The FDA is formally looking into reports that some people who took popular diabetes and weight loss drugs had suicidal thoughts or two other health problems.

A new FDA report listed potential links between the medications and alopecia, aspiration, or suicidal ideation, CBS News reported. The investigation centers on reports of the health problems among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, some of which are Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound. The drugs are used to treat diabetes and overweight or obesity.

An investigation by the FDA doesn’t mean that the FDA has concluded a risk exists, the FDA’s webpage for risk evaluation cautions.

“It means that FDA has identified a potential safety issue, but it does not mean that FDA has identified a causal relationship between the drug and the listed risk,” the FDA site states.

Possible next steps after an investigation could include updating drug labels with new information, putting a risk management plan in place to prevent or manage the health risks, or gathering more information.

“The FDA monitors the safety of drugs throughout their life cycle,” even after the drugs are approved. In addition, the FDA uses “surveillance and risk assessment programs to identify and evaluate adverse events that did not appear during the drug development process,” FDA spokesperson Chanapa Tantibanchachai said in an email published by multiple news outlets.

Although an investigation may lead to no changes in how a drug is regulated by the FDA, this isn’t the first time that the popular medicines have landed on the FDA’s radar for safety reevaluation. Last year, the label for the drug Ozempic was updated to acknowledge reports of intestinal obstructions, CBS News reported.

European regulators are also looking into reports of suicidal thoughts among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, although no link has been established.

Concerns about aspiration during surgery resulted in the American Society of Anesthesiologists advising in June that people should stop taking GLP-1 receptor agonists before they have elective surgeries.

“While there is currently a lack of scientific data on how GLP-1 receptor agonists affect patients having surgery and interact with anesthesia, we’ve received anecdotal reports that the delay in stomach emptying could be associated with an increased risk of regurgitation and aspiration of food into the airways and lungs during general anesthesia and deep sedation,” the society’s president, Michael W. Champeau, MD, said in a statement at the time.

According to CBS News, the FDA’s drug reporting system links the medications to 201 reports of suicide or suicidal ideation, 18 reports that mention aspiration, and 422 reports that mention alopecia.

Novo Nordisk, whose portfolio includes Wegovy and Ozempic, told CNN that it works with the FDA to monitor safety and is aware of the reports of side effects.

“Novo Nordisk stands behind the safety and efficacy of all of our GLP-1RA medicines when they are used as indicated and when they are taken under the care of a licensed healthcare professional,” the company said in a statement to CNN.

A spokesperson for Eli Lilly, which makes Mounjaro and Zepbound, told CBS News in a statement, “Currently, the FDA is reviewing data on certain potential risks for GLP-1 receptor agonist medicines. Patient safety is our priority, and we are collaborating with the FDA on these potential signals.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

The FDA is formally looking into reports that some people who took popular diabetes and weight loss drugs had suicidal thoughts or two other health problems.

A new FDA report listed potential links between the medications and alopecia, aspiration, or suicidal ideation, CBS News reported. The investigation centers on reports of the health problems among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, some of which are Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound. The drugs are used to treat diabetes and overweight or obesity.

An investigation by the FDA doesn’t mean that the FDA has concluded a risk exists, the FDA’s webpage for risk evaluation cautions.

“It means that FDA has identified a potential safety issue, but it does not mean that FDA has identified a causal relationship between the drug and the listed risk,” the FDA site states.

Possible next steps after an investigation could include updating drug labels with new information, putting a risk management plan in place to prevent or manage the health risks, or gathering more information.

“The FDA monitors the safety of drugs throughout their life cycle,” even after the drugs are approved. In addition, the FDA uses “surveillance and risk assessment programs to identify and evaluate adverse events that did not appear during the drug development process,” FDA spokesperson Chanapa Tantibanchachai said in an email published by multiple news outlets.

Although an investigation may lead to no changes in how a drug is regulated by the FDA, this isn’t the first time that the popular medicines have landed on the FDA’s radar for safety reevaluation. Last year, the label for the drug Ozempic was updated to acknowledge reports of intestinal obstructions, CBS News reported.

European regulators are also looking into reports of suicidal thoughts among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, although no link has been established.

Concerns about aspiration during surgery resulted in the American Society of Anesthesiologists advising in June that people should stop taking GLP-1 receptor agonists before they have elective surgeries.

“While there is currently a lack of scientific data on how GLP-1 receptor agonists affect patients having surgery and interact with anesthesia, we’ve received anecdotal reports that the delay in stomach emptying could be associated with an increased risk of regurgitation and aspiration of food into the airways and lungs during general anesthesia and deep sedation,” the society’s president, Michael W. Champeau, MD, said in a statement at the time.

According to CBS News, the FDA’s drug reporting system links the medications to 201 reports of suicide or suicidal ideation, 18 reports that mention aspiration, and 422 reports that mention alopecia.

Novo Nordisk, whose portfolio includes Wegovy and Ozempic, told CNN that it works with the FDA to monitor safety and is aware of the reports of side effects.

“Novo Nordisk stands behind the safety and efficacy of all of our GLP-1RA medicines when they are used as indicated and when they are taken under the care of a licensed healthcare professional,” the company said in a statement to CNN.

A spokesperson for Eli Lilly, which makes Mounjaro and Zepbound, told CBS News in a statement, “Currently, the FDA is reviewing data on certain potential risks for GLP-1 receptor agonist medicines. Patient safety is our priority, and we are collaborating with the FDA on these potential signals.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

The FDA is formally looking into reports that some people who took popular diabetes and weight loss drugs had suicidal thoughts or two other health problems.

A new FDA report listed potential links between the medications and alopecia, aspiration, or suicidal ideation, CBS News reported. The investigation centers on reports of the health problems among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, some of which are Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound. The drugs are used to treat diabetes and overweight or obesity.

An investigation by the FDA doesn’t mean that the FDA has concluded a risk exists, the FDA’s webpage for risk evaluation cautions.

“It means that FDA has identified a potential safety issue, but it does not mean that FDA has identified a causal relationship between the drug and the listed risk,” the FDA site states.

Possible next steps after an investigation could include updating drug labels with new information, putting a risk management plan in place to prevent or manage the health risks, or gathering more information.

“The FDA monitors the safety of drugs throughout their life cycle,” even after the drugs are approved. In addition, the FDA uses “surveillance and risk assessment programs to identify and evaluate adverse events that did not appear during the drug development process,” FDA spokesperson Chanapa Tantibanchachai said in an email published by multiple news outlets.

Although an investigation may lead to no changes in how a drug is regulated by the FDA, this isn’t the first time that the popular medicines have landed on the FDA’s radar for safety reevaluation. Last year, the label for the drug Ozempic was updated to acknowledge reports of intestinal obstructions, CBS News reported.

European regulators are also looking into reports of suicidal thoughts among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, although no link has been established.

Concerns about aspiration during surgery resulted in the American Society of Anesthesiologists advising in June that people should stop taking GLP-1 receptor agonists before they have elective surgeries.

“While there is currently a lack of scientific data on how GLP-1 receptor agonists affect patients having surgery and interact with anesthesia, we’ve received anecdotal reports that the delay in stomach emptying could be associated with an increased risk of regurgitation and aspiration of food into the airways and lungs during general anesthesia and deep sedation,” the society’s president, Michael W. Champeau, MD, said in a statement at the time.

According to CBS News, the FDA’s drug reporting system links the medications to 201 reports of suicide or suicidal ideation, 18 reports that mention aspiration, and 422 reports that mention alopecia.

Novo Nordisk, whose portfolio includes Wegovy and Ozempic, told CNN that it works with the FDA to monitor safety and is aware of the reports of side effects.

“Novo Nordisk stands behind the safety and efficacy of all of our GLP-1RA medicines when they are used as indicated and when they are taken under the care of a licensed healthcare professional,” the company said in a statement to CNN.

A spokesperson for Eli Lilly, which makes Mounjaro and Zepbound, told CBS News in a statement, “Currently, the FDA is reviewing data on certain potential risks for GLP-1 receptor agonist medicines. Patient safety is our priority, and we are collaborating with the FDA on these potential signals.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous Sarcoidosis

A biopsy of a plaque on the back confirmed cutaneous sarcoidosis (CS). A chest radiograph demonstrated hilar nodes, and a referral was placed for comanagement with a pulmonologist. Histopathology was critical in making the diagnosis, with well-circumscribed noncaseating granulomas present in the dermis. The granulomas in CS often are described as naked, as there are minimal lymphocytes present and plasma cells normally are absent.¹ Because the lungs are the most common site of involvement, a chest radiograph is necessary to examine for systemic sarcoidosis. Laboratory workup is used to evaluate for lymphopenia, hypercalcemia, elevated blood sedimentation rate, and elevated angiotensin- converting enzyme levels, which are common in systemic sarcoidosis.¹

Sarcoidosis is a multisystemic granulomatous disorder with an unknown etiology. It is believed to develop in genetically predisposed individuals as a reaction to unidentified antigens in the environment.¹ Helper T cells (T_H1) respond to these environmental antigens in those who are susceptible, which leads to the disease process, but paradoxically, even with the elevation of cellular immune activity at the sites of the granulomatous inflammation, the peripheral immune response in these patients is suppressed as shown by lymphopenia.²

Cutaneous sarcoidosis is found in approximately one-third of patients with systemic sarcoidosis but can occur without systemic involvement.^1,2 Sarcoidosis is reported worldwide and affects patients of all races and ethnicities, ages, and sexes but does have a higher prevalence among Black individuals in the United States, patients younger than 40 years (peak incidence, 20–29 years of age), and females.² In 80% of patients, CS occurs before systemic sarcoidosis develops, or they may develop simultaneously.¹

Cutaneous sarcoidosis has a wide range of clinical presentations that are classified as specific and nonspecific. Specific lesions in CS contain noncaseating granulomas while nonspecific lesions in CS appear as reactive processes.² The most common specific presentation of CS includes papules that are brown in pigmentation in lighter skin tones and red to violaceous in darker skin tones (Figure). The most common nonspecific skin manifestation is erythema nodosum, which represents a hypersensitivity reaction. Cutaneous sarcoidosis can appear as hypopigmented or hyperpigmented patches or plaques.¹

Treatments for CS vary based on the individual.¹ For milder and more localized cases, topical or intralesional steroids may be used. If systemic sarcoidosis is suspected or if there is diffuse involvement of the skin, systemic steroids, antimalarials (eg, hydroxychloroquine), low-dose methotrexate, minocycline, allopurinol, azathioprine, isotretinoin, tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, or psoralen plus long-wave UVA radiation may be used. If systemic sarcoidosis is present, referral to a pulmonologist is recommended for co-management.¹

Cutaneous sarcoidosis is known as the “great imitator,” and there are multiple diseases to consider in the differential that are distinguished by the physical findings.¹ In our case of a middle-aged Black woman with indurated plaques, a few diagnoses to consider were psoriasis, discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE), mycosis fungoides (MF), and tinea infection.

Psoriasis is a common disease, and 90% of patients have chronic plaquelike disease with well-demarcated erythematous plaques that have a silver-gray scale and a positive Auspitz sign (also known as pinpoint bleeding).³ Plaques often are distributed on the trunk, limb extensors, and scalp, along with nail changes. Some patients also have joint pain, indicating psoriatic arthritis. The etiology of psoriasis is unknown, but it develops due to unrestrained keratinocyte proliferation and defective differentiation, which leads to histopathology showing regular acanthosis and papillary dermal ectasia with rouleaux. Mild cases typically are treated with topical steroids or vitamin D, while more severe cases are treated with methotrexate, cyclosporine, retinoids, or biologics.³

Discoid lupus erythematosus occurs 4 times more often in Black patients than in White patients. Clinically, DLE begins as well-defined, erythematous, scaly patches that expand with hyperpigmentation at the periphery and leave an atrophic, scarred, hypopigmented center.⁴ It typically is localized to the head and neck, but in cases where it disseminates elsewhere on the body, the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus increases from 1.2% to 28%.5 Histopathology of DLE shows vacuolar degeneration of the basal cell layer in the epidermis along with patchy lymphocytic infiltrate in the dermis. Treatments range from topical steroids for mild cases to antimalarial agents, retinoids, anti-inflammatory drugs, and calcineurin inhibitors for more severe cases.⁴

Although there are multiple types of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, the most common is MF, which traditionally is nonaggressive. The typical patient with MF is older than 60 years and presents with indolent, ongoing, flat to minimally indurated patches or plaques that have cigarette paper scale. As MF progresses, some plaques grow into tumors and can become more aggressive. Histologically, MF changes based on its clinical stage, with the initial phase showing epidermotropic atypical lymphocytes and later phases showing less epitheliotropic, larger, atypical lymphocytes. The treatment algorithm varies depending on cutaneous T-cell lymphoma staging.⁶

Tinea infections are caused by dermatophytes. In prepubertal children, they predominantly appear as tinea corporis (on the body) or tinea capitis (on the scalp), but in adults they appear as tinea cruris (on the groin), tinea pedis (on the feet), or tinea unguium (on the nails).⁷ Tinea infections classically are known to appear as an annular patch with an active erythematous scaling border and central clearing. The patches can be pruritic. Potassium hydroxide preparation of a skin scraping is a quick test to use in the office; if the results are inconclusive, a culture may be required. Treatment depends on the location of the infection but typically involves either topical or oral antifungal agents.⁷

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous Sarcoidosis

A biopsy of a plaque on the back confirmed cutaneous sarcoidosis (CS). A chest radiograph demonstrated hilar nodes, and a referral was placed for comanagement with a pulmonologist. Histopathology was critical in making the diagnosis, with well-circumscribed noncaseating granulomas present in the dermis. The granulomas in CS often are described as naked, as there are minimal lymphocytes present and plasma cells normally are absent.¹ Because the lungs are the most common site of involvement, a chest radiograph is necessary to examine for systemic sarcoidosis. Laboratory workup is used to evaluate for lymphopenia, hypercalcemia, elevated blood sedimentation rate, and elevated angiotensin- converting enzyme levels, which are common in systemic sarcoidosis.¹

Sarcoidosis is a multisystemic granulomatous disorder with an unknown etiology. It is believed to develop in genetically predisposed individuals as a reaction to unidentified antigens in the environment.¹ Helper T cells (T_H1) respond to these environmental antigens in those who are susceptible, which leads to the disease process, but paradoxically, even with the elevation of cellular immune activity at the sites of the granulomatous inflammation, the peripheral immune response in these patients is suppressed as shown by lymphopenia.²

Cutaneous sarcoidosis is found in approximately one-third of patients with systemic sarcoidosis but can occur without systemic involvement.^1,2 Sarcoidosis is reported worldwide and affects patients of all races and ethnicities, ages, and sexes but does have a higher prevalence among Black individuals in the United States, patients younger than 40 years (peak incidence, 20–29 years of age), and females.² In 80% of patients, CS occurs before systemic sarcoidosis develops, or they may develop simultaneously.¹

Cutaneous sarcoidosis has a wide range of clinical presentations that are classified as specific and nonspecific. Specific lesions in CS contain noncaseating granulomas while nonspecific lesions in CS appear as reactive processes.² The most common specific presentation of CS includes papules that are brown in pigmentation in lighter skin tones and red to violaceous in darker skin tones (Figure). The most common nonspecific skin manifestation is erythema nodosum, which represents a hypersensitivity reaction. Cutaneous sarcoidosis can appear as hypopigmented or hyperpigmented patches or plaques.¹

Treatments for CS vary based on the individual.¹ For milder and more localized cases, topical or intralesional steroids may be used. If systemic sarcoidosis is suspected or if there is diffuse involvement of the skin, systemic steroids, antimalarials (eg, hydroxychloroquine), low-dose methotrexate, minocycline, allopurinol, azathioprine, isotretinoin, tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, or psoralen plus long-wave UVA radiation may be used. If systemic sarcoidosis is present, referral to a pulmonologist is recommended for co-management.¹

Cutaneous sarcoidosis is known as the “great imitator,” and there are multiple diseases to consider in the differential that are distinguished by the physical findings.¹ In our case of a middle-aged Black woman with indurated plaques, a few diagnoses to consider were psoriasis, discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE), mycosis fungoides (MF), and tinea infection.

