administration is improved drug delivery to poorly perfused tissue, which would have limited reach by the systemic circulation,” wrote Amanda R. Sergesketter, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Scott T. Hollenbeck, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“While not evaluated in this study, local antibiotic delivery may be especially relevant to larger and more complex wounds,” the editorialists say. They note that the next step for future studies should be to evaluate prophylaxis in more complex situations.

“Such studies should be considered enthusiastically, given the clearly favorable impact on surgical site infections demonstrated in the PICASSo trial,” Dr. Sergesketter and Dr. Hollenbeck said.

The study was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Health Research Council. Dr. Hollenbeck reported educational grants to Duke University from Allergan, Acelity, Synovis, Integra, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, Cook, KLs Martin, Bard, VOptix, Scanlan, True Digital Surgery, Nautilus, Mitaka, Checkpoint Surgical, and Omniguide, and he is a founder and equity holder for InSoma Bio, a premarket company focused on tissue regeneration.

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

Delivering microdose incision-site injections of clindamycin significantly reduced the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in skin cancer surgery.

However, prophylaxis with flucloxacillin did not significantly lower SSI rates, compared with not using incision site antibiotics.

The rate of postoperative SSIs was 2.1% in the clindamycin arm, vs. 5.7% in the control arm and 5.3% in the flucloxacillin arm.

“Based on these results, we recommend the routine adoption of incisional microdosed clindamycin for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery,” Maple Goh, MBChB, of the Auckland Regional Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Auckland, New Zealand, and the coauthors conclude. “This strategy appears suitable for widespread implementation because of the magnitude of the effect observed and the absence of adverse events.”

The study was published online in JAMA Surgery.

Skin cancer surgery carries a high risk of SSIs, which represent costly yet largely preventable complications of surgery. Despite the risk, there’s a lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials of the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing SSI rates among patients undergoing skin cancer surgery. Previous studies have investigated incisional antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce SSIs with Mohs micrographic surgery, but these surgeries represent a relatively small proportion of overall skin cancer surgeries.

To understand whether this benefit extends to more general skin cancer surgeries, investigators recruited patients from a high-volume skin cancer center in New Zealand who were treated from February to July 2019. In the double-blind, prospective PICASSo trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive an incision site injection of buffered local anesthetic alone (control group), buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of flucloxacillin (500 mcg/mL), or buffered local anesthetic with microdoses of clindamycin (500 mcg/mL). The most common surgery type was excision and direct closure (approximately 80% in all arms), and the mean volume injected per length of direct closure was 1.5 mL/cm.

The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative SSIs, defined as a postoperative wound infection score of 5 or more. The SSI rate was calculated as the number of lesions with SSIs per total number of lesions in the group.

Overall, 681 patients with 1,133 total lesions were included in the study. Compared with the control arm, the rate of postoperative SSIs was nearly threefold lower among patients who received clindamycin, –2.1% (9 of 422) vs. 5.7% (22 of 388) in the control arm (P = .01 for clindamycin vs. control).

However, flucloxacillin did not demonstrate the same effectiveness. The flucloxacillin arm and the control arm demonstrated similar postoperative SSI rates – 5.3% (17 of 323) vs. 5.7%.

The results were similar after adjusting for baseline differences and lesion ulceration.

The researchers also found that the proportion of lesions that required postoperative systemic antibiotics was four times higher among the control arm, in comparison with the clindamycin arm (8% vs. 2.1%; P < .001). It was two times higher than in the flucloxacillin arm (8% vs. 4%; P = .03).

Treatment with microdoses of incisional flucloxacillin and clindamycin was safe and well tolerated.

The researchers speculated that clindamycin’s greater effectiveness may come down to its slightly broader coverage of commonly cultured bacteria in skin and soft tissue infections, including community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Clindamycin is known to have more efficacy against anaerobic bacteria that may be lurking in chronically ulcerated skin lesions and is associated with less local tissue inflammation, compared with flucloxacillin.

Overall, “clindamycin was significantly more effective at preventing SSI than flucloxacillin in our study,” the authors conclude. They note that the use of clindamycin as a first-line prophylaxis agent against SSIs for patients undergoing skin cancer surgery is a practical option.

“These results establish evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in one of the most common surgical interventions performed worldwide, where they have been previously absent,” the researchers say.

The authors of an editorial published with the study underscore other advantages of incisional microdosing with antibiotics.

“One advantage of cutaneous antibiotic administration is improved drug delivery to poorly perfused tissue, which would have limited reach by the systemic circulation,” wrote Amanda R. Sergesketter, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Scott T. Hollenbeck, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“While not evaluated in this study, local antibiotic delivery may be especially relevant to larger and more complex wounds,” the editorialists say. They note that the next step for future studies should be to evaluate prophylaxis in more complex situations.

“Such studies should be considered enthusiastically, given the clearly favorable impact on surgical site infections demonstrated in the PICASSo trial,” Dr. Sergesketter and Dr. Hollenbeck said.

The study was supported by a grant from the New Zealand Health Research Council. Dr. Hollenbeck reported educational grants to Duke University from Allergan, Acelity, Synovis, Integra, Smith & Nephew, Stryker, Cook, KLs Martin, Bard, VOptix, Scanlan, True Digital Surgery, Nautilus, Mitaka, Checkpoint Surgical, and Omniguide, and he is a founder and equity holder for InSoma Bio, a premarket company focused on tissue regeneration.

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

WASHINGTON – What does shared decision-making about atopic dermatitis (AD) treatment mean at a time of increasing treatment options and patient concerns about drug safety and the potentially lifelong need for systemic treatment?

The question was top of mind for experts who shared their advice during a “Tips and Tricks” session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting. Dupilumab dosing and dupilumab-associated facial redness and ocular disease, self-image issues, topical regimen adherence, and the quantification of disease were among the other topics raised by the experts.

Here are some of their practice pearls.
 

Treatment decisions, safety concerns

Deciding on a treatment is “kind of confusing ... particularly in the last year ... and it will only get more complicated,” said Raj J. Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “We’re all about some version of shared decision-making, but if all else is equal, sometimes it pays to explicitly ask the patient, what do you want to do?”

Questions about how long a systemic treatment should be tried, both initially and in the long run, are common. “I think that oftentimes we all get antsy about making changes when we’re not getting to the endpoint we want to. And at least in my real-world experience, late responders are a real thing. Sometimes 3-4 months ... isn’t enough,” he said.

Trial extension data show that patients who were nonresponders for various endpoints at 16 weeks are “captured continuously as you go further and further out,” Dr. Chovatiya said. Regarding the long term, “realistically, there’s no perfect time to call it quits.”

Addressing fears about Janus kinase inhibitors can be challenging, he said. “When you’ve identified the right patient and labs are done ... have them take the medication in front of you and hang out,” he advised. “It may sound ridiculous, but for the extremely anxious person it can be a big stress reducer for everyone involved.”

Regarding treatment fears more generally, “asking patients ‘what is the biggest risk of not treating your disease?’ sometimes gets people thinking,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

For parents of children with AD, said Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, risks of not treating can become apparent once treatments are started and benefits are realized. “It’s so easy to focus on the risks of any treatment because they’re right there in black and white, and the risks of not treating are not always as apparent, even though – or maybe because – they live with them every day.”

When treatment is underway, “they see [how] everyone sleeps better, how school performance gets better, how concentration gets better,” said Dr. Sidbury, professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington. Seattle, and chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

“Always contextualize,” he advised. “As dermatologists, we’re savvy with navigating boxed warnings.”

David Rosmarin, MD, chair of dermatology, at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and formerly vice chair for research and education at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, said he addresses questions about the length of systemic treatment by advising patients: “Why don’t we start taking [the medication] for 3 months and then we’ll take it from there.”

In some pediatric cases, Dr. Rosmarin said, having the child express “what their AD means to them – how it affects them,” and then acknowledging and validating what the child says, is helpful to parents who are concerned about systemic treatments.
 

Dupilumab in the real world

Some patients on dupilumab do not have a complete response with dosing every 2 weeks and may benefit from more frequent dosing, said Dr. Rosmarin.

“We know from the SOLO-1 and SOLO-2 studies that dupilumab weekly dosing was evaluated. It was only the every-other-week dosing that was approved, and we can see why – in terms of the changes in EASI [Eczema Area and Severity Index] score they’re close to overlapping,” he said.

In real life, however, “some patients benefit from different dosing. It’s important to realize that. I think we all have some patients who may dose more frequently and some who may dose less frequently,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

For a patient who “gets absolutely no response from dupilumab after 3-4 months, I’d switch them to something else. But for those who are partial responders, particularly those who tell me they’re getting itchy before their next dose, they’re the ones who benefit most from doubling the dose to dupilumab weekly,” he said.

For patients who experience dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis, itraconazole may help, Dr. Rosmarin added. “We’re using 200 mg daily for 2 weeks and weekly thereafter, and it helps some of our patients.” The average self-reported improvement was 52% for patients with dupilumab-associated facial redness treated with itraconazole in a retrospective medical record review that he and his colleagues published in 2022.

Dr. Rosmarin pointed to a multicenter prospective cohort study also published in 2022 showing that baseline/pretreatment levels of Malassezia-specific IgE were associated with the development of dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis. The median levels of Malassezia-specific IgE were 32 kUL^–1 versus 2.3 kUL^–1 in patients who experienced dupilumab-associated facial redness, compared with those who did not.

He said that, while there “may be multiple reasons” for dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis and that “plenty of patients” who don’t have Malassezia-specific IgE develop head and neck dermatitis, “this could be one cause.”

Itraconazole has been shown in his practice to be superior to fluconazole, likely because it has greater anti-inflammatory effects and provides better coverage of Malassezia because it is more lipophilic, said Dr. Rosmarin, who does not test for Malassezia-specific IgE before trying itraconazole.

Topical adherence with diffuse xerosis and mild-moderate AD

For patients with diffuse xerosis and mild-moderate AD, especially those who are older and having difficulty with topical regimens, Anna De Benedetto, MD, said she tries to enhance adherence by simplifying the regimen. She asks patients to buy a pound jar of base cream (ceramide base) – “whatever emollient they like” – and mixes into it a high-potency steroid solution. They’re instructed to apply the combined cream once daily for 1-2 weeks, and then three times a week alternating with a nonmedicated cream.

“This way they’re using one [cream] to target the immune system and the skin barrier,” said Dr. De Benedetto, associate professor of dermatology and director of the dermatology clinical trial unit at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
 

‘Wet wrap’ pajamas; self-image for children, teens

Dermatologist Melinda Gooderham, MSc, MD, assistant professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology, said that, for widespread and troublesome AD, she advises patients or parents to wet a thin cotton pajama top and bottom and spin it in the dryer “so it’s almost dry but still moist.” Dry, looser pajamas or a light track suit can then be worn over the damp pajamas. “I usually tell [patients] to buy one size up,” she said.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Body dysmorphia is common with skin disease, and its incidence is six times higher in people with eczema than those without the disease, said Dr. Siegfried. “I’ve found that, for patients subjected to AD for a long time,” this is still an issue, “even when you clear their skin.”

For children, teens and their families, the nonprofit organization Made a Masterpiece can be valuable, Dr. Siegfried said. It offers resources from parents, children, psychologists, dermatologists, and others to help manage the emotional, social and spiritual aspects of living with a skin condition.
 

To use or not to use BSA; environmental counseling

“I think [assessing] body surface area [BSA] is very important in pediatrics and for adolescents [especially in those with moderate to severe disease] because it quantifies the disease for the family,” said Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

University of California, San Diego

“Families live with the disease, but quantification really matters” for understanding the extent and impact of the disease and for motivating families to treat, said Dr. Eichenfield.

(When the disease is markedly diminished in follow-up, knowing the BSA then “helps families to register the improvement and gives positive reinforcement,” Dr. Eichenfeld said after the meeting.)

Young patients can participate, he noted at the meeting. “When I do telemedicine visits, kids can tell me how many hands of eczema they have.”

Dr. Eichenfield also said that he now routinely counsels on the environmental impacts on eczema. For example, “I explain to people that we’re probably going to have a bad wildfire season in California, and it’s the kind of environmental perturbation that may impact some eczema patients,” he said, noting the 2021 study documenting an association of wildfire air pollution from the 2018 California Camp fire with an increase in dermatology clinic visits for AD and itch in San Francisco.

“It helps to keep an eye out for that, and also to be aware of some of the environmental changes,” he said.

Dr. Chovatiya reported ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others. Dr. Sidbury reported ties with Regeneron, UCB, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, and Lilly, among others. Dr. Rosmarin reported ties with AbbVie, Incyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others. Dr. Siegfried reported ties with Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, AbbVie, Incyte, Leo, and Pfizer, among others. Dr. De Benedetto reported ties with Incyte, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Sanofi Advent, among others. Dr. Gooderham reported ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, among others. Dr. Eichenfield disclosed ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others.

WASHINGTON – What does shared decision-making about atopic dermatitis (AD) treatment mean at a time of increasing treatment options and patient concerns about drug safety and the potentially lifelong need for systemic treatment?

The question was top of mind for experts who shared their advice during a “Tips and Tricks” session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting. Dupilumab dosing and dupilumab-associated facial redness and ocular disease, self-image issues, topical regimen adherence, and the quantification of disease were among the other topics raised by the experts.

Here are some of their practice pearls.
 

Treatment decisions, safety concerns

Deciding on a treatment is “kind of confusing ... particularly in the last year ... and it will only get more complicated,” said Raj J. Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “We’re all about some version of shared decision-making, but if all else is equal, sometimes it pays to explicitly ask the patient, what do you want to do?”

Questions about how long a systemic treatment should be tried, both initially and in the long run, are common. “I think that oftentimes we all get antsy about making changes when we’re not getting to the endpoint we want to. And at least in my real-world experience, late responders are a real thing. Sometimes 3-4 months ... isn’t enough,” he said.

Trial extension data show that patients who were nonresponders for various endpoints at 16 weeks are “captured continuously as you go further and further out,” Dr. Chovatiya said. Regarding the long term, “realistically, there’s no perfect time to call it quits.”

Addressing fears about Janus kinase inhibitors can be challenging, he said. “When you’ve identified the right patient and labs are done ... have them take the medication in front of you and hang out,” he advised. “It may sound ridiculous, but for the extremely anxious person it can be a big stress reducer for everyone involved.”

Regarding treatment fears more generally, “asking patients ‘what is the biggest risk of not treating your disease?’ sometimes gets people thinking,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

For parents of children with AD, said Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, risks of not treating can become apparent once treatments are started and benefits are realized. “It’s so easy to focus on the risks of any treatment because they’re right there in black and white, and the risks of not treating are not always as apparent, even though – or maybe because – they live with them every day.”

When treatment is underway, “they see [how] everyone sleeps better, how school performance gets better, how concentration gets better,” said Dr. Sidbury, professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington. Seattle, and chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

“Always contextualize,” he advised. “As dermatologists, we’re savvy with navigating boxed warnings.”

