Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary

Despite multiple existing conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) and biologic DMARD (bDMARD) options, many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not respond adequately to treatment. In an exciting development, a recent phase 2 study by Tuttle and colleagues examined a novel treatment approach in RA: stimulation of the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pathway. PD-1 is a checkpoint inhibitor receptor whose activation reflects T-cell activation and may play a role in synovitis and extra-articular inflammation. Blocking PD-1 in cancer therapy has been associated with an increase in inflammatory arthritis. In this 12-week study, RA disease activity was analyzed in patients randomly assigned to two different monthly intravenous doses of peresolimab or placebo. Of note, a large majority of participants were seropositive for rheumatoid factor (RF) or cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP). Patients receiving the 700-mg dose of peresolimab had a better American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response than did those receiving placebo (71% vs 42%), but not a better ACR50 or ACR70 response; the 300-mg dose was not better than placebo. Although reported adverse events were similar in all three groups, with a short timeframe it would be difficult to address concerns about cancer risk. Though this novel treatment is exciting, a larger and longer-term trial is necessary to address this concern as well as potentially tease out risk factors (including age or other immunosuppression) in this susceptible group.

Two other studies examined use of a much older csDMARD therapy, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), in Brazilian patients with RA. Bredemeier and colleagues looked at the effects of HCQ on adverse events as well as the persistence of bDMARD/targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD) therapy in over 1300 patients with RA. Using the BiobadaBrasil registry of patients starting their first bDMARD or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, they looked at effects of combination therapy with HCQ during the treatment course of up to six bDMARD or JAK inhibitors. At baseline, patients prescribed antimalarial therapy had shorter RA duration and began treatment earlier, perhaps due to patient or physician preferences regarding starting "milder" antimalarial medication earlier or due to use of "triple therapy" with methotrexate and sulfasalazine. Of interest, patients receiving antimalarial therapy had a lower incidence of adverse events, especially serious infections, but no effect on cardiovascular events was seen despite HCQ's perceived beneficial effects on thrombotic risk and cholesterol profile. Patients receiving HCQ were also more likely to persist in their course of bDMARD or JAK inhibitor therapy, though the effect size seems relatively small. As the focus in this study was on adverse effects, the authors' analysis of the effects on antimalarials on the persistence of therapy was not detailed.

Lin and colleagues also looked at the effects of HCQ in patients with older-onset RA with respect to mortality risk. Using data from the electronic health records of a hospital in Taiwan, mortality-associated risk factors were evaluated in 980 patients with RA diagnosed at >60 years. Male sex, current smoking status, and cancer status were all associated with mortality, whereas HCQ use was associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio 0.30). In contrast to the registry study mentioned above, patients receiving HCQ had a lower risk for cardiovascular events, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. Interaction with cancer was less clear due to lower number of patients. Of interest, use of cyclosporine, leflunomide, and a bDMARD was associated with higher mortality risk. The source and true relevance of the potential risk reduction in this study is not clear because of the lack of prospective data, but combined with the information above, this study suggests that the benefits of HCQ use should not be discounted in patients with RA.

Despite multiple existing conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) and biologic DMARD (bDMARD) options, many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not respond adequately to treatment. In an exciting development, a recent phase 2 study by Tuttle and colleagues examined a novel treatment approach in RA: stimulation of the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pathway. PD-1 is a checkpoint inhibitor receptor whose activation reflects T-cell activation and may play a role in synovitis and extra-articular inflammation. Blocking PD-1 in cancer therapy has been associated with an increase in inflammatory arthritis. In this 12-week study, RA disease activity was analyzed in patients randomly assigned to two different monthly intravenous doses of peresolimab or placebo. Of note, a large majority of participants were seropositive for rheumatoid factor (RF) or cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP). Patients receiving the 700-mg dose of peresolimab had a better American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response than did those receiving placebo (71% vs 42%), but not a better ACR50 or ACR70 response; the 300-mg dose was not better than placebo. Although reported adverse events were similar in all three groups, with a short timeframe it would be difficult to address concerns about cancer risk. Though this novel treatment is exciting, a larger and longer-term trial is necessary to address this concern as well as potentially tease out risk factors (including age or other immunosuppression) in this susceptible group.