Psoriasis is a common disease, and 90% of patients have chronic plaquelike disease with well-demarcated erythematous plaques that have a silver-gray scale and a positive Auspitz sign (also known as pinpoint bleeding).³ Plaques often are distributed on the trunk, limb extensors, and scalp, along with nail changes. Some patients also have joint pain, indicating psoriatic arthritis. The etiology of psoriasis is unknown, but it develops due to unrestrained keratinocyte proliferation and defective differentiation, which leads to histopathology showing regular acanthosis and papillary dermal ectasia with rouleaux. Mild cases typically are treated with topical steroids or vitamin D, while more severe cases are treated with methotrexate, cyclosporine, retinoids, or biologics.³

Discoid lupus erythematosus occurs 4 times more often in Black patients than in White patients. Clinically, DLE begins as well-defined, erythematous, scaly patches that expand with hyperpigmentation at the periphery and leave an atrophic, scarred, hypopigmented center.⁴ It typically is localized to the head and neck, but in cases where it disseminates elsewhere on the body, the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus increases from 1.2% to 28%.5 Histopathology of DLE shows vacuolar degeneration of the basal cell layer in the epidermis along with patchy lymphocytic infiltrate in the dermis. Treatments range from topical steroids for mild cases to antimalarial agents, retinoids, anti-inflammatory drugs, and calcineurin inhibitors for more severe cases.⁴

Although there are multiple types of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, the most common is MF, which traditionally is nonaggressive. The typical patient with MF is older than 60 years and presents with indolent, ongoing, flat to minimally indurated patches or plaques that have cigarette paper scale. As MF progresses, some plaques grow into tumors and can become more aggressive. Histologically, MF changes based on its clinical stage, with the initial phase showing epidermotropic atypical lymphocytes and later phases showing less epitheliotropic, larger, atypical lymphocytes. The treatment algorithm varies depending on cutaneous T-cell lymphoma staging.⁶

Tinea infections are caused by dermatophytes. In prepubertal children, they predominantly appear as tinea corporis (on the body) or tinea capitis (on the scalp), but in adults they appear as tinea cruris (on the groin), tinea pedis (on the feet), or tinea unguium (on the nails).⁷ Tinea infections classically are known to appear as an annular patch with an active erythematous scaling border and central clearing. The patches can be pruritic. Potassium hydroxide preparation of a skin scraping is a quick test to use in the office; if the results are inconclusive, a culture may be required. Treatment depends on the location of the infection but typically involves either topical or oral antifungal agents.⁷

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous Sarcoidosis

A biopsy of a plaque on the back confirmed cutaneous sarcoidosis (CS). A chest radiograph demonstrated hilar nodes, and a referral was placed for comanagement with a pulmonologist. Histopathology was critical in making the diagnosis, with well-circumscribed noncaseating granulomas present in the dermis. The granulomas in CS often are described as naked, as there are minimal lymphocytes present and plasma cells normally are absent.¹ Because the lungs are the most common site of involvement, a chest radiograph is necessary to examine for systemic sarcoidosis. Laboratory workup is used to evaluate for lymphopenia, hypercalcemia, elevated blood sedimentation rate, and elevated angiotensin- converting enzyme levels, which are common in systemic sarcoidosis.¹

Sarcoidosis is a multisystemic granulomatous disorder with an unknown etiology. It is believed to develop in genetically predisposed individuals as a reaction to unidentified antigens in the environment.¹ Helper T cells (T_H1) respond to these environmental antigens in those who are susceptible, which leads to the disease process, but paradoxically, even with the elevation of cellular immune activity at the sites of the granulomatous inflammation, the peripheral immune response in these patients is suppressed as shown by lymphopenia.²

Cutaneous sarcoidosis is found in approximately one-third of patients with systemic sarcoidosis but can occur without systemic involvement.^1,2 Sarcoidosis is reported worldwide and affects patients of all races and ethnicities, ages, and sexes but does have a higher prevalence among Black individuals in the United States, patients younger than 40 years (peak incidence, 20–29 years of age), and females.² In 80% of patients, CS occurs before systemic sarcoidosis develops, or they may develop simultaneously.¹

Cutaneous sarcoidosis has a wide range of clinical presentations that are classified as specific and nonspecific. Specific lesions in CS contain noncaseating granulomas while nonspecific lesions in CS appear as reactive processes.² The most common specific presentation of CS includes papules that are brown in pigmentation in lighter skin tones and red to violaceous in darker skin tones (Figure). The most common nonspecific skin manifestation is erythema nodosum, which represents a hypersensitivity reaction. Cutaneous sarcoidosis can appear as hypopigmented or hyperpigmented patches or plaques.¹

Treatments for CS vary based on the individual.¹ For milder and more localized cases, topical or intralesional steroids may be used. If systemic sarcoidosis is suspected or if there is diffuse involvement of the skin, systemic steroids, antimalarials (eg, hydroxychloroquine), low-dose methotrexate, minocycline, allopurinol, azathioprine, isotretinoin, tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, or psoralen plus long-wave UVA radiation may be used. If systemic sarcoidosis is present, referral to a pulmonologist is recommended for co-management.¹

Cutaneous sarcoidosis is known as the “great imitator,” and there are multiple diseases to consider in the differential that are distinguished by the physical findings.¹ In our case of a middle-aged Black woman with indurated plaques, a few diagnoses to consider were psoriasis, discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE), mycosis fungoides (MF), and tinea infection.

Psoriasis is a common disease, and 90% of patients have chronic plaquelike disease with well-demarcated erythematous plaques that have a silver-gray scale and a positive Auspitz sign (also known as pinpoint bleeding).³ Plaques often are distributed on the trunk, limb extensors, and scalp, along with nail changes. Some patients also have joint pain, indicating psoriatic arthritis. The etiology of psoriasis is unknown, but it develops due to unrestrained keratinocyte proliferation and defective differentiation, which leads to histopathology showing regular acanthosis and papillary dermal ectasia with rouleaux. Mild cases typically are treated with topical steroids or vitamin D, while more severe cases are treated with methotrexate, cyclosporine, retinoids, or biologics.³

Discoid lupus erythematosus occurs 4 times more often in Black patients than in White patients. Clinically, DLE begins as well-defined, erythematous, scaly patches that expand with hyperpigmentation at the periphery and leave an atrophic, scarred, hypopigmented center.⁴ It typically is localized to the head and neck, but in cases where it disseminates elsewhere on the body, the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus increases from 1.2% to 28%.5 Histopathology of DLE shows vacuolar degeneration of the basal cell layer in the epidermis along with patchy lymphocytic infiltrate in the dermis. Treatments range from topical steroids for mild cases to antimalarial agents, retinoids, anti-inflammatory drugs, and calcineurin inhibitors for more severe cases.⁴

Although there are multiple types of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, the most common is MF, which traditionally is nonaggressive. The typical patient with MF is older than 60 years and presents with indolent, ongoing, flat to minimally indurated patches or plaques that have cigarette paper scale. As MF progresses, some plaques grow into tumors and can become more aggressive. Histologically, MF changes based on its clinical stage, with the initial phase showing epidermotropic atypical lymphocytes and later phases showing less epitheliotropic, larger, atypical lymphocytes. The treatment algorithm varies depending on cutaneous T-cell lymphoma staging.⁶

Tinea infections are caused by dermatophytes. In prepubertal children, they predominantly appear as tinea corporis (on the body) or tinea capitis (on the scalp), but in adults they appear as tinea cruris (on the groin), tinea pedis (on the feet), or tinea unguium (on the nails).⁷ Tinea infections classically are known to appear as an annular patch with an active erythematous scaling border and central clearing. The patches can be pruritic. Potassium hydroxide preparation of a skin scraping is a quick test to use in the office; if the results are inconclusive, a culture may be required. Treatment depends on the location of the infection but typically involves either topical or oral antifungal agents.⁷

SAN DIEGO — While medicine has made tremendous strides against acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in children in recent years, a new study finds that mortality outcomes in older adults in the United States haven’t improved since the turn of the 21st century.

From 1999 to 2020, age-adjusted mortality rates for patients with ALL aged 55 and up didn’t change, oncologist-hematologist Jamie L. Koprivnikar, MD, of New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The rates were 10.8 per 1 million in 1999 and 10.6 per 1 million in 2020.

By contrast, the mortality rates for children aged 0-15 improved from 3.5 per 1 million in 1999 to 2.2 per 1 million in 2020.

“The findings were particularly surprising and disappointing to me,” Dr. Koprivnikar said in an interview. “My overall sense is that we’ve really improved our outcomes of treating patients with ALL and are making great strides forward, moving away from so much chemotherapy and toward more kinds of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. So we need to understand what’s driving this.”

According to Dr. Koprivnikar, ALL is more common in children than adults. However, “even though the majority of cases tend to occur in children, we know that the majority of deaths are actually in the adult patient population,” she said.

One challenge for treatment is that therapies that work well in the pediatric population aren’t as effective in adults, she said. ALL is biologically different in adults in some ways, she added, and older patients may have more comorbidities. “It ends up being a really complicated story with all of these different factors playing into the complexity.”

For the new study, Dr. Koprivnikar and colleagues analyzed death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. They found that 17,238 people died from ALL between 1999 and 2020. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, race, and region.

The study authors noted that mortality rates didn’t change despite medical advances in ALL such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based therapy. It’s unclear if the treatments have made it to the older-adult setting yet, Dr. Koprivnikar said.

There may be problems with access due to socioeconomic factors as well, she said. “ALL is actually more common among those of Hispanic heritage, and we don’t completely understand that.”

Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview that the study “is a reminder that clinical trial outcomes are limited — specifically trial results that often emphasize early results and report on a select population of older patients who generally are socially resourced and physically and mentally more fit.”

Dr. Luskin added that the study reports on outcomes through 2020, including years when newer regimens were not broadly disseminated outside of clinical trials.

Moving forward, she said, “this report suggests we need to continue to develop novel approaches and understand long-term outcomes as well as ‘real world’ outcomes. A similar study should be repeated again in 3-5 years as novel regimens become standard. We hope to see improvements.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Koprivnikar disclosed consulting relationships with Alexion, GSK, Novartis, and Apellis. Other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Luskin disclosed ties with Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz, Kite, and AbbVie.

SAN DIEGO — While medicine has made tremendous strides against acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in children in recent years, a new study finds that mortality outcomes in older adults in the United States haven’t improved since the turn of the 21st century.

From 1999 to 2020, age-adjusted mortality rates for patients with ALL aged 55 and up didn’t change, oncologist-hematologist Jamie L. Koprivnikar, MD, of New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The rates were 10.8 per 1 million in 1999 and 10.6 per 1 million in 2020.

By contrast, the mortality rates for children aged 0-15 improved from 3.5 per 1 million in 1999 to 2.2 per 1 million in 2020.

“The findings were particularly surprising and disappointing to me,” Dr. Koprivnikar said in an interview. “My overall sense is that we’ve really improved our outcomes of treating patients with ALL and are making great strides forward, moving away from so much chemotherapy and toward more kinds of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. So we need to understand what’s driving this.”

According to Dr. Koprivnikar, ALL is more common in children than adults. However, “even though the majority of cases tend to occur in children, we know that the majority of deaths are actually in the adult patient population,” she said.

One challenge for treatment is that therapies that work well in the pediatric population aren’t as effective in adults, she said. ALL is biologically different in adults in some ways, she added, and older patients may have more comorbidities. “It ends up being a really complicated story with all of these different factors playing into the complexity.”

For the new study, Dr. Koprivnikar and colleagues analyzed death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. They found that 17,238 people died from ALL between 1999 and 2020. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, race, and region.

The study authors noted that mortality rates didn’t change despite medical advances in ALL such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based therapy. It’s unclear if the treatments have made it to the older-adult setting yet, Dr. Koprivnikar said.

There may be problems with access due to socioeconomic factors as well, she said. “ALL is actually more common among those of Hispanic heritage, and we don’t completely understand that.”

Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview that the study “is a reminder that clinical trial outcomes are limited — specifically trial results that often emphasize early results and report on a select population of older patients who generally are socially resourced and physically and mentally more fit.”

Dr. Luskin added that the study reports on outcomes through 2020, including years when newer regimens were not broadly disseminated outside of clinical trials.

Moving forward, she said, “this report suggests we need to continue to develop novel approaches and understand long-term outcomes as well as ‘real world’ outcomes. A similar study should be repeated again in 3-5 years as novel regimens become standard. We hope to see improvements.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Koprivnikar disclosed consulting relationships with Alexion, GSK, Novartis, and Apellis. Other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Luskin disclosed ties with Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz, Kite, and AbbVie.

SAN DIEGO — While medicine has made tremendous strides against acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in children in recent years, a new study finds that mortality outcomes in older adults in the United States haven’t improved since the turn of the 21st century.

From 1999 to 2020, age-adjusted mortality rates for patients with ALL aged 55 and up didn’t change, oncologist-hematologist Jamie L. Koprivnikar, MD, of New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The rates were 10.8 per 1 million in 1999 and 10.6 per 1 million in 2020.

By contrast, the mortality rates for children aged 0-15 improved from 3.5 per 1 million in 1999 to 2.2 per 1 million in 2020.

“The findings were particularly surprising and disappointing to me,” Dr. Koprivnikar said in an interview. “My overall sense is that we’ve really improved our outcomes of treating patients with ALL and are making great strides forward, moving away from so much chemotherapy and toward more kinds of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. So we need to understand what’s driving this.”