David Rosmarin, MD, chair of dermatology, at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and formerly vice chair for research and education at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, said he addresses questions about the length of systemic treatment by advising patients: “Why don’t we start taking [the medication] for 3 months and then we’ll take it from there.”

In some pediatric cases, Dr. Rosmarin said, having the child express “what their AD means to them – how it affects them,” and then acknowledging and validating what the child says, is helpful to parents who are concerned about systemic treatments.
 

Dupilumab in the real world

Some patients on dupilumab do not have a complete response with dosing every 2 weeks and may benefit from more frequent dosing, said Dr. Rosmarin.

“We know from the SOLO-1 and SOLO-2 studies that dupilumab weekly dosing was evaluated. It was only the every-other-week dosing that was approved, and we can see why – in terms of the changes in EASI [Eczema Area and Severity Index] score they’re close to overlapping,” he said.

In real life, however, “some patients benefit from different dosing. It’s important to realize that. I think we all have some patients who may dose more frequently and some who may dose less frequently,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

For a patient who “gets absolutely no response from dupilumab after 3-4 months, I’d switch them to something else. But for those who are partial responders, particularly those who tell me they’re getting itchy before their next dose, they’re the ones who benefit most from doubling the dose to dupilumab weekly,” he said.

For patients who experience dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis, itraconazole may help, Dr. Rosmarin added. “We’re using 200 mg daily for 2 weeks and weekly thereafter, and it helps some of our patients.” The average self-reported improvement was 52% for patients with dupilumab-associated facial redness treated with itraconazole in a retrospective medical record review that he and his colleagues published in 2022.

Dr. Rosmarin pointed to a multicenter prospective cohort study also published in 2022 showing that baseline/pretreatment levels of Malassezia-specific IgE were associated with the development of dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis. The median levels of Malassezia-specific IgE were 32 kUL^–1 versus 2.3 kUL^–1 in patients who experienced dupilumab-associated facial redness, compared with those who did not.

He said that, while there “may be multiple reasons” for dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis and that “plenty of patients” who don’t have Malassezia-specific IgE develop head and neck dermatitis, “this could be one cause.”

Itraconazole has been shown in his practice to be superior to fluconazole, likely because it has greater anti-inflammatory effects and provides better coverage of Malassezia because it is more lipophilic, said Dr. Rosmarin, who does not test for Malassezia-specific IgE before trying itraconazole.

Topical adherence with diffuse xerosis and mild-moderate AD

For patients with diffuse xerosis and mild-moderate AD, especially those who are older and having difficulty with topical regimens, Anna De Benedetto, MD, said she tries to enhance adherence by simplifying the regimen. She asks patients to buy a pound jar of base cream (ceramide base) – “whatever emollient they like” – and mixes into it a high-potency steroid solution. They’re instructed to apply the combined cream once daily for 1-2 weeks, and then three times a week alternating with a nonmedicated cream.

“This way they’re using one [cream] to target the immune system and the skin barrier,” said Dr. De Benedetto, associate professor of dermatology and director of the dermatology clinical trial unit at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
 

‘Wet wrap’ pajamas; self-image for children, teens

Dermatologist Melinda Gooderham, MSc, MD, assistant professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology, said that, for widespread and troublesome AD, she advises patients or parents to wet a thin cotton pajama top and bottom and spin it in the dryer “so it’s almost dry but still moist.” Dry, looser pajamas or a light track suit can then be worn over the damp pajamas. “I usually tell [patients] to buy one size up,” she said.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Body dysmorphia is common with skin disease, and its incidence is six times higher in people with eczema than those without the disease, said Dr. Siegfried. “I’ve found that, for patients subjected to AD for a long time,” this is still an issue, “even when you clear their skin.”

For children, teens and their families, the nonprofit organization Made a Masterpiece can be valuable, Dr. Siegfried said. It offers resources from parents, children, psychologists, dermatologists, and others to help manage the emotional, social and spiritual aspects of living with a skin condition.
 

To use or not to use BSA; environmental counseling

“I think [assessing] body surface area [BSA] is very important in pediatrics and for adolescents [especially in those with moderate to severe disease] because it quantifies the disease for the family,” said Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

University of California, San Diego

“Families live with the disease, but quantification really matters” for understanding the extent and impact of the disease and for motivating families to treat, said Dr. Eichenfield.

(When the disease is markedly diminished in follow-up, knowing the BSA then “helps families to register the improvement and gives positive reinforcement,” Dr. Eichenfeld said after the meeting.)

Young patients can participate, he noted at the meeting. “When I do telemedicine visits, kids can tell me how many hands of eczema they have.”

Dr. Eichenfield also said that he now routinely counsels on the environmental impacts on eczema. For example, “I explain to people that we’re probably going to have a bad wildfire season in California, and it’s the kind of environmental perturbation that may impact some eczema patients,” he said, noting the 2021 study documenting an association of wildfire air pollution from the 2018 California Camp fire with an increase in dermatology clinic visits for AD and itch in San Francisco.

“It helps to keep an eye out for that, and also to be aware of some of the environmental changes,” he said.

Dr. Chovatiya reported ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others. Dr. Sidbury reported ties with Regeneron, UCB, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, and Lilly, among others. Dr. Rosmarin reported ties with AbbVie, Incyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others. Dr. Siegfried reported ties with Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, AbbVie, Incyte, Leo, and Pfizer, among others. Dr. De Benedetto reported ties with Incyte, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Sanofi Advent, among others. Dr. Gooderham reported ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, among others. Dr. Eichenfield disclosed ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others.

WASHINGTON – What does shared decision-making about atopic dermatitis (AD) treatment mean at a time of increasing treatment options and patient concerns about drug safety and the potentially lifelong need for systemic treatment?

The question was top of mind for experts who shared their advice during a “Tips and Tricks” session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting. Dupilumab dosing and dupilumab-associated facial redness and ocular disease, self-image issues, topical regimen adherence, and the quantification of disease were among the other topics raised by the experts.

Here are some of their practice pearls.
 

Treatment decisions, safety concerns

Deciding on a treatment is “kind of confusing ... particularly in the last year ... and it will only get more complicated,” said Raj J. Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “We’re all about some version of shared decision-making, but if all else is equal, sometimes it pays to explicitly ask the patient, what do you want to do?”

Questions about how long a systemic treatment should be tried, both initially and in the long run, are common. “I think that oftentimes we all get antsy about making changes when we’re not getting to the endpoint we want to. And at least in my real-world experience, late responders are a real thing. Sometimes 3-4 months ... isn’t enough,” he said.

Trial extension data show that patients who were nonresponders for various endpoints at 16 weeks are “captured continuously as you go further and further out,” Dr. Chovatiya said. Regarding the long term, “realistically, there’s no perfect time to call it quits.”

Addressing fears about Janus kinase inhibitors can be challenging, he said. “When you’ve identified the right patient and labs are done ... have them take the medication in front of you and hang out,” he advised. “It may sound ridiculous, but for the extremely anxious person it can be a big stress reducer for everyone involved.”

Regarding treatment fears more generally, “asking patients ‘what is the biggest risk of not treating your disease?’ sometimes gets people thinking,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

For parents of children with AD, said Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, risks of not treating can become apparent once treatments are started and benefits are realized. “It’s so easy to focus on the risks of any treatment because they’re right there in black and white, and the risks of not treating are not always as apparent, even though – or maybe because – they live with them every day.”

When treatment is underway, “they see [how] everyone sleeps better, how school performance gets better, how concentration gets better,” said Dr. Sidbury, professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington. Seattle, and chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

“Always contextualize,” he advised. “As dermatologists, we’re savvy with navigating boxed warnings.”

David Rosmarin, MD, chair of dermatology, at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and formerly vice chair for research and education at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, said he addresses questions about the length of systemic treatment by advising patients: “Why don’t we start taking [the medication] for 3 months and then we’ll take it from there.”

In some pediatric cases, Dr. Rosmarin said, having the child express “what their AD means to them – how it affects them,” and then acknowledging and validating what the child says, is helpful to parents who are concerned about systemic treatments.
 

Dupilumab in the real world

Some patients on dupilumab do not have a complete response with dosing every 2 weeks and may benefit from more frequent dosing, said Dr. Rosmarin.

“We know from the SOLO-1 and SOLO-2 studies that dupilumab weekly dosing was evaluated. It was only the every-other-week dosing that was approved, and we can see why – in terms of the changes in EASI [Eczema Area and Severity Index] score they’re close to overlapping,” he said.

In real life, however, “some patients benefit from different dosing. It’s important to realize that. I think we all have some patients who may dose more frequently and some who may dose less frequently,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

For a patient who “gets absolutely no response from dupilumab after 3-4 months, I’d switch them to something else. But for those who are partial responders, particularly those who tell me they’re getting itchy before their next dose, they’re the ones who benefit most from doubling the dose to dupilumab weekly,” he said.

For patients who experience dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis, itraconazole may help, Dr. Rosmarin added. “We’re using 200 mg daily for 2 weeks and weekly thereafter, and it helps some of our patients.” The average self-reported improvement was 52% for patients with dupilumab-associated facial redness treated with itraconazole in a retrospective medical record review that he and his colleagues published in 2022.

Dr. Rosmarin pointed to a multicenter prospective cohort study also published in 2022 showing that baseline/pretreatment levels of Malassezia-specific IgE were associated with the development of dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis. The median levels of Malassezia-specific IgE were 32 kUL^–1 versus 2.3 kUL^–1 in patients who experienced dupilumab-associated facial redness, compared with those who did not.

He said that, while there “may be multiple reasons” for dupilumab-associated head and neck dermatitis and that “plenty of patients” who don’t have Malassezia-specific IgE develop head and neck dermatitis, “this could be one cause.”

Itraconazole has been shown in his practice to be superior to fluconazole, likely because it has greater anti-inflammatory effects and provides better coverage of Malassezia because it is more lipophilic, said Dr. Rosmarin, who does not test for Malassezia-specific IgE before trying itraconazole.

Topical adherence with diffuse xerosis and mild-moderate AD

For patients with diffuse xerosis and mild-moderate AD, especially those who are older and having difficulty with topical regimens, Anna De Benedetto, MD, said she tries to enhance adherence by simplifying the regimen. She asks patients to buy a pound jar of base cream (ceramide base) – “whatever emollient they like” – and mixes into it a high-potency steroid solution. They’re instructed to apply the combined cream once daily for 1-2 weeks, and then three times a week alternating with a nonmedicated cream.

“This way they’re using one [cream] to target the immune system and the skin barrier,” said Dr. De Benedetto, associate professor of dermatology and director of the dermatology clinical trial unit at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
 

‘Wet wrap’ pajamas; self-image for children, teens

Dermatologist Melinda Gooderham, MSc, MD, assistant professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology, said that, for widespread and troublesome AD, she advises patients or parents to wet a thin cotton pajama top and bottom and spin it in the dryer “so it’s almost dry but still moist.” Dry, looser pajamas or a light track suit can then be worn over the damp pajamas. “I usually tell [patients] to buy one size up,” she said.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Body dysmorphia is common with skin disease, and its incidence is six times higher in people with eczema than those without the disease, said Dr. Siegfried. “I’ve found that, for patients subjected to AD for a long time,” this is still an issue, “even when you clear their skin.”

For children, teens and their families, the nonprofit organization Made a Masterpiece can be valuable, Dr. Siegfried said. It offers resources from parents, children, psychologists, dermatologists, and others to help manage the emotional, social and spiritual aspects of living with a skin condition.
 

To use or not to use BSA; environmental counseling

“I think [assessing] body surface area [BSA] is very important in pediatrics and for adolescents [especially in those with moderate to severe disease] because it quantifies the disease for the family,” said Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

University of California, San Diego

“Families live with the disease, but quantification really matters” for understanding the extent and impact of the disease and for motivating families to treat, said Dr. Eichenfield.

(When the disease is markedly diminished in follow-up, knowing the BSA then “helps families to register the improvement and gives positive reinforcement,” Dr. Eichenfeld said after the meeting.)

Young patients can participate, he noted at the meeting. “When I do telemedicine visits, kids can tell me how many hands of eczema they have.”

Dr. Eichenfield also said that he now routinely counsels on the environmental impacts on eczema. For example, “I explain to people that we’re probably going to have a bad wildfire season in California, and it’s the kind of environmental perturbation that may impact some eczema patients,” he said, noting the 2021 study documenting an association of wildfire air pollution from the 2018 California Camp fire with an increase in dermatology clinic visits for AD and itch in San Francisco.

“It helps to keep an eye out for that, and also to be aware of some of the environmental changes,” he said.

Dr. Chovatiya reported ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others. Dr. Sidbury reported ties with Regeneron, UCB, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, and Lilly, among others. Dr. Rosmarin reported ties with AbbVie, Incyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others. Dr. Siegfried reported ties with Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, AbbVie, Incyte, Leo, and Pfizer, among others. Dr. De Benedetto reported ties with Incyte, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Sanofi Advent, among others. Dr. Gooderham reported ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, among others. Dr. Eichenfield disclosed ties with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others.

The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the late 1990s revolutionized treatment of rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), providing patients with another treatment option when conventional therapies were ineffective. However, when these diseases don’t respond to anti-TNF therapy, it is still difficult to determine the next best course of action.

“One of the big challenges we have in treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and I would say rheumatoid arthritis was well, is how to handle patients who have failed their first biologic therapy,” Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, professor of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), told this news organization. “In the case of both RA and PsA, that’s quite frequently an anti-TNF agent.”

For an estimated 30% to 40% of patients, TNF inhibitor therapy is discontinued because of nonresponse or intolerance. Clinicians can switch to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or add another conventional DMARD, such as methotrexate. Now, several case studies as well as promising findings from phase 2 clinical trials suggest that combining two biologics could be an alternative strategy to improve patient response to treatment. However, concerns about safety and higher costs remain.
 

Targeting multiple mechanisms of action

Rheumatic conditions affect multiple areas of the body and involve different signaling pathways, said Dr. Ritchlin, who heads the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester. PsA, for example, affects the skin, peripheral joints, the axial skeleton, and the entheses.

“The question is, Are these various manifestations – of which multiple [ones] are often seen in one patient – likely to respond to one therapy that targets one single pathway?” he said.

Combination therapies have been effective in treating leukemia and lymphoma as well as infection with HIV, Melek Yalçin Mutlu, MD, and colleagues from Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and the University Clinic Erlangen (Germany), wrote in a review about combining biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA and PsA. The review was published in Joint Bone Spine.

“Cumulative evidence on the success of combination therapies in various diseases supports an akin approach in rheumatology, and simultaneous or sequential blockade of multiple mechanisms that generate or propagate arthritis could theoretically enhance efficacy,” the authors wrote. “On the other hand, intervening on multiple targets in the immune system brings about a risk of adverse events, among which infection is a major concern.”
 