Two other studies examined use of a much older csDMARD therapy, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), in Brazilian patients with RA. Bredemeier and colleagues looked at the effects of HCQ on adverse events as well as the persistence of bDMARD/targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD) therapy in over 1300 patients with RA. Using the BiobadaBrasil registry of patients starting their first bDMARD or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, they looked at effects of combination therapy with HCQ during the treatment course of up to six bDMARD or JAK inhibitors. At baseline, patients prescribed antimalarial therapy had shorter RA duration and began treatment earlier, perhaps due to patient or physician preferences regarding starting "milder" antimalarial medication earlier or due to use of "triple therapy" with methotrexate and sulfasalazine. Of interest, patients receiving antimalarial therapy had a lower incidence of adverse events, especially serious infections, but no effect on cardiovascular events was seen despite HCQ's perceived beneficial effects on thrombotic risk and cholesterol profile. Patients receiving HCQ were also more likely to persist in their course of bDMARD or JAK inhibitor therapy, though the effect size seems relatively small. As the focus in this study was on adverse effects, the authors' analysis of the effects on antimalarials on the persistence of therapy was not detailed.

Lin and colleagues also looked at the effects of HCQ in patients with older-onset RA with respect to mortality risk. Using data from the electronic health records of a hospital in Taiwan, mortality-associated risk factors were evaluated in 980 patients with RA diagnosed at >60 years. Male sex, current smoking status, and cancer status were all associated with mortality, whereas HCQ use was associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio 0.30). In contrast to the registry study mentioned above, patients receiving HCQ had a lower risk for cardiovascular events, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. Interaction with cancer was less clear due to lower number of patients. Of interest, use of cyclosporine, leflunomide, and a bDMARD was associated with higher mortality risk. The source and true relevance of the potential risk reduction in this study is not clear because of the lack of prospective data, but combined with the information above, this study suggests that the benefits of HCQ use should not be discounted in patients with RA.

Despite multiple existing conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) and biologic DMARD (bDMARD) options, many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not respond adequately to treatment. In an exciting development, a recent phase 2 study by Tuttle and colleagues examined a novel treatment approach in RA: stimulation of the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pathway. PD-1 is a checkpoint inhibitor receptor whose activation reflects T-cell activation and may play a role in synovitis and extra-articular inflammation. Blocking PD-1 in cancer therapy has been associated with an increase in inflammatory arthritis. In this 12-week study, RA disease activity was analyzed in patients randomly assigned to two different monthly intravenous doses of peresolimab or placebo. Of note, a large majority of participants were seropositive for rheumatoid factor (RF) or cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP). Patients receiving the 700-mg dose of peresolimab had a better American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response than did those receiving placebo (71% vs 42%), but not a better ACR50 or ACR70 response; the 300-mg dose was not better than placebo. Although reported adverse events were similar in all three groups, with a short timeframe it would be difficult to address concerns about cancer risk. Though this novel treatment is exciting, a larger and longer-term trial is necessary to address this concern as well as potentially tease out risk factors (including age or other immunosuppression) in this susceptible group.

Two other studies examined use of a much older csDMARD therapy, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), in Brazilian patients with RA. Bredemeier and colleagues looked at the effects of HCQ on adverse events as well as the persistence of bDMARD/targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD) therapy in over 1300 patients with RA. Using the BiobadaBrasil registry of patients starting their first bDMARD or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, they looked at effects of combination therapy with HCQ during the treatment course of up to six bDMARD or JAK inhibitors. At baseline, patients prescribed antimalarial therapy had shorter RA duration and began treatment earlier, perhaps due to patient or physician preferences regarding starting "milder" antimalarial medication earlier or due to use of "triple therapy" with methotrexate and sulfasalazine. Of interest, patients receiving antimalarial therapy had a lower incidence of adverse events, especially serious infections, but no effect on cardiovascular events was seen despite HCQ's perceived beneficial effects on thrombotic risk and cholesterol profile. Patients receiving HCQ were also more likely to persist in their course of bDMARD or JAK inhibitor therapy, though the effect size seems relatively small. As the focus in this study was on adverse effects, the authors' analysis of the effects on antimalarials on the persistence of therapy was not detailed.