According to Dr. Koprivnikar, ALL is more common in children than adults. However, “even though the majority of cases tend to occur in children, we know that the majority of deaths are actually in the adult patient population,” she said.

One challenge for treatment is that therapies that work well in the pediatric population aren’t as effective in adults, she said. ALL is biologically different in adults in some ways, she added, and older patients may have more comorbidities. “It ends up being a really complicated story with all of these different factors playing into the complexity.”

For the new study, Dr. Koprivnikar and colleagues analyzed death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. They found that 17,238 people died from ALL between 1999 and 2020. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, race, and region.

The study authors noted that mortality rates didn’t change despite medical advances in ALL such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based therapy. It’s unclear if the treatments have made it to the older-adult setting yet, Dr. Koprivnikar said.

There may be problems with access due to socioeconomic factors as well, she said. “ALL is actually more common among those of Hispanic heritage, and we don’t completely understand that.”

Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview that the study “is a reminder that clinical trial outcomes are limited — specifically trial results that often emphasize early results and report on a select population of older patients who generally are socially resourced and physically and mentally more fit.”

Dr. Luskin added that the study reports on outcomes through 2020, including years when newer regimens were not broadly disseminated outside of clinical trials.

Moving forward, she said, “this report suggests we need to continue to develop novel approaches and understand long-term outcomes as well as ‘real world’ outcomes. A similar study should be repeated again in 3-5 years as novel regimens become standard. We hope to see improvements.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Koprivnikar disclosed consulting relationships with Alexion, GSK, Novartis, and Apellis. Other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Luskin disclosed ties with Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz, Kite, and AbbVie.

Scientists are beginning to unravel the secrets of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the devastating disorder that floods the lungs with fluid and has ushered countless millions to death after infection with pneumonia, sepsis, and COVID-19.

Two centuries after the lung damage caused by the disorder was first described in medicine, it’s now clear that ARDS is an autoimmune condition spurred by the body’s overactive defenses. There’s interest in disrupting “crosstalk” between cells, and rise of a new form of genetic analysis is allowing researchers to test their hypotheses more effectively than ever before. And, perhaps most importantly, recent findings reveal how stem cells in the epithelial lining of the lungs get stalled in an intermediate stage before regenerating into new cells. Reversing this process could trigger repair and recovery.

There’s still a ways to go before clinical trials can test therapies to turn things around at the epithelial level, acknowledged University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, professor of internal medicine Rachel L. Zemans, MD, in an interview. Still, “it’s a pretty exciting time,” said Dr Zemans, who manages a lab that explores how the lung epithelium responds to injury.
 

A lung disorder’s deep roots in human history

A British doctor first described the traits of ARDS in 1821, although this form of pulmonary edema had been described in “ancient writings,” according to a 2005 report by Gordon Bernard, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. Sometimes called “double pneumonia,” ARDS was almost always fatal until the last few decades of the 20th century. “The advent of well-equipped ICUs, well-trained staff, and the availability of reliable positive pressure ventilators has allowed patients to be kept alive much longer and thus have the opportunity to heal the pulmonary injury and survive,” Dr Bernard wrote.

According to the Mayo Clinic, there are many causes of ARDS. Sepsis is the most common, and others include severe pneumonia, head/chest injuries, massive blood transfusions, pancreatitis, burns, and inhalation of harmful substances. Since 2020, ARDS has been a hallmark of COVID-19.

In an interview, University of Washington, Seattle, emeritus professor of medicine Thomas R. Martin MD, explained that ARDS occurs when the epithelium barrier in the lungs breaks down. Unlike the permeable endothelial barrier, the alveolar epithelium is “like a brick wall or a big dam, keeping red cells and plasma out of the airspace.”

In cases of pulmonary edema due to heart failure, fluid can back up into the lungs, said Dr Martin, who studies ARDS. However, pumps in the epithelium can clear that excess fluid pretty quickly because the epithelium remains in a normal state, he said. “Given enough time and enough medical support, people with heart failure and pulmonary edema can get better without lung injury.”

In ARDS, however, “the epithelium is damaged. Cells die in the alveolar wall, the scaffolding is exposed, and the fluid in the alveoli cannot be cleared out. You’ve got a disaster on your hands because all of the fluid and red blood cells and inflammatory products in the blood are going right into the airspace. The patient gets extremely short of breath because their oxygen level falls.”
 

COVID-19 virus finds a weak spot in the lungs

COVID-19 is “a classic example of an attack on the alveolar epithelium,” Dr Martin said.

By chance, the virus evolved to recognize receptors in the epithelium, allowing it to enter and propagate. “To make matters worse, defense mechanisms in the body attack those dying epithelial cells because the virus is visible on the surface cells. So lymphocytes from the immune system and macrophages attack the outer walls and cause further damage.”

Other scientists agree about this general picture of ARDS. “Studies of human lung tissue support the notion that failure of alveolar repair and regeneration mechanisms underlie the chronic lung dysfunction that can result from ARD,” wrote researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, in a 2022 report.

According to Dr Martin, researchers and clinicians have discovered a pair of strategies to help vanquish COVID-19: Control viral entry through antiviral medication and dampen the body’s inflammatory response via steroids.

Still, “although we’ve learned lessons from COVID-19, we’re not good at all at promoting repair,” Dr Martin said. While new drugs have dramatically improved treatment for lung diseases such as cystic fibrosis, he said, “we don’t have good examples of new therapies that promote repair in ARDS.”
 

Looking for a way to turn the tide of fluid buildup

Dr Zemans and colleagues have uncovered a crucial obstacle to repair: the failure of stem cells to fully differentiate and become functional alveolar epithelial cells.

Researchers only began to understand a few years ago that the stem cells go through a transitional stage from type 2 to type 1, which make up 98% of cells in the epithelial surface, Dr Zemans said. In patients with ARDS who don’t get better quickly, “it looks like the cells get hung up in this intermediate state. They can’t finish that regeneration.”

As a 2022 study by Dr Zemans and colleagues put it, this process can lead to “ongoing barrier permeability, noncardiogenic pulmonary edema, and ventilator dependence, and mortality.” In fact, she said, “when we look at the lungs of people who died of ARDS, their cells were all in that intermediate stage.”

The discovery of the intermediate state only came about because of new technology called single-cell RNA sequencing, she said. “Now, these transitional cells are being found in other organs.”

Why do the epithelial cells get only part way through the regeneration process? It’s not entirely clear, Dr Zemans said, but researcher are intrigued by the idea that “cross-talk” between cells is playing a role.

“When the cells are in that stage, they also activate neighboring cells, including inflammatory cells, like macrophages, and fibroblasts,” she said. “And once those cells become activated, they become pathologic. What we think is that those cells then can talk back to the epithelial cells and prevent the epithelial cells from finishing that differentiation. It’s really hard to snap out of that positive feedback loop.”

This interaction probably evolved “for a good reason,” she said, “but it also became pathologic.” If the cells stay in the intermediate stage too long, she said, fibrosis develops. “They have scar tissue that never goes away. It takes a lot of work to expand the lungs when they’re so stiff when they should be stretchy like a rubber band. Scar tissue also gets in the way of the oxygen absorption, so some people have low oxygen levels.”
 

Future directions: Teaching cells to get “unstuck”

What’s next for research? One direction is exploring the variety of types of cells in the epithelium. Recent finding are revealing “new cell subpopulations that maintain alveolar homeostasis, communicate injury signals, and participate in normal and maladaptive repair. Emerging data illuminate the complexity of alveolar physiology and pathology to provide a more complete picture of how alveoli maintain health and respond to injurious stimuli,” write the researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in their 2022 report.

Meanwhile, “we’re trying to look at the signaling pathways, the proteins or molecules, to understand the signals that tell a cell how to get unstuck,” Dr Zemans said. And researchers are exploring whether knocking out certain genes expressed by transitional cells in mice will lead to better outcomes, she said.

The 2022 study by Dr Zeman and colleagues described the potential ramifications of better understanding of the entire process: “Ultimately, investigation of the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying ineffectual alveolar regeneration in ARDS and fibrosis may lead to novel therapies to promote physiological regeneration, thus accelerating restoration of barrier integrity, resolution of edema, liberation from the ventilator and survival in ARDS, and preventing fibrosis in fibroproliferative ARDS and [idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis].”

To put it more simply, “if you can seal the barrier, you can get the fluid out of the lungs, and you can get the patients off the ventilator, get out of the ICU, and go home,” Dr Zemans said.

Dr Zemans and Dr Martin have no disclosures.

Scientists are beginning to unravel the secrets of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the devastating disorder that floods the lungs with fluid and has ushered countless millions to death after infection with pneumonia, sepsis, and COVID-19.

Two centuries after the lung damage caused by the disorder was first described in medicine, it’s now clear that ARDS is an autoimmune condition spurred by the body’s overactive defenses. There’s interest in disrupting “crosstalk” between cells, and rise of a new form of genetic analysis is allowing researchers to test their hypotheses more effectively than ever before. And, perhaps most importantly, recent findings reveal how stem cells in the epithelial lining of the lungs get stalled in an intermediate stage before regenerating into new cells. Reversing this process could trigger repair and recovery.

There’s still a ways to go before clinical trials can test therapies to turn things around at the epithelial level, acknowledged University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, professor of internal medicine Rachel L. Zemans, MD, in an interview. Still, “it’s a pretty exciting time,” said Dr Zemans, who manages a lab that explores how the lung epithelium responds to injury.
 

A lung disorder’s deep roots in human history

A British doctor first described the traits of ARDS in 1821, although this form of pulmonary edema had been described in “ancient writings,” according to a 2005 report by Gordon Bernard, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. Sometimes called “double pneumonia,” ARDS was almost always fatal until the last few decades of the 20th century. “The advent of well-equipped ICUs, well-trained staff, and the availability of reliable positive pressure ventilators has allowed patients to be kept alive much longer and thus have the opportunity to heal the pulmonary injury and survive,” Dr Bernard wrote.

According to the Mayo Clinic, there are many causes of ARDS. Sepsis is the most common, and others include severe pneumonia, head/chest injuries, massive blood transfusions, pancreatitis, burns, and inhalation of harmful substances. Since 2020, ARDS has been a hallmark of COVID-19.

In an interview, University of Washington, Seattle, emeritus professor of medicine Thomas R. Martin MD, explained that ARDS occurs when the epithelium barrier in the lungs breaks down. Unlike the permeable endothelial barrier, the alveolar epithelium is “like a brick wall or a big dam, keeping red cells and plasma out of the airspace.”

In cases of pulmonary edema due to heart failure, fluid can back up into the lungs, said Dr Martin, who studies ARDS. However, pumps in the epithelium can clear that excess fluid pretty quickly because the epithelium remains in a normal state, he said. “Given enough time and enough medical support, people with heart failure and pulmonary edema can get better without lung injury.”

In ARDS, however, “the epithelium is damaged. Cells die in the alveolar wall, the scaffolding is exposed, and the fluid in the alveoli cannot be cleared out. You’ve got a disaster on your hands because all of the fluid and red blood cells and inflammatory products in the blood are going right into the airspace. The patient gets extremely short of breath because their oxygen level falls.”
 

COVID-19 virus finds a weak spot in the lungs

COVID-19 is “a classic example of an attack on the alveolar epithelium,” Dr Martin said.

By chance, the virus evolved to recognize receptors in the epithelium, allowing it to enter and propagate. “To make matters worse, defense mechanisms in the body attack those dying epithelial cells because the virus is visible on the surface cells. So lymphocytes from the immune system and macrophages attack the outer walls and cause further damage.”

Other scientists agree about this general picture of ARDS. “Studies of human lung tissue support the notion that failure of alveolar repair and regeneration mechanisms underlie the chronic lung dysfunction that can result from ARD,” wrote researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, in a 2022 report.

According to Dr Martin, researchers and clinicians have discovered a pair of strategies to help vanquish COVID-19: Control viral entry through antiviral medication and dampen the body’s inflammatory response via steroids.

Still, “although we’ve learned lessons from COVID-19, we’re not good at all at promoting repair,” Dr Martin said. While new drugs have dramatically improved treatment for lung diseases such as cystic fibrosis, he said, “we don’t have good examples of new therapies that promote repair in ARDS.”
 

Looking for a way to turn the tide of fluid buildup

Dr Zemans and colleagues have uncovered a crucial obstacle to repair: the failure of stem cells to fully differentiate and become functional alveolar epithelial cells.

Researchers only began to understand a few years ago that the stem cells go through a transitional stage from type 2 to type 1, which make up 98% of cells in the epithelial surface, Dr Zemans said. In patients with ARDS who don’t get better quickly, “it looks like the cells get hung up in this intermediate state. They can’t finish that regeneration.”

As a 2022 study by Dr Zemans and colleagues put it, this process can lead to “ongoing barrier permeability, noncardiogenic pulmonary edema, and ventilator dependence, and mortality.” In fact, she said, “when we look at the lungs of people who died of ARDS, their cells were all in that intermediate stage.”

The discovery of the intermediate state only came about because of new technology called single-cell RNA sequencing, she said. “Now, these transitional cells are being found in other organs.”

Why do the epithelial cells get only part way through the regeneration process? It’s not entirely clear, Dr Zemans said, but researcher are intrigued by the idea that “cross-talk” between cells is playing a role.

“When the cells are in that stage, they also activate neighboring cells, including inflammatory cells, like macrophages, and fibroblasts,” she said. “And once those cells become activated, they become pathologic. What we think is that those cells then can talk back to the epithelial cells and prevent the epithelial cells from finishing that differentiation. It’s really hard to snap out of that positive feedback loop.”

This interaction probably evolved “for a good reason,” she said, “but it also became pathologic.” If the cells stay in the intermediate stage too long, she said, fibrosis develops. “They have scar tissue that never goes away. It takes a lot of work to expand the lungs when they’re so stiff when they should be stretchy like a rubber band. Scar tissue also gets in the way of the oxygen absorption, so some people have low oxygen levels.”
 

Future directions: Teaching cells to get “unstuck”

What’s next for research? One direction is exploring the variety of types of cells in the epithelium. Recent finding are revealing “new cell subpopulations that maintain alveolar homeostasis, communicate injury signals, and participate in normal and maladaptive repair. Emerging data illuminate the complexity of alveolar physiology and pathology to provide a more complete picture of how alveoli maintain health and respond to injurious stimuli,” write the researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in their 2022 report.

Meanwhile, “we’re trying to look at the signaling pathways, the proteins or molecules, to understand the signals that tell a cell how to get unstuck,” Dr Zemans said. And researchers are exploring whether knocking out certain genes expressed by transitional cells in mice will lead to better outcomes, she said.

The 2022 study by Dr Zeman and colleagues described the potential ramifications of better understanding of the entire process: “Ultimately, investigation of the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying ineffectual alveolar regeneration in ARDS and fibrosis may lead to novel therapies to promote physiological regeneration, thus accelerating restoration of barrier integrity, resolution of edema, liberation from the ventilator and survival in ARDS, and preventing fibrosis in fibroproliferative ARDS and [idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis].”