Failed clinical trials

Clinical trials of combination biologic therapies for rheumatic disease have been tried before, but these combinations did not show superior efficacy, and they increased patients’ risk for infection. One study published in 2004 compared monotherapy with the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) to the combination of etanercept and anakinra (Kineret), an interleukin-1 (IL-1) antagonist, in 244 patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), ACR50, or ACR70 between the groups that received etanercept and anakinra and those that received etanercept alone. There were nine serious infections among patients given etanercept and anakinra, including one death due to pneumonia. There were no serious infections in the etanercept monotherapy group.

In another RA trial, 121 patients were given etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and were randomly assigned to also receive a placebo or low-dose abatacept (Orencia), a T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor. There was no significant difference in disease improvement between the two groups, although the rate of serious adverse events was nearly six times higher in the etanercept-abatacept group (16.5% vs. 2.8%).

These studies had a “chilling effect on the whole field for some years,” Brian G. Feagan, MD, the senior scientific director of the gastrointestinal contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, told this news organization. People were reluctant to try new biologic combinations, owing to the fear that these safety issues would plague subsequent trials.

University of Western Ontario, London

Promising combinations

But a recent phase 2 trial, led by Dr. Feagan, suggests that certain combinations can be effective. In the Janssen-sponsored VEGA trial, researchers found that a combination of guselkumab (Tremfya), an IL-23 inhibitor, and golimumab (Simponi), an anti-TNF agent, was more effective than either drug used as monotherapy for initial induction treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Importantly, there was no difference in adverse events between any of the groups. This same combination therapy is now being tried for patients with active PsA in Janssen’s AFFINITY trial, for which Dr. Ritchlin is one of the lead investigators.

Other trials have also delivered promising results. One study enrolled 51 adults with active RA who were all receiving stable doses of both a TNF inhibitor – either etanercept or adalimumab (Humira) – and methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one course of rituximab (Rituxan) or placebo. The researchers found that the safety profile of this TNF inhibitor/methotrexate/rituximab combination was “consistent” with the safety profiles of previous studies of methotrexate/rituximab dual combinations with no TNF inhibitor; there were no new safety signals. At 24 weeks, 30% of the group that received rituximab reached ACR20, compared with 17% of the group that was given placebo. Twelve percent of the rituximab group achieved ACR50, compared with 6% of the group that received placebo.

“B-cell depletion is fundamentally different from cytokine inhibition and even from co-stimulation blockade, making an additive effect more likely,” Dr. Mutlu and colleagues wrote in their review. Reports have also suggested possible benefits of combining a TNF inhibitor and an IL-17 inhibitor in the treatment of RA and PsA, as well as the combination of a TNF inhibitor and an IL-23 antagonist for PsA.

While these combinations require controlled clinical trials, “there’s some smoke signals out there that this might be an effective strategy for some patients,” Dr. Ritchlin said.

In addition to the AFFINITY trial, two clinical trials are underway in France. The first, CRI-RA, is evaluating the combination of baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and adalimumab. Although baricitinib is not a biologic, as a targeted synthetic DMARD, the therapy is more potent than conventional DMARDs, and the same potential safety concerns apply. However, use of a combination of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and different biologics for RA patients has been reported; no serious side effects were reported over 11 months of therapy. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial began in July 2021 and will enroll 178 patients. The estimated study completion date is July 2025.

“Of note, baricitinib does not directly block signaling downstream of TNF, even if an indirect effect on TNF production is likely to occur,” the CRI-RA entry on clinicaltrials.gov reads. “Targeting multiple inflammatory cytokines in combination may lead to more effective treatment and enhanced clinical responses in patients with RA compared to the current second-line strategies.”

The second trial, SEQUENS-RA, is evaluating the use of TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept for patients with RA who test positive for anticitrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPAs). In the past, the combination of a TNF inhibitor and abatacept did not lead to promising results, but in this trial, the drugs will be administered sequentially.

“Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs [biologic DMARDs], rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors,” according to the clinical trial’s description. “Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors, followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission, would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA-positive patients with RA.”

The randomized trial of 220 participants began in November 2022. The estimated completion date for the study is November 2025.
 

Finding the right patients

Though these studies have had some promising results, the difference in efficacy between biologic monotherapy and dual therapy has been mostly moderate, Dr. Mutlu and coauthors wrote. Identifying disease subtypes for which there might be a higher likelihood of response to dual biologic treatment, especially multidrug-resistant types, could improve efficacies in future trials, they argued. “The good effects of bDMARD combinations in resistant patients in fact point into this direction, though they were observed in uncontrolled studies,” the authors noted.

Insurance coverage remains a “huge challenge” for these dual therapies because of the higher expense, noted Dr. Ritchlin. Better targeting therapies could help convince these companies to pay for these therapies.

“I would say that if we were able to demonstrate a phenotype of a patient that would respond to biologics and not monotherapies, [then] many companies would be amenable to this kind of approach,” he said.

Dr. Ritchlin reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Feagan reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

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

The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the late 1990s revolutionized treatment of rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), providing patients with another treatment option when conventional therapies were ineffective. However, when these diseases don’t respond to anti-TNF therapy, it is still difficult to determine the next best course of action.

“One of the big challenges we have in treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and I would say rheumatoid arthritis was well, is how to handle patients who have failed their first biologic therapy,” Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, professor of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), told this news organization. “In the case of both RA and PsA, that’s quite frequently an anti-TNF agent.”

For an estimated 30% to 40% of patients, TNF inhibitor therapy is discontinued because of nonresponse or intolerance. Clinicians can switch to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or add another conventional DMARD, such as methotrexate. Now, several case studies as well as promising findings from phase 2 clinical trials suggest that combining two biologics could be an alternative strategy to improve patient response to treatment. However, concerns about safety and higher costs remain.
 

Targeting multiple mechanisms of action

Rheumatic conditions affect multiple areas of the body and involve different signaling pathways, said Dr. Ritchlin, who heads the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester. PsA, for example, affects the skin, peripheral joints, the axial skeleton, and the entheses.

“The question is, Are these various manifestations – of which multiple [ones] are often seen in one patient – likely to respond to one therapy that targets one single pathway?” he said.

Combination therapies have been effective in treating leukemia and lymphoma as well as infection with HIV, Melek Yalçin Mutlu, MD, and colleagues from Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and the University Clinic Erlangen (Germany), wrote in a review about combining biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA and PsA. The review was published in Joint Bone Spine.

“Cumulative evidence on the success of combination therapies in various diseases supports an akin approach in rheumatology, and simultaneous or sequential blockade of multiple mechanisms that generate or propagate arthritis could theoretically enhance efficacy,” the authors wrote. “On the other hand, intervening on multiple targets in the immune system brings about a risk of adverse events, among which infection is a major concern.”
 

Failed clinical trials

Clinical trials of combination biologic therapies for rheumatic disease have been tried before, but these combinations did not show superior efficacy, and they increased patients’ risk for infection. One study published in 2004 compared monotherapy with the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) to the combination of etanercept and anakinra (Kineret), an interleukin-1 (IL-1) antagonist, in 244 patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), ACR50, or ACR70 between the groups that received etanercept and anakinra and those that received etanercept alone. There were nine serious infections among patients given etanercept and anakinra, including one death due to pneumonia. There were no serious infections in the etanercept monotherapy group.

In another RA trial, 121 patients were given etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and were randomly assigned to also receive a placebo or low-dose abatacept (Orencia), a T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor. There was no significant difference in disease improvement between the two groups, although the rate of serious adverse events was nearly six times higher in the etanercept-abatacept group (16.5% vs. 2.8%).

These studies had a “chilling effect on the whole field for some years,” Brian G. Feagan, MD, the senior scientific director of the gastrointestinal contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, told this news organization. People were reluctant to try new biologic combinations, owing to the fear that these safety issues would plague subsequent trials.

University of Western Ontario, London

Promising combinations

But a recent phase 2 trial, led by Dr. Feagan, suggests that certain combinations can be effective. In the Janssen-sponsored VEGA trial, researchers found that a combination of guselkumab (Tremfya), an IL-23 inhibitor, and golimumab (Simponi), an anti-TNF agent, was more effective than either drug used as monotherapy for initial induction treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Importantly, there was no difference in adverse events between any of the groups. This same combination therapy is now being tried for patients with active PsA in Janssen’s AFFINITY trial, for which Dr. Ritchlin is one of the lead investigators.

Other trials have also delivered promising results. One study enrolled 51 adults with active RA who were all receiving stable doses of both a TNF inhibitor – either etanercept or adalimumab (Humira) – and methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one course of rituximab (Rituxan) or placebo. The researchers found that the safety profile of this TNF inhibitor/methotrexate/rituximab combination was “consistent” with the safety profiles of previous studies of methotrexate/rituximab dual combinations with no TNF inhibitor; there were no new safety signals. At 24 weeks, 30% of the group that received rituximab reached ACR20, compared with 17% of the group that was given placebo. Twelve percent of the rituximab group achieved ACR50, compared with 6% of the group that received placebo.

“B-cell depletion is fundamentally different from cytokine inhibition and even from co-stimulation blockade, making an additive effect more likely,” Dr. Mutlu and colleagues wrote in their review. Reports have also suggested possible benefits of combining a TNF inhibitor and an IL-17 inhibitor in the treatment of RA and PsA, as well as the combination of a TNF inhibitor and an IL-23 antagonist for PsA.

While these combinations require controlled clinical trials, “there’s some smoke signals out there that this might be an effective strategy for some patients,” Dr. Ritchlin said.

In addition to the AFFINITY trial, two clinical trials are underway in France. The first, CRI-RA, is evaluating the combination of baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and adalimumab. Although baricitinib is not a biologic, as a targeted synthetic DMARD, the therapy is more potent than conventional DMARDs, and the same potential safety concerns apply. However, use of a combination of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and different biologics for RA patients has been reported; no serious side effects were reported over 11 months of therapy. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial began in July 2021 and will enroll 178 patients. The estimated study completion date is July 2025.

“Of note, baricitinib does not directly block signaling downstream of TNF, even if an indirect effect on TNF production is likely to occur,” the CRI-RA entry on clinicaltrials.gov reads. “Targeting multiple inflammatory cytokines in combination may lead to more effective treatment and enhanced clinical responses in patients with RA compared to the current second-line strategies.”

The second trial, SEQUENS-RA, is evaluating the use of TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept for patients with RA who test positive for anticitrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPAs). In the past, the combination of a TNF inhibitor and abatacept did not lead to promising results, but in this trial, the drugs will be administered sequentially.

“Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs [biologic DMARDs], rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors,” according to the clinical trial’s description. “Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors, followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission, would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA-positive patients with RA.”

The randomized trial of 220 participants began in November 2022. The estimated completion date for the study is November 2025.
 

Finding the right patients

Though these studies have had some promising results, the difference in efficacy between biologic monotherapy and dual therapy has been mostly moderate, Dr. Mutlu and coauthors wrote. Identifying disease subtypes for which there might be a higher likelihood of response to dual biologic treatment, especially multidrug-resistant types, could improve efficacies in future trials, they argued. “The good effects of bDMARD combinations in resistant patients in fact point into this direction, though they were observed in uncontrolled studies,” the authors noted.

Insurance coverage remains a “huge challenge” for these dual therapies because of the higher expense, noted Dr. Ritchlin. Better targeting therapies could help convince these companies to pay for these therapies.

“I would say that if we were able to demonstrate a phenotype of a patient that would respond to biologics and not monotherapies, [then] many companies would be amenable to this kind of approach,” he said.

Dr. Ritchlin reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Feagan reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

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

The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the late 1990s revolutionized treatment of rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), providing patients with another treatment option when conventional therapies were ineffective. However, when these diseases don’t respond to anti-TNF therapy, it is still difficult to determine the next best course of action.

“One of the big challenges we have in treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and I would say rheumatoid arthritis was well, is how to handle patients who have failed their first biologic therapy,” Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, professor of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), told this news organization. “In the case of both RA and PsA, that’s quite frequently an anti-TNF agent.”

For an estimated 30% to 40% of patients, TNF inhibitor therapy is discontinued because of nonresponse or intolerance. Clinicians can switch to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or add another conventional DMARD, such as methotrexate. Now, several case studies as well as promising findings from phase 2 clinical trials suggest that combining two biologics could be an alternative strategy to improve patient response to treatment. However, concerns about safety and higher costs remain.
 

Targeting multiple mechanisms of action

Rheumatic conditions affect multiple areas of the body and involve different signaling pathways, said Dr. Ritchlin, who heads the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester. PsA, for example, affects the skin, peripheral joints, the axial skeleton, and the entheses.

“The question is, Are these various manifestations – of which multiple [ones] are often seen in one patient – likely to respond to one therapy that targets one single pathway?” he said.

Combination therapies have been effective in treating leukemia and lymphoma as well as infection with HIV, Melek Yalçin Mutlu, MD, and colleagues from Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and the University Clinic Erlangen (Germany), wrote in a review about combining biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA and PsA. The review was published in Joint Bone Spine.

“Cumulative evidence on the success of combination therapies in various diseases supports an akin approach in rheumatology, and simultaneous or sequential blockade of multiple mechanisms that generate or propagate arthritis could theoretically enhance efficacy,” the authors wrote. “On the other hand, intervening on multiple targets in the immune system brings about a risk of adverse events, among which infection is a major concern.”
 

Failed clinical trials

Clinical trials of combination biologic therapies for rheumatic disease have been tried before, but these combinations did not show superior efficacy, and they increased patients’ risk for infection. One study published in 2004 compared monotherapy with the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) to the combination of etanercept and anakinra (Kineret), an interleukin-1 (IL-1) antagonist, in 244 patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), ACR50, or ACR70 between the groups that received etanercept and anakinra and those that received etanercept alone. There were nine serious infections among patients given etanercept and anakinra, including one death due to pneumonia. There were no serious infections in the etanercept monotherapy group.

In another RA trial, 121 patients were given etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and were randomly assigned to also receive a placebo or low-dose abatacept (Orencia), a T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor. There was no significant difference in disease improvement between the two groups, although the rate of serious adverse events was nearly six times higher in the etanercept-abatacept group (16.5% vs. 2.8%).

These studies had a “chilling effect on the whole field for some years,” Brian G. Feagan, MD, the senior scientific director of the gastrointestinal contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, told this news organization. People were reluctant to try new biologic combinations, owing to the fear that these safety issues would plague subsequent trials.

University of Western Ontario, London

Promising combinations

But a recent phase 2 trial, led by Dr. Feagan, suggests that certain combinations can be effective. In the Janssen-sponsored VEGA trial, researchers found that a combination of guselkumab (Tremfya), an IL-23 inhibitor, and golimumab (Simponi), an anti-TNF agent, was more effective than either drug used as monotherapy for initial induction treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Importantly, there was no difference in adverse events between any of the groups. This same combination therapy is now being tried for patients with active PsA in Janssen’s AFFINITY trial, for which Dr. Ritchlin is one of the lead investigators.

Other trials have also delivered promising results. One study enrolled 51 adults with active RA who were all receiving stable doses of both a TNF inhibitor – either etanercept or adalimumab (Humira) – and methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one course of rituximab (Rituxan) or placebo. The researchers found that the safety profile of this TNF inhibitor/methotrexate/rituximab combination was “consistent” with the safety profiles of previous studies of methotrexate/rituximab dual combinations with no TNF inhibitor; there were no new safety signals. At 24 weeks, 30% of the group that received rituximab reached ACR20, compared with 17% of the group that was given placebo. Twelve percent of the rituximab group achieved ACR50, compared with 6% of the group that received placebo.

“B-cell depletion is fundamentally different from cytokine inhibition and even from co-stimulation blockade, making an additive effect more likely,” Dr. Mutlu and colleagues wrote in their review. Reports have also suggested possible benefits of combining a TNF inhibitor and an IL-17 inhibitor in the treatment of RA and PsA, as well as the combination of a TNF inhibitor and an IL-23 antagonist for PsA.

While these combinations require controlled clinical trials, “there’s some smoke signals out there that this might be an effective strategy for some patients,” Dr. Ritchlin said.

In addition to the AFFINITY trial, two clinical trials are underway in France. The first, CRI-RA, is evaluating the combination of baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and adalimumab. Although baricitinib is not a biologic, as a targeted synthetic DMARD, the therapy is more potent than conventional DMARDs, and the same potential safety concerns apply. However, use of a combination of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and different biologics for RA patients has been reported; no serious side effects were reported over 11 months of therapy. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial began in July 2021 and will enroll 178 patients. The estimated study completion date is July 2025.

“Of note, baricitinib does not directly block signaling downstream of TNF, even if an indirect effect on TNF production is likely to occur,” the CRI-RA entry on clinicaltrials.gov reads. “Targeting multiple inflammatory cytokines in combination may lead to more effective treatment and enhanced clinical responses in patients with RA compared to the current second-line strategies.”

The second trial, SEQUENS-RA, is evaluating the use of TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept for patients with RA who test positive for anticitrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPAs). In the past, the combination of a TNF inhibitor and abatacept did not lead to promising results, but in this trial, the drugs will be administered sequentially.

“Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs [biologic DMARDs], rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors,” according to the clinical trial’s description. “Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors, followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission, would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA-positive patients with RA.”

The randomized trial of 220 participants began in November 2022. The estimated completion date for the study is November 2025.
 

Finding the right patients

Though these studies have had some promising results, the difference in efficacy between biologic monotherapy and dual therapy has been mostly moderate, Dr. Mutlu and coauthors wrote. Identifying disease subtypes for which there might be a higher likelihood of response to dual biologic treatment, especially multidrug-resistant types, could improve efficacies in future trials, they argued. “The good effects of bDMARD combinations in resistant patients in fact point into this direction, though they were observed in uncontrolled studies,” the authors noted.

Insurance coverage remains a “huge challenge” for these dual therapies because of the higher expense, noted Dr. Ritchlin. Better targeting therapies could help convince these companies to pay for these therapies.

“I would say that if we were able to demonstrate a phenotype of a patient that would respond to biologics and not monotherapies, [then] many companies would be amenable to this kind of approach,” he said.

Dr. Ritchlin reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Feagan reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

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

Women with moderate to severe psoriasis had a lower fertility rate, compared with age-matched peers without psoriasis, and overall, those with psoriasis had a slightly higher risk of pregnancy loss, compared with those who did not have the disease, in a U.K. cohort study.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be one of the largest studies to investigate fertility and obstetric outcomes in patients with psoriasis.

“Studies that have examined fertility and pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis have reported conflicting findings,” lead author Teng-Chou Chen, PhD, of the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety at the University of Manchester (England), and colleagues from the Global Psoriasis Atlas wrote in the study, published in JAMA Dermatology. Most of the studies were small, with under 100 women, “and are thus likely underpowered to detect a difference in pregnancy outcomes. The majority of those studies used disease registry data or lacked a matched comparison group and hence were unable to estimate the association of fertility and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis when compared with the general population.”

To determine fertility rates and birth outcomes in female patients with psoriasis, compared with age- and practice-matched patients without psoriasis, the researchers evaluated EHR data from a large U.K. primary care database, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, from 1998 to 2019. They limited the analysis to patients aged 15-44 years and used relevant codes from clinical consultations to identify those with psoriasis. Then, for each patient with psoriasis, the researchers selected five comparators without psoriasis from the same primary care practice and matched for year of birth.

Both sets of patients were followed from the index date to age 45 years, death, transfer out of practice, last date of data collection, or end of the study period (Dec. 31, 2019), whichever came first. Pregnancy records were extracted for both sets of patients, and birth outcomes were categorized as pregnancy loss, live birth, stillbirth, and preterm birth. Adverse pregnancy outcomes were also collected. Finally, Dr. Chen and colleagues used a negative binomial model to examine the association between psoriasis and the fertility rate, and they applied logistic regression to compare the association between psoriasis and obstetric outcomes.

The analysis included 63,681 patients with psoriasis and 318,405 comparators whose median age on the index date was 30 years and who were followed for a median of 4.1 years. Among patients with psoriasis, 5.1% met criteria for moderate to severe disease in the follow-up period. The researchers observed that, compared with their age- and practice-matched counterparts, patients with psoriasis were more likely to be current smokers, alcohol drinkers, or overweight on the index date. They were also more often diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, thyroid disorders, and respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Fertility, birth outcomes

When they looked at fertility outcomes, the researchers found that, compared with their matched peers without psoriasis, those with psoriasis had higher rates of fertility (risk ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.33; P < .001). But after the researchers stratified patients based on psoriasis severity, those with moderate to severe disease had significantly lower rates of fertility (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83; P < .001), compared those who did not have psoriasis.

As for adverse birth outcomes, compared with their matched comparators, pregnancies in patients with psoriasis were less likely to end in a live birth (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93; P < .001). They also had a higher risk of pregnancy loss (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10; P < .001), most during the first trimester, at a gestation period of under 91 days.

In addition to psoriasis, patients younger than age 20 (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.94-2.15; P < .011) and those aged between 20 and 24 years (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.31-1.40; P < .001) had a higher risk of pregnancy loss, compared with those aged between 25 and 34 years.

However, no increases in the risks of antenatal hemorrhage, preeclampsia, or gestational diabetes were observed in patients with psoriasis, and no statistically significant differences in the odds of stillbirth and preterm birth were found between patients with psoriasis and matched comparators who did not have psoriasis.

“The mechanism to link the higher risk of pregnancy loss in patients with psoriasis is not clear, but there might be potential explanations,” the researchers wrote. “Psoriasis is characterized by the increased activity of [interleukin]-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Those proinflammatory cytokines may negatively affect the placenta and cause impaired fetal growth.”

They recommended that further studies “evaluate the effects of better management of psoriasis and close monitoring during pregnancy on pregnancy loss.” In particular, “patients with psoriasis were more likely to have comorbidities that may be related to poor pregnancy outcomes, and hence increased emphasis of managing comorbidities as part of the routine management plan is also warranted.”

Asked to comment on the study, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, who has been involved with research on this topic, said that she and other investigators had observed some years ago that fertility rates for women with moderate to severe psoriasis might be lower than expected.

This trend was observed in some psoriasis registries, some pregnancy registries, and in clinical practice, Dr. Kimball, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “This study clearly demonstrates that lower fertility rates in the moderate to severe psoriasis population occurs and compels further exploration of the reason why.” The reasons could be biologic, she continued, including difficulty conceiving or an increased risk of miscarriage, sociobehavioral issues, or a combination.

“Behavioral examples could include that some women with moderate to severe psoriasis can flare during pregnancy, which might affect their choice” to become pregnant, Dr. Kimball said. “Stigma may also play a role in how women with moderate to severe psoriasis form relationships. Now that there are much better treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis and better knowledge about managing psoriasis during pregnancy, it will also be important to explore whether these trends change over time.”

The study was funded by the International League of Dermatological Societies on behalf of the Global Psoriasis Atlas. Two of the study authors reported receiving consulting fees and grant support from many pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kimball disclosed that she serves or has served on several Organization of Teratology Information Specialists advisory board pregnancy registries, is a consultant and investigator for Abbvie, Janssen, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Moonlake, UCB, and Amgen; has fellowship funding from Janssen; and serves on the board of Almirall.

Women with moderate to severe psoriasis had a lower fertility rate, compared with age-matched peers without psoriasis, and overall, those with psoriasis had a slightly higher risk of pregnancy loss, compared with those who did not have the disease, in a U.K. cohort study.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be one of the largest studies to investigate fertility and obstetric outcomes in patients with psoriasis.

“Studies that have examined fertility and pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis have reported conflicting findings,” lead author Teng-Chou Chen, PhD, of the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety at the University of Manchester (England), and colleagues from the Global Psoriasis Atlas wrote in the study, published in JAMA Dermatology. Most of the studies were small, with under 100 women, “and are thus likely underpowered to detect a difference in pregnancy outcomes. The majority of those studies used disease registry data or lacked a matched comparison group and hence were unable to estimate the association of fertility and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis when compared with the general population.”

To determine fertility rates and birth outcomes in female patients with psoriasis, compared with age- and practice-matched patients without psoriasis, the researchers evaluated EHR data from a large U.K. primary care database, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, from 1998 to 2019. They limited the analysis to patients aged 15-44 years and used relevant codes from clinical consultations to identify those with psoriasis. Then, for each patient with psoriasis, the researchers selected five comparators without psoriasis from the same primary care practice and matched for year of birth.

Both sets of patients were followed from the index date to age 45 years, death, transfer out of practice, last date of data collection, or end of the study period (Dec. 31, 2019), whichever came first. Pregnancy records were extracted for both sets of patients, and birth outcomes were categorized as pregnancy loss, live birth, stillbirth, and preterm birth. Adverse pregnancy outcomes were also collected. Finally, Dr. Chen and colleagues used a negative binomial model to examine the association between psoriasis and the fertility rate, and they applied logistic regression to compare the association between psoriasis and obstetric outcomes.

The analysis included 63,681 patients with psoriasis and 318,405 comparators whose median age on the index date was 30 years and who were followed for a median of 4.1 years. Among patients with psoriasis, 5.1% met criteria for moderate to severe disease in the follow-up period. The researchers observed that, compared with their age- and practice-matched counterparts, patients with psoriasis were more likely to be current smokers, alcohol drinkers, or overweight on the index date. They were also more often diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, thyroid disorders, and respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Fertility, birth outcomes

When they looked at fertility outcomes, the researchers found that, compared with their matched peers without psoriasis, those with psoriasis had higher rates of fertility (risk ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.33; P < .001). But after the researchers stratified patients based on psoriasis severity, those with moderate to severe disease had significantly lower rates of fertility (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83; P < .001), compared those who did not have psoriasis.

As for adverse birth outcomes, compared with their matched comparators, pregnancies in patients with psoriasis were less likely to end in a live birth (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93; P < .001). They also had a higher risk of pregnancy loss (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10; P < .001), most during the first trimester, at a gestation period of under 91 days.

In addition to psoriasis, patients younger than age 20 (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.94-2.15; P < .011) and those aged between 20 and 24 years (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.31-1.40; P < .001) had a higher risk of pregnancy loss, compared with those aged between 25 and 34 years.

However, no increases in the risks of antenatal hemorrhage, preeclampsia, or gestational diabetes were observed in patients with psoriasis, and no statistically significant differences in the odds of stillbirth and preterm birth were found between patients with psoriasis and matched comparators who did not have psoriasis.

“The mechanism to link the higher risk of pregnancy loss in patients with psoriasis is not clear, but there might be potential explanations,” the researchers wrote. “Psoriasis is characterized by the increased activity of [interleukin]-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Those proinflammatory cytokines may negatively affect the placenta and cause impaired fetal growth.”

They recommended that further studies “evaluate the effects of better management of psoriasis and close monitoring during pregnancy on pregnancy loss.” In particular, “patients with psoriasis were more likely to have comorbidities that may be related to poor pregnancy outcomes, and hence increased emphasis of managing comorbidities as part of the routine management plan is also warranted.”

Asked to comment on the study, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, who has been involved with research on this topic, said that she and other investigators had observed some years ago that fertility rates for women with moderate to severe psoriasis might be lower than expected.

This trend was observed in some psoriasis registries, some pregnancy registries, and in clinical practice, Dr. Kimball, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “This study clearly demonstrates that lower fertility rates in the moderate to severe psoriasis population occurs and compels further exploration of the reason why.” The reasons could be biologic, she continued, including difficulty conceiving or an increased risk of miscarriage, sociobehavioral issues, or a combination.

“Behavioral examples could include that some women with moderate to severe psoriasis can flare during pregnancy, which might affect their choice” to become pregnant, Dr. Kimball said. “Stigma may also play a role in how women with moderate to severe psoriasis form relationships. Now that there are much better treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis and better knowledge about managing psoriasis during pregnancy, it will also be important to explore whether these trends change over time.”

The study was funded by the International League of Dermatological Societies on behalf of the Global Psoriasis Atlas. Two of the study authors reported receiving consulting fees and grant support from many pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kimball disclosed that she serves or has served on several Organization of Teratology Information Specialists advisory board pregnancy registries, is a consultant and investigator for Abbvie, Janssen, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Moonlake, UCB, and Amgen; has fellowship funding from Janssen; and serves on the board of Almirall.

Women with moderate to severe psoriasis had a lower fertility rate, compared with age-matched peers without psoriasis, and overall, those with psoriasis had a slightly higher risk of pregnancy loss, compared with those who did not have the disease, in a U.K. cohort study.

Those are key findings from what is believed to be one of the largest studies to investigate fertility and obstetric outcomes in patients with psoriasis.

“Studies that have examined fertility and pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis have reported conflicting findings,” lead author Teng-Chou Chen, PhD, of the Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety at the University of Manchester (England), and colleagues from the Global Psoriasis Atlas wrote in the study, published in JAMA Dermatology. Most of the studies were small, with under 100 women, “and are thus likely underpowered to detect a difference in pregnancy outcomes. The majority of those studies used disease registry data or lacked a matched comparison group and hence were unable to estimate the association of fertility and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with psoriasis when compared with the general population.”

To determine fertility rates and birth outcomes in female patients with psoriasis, compared with age- and practice-matched patients without psoriasis, the researchers evaluated EHR data from a large U.K. primary care database, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, from 1998 to 2019. They limited the analysis to patients aged 15-44 years and used relevant codes from clinical consultations to identify those with psoriasis. Then, for each patient with psoriasis, the researchers selected five comparators without psoriasis from the same primary care practice and matched for year of birth.

Both sets of patients were followed from the index date to age 45 years, death, transfer out of practice, last date of data collection, or end of the study period (Dec. 31, 2019), whichever came first. Pregnancy records were extracted for both sets of patients, and birth outcomes were categorized as pregnancy loss, live birth, stillbirth, and preterm birth. Adverse pregnancy outcomes were also collected. Finally, Dr. Chen and colleagues used a negative binomial model to examine the association between psoriasis and the fertility rate, and they applied logistic regression to compare the association between psoriasis and obstetric outcomes.