To put it more simply, “if you can seal the barrier, you can get the fluid out of the lungs, and you can get the patients off the ventilator, get out of the ICU, and go home,” Dr Zemans said.

Dr Zemans and Dr Martin have no disclosures.

Scientists are beginning to unravel the secrets of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the devastating disorder that floods the lungs with fluid and has ushered countless millions to death after infection with pneumonia, sepsis, and COVID-19.

Two centuries after the lung damage caused by the disorder was first described in medicine, it’s now clear that ARDS is an autoimmune condition spurred by the body’s overactive defenses. There’s interest in disrupting “crosstalk” between cells, and rise of a new form of genetic analysis is allowing researchers to test their hypotheses more effectively than ever before. And, perhaps most importantly, recent findings reveal how stem cells in the epithelial lining of the lungs get stalled in an intermediate stage before regenerating into new cells. Reversing this process could trigger repair and recovery.

There’s still a ways to go before clinical trials can test therapies to turn things around at the epithelial level, acknowledged University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, professor of internal medicine Rachel L. Zemans, MD, in an interview. Still, “it’s a pretty exciting time,” said Dr Zemans, who manages a lab that explores how the lung epithelium responds to injury.
 

A lung disorder’s deep roots in human history

A British doctor first described the traits of ARDS in 1821, although this form of pulmonary edema had been described in “ancient writings,” according to a 2005 report by Gordon Bernard, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. Sometimes called “double pneumonia,” ARDS was almost always fatal until the last few decades of the 20th century. “The advent of well-equipped ICUs, well-trained staff, and the availability of reliable positive pressure ventilators has allowed patients to be kept alive much longer and thus have the opportunity to heal the pulmonary injury and survive,” Dr Bernard wrote.

According to the Mayo Clinic, there are many causes of ARDS. Sepsis is the most common, and others include severe pneumonia, head/chest injuries, massive blood transfusions, pancreatitis, burns, and inhalation of harmful substances. Since 2020, ARDS has been a hallmark of COVID-19.

In an interview, University of Washington, Seattle, emeritus professor of medicine Thomas R. Martin MD, explained that ARDS occurs when the epithelium barrier in the lungs breaks down. Unlike the permeable endothelial barrier, the alveolar epithelium is “like a brick wall or a big dam, keeping red cells and plasma out of the airspace.”

In cases of pulmonary edema due to heart failure, fluid can back up into the lungs, said Dr Martin, who studies ARDS. However, pumps in the epithelium can clear that excess fluid pretty quickly because the epithelium remains in a normal state, he said. “Given enough time and enough medical support, people with heart failure and pulmonary edema can get better without lung injury.”

In ARDS, however, “the epithelium is damaged. Cells die in the alveolar wall, the scaffolding is exposed, and the fluid in the alveoli cannot be cleared out. You’ve got a disaster on your hands because all of the fluid and red blood cells and inflammatory products in the blood are going right into the airspace. The patient gets extremely short of breath because their oxygen level falls.”
 

COVID-19 virus finds a weak spot in the lungs

COVID-19 is “a classic example of an attack on the alveolar epithelium,” Dr Martin said.

By chance, the virus evolved to recognize receptors in the epithelium, allowing it to enter and propagate. “To make matters worse, defense mechanisms in the body attack those dying epithelial cells because the virus is visible on the surface cells. So lymphocytes from the immune system and macrophages attack the outer walls and cause further damage.”

Other scientists agree about this general picture of ARDS. “Studies of human lung tissue support the notion that failure of alveolar repair and regeneration mechanisms underlie the chronic lung dysfunction that can result from ARD,” wrote researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, in a 2022 report.

According to Dr Martin, researchers and clinicians have discovered a pair of strategies to help vanquish COVID-19: Control viral entry through antiviral medication and dampen the body’s inflammatory response via steroids.

Still, “although we’ve learned lessons from COVID-19, we’re not good at all at promoting repair,” Dr Martin said. While new drugs have dramatically improved treatment for lung diseases such as cystic fibrosis, he said, “we don’t have good examples of new therapies that promote repair in ARDS.”
 

Looking for a way to turn the tide of fluid buildup

Dr Zemans and colleagues have uncovered a crucial obstacle to repair: the failure of stem cells to fully differentiate and become functional alveolar epithelial cells.

Researchers only began to understand a few years ago that the stem cells go through a transitional stage from type 2 to type 1, which make up 98% of cells in the epithelial surface, Dr Zemans said. In patients with ARDS who don’t get better quickly, “it looks like the cells get hung up in this intermediate state. They can’t finish that regeneration.”

As a 2022 study by Dr Zemans and colleagues put it, this process can lead to “ongoing barrier permeability, noncardiogenic pulmonary edema, and ventilator dependence, and mortality.” In fact, she said, “when we look at the lungs of people who died of ARDS, their cells were all in that intermediate stage.”

The discovery of the intermediate state only came about because of new technology called single-cell RNA sequencing, she said. “Now, these transitional cells are being found in other organs.”

Why do the epithelial cells get only part way through the regeneration process? It’s not entirely clear, Dr Zemans said, but researcher are intrigued by the idea that “cross-talk” between cells is playing a role.

“When the cells are in that stage, they also activate neighboring cells, including inflammatory cells, like macrophages, and fibroblasts,” she said. “And once those cells become activated, they become pathologic. What we think is that those cells then can talk back to the epithelial cells and prevent the epithelial cells from finishing that differentiation. It’s really hard to snap out of that positive feedback loop.”

This interaction probably evolved “for a good reason,” she said, “but it also became pathologic.” If the cells stay in the intermediate stage too long, she said, fibrosis develops. “They have scar tissue that never goes away. It takes a lot of work to expand the lungs when they’re so stiff when they should be stretchy like a rubber band. Scar tissue also gets in the way of the oxygen absorption, so some people have low oxygen levels.”
 

Future directions: Teaching cells to get “unstuck”

What’s next for research? One direction is exploring the variety of types of cells in the epithelium. Recent finding are revealing “new cell subpopulations that maintain alveolar homeostasis, communicate injury signals, and participate in normal and maladaptive repair. Emerging data illuminate the complexity of alveolar physiology and pathology to provide a more complete picture of how alveoli maintain health and respond to injurious stimuli,” write the researchers from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in their 2022 report.

Meanwhile, “we’re trying to look at the signaling pathways, the proteins or molecules, to understand the signals that tell a cell how to get unstuck,” Dr Zemans said. And researchers are exploring whether knocking out certain genes expressed by transitional cells in mice will lead to better outcomes, she said.

The 2022 study by Dr Zeman and colleagues described the potential ramifications of better understanding of the entire process: “Ultimately, investigation of the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying ineffectual alveolar regeneration in ARDS and fibrosis may lead to novel therapies to promote physiological regeneration, thus accelerating restoration of barrier integrity, resolution of edema, liberation from the ventilator and survival in ARDS, and preventing fibrosis in fibroproliferative ARDS and [idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis].”

To put it more simply, “if you can seal the barrier, you can get the fluid out of the lungs, and you can get the patients off the ventilator, get out of the ICU, and go home,” Dr Zemans said.

Dr Zemans and Dr Martin have no disclosures.

In the opinion of David Rosmarin, MD, the approval of dupilumab in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe, resistant atopic dermatitis (AD) marked an inflection point in dermatology.

“Dupilumab has revolutionized AD, and the [interleukin] IL-4 receptor target isn’t going away,” Dr. Rosmarin, who chairs the department of dermatology at Indiana University, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference. “It’s truly an exciting time because we have a lot of different treatments in the pipeline that target IL-4 and other receptors.”

In a review of AD biologic therapies in development, he highlighted the following:

CM310 (Stapokibart): This IL-4 receptor alpha monoclonal antibody, which is being developed by Keymed Biosciences, inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling. In a phase 3 randomized study of patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) meeting, it showed results similar to those of dupilumab. Specifically, at week 16, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-75 scores were achieved in 66.9% of patients in the CM310 group and 25.8% of patients in the placebo group, while the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) with a reduction of greater than or equal to 2 points from baseline was 44.2% in the CM310 group, compared with 16.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001 for both associations). According to Dr. Rosmarin, other novel anti-IL-4 receptor antibodies for AD include AK120, which is being developed by Akeso Biopharma, and CBP-201 (rademikibart), which is being developed by Connect Biopharma.

Eblasakimab. Under development by ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, this biologic is a potential first-in-class, monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-13Ralpha1 with high affinity and blocks the signaling of IL-4 and IL-13 through the type-2 receptor. In the TREK-AD monotherapy phase 2b trial in patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, the primary endpoint of EASI percent change from baseline to week 16, was met for eblasakimab doses 600 mg Q4W, 300mg Q2W, and 400mg Q2W vs. placebo (73.0% [P = .001], 69.8% [P = .005], and 65.8% [P = .029] vs. 51.1%), respectively.

Nemolizumab. Under development by Galderma, nemolizumab is a first-in-class IL-31 receptor alpha antagonist. “Many people refer to IL-31 as the itch cytokine,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “That’s probably a little oversimplified, but it’s certainly a powerful medication in development for prurigo nodularis as well as AD.”

Dr. Rosmarin

Results from the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, which included the concurrent use of topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors and were presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, showed that nemolizumab significantly improved skin lesions and itch in adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, compared with placebo. Specifically, 35.6% and 37.7% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, reached clearance or almost-clearance of skin lesions when assessed using the IGA score, compared with 24.6% and 26.0% in the placebo group (P < .0006, P = .001). In addition, 43.5% and 42.1% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, achieved a 75% reduction in the EASI, compared with 29.0% and 30.2% in the placebo group (P < .0001, P = .0011). “There are similar results regardless of the degree of itch patients are starting out with at baseline,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s a very rapid response, by week 4, and that continues to improve through week 16.”

Amlitelimab. Under development by Sanofi, this monoclonal antibody binds to OX40-Ligand, and is designed for patients with moderate to severe AD. According to results of a phase 2b trial that were presented in an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, patients treated with amlitelimab 250 mg Q4W with a 500 mg loading dose showed a 61.5% improvement in the average EASI score from baseline at week 16, compared with 29.4% of those who received placebo (P <.0001), with continued improvement seen through 24 weeks. “There are really strong results with EASI scores; clearly this medicine works compared to the placebo,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s also improving other biomarkers as well, including eosinophils, IL-13, TARC [serum thymus and activation-regulated chemokine], and IL-22.”

138559 (Temtokibart). Under development by LEO, 138559 is the first biologic to show the efficacy and safety of an IL-22RA1 targeting antibody for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD. In a phase 2a study abstract presented at the 2023 EADV meeting, the mean change in EASI from baseline to Week 16 was significantly greater for patients in the 138559-treated group compared with those in the placebo group (–15.3 vs. –3.5; P = .003). In addition, at week 16, significantly greater proportions of patients in the 138559 group relative to those in the placebo group achieved an EASI75 score (41.6% vs. 13.7%; P = .011) and an EASI-90 score (30.8% vs. 3.5%; P = .003). “With this particular receptor you’re not only blocking IL-22, but you’re blocking IL-20 and IL-24 as well,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It really may be that it’s IL-20 and IL-24 that are more responsible for the pathogenic effect.”

Dr. Rosmarin disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma and Sanofi.

In the opinion of David Rosmarin, MD, the approval of dupilumab in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe, resistant atopic dermatitis (AD) marked an inflection point in dermatology.

“Dupilumab has revolutionized AD, and the [interleukin] IL-4 receptor target isn’t going away,” Dr. Rosmarin, who chairs the department of dermatology at Indiana University, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference. “It’s truly an exciting time because we have a lot of different treatments in the pipeline that target IL-4 and other receptors.”

In a review of AD biologic therapies in development, he highlighted the following:

CM310 (Stapokibart): This IL-4 receptor alpha monoclonal antibody, which is being developed by Keymed Biosciences, inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling. In a phase 3 randomized study of patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) meeting, it showed results similar to those of dupilumab. Specifically, at week 16, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-75 scores were achieved in 66.9% of patients in the CM310 group and 25.8% of patients in the placebo group, while the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) with a reduction of greater than or equal to 2 points from baseline was 44.2% in the CM310 group, compared with 16.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001 for both associations). According to Dr. Rosmarin, other novel anti-IL-4 receptor antibodies for AD include AK120, which is being developed by Akeso Biopharma, and CBP-201 (rademikibart), which is being developed by Connect Biopharma.

Eblasakimab. Under development by ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, this biologic is a potential first-in-class, monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-13Ralpha1 with high affinity and blocks the signaling of IL-4 and IL-13 through the type-2 receptor. In the TREK-AD monotherapy phase 2b trial in patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, the primary endpoint of EASI percent change from baseline to week 16, was met for eblasakimab doses 600 mg Q4W, 300mg Q2W, and 400mg Q2W vs. placebo (73.0% [P = .001], 69.8% [P = .005], and 65.8% [P = .029] vs. 51.1%), respectively.

Nemolizumab. Under development by Galderma, nemolizumab is a first-in-class IL-31 receptor alpha antagonist. “Many people refer to IL-31 as the itch cytokine,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “That’s probably a little oversimplified, but it’s certainly a powerful medication in development for prurigo nodularis as well as AD.”

Dr. Rosmarin

Results from the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, which included the concurrent use of topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors and were presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, showed that nemolizumab significantly improved skin lesions and itch in adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, compared with placebo. Specifically, 35.6% and 37.7% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, reached clearance or almost-clearance of skin lesions when assessed using the IGA score, compared with 24.6% and 26.0% in the placebo group (P < .0006, P = .001). In addition, 43.5% and 42.1% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, achieved a 75% reduction in the EASI, compared with 29.0% and 30.2% in the placebo group (P < .0001, P = .0011). “There are similar results regardless of the degree of itch patients are starting out with at baseline,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s a very rapid response, by week 4, and that continues to improve through week 16.”

Amlitelimab. Under development by Sanofi, this monoclonal antibody binds to OX40-Ligand, and is designed for patients with moderate to severe AD. According to results of a phase 2b trial that were presented in an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, patients treated with amlitelimab 250 mg Q4W with a 500 mg loading dose showed a 61.5% improvement in the average EASI score from baseline at week 16, compared with 29.4% of those who received placebo (P <.0001), with continued improvement seen through 24 weeks. “There are really strong results with EASI scores; clearly this medicine works compared to the placebo,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s also improving other biomarkers as well, including eosinophils, IL-13, TARC [serum thymus and activation-regulated chemokine], and IL-22.”

138559 (Temtokibart). Under development by LEO, 138559 is the first biologic to show the efficacy and safety of an IL-22RA1 targeting antibody for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD. In a phase 2a study abstract presented at the 2023 EADV meeting, the mean change in EASI from baseline to Week 16 was significantly greater for patients in the 138559-treated group compared with those in the placebo group (–15.3 vs. –3.5; P = .003). In addition, at week 16, significantly greater proportions of patients in the 138559 group relative to those in the placebo group achieved an EASI75 score (41.6% vs. 13.7%; P = .011) and an EASI-90 score (30.8% vs. 3.5%; P = .003). “With this particular receptor you’re not only blocking IL-22, but you’re blocking IL-20 and IL-24 as well,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It really may be that it’s IL-20 and IL-24 that are more responsible for the pathogenic effect.”

Dr. Rosmarin disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma and Sanofi.

In the opinion of David Rosmarin, MD, the approval of dupilumab in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severe, resistant atopic dermatitis (AD) marked an inflection point in dermatology.

“Dupilumab has revolutionized AD, and the [interleukin] IL-4 receptor target isn’t going away,” Dr. Rosmarin, who chairs the department of dermatology at Indiana University, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis (RAD) Virtual Conference. “It’s truly an exciting time because we have a lot of different treatments in the pipeline that target IL-4 and other receptors.”

In a review of AD biologic therapies in development, he highlighted the following:

CM310 (Stapokibart): This IL-4 receptor alpha monoclonal antibody, which is being developed by Keymed Biosciences, inhibits IL-4 and IL-13 signaling. In a phase 3 randomized study of patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) meeting, it showed results similar to those of dupilumab. Specifically, at week 16, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-75 scores were achieved in 66.9% of patients in the CM310 group and 25.8% of patients in the placebo group, while the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) with a reduction of greater than or equal to 2 points from baseline was 44.2% in the CM310 group, compared with 16.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001 for both associations). According to Dr. Rosmarin, other novel anti-IL-4 receptor antibodies for AD include AK120, which is being developed by Akeso Biopharma, and CBP-201 (rademikibart), which is being developed by Connect Biopharma.

Eblasakimab. Under development by ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, this biologic is a potential first-in-class, monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-13Ralpha1 with high affinity and blocks the signaling of IL-4 and IL-13 through the type-2 receptor. In the TREK-AD monotherapy phase 2b trial in patients with moderate to severe AD, presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, the primary endpoint of EASI percent change from baseline to week 16, was met for eblasakimab doses 600 mg Q4W, 300mg Q2W, and 400mg Q2W vs. placebo (73.0% [P = .001], 69.8% [P = .005], and 65.8% [P = .029] vs. 51.1%), respectively.

Nemolizumab. Under development by Galderma, nemolizumab is a first-in-class IL-31 receptor alpha antagonist. “Many people refer to IL-31 as the itch cytokine,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “That’s probably a little oversimplified, but it’s certainly a powerful medication in development for prurigo nodularis as well as AD.”

Dr. Rosmarin

Results from the ARCADIA 1 and 2 trials, which included the concurrent use of topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors and were presented as an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, showed that nemolizumab significantly improved skin lesions and itch in adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, compared with placebo. Specifically, 35.6% and 37.7% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, reached clearance or almost-clearance of skin lesions when assessed using the IGA score, compared with 24.6% and 26.0% in the placebo group (P < .0006, P = .001). In addition, 43.5% and 42.1% of nemolizumab-treated patients in ARCADIA 1 and 2, respectively, achieved a 75% reduction in the EASI, compared with 29.0% and 30.2% in the placebo group (P < .0001, P = .0011). “There are similar results regardless of the degree of itch patients are starting out with at baseline,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s a very rapid response, by week 4, and that continues to improve through week 16.”

Amlitelimab. Under development by Sanofi, this monoclonal antibody binds to OX40-Ligand, and is designed for patients with moderate to severe AD. According to results of a phase 2b trial that were presented in an abstract at the 2023 EADV meeting, patients treated with amlitelimab 250 mg Q4W with a 500 mg loading dose showed a 61.5% improvement in the average EASI score from baseline at week 16, compared with 29.4% of those who received placebo (P <.0001), with continued improvement seen through 24 weeks. “There are really strong results with EASI scores; clearly this medicine works compared to the placebo,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It’s also improving other biomarkers as well, including eosinophils, IL-13, TARC [serum thymus and activation-regulated chemokine], and IL-22.”

138559 (Temtokibart). Under development by LEO, 138559 is the first biologic to show the efficacy and safety of an IL-22RA1 targeting antibody for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD. In a phase 2a study abstract presented at the 2023 EADV meeting, the mean change in EASI from baseline to Week 16 was significantly greater for patients in the 138559-treated group compared with those in the placebo group (–15.3 vs. –3.5; P = .003). In addition, at week 16, significantly greater proportions of patients in the 138559 group relative to those in the placebo group achieved an EASI75 score (41.6% vs. 13.7%; P = .011) and an EASI-90 score (30.8% vs. 3.5%; P = .003). “With this particular receptor you’re not only blocking IL-22, but you’re blocking IL-20 and IL-24 as well,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “It really may be that it’s IL-20 and IL-24 that are more responsible for the pathogenic effect.”

Dr. Rosmarin disclosed that he is speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma and Sanofi.

Clinical Importance

Western poison ivy (Toxicodendron rydbergii) is responsible for many of the cases of Toxicodendron contact dermatitis (TCD) reported in the western and northern United States. Toxicodendron plants cause more cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in North America than any other allergen¹; 9 million Americans present to physician offices and 1.6 million present to emergency departments annually for ACD, emphasizing the notable medical burden of this condition.^2,3 Exposure to urushiol, a plant resin containing potent allergens, precipitates this form of ACD.

An estimated 50% to 75% of adults in the United States demonstrate clinical sensitivity and exhibit ACD following contact with T rydbergii.⁴ Campers, hikers, firefighters, and forest workers often risk increased exposure through physical contact or aerosolized allergens in smoke. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the incidence of visits to US emergency departments for TCD nearly doubled from 2002 to 2012,⁵ which may be explained by atmospheric CO₂ levels that both promote increased growth of Toxicodendron species and augment their toxicity.⁶

Cutaneous Manifestations

The clinical presentation of T rydbergii contact dermatitis is similar to other allergenic members of the Toxicodendron genus. Patients sensitive to urushiol typically develop a pruritic erythematous rash within 1 to 2 days of exposure (range, 5 hours to 15 days).⁷ Erythematous and edematous streaks initially manifest on the extremities and often progress to bullae and oozing papulovesicles. In early disease, patients also may display black lesions on or near the rash⁸ (so-called black-dot dermatitis) caused by oxidized urushiol deposited on the skin—an uncommon yet classic presentation of TCD. Generally, symptoms resolve without complications and with few sequalae, though hyperpigmentation or a secondary infection can develop on or near affected areas.^9,10

Taxonomy

The Toxicodendron genus belongs to the Anacardiaceae family, which includes pistachios, mangos, and cashews, and causes more cases of ACD than every other plant combined.⁴ (Shelled pistachios and cashews do not possess cross-reacting allergens and should not worry consumers; mango skin does contain urushiol.)

Toxicodendron (formerly part of the Rhus genus) includes several species of poison oak, poison ivy, and poison sumac and can be found in shrubs (T rydbergii and Toxicodendron diversilobum), vines (Toxicodendron radicans and Toxicodendron pubescens), and trees (Toxicodendron vernix). In addition, Toxicodendron taxa can hybridize with other taxa in close geographic proximity to form morphologic intermediates. Some individual plants have features of multiple species.¹¹

Etymology

The common name of T rydbergii—western poison ivy—misleads the public; the plant contains no poison that can cause death and does not grow as ivy by wrapping around trees, as T radicans and English ivy (Hedera helix) do. Its formal genus, Toxicodendron, means “poison tree” in Greek and was given its generic name by the English botanist Phillip Miller in 1768,¹² which caused the renaming of Rhus rydbergii as T rydbergii. The species name honors Per Axel Rydberg, a 19th and 20th century Swedish-American botanist.

Distribution

Toxicodendron rydbergii grows in California and other states in the western half of the United States as well as the states bordering Canada and Mexico. In Canada, it reigns as the most dominant form of poison ivy.¹³ Hikers and campers find T rydbergii in a variety of areas, including roadsides, river bottoms, sandy shores, talus slopes, precipices, and floodplains.¹¹ This taxon grows under a variety of conditions and in distinct regions, and it thrives in both full sun or shade.

Toxicodendron rydbergii turns red earlier than most plants; early red summer leaves should serve as a warning sign to hikers from a distance (Figure 1). It displays trifoliate ovate leaves (ie, each leaf contains 3 leaflets) on a dwarf nonclimbing shrub (Figure 2). Although the plant shares common features with its cousin T radicans (eastern poison ivy), T rydbergii is easily distinguished by its thicker stems, absence of aerial rootlets (abundant in T radicans), and short (approximately 1 meter) height.⁴

Photograph courtesy of Thomas W. McGovern, MD.

Curly hairs occupy the underside of T rydbergii leaflets and along the midrib; leaflet margins appear lobed or rounded. Lenticels appear as small holes in the bark that turn gray in the cold and become brighter come spring.¹³

Photograph courtesy of Thomas W. McGovern, MD.

The plant bears glabrous long petioles (leaf stems) and densely grouped clusters of yellow flowers. In autumn, the globose fruit—formed in clusters between each twig and leaf petiole (known as an axillary position)—change from yellow-green to tan (Figure 3). When urushiol exudes from damaged leaflets or other plant parts, it oxidizes on exposure to air and creates hardened black deposits on the plant. Even when grown in garden pots, T rydbergii maintains its distinguishing features.¹¹

“Western poison ivy” by Whitney Cranshaw is licensed under CC BY 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/).

Dermatitis-Inducing Plant Parts

All parts of T rydbergii including leaves, stems, roots, and fruit contain the allergenic sap throughout the year.¹⁴ A person must damage or bruise the plant for urushiol to be released and produce its allergenic effects; softly brushing against undamaged plants typically does not induce dermatitis.⁴

Pathophysiology of Urushiol

Urushiol, a pale yellow, oily mixture of organic compounds conserved throughout all Toxicodendron species, contains highly allergenic alkyl catechols. These catechols possess hydroxyl groups at positions 1 and 2 on a benzene ring; the hydrocarbon side chain of poison ivies (typically 15–carbon atoms long) attaches at position 3.¹⁵ The catechols and the aliphatic side chain contribute to the plant’s antigenic and dermatitis-inducing properties.¹⁶

The high lipophilicity of urushiol allows for rapid and unforgiving absorption into the skin, notwithstanding attempts to wash it off. Upon direct contact, catechols of urushiol penetrate the epidermis and become oxidized to quinone intermediates that bind to antigen-presenting cells in the epidermis and dermis. Epidermal Langerhans cells and dermal macrophages internalize and present the antigen to CD4⁺ T cells in nearby lymph nodes. This sequence results in production of inflammatory mediators, clonal expansion of T-effector and T-memory cells specific to the allergenic catechols, and an ensuing cytotoxic response against epidermal cells and the dermal vasculature. Keratinocytes and monocytes mediate the inflammatory response by releasing other cytokines.^4,17

Sensitization to urushiol generally occurs at 8 to 14 years of age; therefore, infants have lower susceptibility to dermatitis upon contact with T rydbergii.¹⁸ Most animals do not experience sensitization upon contact; in fact, birds and forest animals consume the urushiol-rich fruit of T rydbergii without harm.³

Prevention and Treatment

Toxicodendron dermatitis typically lasts 1 to 3 weeks but can remain for as long as 6 weeks without treatment.¹⁹ Recognition and physical avoidance of the plant provides the most promising preventive strategy. Immediate rinsing with soap and water can prevent TCD by breaking down urushiol and its allergenic components; however, this is an option for only a short time, as the skin absorbs 50% of urushiol within 10 minutes after contact.²⁰ Nevertheless, patients must seize the earliest opportunity to wash off the affected area and remove any residual urushiol. Patients must be cautious when removing and washing clothing to prevent further contact.

Most health care providers treat TCD with a corticosteroid to reduce inflammation and intense pruritus. A high-potency topical corticosteroid (eg, clobetasol) may prove effective in providing early therapeutic relief in mild disease.²¹ A short course of a systemic steroid quickly and effectively quenches intense itching and should not be limited to what the clinician considers severe disease. Do not underestimate the patient’s symptoms with this eruption.

Prednisone dosing begins at 1 mg/kg daily and is then tapered slowly over 2 weeks (no shorter a time) for an optimal treatment course of 15 days.²² Prescribing an inadequate dosage and course of a corticosteroid leaves the patient susceptible to rebound dermatitis—and loss of trust in their provider.

Intramuscular injection of the long-acting corticosteroid triamcinolone acetonide with rapid-onset betamethasone provides rapid relief and fewer adverse effects than an oral corticosteroid.²² Despite the long-standing use of sedating oral antihistamines by clinicians, these drugs provide no benefit for pruritus or sleep because the histamine does not cause the itching of TCD, and antihistamines disrupt normal sleep architecture.^23-25

Patients can consider several over-the-counter products that have varying degrees of efficacy.^4,26 The few products for which prospective studies support their use include Tecnu (Tec Laboraties Inc), Zanfel (RhusTox), and the well-known soaps Dial (Henkel Corporation) and Goop (Critzas Industries, Inc).^27,28

Aside from treating the direct effects of TCD, clinicians also must take note of any look for signs of secondary infection and occasionally should consider supplementing treatment with an antibiotic.

Clinical Importance

Western poison ivy (Toxicodendron rydbergii) is responsible for many of the cases of Toxicodendron contact dermatitis (TCD) reported in the western and northern United States. Toxicodendron plants cause more cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in North America than any other allergen¹; 9 million Americans present to physician offices and 1.6 million present to emergency departments annually for ACD, emphasizing the notable medical burden of this condition.^2,3 Exposure to urushiol, a plant resin containing potent allergens, precipitates this form of ACD.

An estimated 50% to 75% of adults in the United States demonstrate clinical sensitivity and exhibit ACD following contact with T rydbergii.⁴ Campers, hikers, firefighters, and forest workers often risk increased exposure through physical contact or aerosolized allergens in smoke. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the incidence of visits to US emergency departments for TCD nearly doubled from 2002 to 2012,⁵ which may be explained by atmospheric CO₂ levels that both promote increased growth of Toxicodendron species and augment their toxicity.⁶

Cutaneous Manifestations

The clinical presentation of T rydbergii contact dermatitis is similar to other allergenic members of the Toxicodendron genus. Patients sensitive to urushiol typically develop a pruritic erythematous rash within 1 to 2 days of exposure (range, 5 hours to 15 days).⁷ Erythematous and edematous streaks initially manifest on the extremities and often progress to bullae and oozing papulovesicles. In early disease, patients also may display black lesions on or near the rash⁸ (so-called black-dot dermatitis) caused by oxidized urushiol deposited on the skin—an uncommon yet classic presentation of TCD. Generally, symptoms resolve without complications and with few sequalae, though hyperpigmentation or a secondary infection can develop on or near affected areas.^9,10

Taxonomy

The Toxicodendron genus belongs to the Anacardiaceae family, which includes pistachios, mangos, and cashews, and causes more cases of ACD than every other plant combined.⁴ (Shelled pistachios and cashews do not possess cross-reacting allergens and should not worry consumers; mango skin does contain urushiol.)