The analysis included 63,681 patients with psoriasis and 318,405 comparators whose median age on the index date was 30 years and who were followed for a median of 4.1 years. Among patients with psoriasis, 5.1% met criteria for moderate to severe disease in the follow-up period. The researchers observed that, compared with their age- and practice-matched counterparts, patients with psoriasis were more likely to be current smokers, alcohol drinkers, or overweight on the index date. They were also more often diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, thyroid disorders, and respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Fertility, birth outcomes

When they looked at fertility outcomes, the researchers found that, compared with their matched peers without psoriasis, those with psoriasis had higher rates of fertility (risk ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.33; P < .001). But after the researchers stratified patients based on psoriasis severity, those with moderate to severe disease had significantly lower rates of fertility (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83; P < .001), compared those who did not have psoriasis.

As for adverse birth outcomes, compared with their matched comparators, pregnancies in patients with psoriasis were less likely to end in a live birth (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93; P < .001). They also had a higher risk of pregnancy loss (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10; P < .001), most during the first trimester, at a gestation period of under 91 days.

In addition to psoriasis, patients younger than age 20 (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.94-2.15; P < .011) and those aged between 20 and 24 years (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.31-1.40; P < .001) had a higher risk of pregnancy loss, compared with those aged between 25 and 34 years.

However, no increases in the risks of antenatal hemorrhage, preeclampsia, or gestational diabetes were observed in patients with psoriasis, and no statistically significant differences in the odds of stillbirth and preterm birth were found between patients with psoriasis and matched comparators who did not have psoriasis.

“The mechanism to link the higher risk of pregnancy loss in patients with psoriasis is not clear, but there might be potential explanations,” the researchers wrote. “Psoriasis is characterized by the increased activity of [interleukin]-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha. Those proinflammatory cytokines may negatively affect the placenta and cause impaired fetal growth.”

They recommended that further studies “evaluate the effects of better management of psoriasis and close monitoring during pregnancy on pregnancy loss.” In particular, “patients with psoriasis were more likely to have comorbidities that may be related to poor pregnancy outcomes, and hence increased emphasis of managing comorbidities as part of the routine management plan is also warranted.”

Asked to comment on the study, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, who has been involved with research on this topic, said that she and other investigators had observed some years ago that fertility rates for women with moderate to severe psoriasis might be lower than expected.

This trend was observed in some psoriasis registries, some pregnancy registries, and in clinical practice, Dr. Kimball, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “This study clearly demonstrates that lower fertility rates in the moderate to severe psoriasis population occurs and compels further exploration of the reason why.” The reasons could be biologic, she continued, including difficulty conceiving or an increased risk of miscarriage, sociobehavioral issues, or a combination.

“Behavioral examples could include that some women with moderate to severe psoriasis can flare during pregnancy, which might affect their choice” to become pregnant, Dr. Kimball said. “Stigma may also play a role in how women with moderate to severe psoriasis form relationships. Now that there are much better treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis and better knowledge about managing psoriasis during pregnancy, it will also be important to explore whether these trends change over time.”

The study was funded by the International League of Dermatological Societies on behalf of the Global Psoriasis Atlas. Two of the study authors reported receiving consulting fees and grant support from many pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Kimball disclosed that she serves or has served on several Organization of Teratology Information Specialists advisory board pregnancy registries, is a consultant and investigator for Abbvie, Janssen, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Moonlake, UCB, and Amgen; has fellowship funding from Janssen; and serves on the board of Almirall.

AT EULAR 2023

MILAN – Safety considerations, particularly regarding the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are of utmost importance in the 2023 update to recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Additionally, the selection of therapy should now take into account the complete clinical presentation, explicitly considering nonmusculoskeletal manifestations.

Safety considerations with JAK inhibitors

Expanding on the existing six overarching principles from the 2019 recommendations, the PsA EULAR recommendations now introduce a seventh principle: “The choice of treatment should consider safety considerations regarding individual modes of action to optimize the benefit-risk profile.”

This addition was prompted by recent safety data on JAK inhibitors, which revealed serious potential side effects, such as heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and severe infections, that recently prompted the European Medicines Agency to restrict their use. As indicated by the new principle, safety considerations have been incorporated into several recommendations.

For instance, in the context of peripheral arthritis, JAK inhibitors may now be considered if there is an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide, and at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD).

Alternatively, JAK inhibitors may be utilized when bDMARDs are not suitable for other reasons. However, EULAR now emphasizes caution whenever JAK inhibitors are mentioned. Specifically, “careful consideration is necessary for patients aged 65 or above, current or past long-time smokers, individuals with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors, those with other malignancy risk factors, or individuals with a known risk for venous thromboembolism.”
 

Consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations in treatment decisions

In another significant update, EULAR now recommends that the choice of therapy should also consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations associated with PsA. “There is a notable shift in perspective here,” Dr. Gossec told this news organization. Clinically relevant skin involvement should prompt the use of IL-17A or IL-17A/F or IL-23 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, while uveitis should be treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

In the case of inflammatory bowel disease, EULAR advises the use of anti-TNF agents, IL-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors, or a JAK inhibitor. The recommended course of action within each treatment category is not ranked in order of preference, but EULAR emphasizes the importance of following EMA recommendations and considering safety.
 

Systemic glucocorticoids removed

Certain medications have been removed from the recommendations, reflecting the heightened focus on treatment safety. The use of systemic glucocorticoids as adjunctive therapy is no longer recommended. “We always had reservations about their use, and now we have eliminated them. We are aware that they are still utilized, with 30% of patients in Germany, for instance, receiving low doses of glucocorticoids. However, the long-term efficacy/safety balance of glucocorticoids is unfavorable in any disease, particularly in patients with psoriatic arthritis and multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Gossec explained.

NSAIDs and local glucocorticoids are now limited to specific patient populations, namely those affected by oligoarthritis without poor prognostic factors, entheseal disease, or predominant axial disease. Their use should be short-term, generally no longer than 4 weeks. Polyarthritis or oligoarthritis with poor prognostic factors should instead be treated directly with csDMARDs.
 

No specific biologic treatment order recommended for peripheral arthritis

Regarding patients with peripheral arthritis, recent efficacy data have led EULAR to refrain from recommending any specific order of preference for the use of bDMARDs, which encompass TNF inhibitors and drugs targeting the IL-17 and IL-12/23 pathways. “We lack the data to propose an order of preference in patients with peripheral arthritis. Different classes of molecules exhibit efficacy in joint inflammation, generally resulting in a 50% response rate and similar overall effects,” said Dr. Gossec, referencing head-to-head trials between biologics that yielded very comparable results, such as the EXCEED trial or SPIRIT-H2H trial.

The updated recommendations now consider two IL-23p19 inhibitors, guselkumab (Tremfya) and risankizumab (Skyrizi), the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and the very recently EMA-approved bimekizumab (Bimzelx), an IL-17A/F double inhibitor.

The recommendation for patients with mono- or oligoarthritis and poor prognostic factors now aligns with the previous recommendations for polyarthritis: A csDMARD should be initiated promptly, with a preference for methotrexate if significant skin involvement is present. New data suggest that methotrexate may be beneficial for enthesitis, achieving resolution in approximately 30% of patients. When considering treatment options, JAK inhibitors may also be taken into account, with safety considerations in mind.

In cases of clinically relevant axial disease and an inadequate response to NSAIDs, therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor, a TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A/F inhibitor, or a JAK inhibitor may be considered. This approach now aligns with the most recent axial spondyloarthritis recommendation from EULAR and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).
 

Which disease manifestation to treat first?

During the discussion, chairwoman Uta Kiltz, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Rheumatism Center Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and clinical lecturer at Ruhr University Bochum, inquired about identifying the primary manifestation to guide the course of action.

“Psoriatic arthritis is highly heterogeneous, and determining the predominant manifestation is sometimes challenging,” Dr. Gossec said. “However, we believe that a certain order of preference is necessary when making treatment decisions. Starting with peripheral arthritis, which can lead to structural damage, allows for treatment selection based on that aspect. If peripheral arthritis is not present, attention should be directed towards axial disease, ensuring the presence of actual inflammation rather than solely axial pain, as mechanical origin axial pain can occur due to the patient’s age.”

David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, commented on the update to this news organization: “We are fortunate to have a wide range of targeted therapy options for psoriatic arthritis, and these guidelines reflect this abundance of choices. They emphasize the importance of selecting therapies based on specific disease manifestations and tailoring care to each patient’s unique type of psoriatic arthritis. It’s worth noting that some changes in these guidelines were influenced by regulatory changes following ORAL Surveillance. In an era of numerous options, we can afford to be selective at times.”

Regarding safety concerns and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Liew added: “It is not surprising to see these guidelines impose certain restrictions on the use of JAK inhibitors, especially in psoriatic arthritis, where other therapies offer distinct advantages. Until high-quality evidence convincingly points away from a class effect, we can expect to see similar provisions in many more guidelines.”

Many of the recommendations’ authors report financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies. These include AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and Viatris.

EULAR funded the development of the recommendations.

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

AT EULAR 2023

MILAN – Safety considerations, particularly regarding the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are of utmost importance in the 2023 update to recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Additionally, the selection of therapy should now take into account the complete clinical presentation, explicitly considering nonmusculoskeletal manifestations.

Safety considerations with JAK inhibitors

Expanding on the existing six overarching principles from the 2019 recommendations, the PsA EULAR recommendations now introduce a seventh principle: “The choice of treatment should consider safety considerations regarding individual modes of action to optimize the benefit-risk profile.”

This addition was prompted by recent safety data on JAK inhibitors, which revealed serious potential side effects, such as heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and severe infections, that recently prompted the European Medicines Agency to restrict their use. As indicated by the new principle, safety considerations have been incorporated into several recommendations.

For instance, in the context of peripheral arthritis, JAK inhibitors may now be considered if there is an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide, and at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD).

Alternatively, JAK inhibitors may be utilized when bDMARDs are not suitable for other reasons. However, EULAR now emphasizes caution whenever JAK inhibitors are mentioned. Specifically, “careful consideration is necessary for patients aged 65 or above, current or past long-time smokers, individuals with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors, those with other malignancy risk factors, or individuals with a known risk for venous thromboembolism.”
 

Consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations in treatment decisions

In another significant update, EULAR now recommends that the choice of therapy should also consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations associated with PsA. “There is a notable shift in perspective here,” Dr. Gossec told this news organization. Clinically relevant skin involvement should prompt the use of IL-17A or IL-17A/F or IL-23 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, while uveitis should be treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

In the case of inflammatory bowel disease, EULAR advises the use of anti-TNF agents, IL-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors, or a JAK inhibitor. The recommended course of action within each treatment category is not ranked in order of preference, but EULAR emphasizes the importance of following EMA recommendations and considering safety.
 

Systemic glucocorticoids removed

Certain medications have been removed from the recommendations, reflecting the heightened focus on treatment safety. The use of systemic glucocorticoids as adjunctive therapy is no longer recommended. “We always had reservations about their use, and now we have eliminated them. We are aware that they are still utilized, with 30% of patients in Germany, for instance, receiving low doses of glucocorticoids. However, the long-term efficacy/safety balance of glucocorticoids is unfavorable in any disease, particularly in patients with psoriatic arthritis and multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Gossec explained.

NSAIDs and local glucocorticoids are now limited to specific patient populations, namely those affected by oligoarthritis without poor prognostic factors, entheseal disease, or predominant axial disease. Their use should be short-term, generally no longer than 4 weeks. Polyarthritis or oligoarthritis with poor prognostic factors should instead be treated directly with csDMARDs.
 

No specific biologic treatment order recommended for peripheral arthritis

Regarding patients with peripheral arthritis, recent efficacy data have led EULAR to refrain from recommending any specific order of preference for the use of bDMARDs, which encompass TNF inhibitors and drugs targeting the IL-17 and IL-12/23 pathways. “We lack the data to propose an order of preference in patients with peripheral arthritis. Different classes of molecules exhibit efficacy in joint inflammation, generally resulting in a 50% response rate and similar overall effects,” said Dr. Gossec, referencing head-to-head trials between biologics that yielded very comparable results, such as the EXCEED trial or SPIRIT-H2H trial.

The updated recommendations now consider two IL-23p19 inhibitors, guselkumab (Tremfya) and risankizumab (Skyrizi), the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and the very recently EMA-approved bimekizumab (Bimzelx), an IL-17A/F double inhibitor.

The recommendation for patients with mono- or oligoarthritis and poor prognostic factors now aligns with the previous recommendations for polyarthritis: A csDMARD should be initiated promptly, with a preference for methotrexate if significant skin involvement is present. New data suggest that methotrexate may be beneficial for enthesitis, achieving resolution in approximately 30% of patients. When considering treatment options, JAK inhibitors may also be taken into account, with safety considerations in mind.

In cases of clinically relevant axial disease and an inadequate response to NSAIDs, therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor, a TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A/F inhibitor, or a JAK inhibitor may be considered. This approach now aligns with the most recent axial spondyloarthritis recommendation from EULAR and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).
 

Which disease manifestation to treat first?

During the discussion, chairwoman Uta Kiltz, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Rheumatism Center Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and clinical lecturer at Ruhr University Bochum, inquired about identifying the primary manifestation to guide the course of action.

“Psoriatic arthritis is highly heterogeneous, and determining the predominant manifestation is sometimes challenging,” Dr. Gossec said. “However, we believe that a certain order of preference is necessary when making treatment decisions. Starting with peripheral arthritis, which can lead to structural damage, allows for treatment selection based on that aspect. If peripheral arthritis is not present, attention should be directed towards axial disease, ensuring the presence of actual inflammation rather than solely axial pain, as mechanical origin axial pain can occur due to the patient’s age.”

David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, commented on the update to this news organization: “We are fortunate to have a wide range of targeted therapy options for psoriatic arthritis, and these guidelines reflect this abundance of choices. They emphasize the importance of selecting therapies based on specific disease manifestations and tailoring care to each patient’s unique type of psoriatic arthritis. It’s worth noting that some changes in these guidelines were influenced by regulatory changes following ORAL Surveillance. In an era of numerous options, we can afford to be selective at times.”

Regarding safety concerns and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Liew added: “It is not surprising to see these guidelines impose certain restrictions on the use of JAK inhibitors, especially in psoriatic arthritis, where other therapies offer distinct advantages. Until high-quality evidence convincingly points away from a class effect, we can expect to see similar provisions in many more guidelines.”

Many of the recommendations’ authors report financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies. These include AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and Viatris.

EULAR funded the development of the recommendations.

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

AT EULAR 2023

MILAN – Safety considerations, particularly regarding the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are of utmost importance in the 2023 update to recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Additionally, the selection of therapy should now take into account the complete clinical presentation, explicitly considering nonmusculoskeletal manifestations.

Safety considerations with JAK inhibitors

Expanding on the existing six overarching principles from the 2019 recommendations, the PsA EULAR recommendations now introduce a seventh principle: “The choice of treatment should consider safety considerations regarding individual modes of action to optimize the benefit-risk profile.”

This addition was prompted by recent safety data on JAK inhibitors, which revealed serious potential side effects, such as heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and severe infections, that recently prompted the European Medicines Agency to restrict their use. As indicated by the new principle, safety considerations have been incorporated into several recommendations.

For instance, in the context of peripheral arthritis, JAK inhibitors may now be considered if there is an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide, and at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD).

Alternatively, JAK inhibitors may be utilized when bDMARDs are not suitable for other reasons. However, EULAR now emphasizes caution whenever JAK inhibitors are mentioned. Specifically, “careful consideration is necessary for patients aged 65 or above, current or past long-time smokers, individuals with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors, those with other malignancy risk factors, or individuals with a known risk for venous thromboembolism.”
 

Consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations in treatment decisions

In another significant update, EULAR now recommends that the choice of therapy should also consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations associated with PsA. “There is a notable shift in perspective here,” Dr. Gossec told this news organization. Clinically relevant skin involvement should prompt the use of IL-17A or IL-17A/F or IL-23 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, while uveitis should be treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

In the case of inflammatory bowel disease, EULAR advises the use of anti-TNF agents, IL-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors, or a JAK inhibitor. The recommended course of action within each treatment category is not ranked in order of preference, but EULAR emphasizes the importance of following EMA recommendations and considering safety.
 

Systemic glucocorticoids removed

Certain medications have been removed from the recommendations, reflecting the heightened focus on treatment safety. The use of systemic glucocorticoids as adjunctive therapy is no longer recommended. “We always had reservations about their use, and now we have eliminated them. We are aware that they are still utilized, with 30% of patients in Germany, for instance, receiving low doses of glucocorticoids. However, the long-term efficacy/safety balance of glucocorticoids is unfavorable in any disease, particularly in patients with psoriatic arthritis and multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Gossec explained.

NSAIDs and local glucocorticoids are now limited to specific patient populations, namely those affected by oligoarthritis without poor prognostic factors, entheseal disease, or predominant axial disease. Their use should be short-term, generally no longer than 4 weeks. Polyarthritis or oligoarthritis with poor prognostic factors should instead be treated directly with csDMARDs.
 

No specific biologic treatment order recommended for peripheral arthritis

Regarding patients with peripheral arthritis, recent efficacy data have led EULAR to refrain from recommending any specific order of preference for the use of bDMARDs, which encompass TNF inhibitors and drugs targeting the IL-17 and IL-12/23 pathways. “We lack the data to propose an order of preference in patients with peripheral arthritis. Different classes of molecules exhibit efficacy in joint inflammation, generally resulting in a 50% response rate and similar overall effects,” said Dr. Gossec, referencing head-to-head trials between biologics that yielded very comparable results, such as the EXCEED trial or SPIRIT-H2H trial.

The updated recommendations now consider two IL-23p19 inhibitors, guselkumab (Tremfya) and risankizumab (Skyrizi), the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and the very recently EMA-approved bimekizumab (Bimzelx), an IL-17A/F double inhibitor.

The recommendation for patients with mono- or oligoarthritis and poor prognostic factors now aligns with the previous recommendations for polyarthritis: A csDMARD should be initiated promptly, with a preference for methotrexate if significant skin involvement is present. New data suggest that methotrexate may be beneficial for enthesitis, achieving resolution in approximately 30% of patients. When considering treatment options, JAK inhibitors may also be taken into account, with safety considerations in mind.

In cases of clinically relevant axial disease and an inadequate response to NSAIDs, therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor, a TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A/F inhibitor, or a JAK inhibitor may be considered. This approach now aligns with the most recent axial spondyloarthritis recommendation from EULAR and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).
 

Which disease manifestation to treat first?

During the discussion, chairwoman Uta Kiltz, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Rheumatism Center Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and clinical lecturer at Ruhr University Bochum, inquired about identifying the primary manifestation to guide the course of action.

“Psoriatic arthritis is highly heterogeneous, and determining the predominant manifestation is sometimes challenging,” Dr. Gossec said. “However, we believe that a certain order of preference is necessary when making treatment decisions. Starting with peripheral arthritis, which can lead to structural damage, allows for treatment selection based on that aspect. If peripheral arthritis is not present, attention should be directed towards axial disease, ensuring the presence of actual inflammation rather than solely axial pain, as mechanical origin axial pain can occur due to the patient’s age.”

David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, commented on the update to this news organization: “We are fortunate to have a wide range of targeted therapy options for psoriatic arthritis, and these guidelines reflect this abundance of choices. They emphasize the importance of selecting therapies based on specific disease manifestations and tailoring care to each patient’s unique type of psoriatic arthritis. It’s worth noting that some changes in these guidelines were influenced by regulatory changes following ORAL Surveillance. In an era of numerous options, we can afford to be selective at times.”

Regarding safety concerns and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Liew added: “It is not surprising to see these guidelines impose certain restrictions on the use of JAK inhibitors, especially in psoriatic arthritis, where other therapies offer distinct advantages. Until high-quality evidence convincingly points away from a class effect, we can expect to see similar provisions in many more guidelines.”

Many of the recommendations’ authors report financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies. These include AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and Viatris.

EULAR funded the development of the recommendations.

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

CHICAGO – Before determining the best treatment for post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), it’s important to understand the pathogenesis, according to Seemal Desai, MD.

Dr. Desai, clinical assistant professor in the department of dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, spoke at the Pigmentary Disorders Exchange Symposium, provided by MedscapeLive!

MedscapeLive!

Like all dermatologists, he said at the meeting, he sees lots of acne cases. However, PIH is often the presenting reason for the visit in his practice, which focuses predominantly on skin of color.

“Most of my patients come in not even worried about the acne,” he said. “They come in wanting me to fix the dark spots.”
 

Inflammation persists

Dermatologists, Dr. Desai said, should educate patients with active PIH resulting from acne or other diseases that even though the condition has been labeled post- inflammatory hyperpigmentation, the inflammation continues to be a problem.

He said, while patients may think PIH is “just scars,” the inflammation is still active and the condition needs to be treated from a skin-lightening perspective but, more importantly, with a focus on halting the inflammation. “If you were to biopsy the areas of hyperpigmentation, you would find a high density of active inflammatory behaviors still present in the skin,” he said.

When treating patients, it’s critical to first treat the underlying skin condition aggressively, he said. “Things like topical retinoids and azelaic acid mechanistically actually make a lot more sense for PIH than even hydroquinone, in some cases, because these therapies are actually anti-inflammatory for many of the diseases we treat.”

Dr. Desai noted that, in patients with darker skin tones, even diseases like seborrheic dermatitis and plaque psoriasis can result in PIH, while in patients with lighter skin tones, the same diseases may leave some residual postinflammatory erythema.

“I think it’s very important, particularly when you’re treating a darker skin–toned patient, to arrest the erythema early on to prevent that further worsening of hyperpigmentation,” he said.
 

Biopsies important

In cases of PIH, determining the best treatment requires finding out where the pigment is and how deep it is, Dr. Desai said.

He noted dermatologists are often worried about doing biopsies, particularly in patients with darker skin, because of the risk of scarring and keloid formation for those more prone to keloids. The preference is also for a therapeutic effect without using invasive procedures.

“But particularly with PIH, in patients who have been therapeutically challenging, I don’t hesitate to do very small biopsies – 2- and 3-mm punch biopsies – particularly if they are from the head and neck area.”

He suggests doing biopsies on part of the ear, lower jaw line, or the neck area, as these areas tend to heal nicely. “You don’t have to be so concerned about the scarring if you counsel appropriately,” he said.

The biopsy can be valuable in determining whether a very expensive treatment will reach the intended target.

Topical retinoids play an important role as anti-inflammatories for PIH, Dr. Desai said.

He gave an example of a patient with Fitzpatrick skin type IV or V with chronic acne and extensive PIH. “Are you going to effectively tell that patient to apply 4% hydroquinone triple-combination compound across 30 different areas of PIH on their face? The answer is that’s really not very efficient or effective.”

That’s why therapies, such as retinoids, that target the pathogenesis of PIH, particularly the inflammatory component, are important, he added.


 

Psychological burden

PIH comes with significant stigma and loss of quality of life loss that can last many years.

During another presentation at the meeting, Susan C. Taylor, MD, professor and vice chair of diversity, equity and inclusion in the department of dermatology, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed out that in a 2016 study of 324 patients in seven Asian countries, acne-related PIH lasted longer than 1 year in 65.2% of patients and 5 years or longer in 22.3%, significantly affecting their quality of life.

Dr. Desai added that, in a paper recently published in the British Journal of Dermatology, on the impact of postacne hyperpigmentation in patients, the authors pointed out that the reported prevalence of PIH in patients with acne ranges between 45.5% and 87.2%, depending on skin phototype, and that in most cases, PIH takes more than a year to fade.

“Studies have demonstrated that patients with acne and resulting scarring often face stigmatization, leading to quality of life impairment, social withdrawal and body image disorders, which can further contribute to higher risk for depression and social anxiety,” the paper’s authors wrote.

Dr. Desai reported no financial disclosures relevant to his talk.

CHICAGO – Before determining the best treatment for post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), it’s important to understand the pathogenesis, according to Seemal Desai, MD.

Dr. Desai, clinical assistant professor in the department of dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, spoke at the Pigmentary Disorders Exchange Symposium, provided by MedscapeLive!

MedscapeLive!

Like all dermatologists, he said at the meeting, he sees lots of acne cases. However, PIH is often the presenting reason for the visit in his practice, which focuses predominantly on skin of color.

“Most of my patients come in not even worried about the acne,” he said. “They come in wanting me to fix the dark spots.”
 

Inflammation persists

Dermatologists, Dr. Desai said, should educate patients with active PIH resulting from acne or other diseases that even though the condition has been labeled post- inflammatory hyperpigmentation, the inflammation continues to be a problem.

He said, while patients may think PIH is “just scars,” the inflammation is still active and the condition needs to be treated from a skin-lightening perspective but, more importantly, with a focus on halting the inflammation. “If you were to biopsy the areas of hyperpigmentation, you would find a high density of active inflammatory behaviors still present in the skin,” he said.

When treating patients, it’s critical to first treat the underlying skin condition aggressively, he said. “Things like topical retinoids and azelaic acid mechanistically actually make a lot more sense for PIH than even hydroquinone, in some cases, because these therapies are actually anti-inflammatory for many of the diseases we treat.”

Dr. Desai noted that, in patients with darker skin tones, even diseases like seborrheic dermatitis and plaque psoriasis can result in PIH, while in patients with lighter skin tones, the same diseases may leave some residual postinflammatory erythema.

“I think it’s very important, particularly when you’re treating a darker skin–toned patient, to arrest the erythema early on to prevent that further worsening of hyperpigmentation,” he said.
 

Biopsies important

In cases of PIH, determining the best treatment requires finding out where the pigment is and how deep it is, Dr. Desai said.

He noted dermatologists are often worried about doing biopsies, particularly in patients with darker skin, because of the risk of scarring and keloid formation for those more prone to keloids. The preference is also for a therapeutic effect without using invasive procedures.

“But particularly with PIH, in patients who have been therapeutically challenging, I don’t hesitate to do very small biopsies – 2- and 3-mm punch biopsies – particularly if they are from the head and neck area.”

He suggests doing biopsies on part of the ear, lower jaw line, or the neck area, as these areas tend to heal nicely. “You don’t have to be so concerned about the scarring if you counsel appropriately,” he said.

The biopsy can be valuable in determining whether a very expensive treatment will reach the intended target.

Topical retinoids play an important role as anti-inflammatories for PIH, Dr. Desai said.

He gave an example of a patient with Fitzpatrick skin type IV or V with chronic acne and extensive PIH. “Are you going to effectively tell that patient to apply 4% hydroquinone triple-combination compound across 30 different areas of PIH on their face? The answer is that’s really not very efficient or effective.”

That’s why therapies, such as retinoids, that target the pathogenesis of PIH, particularly the inflammatory component, are important, he added.


 

Psychological burden

PIH comes with significant stigma and loss of quality of life loss that can last many years.

During another presentation at the meeting, Susan C. Taylor, MD, professor and vice chair of diversity, equity and inclusion in the department of dermatology, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed out that in a 2016 study of 324 patients in seven Asian countries, acne-related PIH lasted longer than 1 year in 65.2% of patients and 5 years or longer in 22.3%, significantly affecting their quality of life.

Dr. Desai added that, in a paper recently published in the British Journal of Dermatology, on the impact of postacne hyperpigmentation in patients, the authors pointed out that the reported prevalence of PIH in patients with acne ranges between 45.5% and 87.2%, depending on skin phototype, and that in most cases, PIH takes more than a year to fade.

“Studies have demonstrated that patients with acne and resulting scarring often face stigmatization, leading to quality of life impairment, social withdrawal and body image disorders, which can further contribute to higher risk for depression and social anxiety,” the paper’s authors wrote.

Dr. Desai reported no financial disclosures relevant to his talk.

CHICAGO – Before determining the best treatment for post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), it’s important to understand the pathogenesis, according to Seemal Desai, MD.

Dr. Desai, clinical assistant professor in the department of dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, spoke at the Pigmentary Disorders Exchange Symposium, provided by MedscapeLive!

MedscapeLive!

Like all dermatologists, he said at the meeting, he sees lots of acne cases. However, PIH is often the presenting reason for the visit in his practice, which focuses predominantly on skin of color.

“Most of my patients come in not even worried about the acne,” he said. “They come in wanting me to fix the dark spots.”
 

Inflammation persists

Dermatologists, Dr. Desai said, should educate patients with active PIH resulting from acne or other diseases that even though the condition has been labeled post- inflammatory hyperpigmentation, the inflammation continues to be a problem.

He said, while patients may think PIH is “just scars,” the inflammation is still active and the condition needs to be treated from a skin-lightening perspective but, more importantly, with a focus on halting the inflammation. “If you were to biopsy the areas of hyperpigmentation, you would find a high density of active inflammatory behaviors still present in the skin,” he said.

When treating patients, it’s critical to first treat the underlying skin condition aggressively, he said. “Things like topical retinoids and azelaic acid mechanistically actually make a lot more sense for PIH than even hydroquinone, in some cases, because these therapies are actually anti-inflammatory for many of the diseases we treat.”

Dr. Desai noted that, in patients with darker skin tones, even diseases like seborrheic dermatitis and plaque psoriasis can result in PIH, while in patients with lighter skin tones, the same diseases may leave some residual postinflammatory erythema.

“I think it’s very important, particularly when you’re treating a darker skin–toned patient, to arrest the erythema early on to prevent that further worsening of hyperpigmentation,” he said.
 