Toxicodendron (formerly part of the Rhus genus) includes several species of poison oak, poison ivy, and poison sumac and can be found in shrubs (T rydbergii and Toxicodendron diversilobum), vines (Toxicodendron radicans and Toxicodendron pubescens), and trees (Toxicodendron vernix). In addition, Toxicodendron taxa can hybridize with other taxa in close geographic proximity to form morphologic intermediates. Some individual plants have features of multiple species.¹¹

Etymology

The common name of T rydbergii—western poison ivy—misleads the public; the plant contains no poison that can cause death and does not grow as ivy by wrapping around trees, as T radicans and English ivy (Hedera helix) do. Its formal genus, Toxicodendron, means “poison tree” in Greek and was given its generic name by the English botanist Phillip Miller in 1768,¹² which caused the renaming of Rhus rydbergii as T rydbergii. The species name honors Per Axel Rydberg, a 19th and 20th century Swedish-American botanist.

Distribution

Toxicodendron rydbergii grows in California and other states in the western half of the United States as well as the states bordering Canada and Mexico. In Canada, it reigns as the most dominant form of poison ivy.¹³ Hikers and campers find T rydbergii in a variety of areas, including roadsides, river bottoms, sandy shores, talus slopes, precipices, and floodplains.¹¹ This taxon grows under a variety of conditions and in distinct regions, and it thrives in both full sun or shade.

Toxicodendron rydbergii turns red earlier than most plants; early red summer leaves should serve as a warning sign to hikers from a distance (Figure 1). It displays trifoliate ovate leaves (ie, each leaf contains 3 leaflets) on a dwarf nonclimbing shrub (Figure 2). Although the plant shares common features with its cousin T radicans (eastern poison ivy), T rydbergii is easily distinguished by its thicker stems, absence of aerial rootlets (abundant in T radicans), and short (approximately 1 meter) height.⁴

Photograph courtesy of Thomas W. McGovern, MD.

Curly hairs occupy the underside of T rydbergii leaflets and along the midrib; leaflet margins appear lobed or rounded. Lenticels appear as small holes in the bark that turn gray in the cold and become brighter come spring.¹³

Photograph courtesy of Thomas W. McGovern, MD.

The plant bears glabrous long petioles (leaf stems) and densely grouped clusters of yellow flowers. In autumn, the globose fruit—formed in clusters between each twig and leaf petiole (known as an axillary position)—change from yellow-green to tan (Figure 3). When urushiol exudes from damaged leaflets or other plant parts, it oxidizes on exposure to air and creates hardened black deposits on the plant. Even when grown in garden pots, T rydbergii maintains its distinguishing features.¹¹

“Western poison ivy” by Whitney Cranshaw is licensed under CC BY 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/).

Dermatitis-Inducing Plant Parts

All parts of T rydbergii including leaves, stems, roots, and fruit contain the allergenic sap throughout the year.¹⁴ A person must damage or bruise the plant for urushiol to be released and produce its allergenic effects; softly brushing against undamaged plants typically does not induce dermatitis.⁴

Pathophysiology of Urushiol

Urushiol, a pale yellow, oily mixture of organic compounds conserved throughout all Toxicodendron species, contains highly allergenic alkyl catechols. These catechols possess hydroxyl groups at positions 1 and 2 on a benzene ring; the hydrocarbon side chain of poison ivies (typically 15–carbon atoms long) attaches at position 3.¹⁵ The catechols and the aliphatic side chain contribute to the plant’s antigenic and dermatitis-inducing properties.¹⁶

The high lipophilicity of urushiol allows for rapid and unforgiving absorption into the skin, notwithstanding attempts to wash it off. Upon direct contact, catechols of urushiol penetrate the epidermis and become oxidized to quinone intermediates that bind to antigen-presenting cells in the epidermis and dermis. Epidermal Langerhans cells and dermal macrophages internalize and present the antigen to CD4⁺ T cells in nearby lymph nodes. This sequence results in production of inflammatory mediators, clonal expansion of T-effector and T-memory cells specific to the allergenic catechols, and an ensuing cytotoxic response against epidermal cells and the dermal vasculature. Keratinocytes and monocytes mediate the inflammatory response by releasing other cytokines.^4,17

Sensitization to urushiol generally occurs at 8 to 14 years of age; therefore, infants have lower susceptibility to dermatitis upon contact with T rydbergii.¹⁸ Most animals do not experience sensitization upon contact; in fact, birds and forest animals consume the urushiol-rich fruit of T rydbergii without harm.³

Prevention and Treatment

Toxicodendron dermatitis typically lasts 1 to 3 weeks but can remain for as long as 6 weeks without treatment.¹⁹ Recognition and physical avoidance of the plant provides the most promising preventive strategy. Immediate rinsing with soap and water can prevent TCD by breaking down urushiol and its allergenic components; however, this is an option for only a short time, as the skin absorbs 50% of urushiol within 10 minutes after contact.²⁰ Nevertheless, patients must seize the earliest opportunity to wash off the affected area and remove any residual urushiol. Patients must be cautious when removing and washing clothing to prevent further contact.

Most health care providers treat TCD with a corticosteroid to reduce inflammation and intense pruritus. A high-potency topical corticosteroid (eg, clobetasol) may prove effective in providing early therapeutic relief in mild disease.²¹ A short course of a systemic steroid quickly and effectively quenches intense itching and should not be limited to what the clinician considers severe disease. Do not underestimate the patient’s symptoms with this eruption.

Prednisone dosing begins at 1 mg/kg daily and is then tapered slowly over 2 weeks (no shorter a time) for an optimal treatment course of 15 days.²² Prescribing an inadequate dosage and course of a corticosteroid leaves the patient susceptible to rebound dermatitis—and loss of trust in their provider.

Intramuscular injection of the long-acting corticosteroid triamcinolone acetonide with rapid-onset betamethasone provides rapid relief and fewer adverse effects than an oral corticosteroid.²² Despite the long-standing use of sedating oral antihistamines by clinicians, these drugs provide no benefit for pruritus or sleep because the histamine does not cause the itching of TCD, and antihistamines disrupt normal sleep architecture.^23-25

Patients can consider several over-the-counter products that have varying degrees of efficacy.^4,26 The few products for which prospective studies support their use include Tecnu (Tec Laboraties Inc), Zanfel (RhusTox), and the well-known soaps Dial (Henkel Corporation) and Goop (Critzas Industries, Inc).^27,28

Aside from treating the direct effects of TCD, clinicians also must take note of any look for signs of secondary infection and occasionally should consider supplementing treatment with an antibiotic.

Clinical Importance

Western poison ivy (Toxicodendron rydbergii) is responsible for many of the cases of Toxicodendron contact dermatitis (TCD) reported in the western and northern United States. Toxicodendron plants cause more cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in North America than any other allergen¹; 9 million Americans present to physician offices and 1.6 million present to emergency departments annually for ACD, emphasizing the notable medical burden of this condition.^2,3 Exposure to urushiol, a plant resin containing potent allergens, precipitates this form of ACD.

An estimated 50% to 75% of adults in the United States demonstrate clinical sensitivity and exhibit ACD following contact with T rydbergii.⁴ Campers, hikers, firefighters, and forest workers often risk increased exposure through physical contact or aerosolized allergens in smoke. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the incidence of visits to US emergency departments for TCD nearly doubled from 2002 to 2012,⁵ which may be explained by atmospheric CO₂ levels that both promote increased growth of Toxicodendron species and augment their toxicity.⁶

Cutaneous Manifestations

The clinical presentation of T rydbergii contact dermatitis is similar to other allergenic members of the Toxicodendron genus. Patients sensitive to urushiol typically develop a pruritic erythematous rash within 1 to 2 days of exposure (range, 5 hours to 15 days).⁷ Erythematous and edematous streaks initially manifest on the extremities and often progress to bullae and oozing papulovesicles. In early disease, patients also may display black lesions on or near the rash⁸ (so-called black-dot dermatitis) caused by oxidized urushiol deposited on the skin—an uncommon yet classic presentation of TCD. Generally, symptoms resolve without complications and with few sequalae, though hyperpigmentation or a secondary infection can develop on or near affected areas.^9,10

Taxonomy

The Toxicodendron genus belongs to the Anacardiaceae family, which includes pistachios, mangos, and cashews, and causes more cases of ACD than every other plant combined.⁴ (Shelled pistachios and cashews do not possess cross-reacting allergens and should not worry consumers; mango skin does contain urushiol.)

Toxicodendron (formerly part of the Rhus genus) includes several species of poison oak, poison ivy, and poison sumac and can be found in shrubs (T rydbergii and Toxicodendron diversilobum), vines (Toxicodendron radicans and Toxicodendron pubescens), and trees (Toxicodendron vernix). In addition, Toxicodendron taxa can hybridize with other taxa in close geographic proximity to form morphologic intermediates. Some individual plants have features of multiple species.¹¹

Etymology

The common name of T rydbergii—western poison ivy—misleads the public; the plant contains no poison that can cause death and does not grow as ivy by wrapping around trees, as T radicans and English ivy (Hedera helix) do. Its formal genus, Toxicodendron, means “poison tree” in Greek and was given its generic name by the English botanist Phillip Miller in 1768,¹² which caused the renaming of Rhus rydbergii as T rydbergii. The species name honors Per Axel Rydberg, a 19th and 20th century Swedish-American botanist.

Distribution

Toxicodendron rydbergii grows in California and other states in the western half of the United States as well as the states bordering Canada and Mexico. In Canada, it reigns as the most dominant form of poison ivy.¹³ Hikers and campers find T rydbergii in a variety of areas, including roadsides, river bottoms, sandy shores, talus slopes, precipices, and floodplains.¹¹ This taxon grows under a variety of conditions and in distinct regions, and it thrives in both full sun or shade.

Toxicodendron rydbergii turns red earlier than most plants; early red summer leaves should serve as a warning sign to hikers from a distance (Figure 1). It displays trifoliate ovate leaves (ie, each leaf contains 3 leaflets) on a dwarf nonclimbing shrub (Figure 2). Although the plant shares common features with its cousin T radicans (eastern poison ivy), T rydbergii is easily distinguished by its thicker stems, absence of aerial rootlets (abundant in T radicans), and short (approximately 1 meter) height.⁴

Photograph courtesy of Thomas W. McGovern, MD.

Curly hairs occupy the underside of T rydbergii leaflets and along the midrib; leaflet margins appear lobed or rounded. Lenticels appear as small holes in the bark that turn gray in the cold and become brighter come spring.¹³

Photograph courtesy of Thomas W. McGovern, MD.

The plant bears glabrous long petioles (leaf stems) and densely grouped clusters of yellow flowers. In autumn, the globose fruit—formed in clusters between each twig and leaf petiole (known as an axillary position)—change from yellow-green to tan (Figure 3). When urushiol exudes from damaged leaflets or other plant parts, it oxidizes on exposure to air and creates hardened black deposits on the plant. Even when grown in garden pots, T rydbergii maintains its distinguishing features.¹¹

“Western poison ivy” by Whitney Cranshaw is licensed under CC BY 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/).

Dermatitis-Inducing Plant Parts

All parts of T rydbergii including leaves, stems, roots, and fruit contain the allergenic sap throughout the year.¹⁴ A person must damage or bruise the plant for urushiol to be released and produce its allergenic effects; softly brushing against undamaged plants typically does not induce dermatitis.⁴

Pathophysiology of Urushiol

Urushiol, a pale yellow, oily mixture of organic compounds conserved throughout all Toxicodendron species, contains highly allergenic alkyl catechols. These catechols possess hydroxyl groups at positions 1 and 2 on a benzene ring; the hydrocarbon side chain of poison ivies (typically 15–carbon atoms long) attaches at position 3.¹⁵ The catechols and the aliphatic side chain contribute to the plant’s antigenic and dermatitis-inducing properties.¹⁶

The high lipophilicity of urushiol allows for rapid and unforgiving absorption into the skin, notwithstanding attempts to wash it off. Upon direct contact, catechols of urushiol penetrate the epidermis and become oxidized to quinone intermediates that bind to antigen-presenting cells in the epidermis and dermis. Epidermal Langerhans cells and dermal macrophages internalize and present the antigen to CD4⁺ T cells in nearby lymph nodes. This sequence results in production of inflammatory mediators, clonal expansion of T-effector and T-memory cells specific to the allergenic catechols, and an ensuing cytotoxic response against epidermal cells and the dermal vasculature. Keratinocytes and monocytes mediate the inflammatory response by releasing other cytokines.^4,17

Sensitization to urushiol generally occurs at 8 to 14 years of age; therefore, infants have lower susceptibility to dermatitis upon contact with T rydbergii.¹⁸ Most animals do not experience sensitization upon contact; in fact, birds and forest animals consume the urushiol-rich fruit of T rydbergii without harm.³

Prevention and Treatment

Toxicodendron dermatitis typically lasts 1 to 3 weeks but can remain for as long as 6 weeks without treatment.¹⁹ Recognition and physical avoidance of the plant provides the most promising preventive strategy. Immediate rinsing with soap and water can prevent TCD by breaking down urushiol and its allergenic components; however, this is an option for only a short time, as the skin absorbs 50% of urushiol within 10 minutes after contact.²⁰ Nevertheless, patients must seize the earliest opportunity to wash off the affected area and remove any residual urushiol. Patients must be cautious when removing and washing clothing to prevent further contact.

Most health care providers treat TCD with a corticosteroid to reduce inflammation and intense pruritus. A high-potency topical corticosteroid (eg, clobetasol) may prove effective in providing early therapeutic relief in mild disease.²¹ A short course of a systemic steroid quickly and effectively quenches intense itching and should not be limited to what the clinician considers severe disease. Do not underestimate the patient’s symptoms with this eruption.

Prednisone dosing begins at 1 mg/kg daily and is then tapered slowly over 2 weeks (no shorter a time) for an optimal treatment course of 15 days.²² Prescribing an inadequate dosage and course of a corticosteroid leaves the patient susceptible to rebound dermatitis—and loss of trust in their provider.