Biopsies important

In cases of PIH, determining the best treatment requires finding out where the pigment is and how deep it is, Dr. Desai said.

He noted dermatologists are often worried about doing biopsies, particularly in patients with darker skin, because of the risk of scarring and keloid formation for those more prone to keloids. The preference is also for a therapeutic effect without using invasive procedures.

“But particularly with PIH, in patients who have been therapeutically challenging, I don’t hesitate to do very small biopsies – 2- and 3-mm punch biopsies – particularly if they are from the head and neck area.”

He suggests doing biopsies on part of the ear, lower jaw line, or the neck area, as these areas tend to heal nicely. “You don’t have to be so concerned about the scarring if you counsel appropriately,” he said.

The biopsy can be valuable in determining whether a very expensive treatment will reach the intended target.

Topical retinoids play an important role as anti-inflammatories for PIH, Dr. Desai said.

He gave an example of a patient with Fitzpatrick skin type IV or V with chronic acne and extensive PIH. “Are you going to effectively tell that patient to apply 4% hydroquinone triple-combination compound across 30 different areas of PIH on their face? The answer is that’s really not very efficient or effective.”

That’s why therapies, such as retinoids, that target the pathogenesis of PIH, particularly the inflammatory component, are important, he added.


 

Psychological burden

PIH comes with significant stigma and loss of quality of life loss that can last many years.

During another presentation at the meeting, Susan C. Taylor, MD, professor and vice chair of diversity, equity and inclusion in the department of dermatology, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed out that in a 2016 study of 324 patients in seven Asian countries, acne-related PIH lasted longer than 1 year in 65.2% of patients and 5 years or longer in 22.3%, significantly affecting their quality of life.

Dr. Desai added that, in a paper recently published in the British Journal of Dermatology, on the impact of postacne hyperpigmentation in patients, the authors pointed out that the reported prevalence of PIH in patients with acne ranges between 45.5% and 87.2%, depending on skin phototype, and that in most cases, PIH takes more than a year to fade.

“Studies have demonstrated that patients with acne and resulting scarring often face stigmatization, leading to quality of life impairment, social withdrawal and body image disorders, which can further contribute to higher risk for depression and social anxiety,” the paper’s authors wrote.

Dr. Desai reported no financial disclosures relevant to his talk.

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and much more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. It is also not totally clear how information is stored and processed in these kinds of tools, and who has access to that information, he noted.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said. “I don’t think there’s a way out of that at this point.”
 

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

“We think that’s not appropriate, because coauthorship means that you are taking responsibility for the analysis and the generation of data that are included in a manuscript. A machine that is dictated by AI can’t take responsibility,” said Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the editor in chief of the ACR journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Issues with AI

One of the big concerns around using AI in writing is that it can generate text that seems plausible but is untrue or not supported by data. For example, Dr. Greene and colleague Milton Pividori, PhD, also of the University of Colorado, were writing a journal article about new software they developed that uses a large language model to revise scientific manuscripts.

“We used the same software to revise that article and at one point, it added a line that noted that the large language model had been fine-tuned on a data set of manuscripts from within the same field. This makes a lot of sense, and is absolutely something you could do, but was not something that we did,” Dr. Greene said. “Without a really careful review of the content, it becomes possible to invent things that were not actually done.”

In another case, ChatGPT falsely stated that a prominent law professor had been accused of sexual assault, citing a Washington Post article that did not exist.

“We live in a society where we are extremely concerned about fake news,” Dr. Pividori added, “and [these kinds of errors] could certainly exacerbate that in the scientific community, which is very concerning because science informs public policy.”

Another issue is the lack of transparency around how large language models like ChatGPT process and store data used to make queries.

“We have no idea how they are recording all the prompts and things that we input into ChatGPT and their systems,” Dr. Pividori said.

OpenAI recently addressed some privacy concerns by allowing users to turn off their chat history with the AI chatbot, so conversations cannot be used to train or improve the company’s models. But Dr. Greene noted that the terms of service “still remain pretty nebulous.”

Dr. Solomon is also concerned with researchers using these AI tools in authoring without knowing how they work. “The thing we are really concerned about is that fact that [LLMs] are a bit of a black box – people don’t really understand the methodologies,” he said.
 

A positive tool?

But despite these concerns, many think that these types of AI-assisted tools could have a positive impact on medical publishing, particularly for researchers for whom English is not their first language, noted Catherine Gao, MD, a pulmonary and critical care instructor at Northwestern University, Chicago. She recently led research comparing scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT and real abstracts and discovered that reviewers found it “surprisingly difficult” to differentiate the two.

“The majority of research is published in English,” she said in an email. “Responsible use of LLMs can potentially reduce the burden of writing for busy scientists and improve equity for those who are not native English speakers.”

Dr. Pividori agreed, adding that as a non-native English speaker, he spends much more time working on the structure and grammar of sentences when authoring a manuscript, compared with people who speak English as a first language. He noted that these tools can also be used to automate some of the more monotonous tasks that come along with writing manuscripts and allow researchers to focus on the more creative aspects.

In the future, “I want to focus more on the things that only a human can do and let these tools do all the rest of it,” he said.
 

New rules

But despite how individual researchers feel about LLMs, they agree that these AI tools are here to stay.

“I think that we should anticipate that they will become part of the medical research establishment over time, when we figure out how to use them appropriately,” Dr. Solomon said.

While the debate of how to best use AI in medical publications will continue, journal editors agree that all authors of a manuscript are solely responsible for content in articles that used AI-assisted technology.

“Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased,” the ICMJE guidelines state. “Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.” This includes appropriate attribution of all cited materials.

The committee also recommends that authors write in both the cover letter and submitted work how AI was used in the manuscript writing process. Recently updated guidelines from the World Association of Medical Editors recommend that all prompts used to generate new text or analytical work should be provided in submitted work. Dr. Greene also noted that if authors used an AI tool to revise their work, they can include a version of the manuscript untouched by LLMs.

It is similar to a preprint, he said, but rather than publishing a version of a paper prior to peer review, someone is showing a version of a manuscript before it was reviewed and revised by AI. “This type of practice could be a path that lets us benefit from these models,” he said, “without having the drawbacks that many are concerned about.”

Dr. Solomon has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, CorEvitas, and Moderna. Both Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori are inventors in the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/486,706 that the University of Colorado has filed for the “Publishing Infrastructure For AI-Assisted Academic Authoring” invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori also received a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to improve their AI-based manuscript revision tool. Dr. Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and much more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. It is also not totally clear how information is stored and processed in these kinds of tools, and who has access to that information, he noted.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said. “I don’t think there’s a way out of that at this point.”
 

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

“We think that’s not appropriate, because coauthorship means that you are taking responsibility for the analysis and the generation of data that are included in a manuscript. A machine that is dictated by AI can’t take responsibility,” said Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the editor in chief of the ACR journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Issues with AI

One of the big concerns around using AI in writing is that it can generate text that seems plausible but is untrue or not supported by data. For example, Dr. Greene and colleague Milton Pividori, PhD, also of the University of Colorado, were writing a journal article about new software they developed that uses a large language model to revise scientific manuscripts.

“We used the same software to revise that article and at one point, it added a line that noted that the large language model had been fine-tuned on a data set of manuscripts from within the same field. This makes a lot of sense, and is absolutely something you could do, but was not something that we did,” Dr. Greene said. “Without a really careful review of the content, it becomes possible to invent things that were not actually done.”

In another case, ChatGPT falsely stated that a prominent law professor had been accused of sexual assault, citing a Washington Post article that did not exist.

“We live in a society where we are extremely concerned about fake news,” Dr. Pividori added, “and [these kinds of errors] could certainly exacerbate that in the scientific community, which is very concerning because science informs public policy.”

Another issue is the lack of transparency around how large language models like ChatGPT process and store data used to make queries.

“We have no idea how they are recording all the prompts and things that we input into ChatGPT and their systems,” Dr. Pividori said.

OpenAI recently addressed some privacy concerns by allowing users to turn off their chat history with the AI chatbot, so conversations cannot be used to train or improve the company’s models. But Dr. Greene noted that the terms of service “still remain pretty nebulous.”

Dr. Solomon is also concerned with researchers using these AI tools in authoring without knowing how they work. “The thing we are really concerned about is that fact that [LLMs] are a bit of a black box – people don’t really understand the methodologies,” he said.
 

A positive tool?

But despite these concerns, many think that these types of AI-assisted tools could have a positive impact on medical publishing, particularly for researchers for whom English is not their first language, noted Catherine Gao, MD, a pulmonary and critical care instructor at Northwestern University, Chicago. She recently led research comparing scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT and real abstracts and discovered that reviewers found it “surprisingly difficult” to differentiate the two.

“The majority of research is published in English,” she said in an email. “Responsible use of LLMs can potentially reduce the burden of writing for busy scientists and improve equity for those who are not native English speakers.”

Dr. Pividori agreed, adding that as a non-native English speaker, he spends much more time working on the structure and grammar of sentences when authoring a manuscript, compared with people who speak English as a first language. He noted that these tools can also be used to automate some of the more monotonous tasks that come along with writing manuscripts and allow researchers to focus on the more creative aspects.

In the future, “I want to focus more on the things that only a human can do and let these tools do all the rest of it,” he said.
 

New rules

But despite how individual researchers feel about LLMs, they agree that these AI tools are here to stay.

“I think that we should anticipate that they will become part of the medical research establishment over time, when we figure out how to use them appropriately,” Dr. Solomon said.

While the debate of how to best use AI in medical publications will continue, journal editors agree that all authors of a manuscript are solely responsible for content in articles that used AI-assisted technology.

“Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased,” the ICMJE guidelines state. “Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.” This includes appropriate attribution of all cited materials.

The committee also recommends that authors write in both the cover letter and submitted work how AI was used in the manuscript writing process. Recently updated guidelines from the World Association of Medical Editors recommend that all prompts used to generate new text or analytical work should be provided in submitted work. Dr. Greene also noted that if authors used an AI tool to revise their work, they can include a version of the manuscript untouched by LLMs.

It is similar to a preprint, he said, but rather than publishing a version of a paper prior to peer review, someone is showing a version of a manuscript before it was reviewed and revised by AI. “This type of practice could be a path that lets us benefit from these models,” he said, “without having the drawbacks that many are concerned about.”

Dr. Solomon has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, CorEvitas, and Moderna. Both Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori are inventors in the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/486,706 that the University of Colorado has filed for the “Publishing Infrastructure For AI-Assisted Academic Authoring” invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori also received a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to improve their AI-based manuscript revision tool. Dr. Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and much more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. It is also not totally clear how information is stored and processed in these kinds of tools, and who has access to that information, he noted.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said. “I don’t think there’s a way out of that at this point.”
 

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

“We think that’s not appropriate, because coauthorship means that you are taking responsibility for the analysis and the generation of data that are included in a manuscript. A machine that is dictated by AI can’t take responsibility,” said Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the editor in chief of the ACR journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Issues with AI

One of the big concerns around using AI in writing is that it can generate text that seems plausible but is untrue or not supported by data. For example, Dr. Greene and colleague Milton Pividori, PhD, also of the University of Colorado, were writing a journal article about new software they developed that uses a large language model to revise scientific manuscripts.

“We used the same software to revise that article and at one point, it added a line that noted that the large language model had been fine-tuned on a data set of manuscripts from within the same field. This makes a lot of sense, and is absolutely something you could do, but was not something that we did,” Dr. Greene said. “Without a really careful review of the content, it becomes possible to invent things that were not actually done.”

In another case, ChatGPT falsely stated that a prominent law professor had been accused of sexual assault, citing a Washington Post article that did not exist.

“We live in a society where we are extremely concerned about fake news,” Dr. Pividori added, “and [these kinds of errors] could certainly exacerbate that in the scientific community, which is very concerning because science informs public policy.”

Another issue is the lack of transparency around how large language models like ChatGPT process and store data used to make queries.

“We have no idea how they are recording all the prompts and things that we input into ChatGPT and their systems,” Dr. Pividori said.

OpenAI recently addressed some privacy concerns by allowing users to turn off their chat history with the AI chatbot, so conversations cannot be used to train or improve the company’s models. But Dr. Greene noted that the terms of service “still remain pretty nebulous.”

Dr. Solomon is also concerned with researchers using these AI tools in authoring without knowing how they work. “The thing we are really concerned about is that fact that [LLMs] are a bit of a black box – people don’t really understand the methodologies,” he said.
 

A positive tool?

But despite these concerns, many think that these types of AI-assisted tools could have a positive impact on medical publishing, particularly for researchers for whom English is not their first language, noted Catherine Gao, MD, a pulmonary and critical care instructor at Northwestern University, Chicago. She recently led research comparing scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT and real abstracts and discovered that reviewers found it “surprisingly difficult” to differentiate the two.

“The majority of research is published in English,” she said in an email. “Responsible use of LLMs can potentially reduce the burden of writing for busy scientists and improve equity for those who are not native English speakers.”

Dr. Pividori agreed, adding that as a non-native English speaker, he spends much more time working on the structure and grammar of sentences when authoring a manuscript, compared with people who speak English as a first language. He noted that these tools can also be used to automate some of the more monotonous tasks that come along with writing manuscripts and allow researchers to focus on the more creative aspects.

In the future, “I want to focus more on the things that only a human can do and let these tools do all the rest of it,” he said.
 

New rules

But despite how individual researchers feel about LLMs, they agree that these AI tools are here to stay.

“I think that we should anticipate that they will become part of the medical research establishment over time, when we figure out how to use them appropriately,” Dr. Solomon said.

While the debate of how to best use AI in medical publications will continue, journal editors agree that all authors of a manuscript are solely responsible for content in articles that used AI-assisted technology.

“Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased,” the ICMJE guidelines state. “Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.” This includes appropriate attribution of all cited materials.

The committee also recommends that authors write in both the cover letter and submitted work how AI was used in the manuscript writing process. Recently updated guidelines from the World Association of Medical Editors recommend that all prompts used to generate new text or analytical work should be provided in submitted work. Dr. Greene also noted that if authors used an AI tool to revise their work, they can include a version of the manuscript untouched by LLMs.

It is similar to a preprint, he said, but rather than publishing a version of a paper prior to peer review, someone is showing a version of a manuscript before it was reviewed and revised by AI. “This type of practice could be a path that lets us benefit from these models,” he said, “without having the drawbacks that many are concerned about.”

Dr. Solomon has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, CorEvitas, and Moderna. Both Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori are inventors in the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/486,706 that the University of Colorado has filed for the “Publishing Infrastructure For AI-Assisted Academic Authoring” invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori also received a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to improve their AI-based manuscript revision tool. Dr. Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Research regarding some of the most challenging cases of macular dermal hyperpigmentation is sparse, but at the Pigmentary Disorders Exchange Symposium, an expert shared treatment tips based on cases she has treated in her practice.

Heather Woolery-Lloyd, MD, director of the skin of color division in the dermatology department at University of Miami, provided three general pointers.