Intramuscular injection of the long-acting corticosteroid triamcinolone acetonide with rapid-onset betamethasone provides rapid relief and fewer adverse effects than an oral corticosteroid.²² Despite the long-standing use of sedating oral antihistamines by clinicians, these drugs provide no benefit for pruritus or sleep because the histamine does not cause the itching of TCD, and antihistamines disrupt normal sleep architecture.^23-25

Patients can consider several over-the-counter products that have varying degrees of efficacy.^4,26 The few products for which prospective studies support their use include Tecnu (Tec Laboraties Inc), Zanfel (RhusTox), and the well-known soaps Dial (Henkel Corporation) and Goop (Critzas Industries, Inc).^27,28

Aside from treating the direct effects of TCD, clinicians also must take note of any look for signs of secondary infection and occasionally should consider supplementing treatment with an antibiotic.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for dermatologic drugs between 2012 and 2022 were considered first in class or first in indication.

METHODOLOGY:

• Only five new drugs for diseases treated mostly by dermatologists were approved by the FDA between 1999 and 2009.
• In a cross-sectional analysis to characterize the frequency and degree of innovation of dermatologic drugs approved more recently, researchers identified new and supplemental dermatologic drugs approved between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, from FDA lists, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services CenterWatch, and peer-reviewed articles.
• They used five proxy measures to estimate each drug’s degree of innovation: FDA designation (first in class, advance in class, or addition to class), independent clinical usefulness ratings, and benefit ratings by health technology assessment organizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study authors identified 52 new drug applications and 26 supplemental new indications approved by the FDA for dermatologic indications between 2012 and 2022.
• Of the 52 new drugs, the researchers categorized 11 (21%) as first in class and 13 (25%) as first in indication.
• An analysis of benefit ratings available for 38 of the drugs showed that 15 (39%) were rated as being clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.
• Of the 10 supplemental new indications with ratings by any organization, 3 (30%) were rated as clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.

IN PRACTICE:

While innovative drug development in dermatology may have increased, “these findings also highlight opportunities to develop more truly innovative dermatologic agents, particularly for diseases with unmet therapeutic need,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

First author Samir Kamat, MD, of the Medical Education Department at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, and corresponding author Ravi Gupta, MD, MSHP, of the Internal Medicine Division at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, led the research. The study was published online as a research letter on December 20, 2023, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

They include the use of individual indications to assess clinical usefulness and benefit ratings. Many drugs, particularly supplemental indications, lacked such ratings. Reformulations of already marketed drugs or indications were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Kamat and Dr. Gupta had no relevant disclosures. Three coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for dermatologic drugs between 2012 and 2022 were considered first in class or first in indication.

METHODOLOGY:

• Only five new drugs for diseases treated mostly by dermatologists were approved by the FDA between 1999 and 2009.
• In a cross-sectional analysis to characterize the frequency and degree of innovation of dermatologic drugs approved more recently, researchers identified new and supplemental dermatologic drugs approved between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, from FDA lists, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services CenterWatch, and peer-reviewed articles.
• They used five proxy measures to estimate each drug’s degree of innovation: FDA designation (first in class, advance in class, or addition to class), independent clinical usefulness ratings, and benefit ratings by health technology assessment organizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study authors identified 52 new drug applications and 26 supplemental new indications approved by the FDA for dermatologic indications between 2012 and 2022.
• Of the 52 new drugs, the researchers categorized 11 (21%) as first in class and 13 (25%) as first in indication.
• An analysis of benefit ratings available for 38 of the drugs showed that 15 (39%) were rated as being clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.
• Of the 10 supplemental new indications with ratings by any organization, 3 (30%) were rated as clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.

IN PRACTICE:

While innovative drug development in dermatology may have increased, “these findings also highlight opportunities to develop more truly innovative dermatologic agents, particularly for diseases with unmet therapeutic need,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

First author Samir Kamat, MD, of the Medical Education Department at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, and corresponding author Ravi Gupta, MD, MSHP, of the Internal Medicine Division at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, led the research. The study was published online as a research letter on December 20, 2023, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

They include the use of individual indications to assess clinical usefulness and benefit ratings. Many drugs, particularly supplemental indications, lacked such ratings. Reformulations of already marketed drugs or indications were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Kamat and Dr. Gupta had no relevant disclosures. Three coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly half of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for dermatologic drugs between 2012 and 2022 were considered first in class or first in indication.

METHODOLOGY:

• Only five new drugs for diseases treated mostly by dermatologists were approved by the FDA between 1999 and 2009.
• In a cross-sectional analysis to characterize the frequency and degree of innovation of dermatologic drugs approved more recently, researchers identified new and supplemental dermatologic drugs approved between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, from FDA lists, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services CenterWatch, and peer-reviewed articles.
• They used five proxy measures to estimate each drug’s degree of innovation: FDA designation (first in class, advance in class, or addition to class), independent clinical usefulness ratings, and benefit ratings by health technology assessment organizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study authors identified 52 new drug applications and 26 supplemental new indications approved by the FDA for dermatologic indications between 2012 and 2022.
• Of the 52 new drugs, the researchers categorized 11 (21%) as first in class and 13 (25%) as first in indication.
• An analysis of benefit ratings available for 38 of the drugs showed that 15 (39%) were rated as being clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.
• Of the 10 supplemental new indications with ratings by any organization, 3 (30%) were rated as clinically useful or having high added therapeutic benefit.

IN PRACTICE:

While innovative drug development in dermatology may have increased, “these findings also highlight opportunities to develop more truly innovative dermatologic agents, particularly for diseases with unmet therapeutic need,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

First author Samir Kamat, MD, of the Medical Education Department at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, and corresponding author Ravi Gupta, MD, MSHP, of the Internal Medicine Division at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, led the research. The study was published online as a research letter on December 20, 2023, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

They include the use of individual indications to assess clinical usefulness and benefit ratings. Many drugs, particularly supplemental indications, lacked such ratings. Reformulations of already marketed drugs or indications were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Kamat and Dr. Gupta had no relevant disclosures. Three coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To the Editor:

Pyogenic granuloma (PG) is a benign vascular tumor that clinically is characterized as a small eruptive friable papule.¹ Lesions typically are solitary and most commonly occur in children but also are associated with pregnancy; trauma to the skin or mucosa; and use of certain medications such as isotretinoin, capecitabine, vemurafenib, or indinavir.¹ Numerous antineoplastic medications have been associated with the development of solitary PGs, including the taxane mitotic inhibitor paclitaxel (PTX) and the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2) monoclonal antibody ramucirumab.² We report a case of multiple PGs in a patient undergoing treatment with PTX and ramucirumab.

A 59-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic with red, itchy, bleeding skin lesions on the breast, superior chest, left cheek, and forearm of 1 month’s duration. She denied any preceding trauma to the areas. Her medical history was notable for gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma diagnosed more than 2 years prior to presentation. Her original treatment regimen included nivolumab, which was discontinued for unknown reasons 5 months prior to presentation, and she was started on combination therapy with PTX and ramucirumab at that time. She noted the formation of small red papules 2 months after the initiation of PTX-ramucirumab combination therapy, which grew larger over the course of the next month. Physical examination revealed 5 friable hemorrhagic papules and nodules ranging in size from 3 to 10 mm on the chest, cheek, and forearm consistent with PGs (Figure 1). Several scattered cherry angiomas were noted on the scalp and torso, but the patient reported these were not new. Biopsies of the PGs demonstrated lobular aggregates of small-caliber vessels set in an edematous inflamed stroma and partially enclosed by small collarettes of adnexal epithelium, confirming the clinical diagnosis of multiple PGs (Figure 2).

The first case of PTX-associated PG was reported in 2012.³ Based on a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms pyogenic granuloma, lobular capillary hemangioma, paclitaxel, taxane, and ramucirumab, there have been 9 cases of solitary PG development in the setting of PTX alone or in combination with ramucirumab since 2019 (Table).^3-8 Pyogenic granulomas reported in patients who were treated exclusively with PTX were subungual, while the cases resulting from combined therapy were present on the scalp, face, oral mucosa, and surfaces of the hands sparing the nails. Ibe et al⁶ reported PG in a patient who received ramucirumab therapy without PTX but in combination with another taxane, docetaxel, which itself has been reported to cause subungual PG when used alone.⁹ Our case of the simultaneous development of multiple PGs in the setting of combined PTX and ramucirumab therapy added to the cutaneous distributions for which therapy-induced PGs have been observed (Table).

The development of PG, a vascular tumor, during treatment with the VEGFR2 inhibitor ramucirumab—whose mechanism of action is to inhibit angioneogenesis—is inherently paradoxical. In 2015, a rapidly expanding angioma with a mutation in the kinase domain receptor gene, KDR, that encodes VEGFR2 was identified in a patient undergoing ramucirumab therapy. The authors suggested that KDR mutation resulted in paradoxical activation of VEGFR2 in the setting of ramucirumab therapy.¹⁰ Since then, ramucirumab and PTX were suggested to have a synergistic effect in vascular proliferation,⁵ though an exact mechanism has not been proposed. Other authors have identified increased expression of VEGFR2 in biopsy specimens of PG during combined ramucirumab and taxane therapy.⁶ Although genetic studies have not been used to evaluate for the presence of KDR mutations specifically in our patient population, it is possible that patients who develop PG and other vascular tumors during combined taxane and ramucirumab therapy have a mutation that makes them more susceptible to VEGFR2 upregulation. UV exposure may have a role in the formation of PG in patients on combined ramucirumab and taxane therapy⁷; however, our patient’s lesions were distributed on both sun-exposed and unexposed areas. Although potential clinical implications have not yet been thoroughly investigated, following long-term outcomes for these patients may provide important information on the efficacy of the antineoplastic regimen in the subset of patients who develop cutaneous vascular tumors during antiangiogenic treatment.

Combination therapy with PTX and ramucirumab has been associated with the paradoxical development of cutaneous vascular tumors. We report a case of multiple new-onset PGs in a patient undergoing this treatment regimen.

To the Editor:

Pyogenic granuloma (PG) is a benign vascular tumor that clinically is characterized as a small eruptive friable papule.¹ Lesions typically are solitary and most commonly occur in children but also are associated with pregnancy; trauma to the skin or mucosa; and use of certain medications such as isotretinoin, capecitabine, vemurafenib, or indinavir.¹ Numerous antineoplastic medications have been associated with the development of solitary PGs, including the taxane mitotic inhibitor paclitaxel (PTX) and the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2) monoclonal antibody ramucirumab.² We report a case of multiple PGs in a patient undergoing treatment with PTX and ramucirumab.

A 59-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic with red, itchy, bleeding skin lesions on the breast, superior chest, left cheek, and forearm of 1 month’s duration. She denied any preceding trauma to the areas. Her medical history was notable for gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma diagnosed more than 2 years prior to presentation. Her original treatment regimen included nivolumab, which was discontinued for unknown reasons 5 months prior to presentation, and she was started on combination therapy with PTX and ramucirumab at that time. She noted the formation of small red papules 2 months after the initiation of PTX-ramucirumab combination therapy, which grew larger over the course of the next month. Physical examination revealed 5 friable hemorrhagic papules and nodules ranging in size from 3 to 10 mm on the chest, cheek, and forearm consistent with PGs (Figure 1). Several scattered cherry angiomas were noted on the scalp and torso, but the patient reported these were not new. Biopsies of the PGs demonstrated lobular aggregates of small-caliber vessels set in an edematous inflamed stroma and partially enclosed by small collarettes of adnexal epithelium, confirming the clinical diagnosis of multiple PGs (Figure 2).

The first case of PTX-associated PG was reported in 2012.³ Based on a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms pyogenic granuloma, lobular capillary hemangioma, paclitaxel, taxane, and ramucirumab, there have been 9 cases of solitary PG development in the setting of PTX alone or in combination with ramucirumab since 2019 (Table).^3-8 Pyogenic granulomas reported in patients who were treated exclusively with PTX were subungual, while the cases resulting from combined therapy were present on the scalp, face, oral mucosa, and surfaces of the hands sparing the nails. Ibe et al⁶ reported PG in a patient who received ramucirumab therapy without PTX but in combination with another taxane, docetaxel, which itself has been reported to cause subungual PG when used alone.⁹ Our case of the simultaneous development of multiple PGs in the setting of combined PTX and ramucirumab therapy added to the cutaneous distributions for which therapy-induced PGs have been observed (Table).

The development of PG, a vascular tumor, during treatment with the VEGFR2 inhibitor ramucirumab—whose mechanism of action is to inhibit angioneogenesis—is inherently paradoxical. In 2015, a rapidly expanding angioma with a mutation in the kinase domain receptor gene, KDR, that encodes VEGFR2 was identified in a patient undergoing ramucirumab therapy. The authors suggested that KDR mutation resulted in paradoxical activation of VEGFR2 in the setting of ramucirumab therapy.¹⁰ Since then, ramucirumab and PTX were suggested to have a synergistic effect in vascular proliferation,⁵ though an exact mechanism has not been proposed. Other authors have identified increased expression of VEGFR2 in biopsy specimens of PG during combined ramucirumab and taxane therapy.⁶ Although genetic studies have not been used to evaluate for the presence of KDR mutations specifically in our patient population, it is possible that patients who develop PG and other vascular tumors during combined taxane and ramucirumab therapy have a mutation that makes them more susceptible to VEGFR2 upregulation. UV exposure may have a role in the formation of PG in patients on combined ramucirumab and taxane therapy⁷; however, our patient’s lesions were distributed on both sun-exposed and unexposed areas. Although potential clinical implications have not yet been thoroughly investigated, following long-term outcomes for these patients may provide important information on the efficacy of the antineoplastic regimen in the subset of patients who develop cutaneous vascular tumors during antiangiogenic treatment.

Combination therapy with PTX and ramucirumab has been associated with the paradoxical development of cutaneous vascular tumors. We report a case of multiple new-onset PGs in a patient undergoing this treatment regimen.

To the Editor:

Pyogenic granuloma (PG) is a benign vascular tumor that clinically is characterized as a small eruptive friable papule.¹ Lesions typically are solitary and most commonly occur in children but also are associated with pregnancy; trauma to the skin or mucosa; and use of certain medications such as isotretinoin, capecitabine, vemurafenib, or indinavir.¹ Numerous antineoplastic medications have been associated with the development of solitary PGs, including the taxane mitotic inhibitor paclitaxel (PTX) and the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2) monoclonal antibody ramucirumab.² We report a case of multiple PGs in a patient undergoing treatment with PTX and ramucirumab.

A 59-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic with red, itchy, bleeding skin lesions on the breast, superior chest, left cheek, and forearm of 1 month’s duration. She denied any preceding trauma to the areas. Her medical history was notable for gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma diagnosed more than 2 years prior to presentation. Her original treatment regimen included nivolumab, which was discontinued for unknown reasons 5 months prior to presentation, and she was started on combination therapy with PTX and ramucirumab at that time. She noted the formation of small red papules 2 months after the initiation of PTX-ramucirumab combination therapy, which grew larger over the course of the next month. Physical examination revealed 5 friable hemorrhagic papules and nodules ranging in size from 3 to 10 mm on the chest, cheek, and forearm consistent with PGs (Figure 1). Several scattered cherry angiomas were noted on the scalp and torso, but the patient reported these were not new. Biopsies of the PGs demonstrated lobular aggregates of small-caliber vessels set in an edematous inflamed stroma and partially enclosed by small collarettes of adnexal epithelium, confirming the clinical diagnosis of multiple PGs (Figure 2).

The first case of PTX-associated PG was reported in 2012.³ Based on a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms pyogenic granuloma, lobular capillary hemangioma, paclitaxel, taxane, and ramucirumab, there have been 9 cases of solitary PG development in the setting of PTX alone or in combination with ramucirumab since 2019 (Table).^3-8 Pyogenic granulomas reported in patients who were treated exclusively with PTX were subungual, while the cases resulting from combined therapy were present on the scalp, face, oral mucosa, and surfaces of the hands sparing the nails. Ibe et al⁶ reported PG in a patient who received ramucirumab therapy without PTX but in combination with another taxane, docetaxel, which itself has been reported to cause subungual PG when used alone.⁹ Our case of the simultaneous development of multiple PGs in the setting of combined PTX and ramucirumab therapy added to the cutaneous distributions for which therapy-induced PGs have been observed (Table).

The development of PG, a vascular tumor, during treatment with the VEGFR2 inhibitor ramucirumab—whose mechanism of action is to inhibit angioneogenesis—is inherently paradoxical. In 2015, a rapidly expanding angioma with a mutation in the kinase domain receptor gene, KDR, that encodes VEGFR2 was identified in a patient undergoing ramucirumab therapy. The authors suggested that KDR mutation resulted in paradoxical activation of VEGFR2 in the setting of ramucirumab therapy.¹⁰ Since then, ramucirumab and PTX were suggested to have a synergistic effect in vascular proliferation,⁵ though an exact mechanism has not been proposed. Other authors have identified increased expression of VEGFR2 in biopsy specimens of PG during combined ramucirumab and taxane therapy.⁶ Although genetic studies have not been used to evaluate for the presence of KDR mutations specifically in our patient population, it is possible that patients who develop PG and other vascular tumors during combined taxane and ramucirumab therapy have a mutation that makes them more susceptible to VEGFR2 upregulation. UV exposure may have a role in the formation of PG in patients on combined ramucirumab and taxane therapy⁷; however, our patient’s lesions were distributed on both sun-exposed and unexposed areas. Although potential clinical implications have not yet been thoroughly investigated, following long-term outcomes for these patients may provide important information on the efficacy of the antineoplastic regimen in the subset of patients who develop cutaneous vascular tumors during antiangiogenic treatment.

Combination therapy with PTX and ramucirumab has been associated with the paradoxical development of cutaneous vascular tumors. We report a case of multiple new-onset PGs in a patient undergoing this treatment regimen.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems show high potential for detecting mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis with optimal diagnostic performance, according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

AI algorithms replicated expert opinion with high sensitivity and specificity when evaluating images and videos. At the same time, moderate-high heterogeneity of the data was found, the authors noted.

“Artificial intelligence software is expected to potentially solve the longstanding issue of low-to-moderate interobserver agreement when human endoscopists are required to indicate mucosal healing or different grades of inflammation in ulcerative colitis,” Alessandro Rimondi, lead author and clinical fellow at the Royal Free Hospital and University College London Institute for Liver and Digestive Health, London, England, told this news organization.

“However, high levels of heterogeneity have been found, potentially linked to how differently the AI software was trained and how many cases it has been tested on,” he said. “This partially limits the quality of the body of evidence.”

The study was published online in Digestive and Liver Disease.
 

Evaluating AI Detection

In clinical practice, assessing mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is critical for evaluating a patient’s response to therapy and guiding strategies for treatment, surgery, and endoscopic surveillance. In an era of precision medicine, assessment of mucosal healing should be precise, readily available in an endoscopic report, and highly reproducible, which requires high accuracy and agreement in endoscopic diagnosis, the authors noted.

AI systems — particularly deep learning algorithms based on convolutional neural network architecture — may allow endoscopists to establish an objective and real-time diagnosis of mucosal healing and improve the average quality standards at primary and tertiary care centers, the authors wrote. Research on AI in IBD has looked at potential implications for endoscopy and clinical management, which opens new areas to explore.

Dr. Rimondi and colleagues conducted a systematic review of studies up to December 2022 that involved an AI-based system used to estimate any degree of endoscopic inflammation in IBD, whether ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease. After that, they conducted a diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis restricted to the field in which more than five studies providing diagnostic performance — mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis based on luminal imaging — were available.

The researchers identified 12 studies with luminal imaging in patients with ulcerative colitis. Four evaluated the performance of AI systems on videos, six focused on fixed images, and two looked at both.

Overall, the AI systems achieved a satisfactory performance in evaluating mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis. When evaluating fixed images, the algorithms achieved a sensitivity of 0.91 and specificity of 0.89, with a diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 92.42, summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) of 0.957, and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.957. When evaluating videos, the algorithms achieved 0.86 sensitivity, 0.91 specificity, 70.86 DOR, 0.941 SROC, and 0.941 AUC.

“It is exciting to see artificial intelligence expand and be effective for conditions beyond colon polyps,” Seth Gross, MD, professor of medicine and clinical chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at NYU Langone Health, New York, told this news organization.

Dr. Gross, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched AI applications in endoscopy and colonoscopy. He and colleagues have found that machine learning software can improve lesion and polyp detection, serving as a “second set of eyes” for practitioners.

“Mucosal healing interpretation can be variable amongst providers,” he said. “AI has the potential to help standardize the assessment of mucosal healing in patients with ulcerative colitis.”
 

Improving AI Training

The authors found moderate-high levels of heterogeneity among the studies, which limited the quality of the evidence. Only 2 of the 12 studies used an external dataset to validate the AI systems, and 1 evaluated the AI system on a mixed database. However, seven used an internal validation dataset separate from the training dataset.

It is crucial to find a shared consensus on training for AI models, with a shared definition of mucosal healing and cutoff thresholds based on recent guidelines, Dr. Rimondi and colleagues noted. Training data ideally should be on the basis of a broad and shared database containing images and videos with high interobserver agreement on the degree of inflammation, they added.

“We probably need a consensus or guidelines that identify the standards for training and testing newly developed software, stating the bare minimum number of images or videos for the training and testing sections,” Dr. Rimondi said.

In addition, due to interobserver misalignment, an expert-validated database could help serve the purpose of a gold standard, he added.

“In my opinion, artificial intelligence tends to better perform when it is required to evaluate a dichotomic outcome (such as polyp detection, which is a yes or no task) than when it is required to replicate more difficult tasks (such as polyp characterization or judging a degree of inflammation), which have a continuous range of expression,” Dr. Rimondi said.

The authors declared no financial support for this study. Dr. Rimondi and Dr. Gross reported no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems show high potential for detecting mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis with optimal diagnostic performance, according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

AI algorithms replicated expert opinion with high sensitivity and specificity when evaluating images and videos. At the same time, moderate-high heterogeneity of the data was found, the authors noted.

“Artificial intelligence software is expected to potentially solve the longstanding issue of low-to-moderate interobserver agreement when human endoscopists are required to indicate mucosal healing or different grades of inflammation in ulcerative colitis,” Alessandro Rimondi, lead author and clinical fellow at the Royal Free Hospital and University College London Institute for Liver and Digestive Health, London, England, told this news organization.

“However, high levels of heterogeneity have been found, potentially linked to how differently the AI software was trained and how many cases it has been tested on,” he said. “This partially limits the quality of the body of evidence.”

The study was published online in Digestive and Liver Disease.
 

Evaluating AI Detection

In clinical practice, assessing mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is critical for evaluating a patient’s response to therapy and guiding strategies for treatment, surgery, and endoscopic surveillance. In an era of precision medicine, assessment of mucosal healing should be precise, readily available in an endoscopic report, and highly reproducible, which requires high accuracy and agreement in endoscopic diagnosis, the authors noted.

AI systems — particularly deep learning algorithms based on convolutional neural network architecture — may allow endoscopists to establish an objective and real-time diagnosis of mucosal healing and improve the average quality standards at primary and tertiary care centers, the authors wrote. Research on AI in IBD has looked at potential implications for endoscopy and clinical management, which opens new areas to explore.

Dr. Rimondi and colleagues conducted a systematic review of studies up to December 2022 that involved an AI-based system used to estimate any degree of endoscopic inflammation in IBD, whether ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease. After that, they conducted a diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis restricted to the field in which more than five studies providing diagnostic performance — mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis based on luminal imaging — were available.

The researchers identified 12 studies with luminal imaging in patients with ulcerative colitis. Four evaluated the performance of AI systems on videos, six focused on fixed images, and two looked at both.

Overall, the AI systems achieved a satisfactory performance in evaluating mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis. When evaluating fixed images, the algorithms achieved a sensitivity of 0.91 and specificity of 0.89, with a diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 92.42, summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) of 0.957, and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.957. When evaluating videos, the algorithms achieved 0.86 sensitivity, 0.91 specificity, 70.86 DOR, 0.941 SROC, and 0.941 AUC.

“It is exciting to see artificial intelligence expand and be effective for conditions beyond colon polyps,” Seth Gross, MD, professor of medicine and clinical chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at NYU Langone Health, New York, told this news organization.

Dr. Gross, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched AI applications in endoscopy and colonoscopy. He and colleagues have found that machine learning software can improve lesion and polyp detection, serving as a “second set of eyes” for practitioners.

“Mucosal healing interpretation can be variable amongst providers,” he said. “AI has the potential to help standardize the assessment of mucosal healing in patients with ulcerative colitis.”
 

Improving AI Training

The authors found moderate-high levels of heterogeneity among the studies, which limited the quality of the evidence. Only 2 of the 12 studies used an external dataset to validate the AI systems, and 1 evaluated the AI system on a mixed database. However, seven used an internal validation dataset separate from the training dataset.

It is crucial to find a shared consensus on training for AI models, with a shared definition of mucosal healing and cutoff thresholds based on recent guidelines, Dr. Rimondi and colleagues noted. Training data ideally should be on the basis of a broad and shared database containing images and videos with high interobserver agreement on the degree of inflammation, they added.

“We probably need a consensus or guidelines that identify the standards for training and testing newly developed software, stating the bare minimum number of images or videos for the training and testing sections,” Dr. Rimondi said.

In addition, due to interobserver misalignment, an expert-validated database could help serve the purpose of a gold standard, he added.

“In my opinion, artificial intelligence tends to better perform when it is required to evaluate a dichotomic outcome (such as polyp detection, which is a yes or no task) than when it is required to replicate more difficult tasks (such as polyp characterization or judging a degree of inflammation), which have a continuous range of expression,” Dr. Rimondi said.

The authors declared no financial support for this study. Dr. Rimondi and Dr. Gross reported no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems show high potential for detecting mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis with optimal diagnostic performance, according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

AI algorithms replicated expert opinion with high sensitivity and specificity when evaluating images and videos. At the same time, moderate-high heterogeneity of the data was found, the authors noted.

“Artificial intelligence software is expected to potentially solve the longstanding issue of low-to-moderate interobserver agreement when human endoscopists are required to indicate mucosal healing or different grades of inflammation in ulcerative colitis,” Alessandro Rimondi, lead author and clinical fellow at the Royal Free Hospital and University College London Institute for Liver and Digestive Health, London, England, told this news organization.

“However, high levels of heterogeneity have been found, potentially linked to how differently the AI software was trained and how many cases it has been tested on,” he said. “This partially limits the quality of the body of evidence.”

The study was published online in Digestive and Liver Disease.
 

Evaluating AI Detection

In clinical practice, assessing mucosal healing in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is critical for evaluating a patient’s response to therapy and guiding strategies for treatment, surgery, and endoscopic surveillance. In an era of precision medicine, assessment of mucosal healing should be precise, readily available in an endoscopic report, and highly reproducible, which requires high accuracy and agreement in endoscopic diagnosis, the authors noted.

AI systems — particularly deep learning algorithms based on convolutional neural network architecture — may allow endoscopists to establish an objective and real-time diagnosis of mucosal healing and improve the average quality standards at primary and tertiary care centers, the authors wrote. Research on AI in IBD has looked at potential implications for endoscopy and clinical management, which opens new areas to explore.

Dr. Rimondi and colleagues conducted a systematic review of studies up to December 2022 that involved an AI-based system used to estimate any degree of endoscopic inflammation in IBD, whether ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease. After that, they conducted a diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis restricted to the field in which more than five studies providing diagnostic performance — mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis based on luminal imaging — were available.

The researchers identified 12 studies with luminal imaging in patients with ulcerative colitis. Four evaluated the performance of AI systems on videos, six focused on fixed images, and two looked at both.

Overall, the AI systems achieved a satisfactory performance in evaluating mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis. When evaluating fixed images, the algorithms achieved a sensitivity of 0.91 and specificity of 0.89, with a diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 92.42, summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) of 0.957, and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.957. When evaluating videos, the algorithms achieved 0.86 sensitivity, 0.91 specificity, 70.86 DOR, 0.941 SROC, and 0.941 AUC.

“It is exciting to see artificial intelligence expand and be effective for conditions beyond colon polyps,” Seth Gross, MD, professor of medicine and clinical chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at NYU Langone Health, New York, told this news organization.

Dr. Gross, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched AI applications in endoscopy and colonoscopy. He and colleagues have found that machine learning software can improve lesion and polyp detection, serving as a “second set of eyes” for practitioners.

“Mucosal healing interpretation can be variable amongst providers,” he said. “AI has the potential to help standardize the assessment of mucosal healing in patients with ulcerative colitis.”
 

Improving AI Training

The authors found moderate-high levels of heterogeneity among the studies, which limited the quality of the evidence. Only 2 of the 12 studies used an external dataset to validate the AI systems, and 1 evaluated the AI system on a mixed database. However, seven used an internal validation dataset separate from the training dataset.

It is crucial to find a shared consensus on training for AI models, with a shared definition of mucosal healing and cutoff thresholds based on recent guidelines, Dr. Rimondi and colleagues noted. Training data ideally should be on the basis of a broad and shared database containing images and videos with high interobserver agreement on the degree of inflammation, they added.

“We probably need a consensus or guidelines that identify the standards for training and testing newly developed software, stating the bare minimum number of images or videos for the training and testing sections,” Dr. Rimondi said.

In addition, due to interobserver misalignment, an expert-validated database could help serve the purpose of a gold standard, he added.

“In my opinion, artificial intelligence tends to better perform when it is required to evaluate a dichotomic outcome (such as polyp detection, which is a yes or no task) than when it is required to replicate more difficult tasks (such as polyp characterization or judging a degree of inflammation), which have a continuous range of expression,” Dr. Rimondi said.

The authors declared no financial support for this study. Dr. Rimondi and Dr. Gross reported no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.