• When in doubt, biopsy.
• For inflammatory disorders, always treat the inflammation in addition to the hyperpigmentation.
• Avoid long-term hydroquinone use in these patients.

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd also reviewed examples of what she has found successful in treating her patients with these conditions.
 

Lichen planus pigmentosus (LPP)

“It’s one of the hardest things that we treat,” said Dr. Woolery-Lloyd, who often sees cases of LPP in patients in their 30s, 40s, and 50s.

MedscapeLive!

Lesions first appear as small, ill-defined oval-to-round macules, which later become confluent and form large areas of pigmentation. In different patients, the pigment on the face and neck, and sometimes on the forearms can be slate gray or brownish black.

In 2013, dermatologist N.C. Dlova, MD, at the University of KwaZulu‐Natal, Durban, South Africa, reported a link between frontal fibrosing alopecia and LPP in the British Journal of Dermatology. “I definitely see this connection in my practice,” said Dr. Woolery-Lloyd, noting that “both conditions often result in the loss of both eyebrows.”

She recommends always using a topical anti-inflammatory that is safe for the face. One combination she uses is azelaic acid 20% plus hydrocortisone 2.5%.

“We do use a lot of azelaic acid in my practice because it’s affordable,” she said, at the meeting, provided by MedscapeLive! She added that the hardest area to treat in women is around the chin.

Two other conditions, ashy dermatosis and erythema dyschromicum perstans (EDP), are similar. Ashy dermatosis mimics LPP but occurs more prominently on the trunk and extremities. EDP often has a preceding ring of erythema.

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said the term EDP is often used to cover both EDP and ashy dermatosis in North America because “ashy” can have a negative connotation.

She noted there is no consensus on effective therapy for LPP, ashy dermatosis, or EDP.

A review of the literature on EDP, which included 16 studies on treatment outcomes, found the following:

• Narrow-band ultraviolet B and tacrolimus were effective treatments with minimal side effects.
• Clofazimine was effective, but had side effects, which, ironically, included pigmentary changes.
• Griseofulvin, isotretinoin, and dapsone were comparatively ineffective as lesions recurred after discontinuation.
• Lasers were largely ineffective and can also result in postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and fibrosis.

Ochronosis

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said she may see one to two patients a year with ochronosis, which is characterized by paradoxical darkening of the skin with long-term hydroquinone use. It usually starts with redness followed by blue-black patches on the face where hydroquinone is applied. In severe cases, blue-black papules and nodules can occur.

“When I give a patient hydroquinone, I always say: ‘I don’t want to see any redness,’” Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said. “If you have any redness, please stop because ochronosis is typically preceded by this redness.”

But, she noted, “people will come in actively using hydroquinone, will have the dark brown or deep black papules or macules on their face, and then this background of redness because they are so inflamed.”

She said that ochronosis can occur in any skin type, not just in patients with darker skin tones. Dr. Woolery-Lloyd advised: “Do not hesitate to biopsy the face if ochronosis is suspected. I always biopsy ochronosis.”

There are two reasons for doing so, she explained. It can help with the diagnosis but it will also provide the patient with an incentive to stop using hydroquinone. “People who are using hydroquinone are addicted to it. They love it. They don’t want to stop. They keep using it despite the fact that their face is getting darker.” When they see a biopsy report, they may be convinced to stop.

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said she does a 2-mm punch biopsy in the crow’s feet area because there’s almost always ochronosis in that area and it does not leave an obvious scar.

Eventually, she said, if the person stops using hydroquinone, it will clear up, “but it will take years.” Again, here she has had success with her “special formula” of azelaic acid 20% plus hydrocortisone 2.5%

“Don’t tell patients there’s no treatment. That’s the take-home,” she said.
 

Drug-induced facial hyperpigmentation

“I see this all the time in my African American patients,” Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said. The condition usually is characterized by dark brown hyperpigmentation on the face.

In this situation, the first question to ask is whether the patient is taking medication for hypertension, and the second question is whether it is “HCTZ.” It’s important to use the abbreviation for hydrochlorothiazide – the most common cause of drug-induced facial hyperpigmentation – because that’s what a patient sees on the bottle.

If they are taking HCTZ or another blood pressure medication associated with photosensitivity, they need to switch to a nonphotosensitizing antihypertensive agent (there are several options) and they should start treatment with a topical anti-inflammatory, Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said. Then, she suggests introducing hydrocortisone 2.5% cream and a hydroquinone-free skin brightener (azelaic acid, for example).

Importantly, with any of these conditions, Dr Woolery-Lloyd said, dermatologists should talk with patients about realistic expectations. “It takes a long time for dermal pigment to clear,” she emphasized.

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd has been a speaker for Ortho Dermatologics, L’Oreal, and EPI; has done research for Pfizer, Galderma, Allergan, Arcutis, Vyne, Merz, and Eirion; and has been on advisory boards for L’Oreal, Allergan, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and Merz.

CHICAGO – Research regarding some of the most challenging cases of macular dermal hyperpigmentation is sparse, but at the Pigmentary Disorders Exchange Symposium, an expert shared treatment tips based on cases she has treated in her practice.

Heather Woolery-Lloyd, MD, director of the skin of color division in the dermatology department at University of Miami, provided three general pointers.

• When in doubt, biopsy.
• For inflammatory disorders, always treat the inflammation in addition to the hyperpigmentation.
• Avoid long-term hydroquinone use in these patients.

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd also reviewed examples of what she has found successful in treating her patients with these conditions.
 

Lichen planus pigmentosus (LPP)

“It’s one of the hardest things that we treat,” said Dr. Woolery-Lloyd, who often sees cases of LPP in patients in their 30s, 40s, and 50s.

MedscapeLive!

Lesions first appear as small, ill-defined oval-to-round macules, which later become confluent and form large areas of pigmentation. In different patients, the pigment on the face and neck, and sometimes on the forearms can be slate gray or brownish black.

In 2013, dermatologist N.C. Dlova, MD, at the University of KwaZulu‐Natal, Durban, South Africa, reported a link between frontal fibrosing alopecia and LPP in the British Journal of Dermatology. “I definitely see this connection in my practice,” said Dr. Woolery-Lloyd, noting that “both conditions often result in the loss of both eyebrows.”

She recommends always using a topical anti-inflammatory that is safe for the face. One combination she uses is azelaic acid 20% plus hydrocortisone 2.5%.

“We do use a lot of azelaic acid in my practice because it’s affordable,” she said, at the meeting, provided by MedscapeLive! She added that the hardest area to treat in women is around the chin.

Two other conditions, ashy dermatosis and erythema dyschromicum perstans (EDP), are similar. Ashy dermatosis mimics LPP but occurs more prominently on the trunk and extremities. EDP often has a preceding ring of erythema.

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said the term EDP is often used to cover both EDP and ashy dermatosis in North America because “ashy” can have a negative connotation.

She noted there is no consensus on effective therapy for LPP, ashy dermatosis, or EDP.

A review of the literature on EDP, which included 16 studies on treatment outcomes, found the following:

• Narrow-band ultraviolet B and tacrolimus were effective treatments with minimal side effects.
• Clofazimine was effective, but had side effects, which, ironically, included pigmentary changes.
• Griseofulvin, isotretinoin, and dapsone were comparatively ineffective as lesions recurred after discontinuation.
• Lasers were largely ineffective and can also result in postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and fibrosis.

Ochronosis

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said she may see one to two patients a year with ochronosis, which is characterized by paradoxical darkening of the skin with long-term hydroquinone use. It usually starts with redness followed by blue-black patches on the face where hydroquinone is applied. In severe cases, blue-black papules and nodules can occur.

“When I give a patient hydroquinone, I always say: ‘I don’t want to see any redness,’” Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said. “If you have any redness, please stop because ochronosis is typically preceded by this redness.”

But, she noted, “people will come in actively using hydroquinone, will have the dark brown or deep black papules or macules on their face, and then this background of redness because they are so inflamed.”

She said that ochronosis can occur in any skin type, not just in patients with darker skin tones. Dr. Woolery-Lloyd advised: “Do not hesitate to biopsy the face if ochronosis is suspected. I always biopsy ochronosis.”

There are two reasons for doing so, she explained. It can help with the diagnosis but it will also provide the patient with an incentive to stop using hydroquinone. “People who are using hydroquinone are addicted to it. They love it. They don’t want to stop. They keep using it despite the fact that their face is getting darker.” When they see a biopsy report, they may be convinced to stop.

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said she does a 2-mm punch biopsy in the crow’s feet area because there’s almost always ochronosis in that area and it does not leave an obvious scar.

Eventually, she said, if the person stops using hydroquinone, it will clear up, “but it will take years.” Again, here she has had success with her “special formula” of azelaic acid 20% plus hydrocortisone 2.5%

“Don’t tell patients there’s no treatment. That’s the take-home,” she said.
 

Drug-induced facial hyperpigmentation

“I see this all the time in my African American patients,” Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said. The condition usually is characterized by dark brown hyperpigmentation on the face.

In this situation, the first question to ask is whether the patient is taking medication for hypertension, and the second question is whether it is “HCTZ.” It’s important to use the abbreviation for hydrochlorothiazide – the most common cause of drug-induced facial hyperpigmentation – because that’s what a patient sees on the bottle.

If they are taking HCTZ or another blood pressure medication associated with photosensitivity, they need to switch to a nonphotosensitizing antihypertensive agent (there are several options) and they should start treatment with a topical anti-inflammatory, Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said. Then, she suggests introducing hydrocortisone 2.5% cream and a hydroquinone-free skin brightener (azelaic acid, for example).

Importantly, with any of these conditions, Dr Woolery-Lloyd said, dermatologists should talk with patients about realistic expectations. “It takes a long time for dermal pigment to clear,” she emphasized.

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd has been a speaker for Ortho Dermatologics, L’Oreal, and EPI; has done research for Pfizer, Galderma, Allergan, Arcutis, Vyne, Merz, and Eirion; and has been on advisory boards for L’Oreal, Allergan, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and Merz.

CHICAGO – Research regarding some of the most challenging cases of macular dermal hyperpigmentation is sparse, but at the Pigmentary Disorders Exchange Symposium, an expert shared treatment tips based on cases she has treated in her practice.

Heather Woolery-Lloyd, MD, director of the skin of color division in the dermatology department at University of Miami, provided three general pointers.

• When in doubt, biopsy.
• For inflammatory disorders, always treat the inflammation in addition to the hyperpigmentation.
• Avoid long-term hydroquinone use in these patients.

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd also reviewed examples of what she has found successful in treating her patients with these conditions.
 

Lichen planus pigmentosus (LPP)

“It’s one of the hardest things that we treat,” said Dr. Woolery-Lloyd, who often sees cases of LPP in patients in their 30s, 40s, and 50s.

MedscapeLive!

Lesions first appear as small, ill-defined oval-to-round macules, which later become confluent and form large areas of pigmentation. In different patients, the pigment on the face and neck, and sometimes on the forearms can be slate gray or brownish black.

In 2013, dermatologist N.C. Dlova, MD, at the University of KwaZulu‐Natal, Durban, South Africa, reported a link between frontal fibrosing alopecia and LPP in the British Journal of Dermatology. “I definitely see this connection in my practice,” said Dr. Woolery-Lloyd, noting that “both conditions often result in the loss of both eyebrows.”

She recommends always using a topical anti-inflammatory that is safe for the face. One combination she uses is azelaic acid 20% plus hydrocortisone 2.5%.

“We do use a lot of azelaic acid in my practice because it’s affordable,” she said, at the meeting, provided by MedscapeLive! She added that the hardest area to treat in women is around the chin.

Two other conditions, ashy dermatosis and erythema dyschromicum perstans (EDP), are similar. Ashy dermatosis mimics LPP but occurs more prominently on the trunk and extremities. EDP often has a preceding ring of erythema.

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said the term EDP is often used to cover both EDP and ashy dermatosis in North America because “ashy” can have a negative connotation.

She noted there is no consensus on effective therapy for LPP, ashy dermatosis, or EDP.

A review of the literature on EDP, which included 16 studies on treatment outcomes, found the following:

• Narrow-band ultraviolet B and tacrolimus were effective treatments with minimal side effects.
• Clofazimine was effective, but had side effects, which, ironically, included pigmentary changes.
• Griseofulvin, isotretinoin, and dapsone were comparatively ineffective as lesions recurred after discontinuation.
• Lasers were largely ineffective and can also result in postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and fibrosis.

Ochronosis

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said she may see one to two patients a year with ochronosis, which is characterized by paradoxical darkening of the skin with long-term hydroquinone use. It usually starts with redness followed by blue-black patches on the face where hydroquinone is applied. In severe cases, blue-black papules and nodules can occur.

“When I give a patient hydroquinone, I always say: ‘I don’t want to see any redness,’” Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said. “If you have any redness, please stop because ochronosis is typically preceded by this redness.”

But, she noted, “people will come in actively using hydroquinone, will have the dark brown or deep black papules or macules on their face, and then this background of redness because they are so inflamed.”

She said that ochronosis can occur in any skin type, not just in patients with darker skin tones. Dr. Woolery-Lloyd advised: “Do not hesitate to biopsy the face if ochronosis is suspected. I always biopsy ochronosis.”

There are two reasons for doing so, she explained. It can help with the diagnosis but it will also provide the patient with an incentive to stop using hydroquinone. “People who are using hydroquinone are addicted to it. They love it. They don’t want to stop. They keep using it despite the fact that their face is getting darker.” When they see a biopsy report, they may be convinced to stop.

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said she does a 2-mm punch biopsy in the crow’s feet area because there’s almost always ochronosis in that area and it does not leave an obvious scar.

Eventually, she said, if the person stops using hydroquinone, it will clear up, “but it will take years.” Again, here she has had success with her “special formula” of azelaic acid 20% plus hydrocortisone 2.5%

“Don’t tell patients there’s no treatment. That’s the take-home,” she said.
 

Drug-induced facial hyperpigmentation

“I see this all the time in my African American patients,” Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said. The condition usually is characterized by dark brown hyperpigmentation on the face.

In this situation, the first question to ask is whether the patient is taking medication for hypertension, and the second question is whether it is “HCTZ.” It’s important to use the abbreviation for hydrochlorothiazide – the most common cause of drug-induced facial hyperpigmentation – because that’s what a patient sees on the bottle.

If they are taking HCTZ or another blood pressure medication associated with photosensitivity, they need to switch to a nonphotosensitizing antihypertensive agent (there are several options) and they should start treatment with a topical anti-inflammatory, Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said. Then, she suggests introducing hydrocortisone 2.5% cream and a hydroquinone-free skin brightener (azelaic acid, for example).

Importantly, with any of these conditions, Dr Woolery-Lloyd said, dermatologists should talk with patients about realistic expectations. “It takes a long time for dermal pigment to clear,” she emphasized.

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd has been a speaker for Ortho Dermatologics, L’Oreal, and EPI; has done research for Pfizer, Galderma, Allergan, Arcutis, Vyne, Merz, and Eirion; and has been on advisory boards for L’Oreal, Allergan, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and Merz.