Lin and colleagues also looked at the effects of HCQ in patients with older-onset RA with respect to mortality risk. Using data from the electronic health records of a hospital in Taiwan, mortality-associated risk factors were evaluated in 980 patients with RA diagnosed at >60 years. Male sex, current smoking status, and cancer status were all associated with mortality, whereas HCQ use was associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio 0.30). In contrast to the registry study mentioned above, patients receiving HCQ had a lower risk for cardiovascular events, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. Interaction with cancer was less clear due to lower number of patients. Of interest, use of cyclosporine, leflunomide, and a bDMARD was associated with higher mortality risk. The source and true relevance of the potential risk reduction in this study is not clear because of the lack of prospective data, but combined with the information above, this study suggests that the benefits of HCQ use should not be discounted in patients with RA.

After a median follow-up of 21.6 mo, the dalpiciclib group demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with the placebo group (30.6 mo vs 18.2 mo; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; 95% CI 0.38-0.69; P < .0001). Overall, the dalpiciclib group demonstrated a manageable safety profile, although a higher percentage of grade 3/4 adverse events was noted with dalpiciclib than with placebo (90% vs 12%), as expected. Overall survival data for this CDK4/6 inhibitor are yet to come. These results suggest that dalpiciclib in combination with endocrine therapy is an alternative treatment for this group of patients, especially in countries where the traditionally approved CDK4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib) are not available.

The optimal sequencing of endocrine therapy (ET) after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitor–based therapy remains a challenge. In the phase 2 MAINTAIN trial, 119 patients (all of whom had HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer and who progressed on ET and CDK4/6 inhibitors) were randomly assigned to receive a different ET (fulvestrant or exemestane) from the previous ET they had received plus either the CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib or placebo. In the study by Kalinksky and colleagues, at a median follow-up of 18.2 mo, a significant improvement in PFS was observed in the switched ET-plus-ribociclib group compared with the switched ET-plus-placebo group (HR 0.57; P = .006). The phase 2 MAINTAIN trial is the first randomized trial to show the benefit of a CDK4/6 inhibitor after progression on another CDK4/6 inhibitor. It is important to note that the majority of patients in the MAINTAIN study previously received palbociclib in the first-line setting, which in recent studies has been demonstrated to be inferior to other CDK4/6 inhibitors. Therefore, it is important to confirm whether this will hold true upon progression from ribociclib or abemaciclib in the first-line setting. In addition, more data are needed to compare this approach with other ET treatment options, such as phosphoinositide 3-kinases inhibitors and oral selective estrogen receptor degraders.

There are several options for adjuvant radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer. A meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials and six comparative observational studies assessed the efficacy of whole breast irradiation (WBI) compared with partial breast irradiation (PBI) in 17,234 adults with early-stage breast cancer. Results of this meta-analysis showed that PBI was not significantly different from WBI, with similar rates of ipsilateral breast recurrence  at 5 years (relative risk [RR] 1.34; 95% CI 0.83-2.18) and 10 years (RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.87-1.91), although patients undergoing PBI reported fewer acute adverse events  compared with patients undergoing WBI (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.53; 95% CI 0.31-0.92) and acute grade ≥2 adverse events (IRR 0.21; 95% CI 0.07-0.62). These findings support using PBI as the adjuvant radiotherapy modality for select patients with favorable-risk early-stage breast cancer.

Another meta-analysis looked at assessing the survival benefit of adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to standard ET in older patients with advanced breast cancer. The study included 10 trials with 1985 older patients with advanced ER+ breast cancer who received ET with or without CDK4/6 inhibitors. The findings showed that adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to ET (letrozole or fulvestrant) significantly reduced the mortality risk by 21% (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.69-0.91) and progression risk by 41% (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.51-0.69) in older patients (age ≥ 65 years) with advanced breast cancer. Grade 3-4 neutropenia and diarrhea were similar in older patients. This study supports the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors as a reasonable treatment modality for older patients. More studies dedicated to the geriatric population are needed to help elaborate on the efficacy and tolerability of such agents in this population.

The phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-42 (NSABP B-42) trial evaluated the role of extended letrozole therapy in postmenopausal breast cancer patients who were disease-free after 5 years of aromatase inhibitor–based therapy. The study included 3966 postmenopausal women with stage I-IIIA HR+ breast cancer who were randomly assigned to receive letrozole or placebo for 5 more years. After a median follow-up of 10.3 years, letrozole significantly improved disease-free survival (10-year absolute benefit 3.4%; HR 0.85; P = .01) compared with placebo, although there were no differences noted in overall survival between the groups (HR 0.97, P = .74). Furthermore, letrozole significantly reduced the breast cancer–free interval (HR 0.75, ,P = .003) and distant recurrence (HR 0.72, P = .01). There were no notable differences in toxicity, particularly rates of osteoporotic fractures and arterial thrombotic events, between the groups. Extended therapy with aromatase inhibitors beyond 5 years can be considered for select patients with early-stage breast cancer. Careful consideration of risks and benefits is needed to make these recommendations. 

After a median follow-up of 21.6 mo, the dalpiciclib group demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with the placebo group (30.6 mo vs 18.2 mo; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; 95% CI 0.38-0.69; P < .0001). Overall, the dalpiciclib group demonstrated a manageable safety profile, although a higher percentage of grade 3/4 adverse events was noted with dalpiciclib than with placebo (90% vs 12%), as expected. Overall survival data for this CDK4/6 inhibitor are yet to come. These results suggest that dalpiciclib in combination with endocrine therapy is an alternative treatment for this group of patients, especially in countries where the traditionally approved CDK4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib) are not available.

The optimal sequencing of endocrine therapy (ET) after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitor–based therapy remains a challenge. In the phase 2 MAINTAIN trial, 119 patients (all of whom had HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer and who progressed on ET and CDK4/6 inhibitors) were randomly assigned to receive a different ET (fulvestrant or exemestane) from the previous ET they had received plus either the CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib or placebo. In the study by Kalinksky and colleagues, at a median follow-up of 18.2 mo, a significant improvement in PFS was observed in the switched ET-plus-ribociclib group compared with the switched ET-plus-placebo group (HR 0.57; P = .006). The phase 2 MAINTAIN trial is the first randomized trial to show the benefit of a CDK4/6 inhibitor after progression on another CDK4/6 inhibitor. It is important to note that the majority of patients in the MAINTAIN study previously received palbociclib in the first-line setting, which in recent studies has been demonstrated to be inferior to other CDK4/6 inhibitors. Therefore, it is important to confirm whether this will hold true upon progression from ribociclib or abemaciclib in the first-line setting. In addition, more data are needed to compare this approach with other ET treatment options, such as phosphoinositide 3-kinases inhibitors and oral selective estrogen receptor degraders.

There are several options for adjuvant radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer. A meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials and six comparative observational studies assessed the efficacy of whole breast irradiation (WBI) compared with partial breast irradiation (PBI) in 17,234 adults with early-stage breast cancer. Results of this meta-analysis showed that PBI was not significantly different from WBI, with similar rates of ipsilateral breast recurrence  at 5 years (relative risk [RR] 1.34; 95% CI 0.83-2.18) and 10 years (RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.87-1.91), although patients undergoing PBI reported fewer acute adverse events  compared with patients undergoing WBI (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.53; 95% CI 0.31-0.92) and acute grade ≥2 adverse events (IRR 0.21; 95% CI 0.07-0.62). These findings support using PBI as the adjuvant radiotherapy modality for select patients with favorable-risk early-stage breast cancer.

Another meta-analysis looked at assessing the survival benefit of adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to standard ET in older patients with advanced breast cancer. The study included 10 trials with 1985 older patients with advanced ER+ breast cancer who received ET with or without CDK4/6 inhibitors. The findings showed that adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to ET (letrozole or fulvestrant) significantly reduced the mortality risk by 21% (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.69-0.91) and progression risk by 41% (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.51-0.69) in older patients (age ≥ 65 years) with advanced breast cancer. Grade 3-4 neutropenia and diarrhea were similar in older patients. This study supports the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors as a reasonable treatment modality for older patients. More studies dedicated to the geriatric population are needed to help elaborate on the efficacy and tolerability of such agents in this population.

The phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-42 (NSABP B-42) trial evaluated the role of extended letrozole therapy in postmenopausal breast cancer patients who were disease-free after 5 years of aromatase inhibitor–based therapy. The study included 3966 postmenopausal women with stage I-IIIA HR+ breast cancer who were randomly assigned to receive letrozole or placebo for 5 more years. After a median follow-up of 10.3 years, letrozole significantly improved disease-free survival (10-year absolute benefit 3.4%; HR 0.85; P = .01) compared with placebo, although there were no differences noted in overall survival between the groups (HR 0.97, P = .74). Furthermore, letrozole significantly reduced the breast cancer–free interval (HR 0.75, ,P = .003) and distant recurrence (HR 0.72, P = .01). There were no notable differences in toxicity, particularly rates of osteoporotic fractures and arterial thrombotic events, between the groups. Extended therapy with aromatase inhibitors beyond 5 years can be considered for select patients with early-stage breast cancer. Careful consideration of risks and benefits is needed to make these recommendations. 

After a median follow-up of 21.6 mo, the dalpiciclib group demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with the placebo group (30.6 mo vs 18.2 mo; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; 95% CI 0.38-0.69; P < .0001). Overall, the dalpiciclib group demonstrated a manageable safety profile, although a higher percentage of grade 3/4 adverse events was noted with dalpiciclib than with placebo (90% vs 12%), as expected. Overall survival data for this CDK4/6 inhibitor are yet to come. These results suggest that dalpiciclib in combination with endocrine therapy is an alternative treatment for this group of patients, especially in countries where the traditionally approved CDK4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib) are not available.

The optimal sequencing of endocrine therapy (ET) after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitor–based therapy remains a challenge. In the phase 2 MAINTAIN trial, 119 patients (all of whom had HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer and who progressed on ET and CDK4/6 inhibitors) were randomly assigned to receive a different ET (fulvestrant or exemestane) from the previous ET they had received plus either the CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib or placebo. In the study by Kalinksky and colleagues, at a median follow-up of 18.2 mo, a significant improvement in PFS was observed in the switched ET-plus-ribociclib group compared with the switched ET-plus-placebo group (HR 0.57; P = .006). The phase 2 MAINTAIN trial is the first randomized trial to show the benefit of a CDK4/6 inhibitor after progression on another CDK4/6 inhibitor. It is important to note that the majority of patients in the MAINTAIN study previously received palbociclib in the first-line setting, which in recent studies has been demonstrated to be inferior to other CDK4/6 inhibitors. Therefore, it is important to confirm whether this will hold true upon progression from ribociclib or abemaciclib in the first-line setting. In addition, more data are needed to compare this approach with other ET treatment options, such as phosphoinositide 3-kinases inhibitors and oral selective estrogen receptor degraders.

There are several options for adjuvant radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer. A meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials and six comparative observational studies assessed the efficacy of whole breast irradiation (WBI) compared with partial breast irradiation (PBI) in 17,234 adults with early-stage breast cancer. Results of this meta-analysis showed that PBI was not significantly different from WBI, with similar rates of ipsilateral breast recurrence  at 5 years (relative risk [RR] 1.34; 95% CI 0.83-2.18) and 10 years (RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.87-1.91), although patients undergoing PBI reported fewer acute adverse events  compared with patients undergoing WBI (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.53; 95% CI 0.31-0.92) and acute grade ≥2 adverse events (IRR 0.21; 95% CI 0.07-0.62). These findings support using PBI as the adjuvant radiotherapy modality for select patients with favorable-risk early-stage breast cancer.

Another meta-analysis looked at assessing the survival benefit of adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to standard ET in older patients with advanced breast cancer. The study included 10 trials with 1985 older patients with advanced ER+ breast cancer who received ET with or without CDK4/6 inhibitors. The findings showed that adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to ET (letrozole or fulvestrant) significantly reduced the mortality risk by 21% (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.69-0.91) and progression risk by 41% (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.51-0.69) in older patients (age ≥ 65 years) with advanced breast cancer. Grade 3-4 neutropenia and diarrhea were similar in older patients. This study supports the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors as a reasonable treatment modality for older patients. More studies dedicated to the geriatric population are needed to help elaborate on the efficacy and tolerability of such agents in this population.

The phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-42 (NSABP B-42) trial evaluated the role of extended letrozole therapy in postmenopausal breast cancer patients who were disease-free after 5 years of aromatase inhibitor–based therapy. The study included 3966 postmenopausal women with stage I-IIIA HR+ breast cancer who were randomly assigned to receive letrozole or placebo for 5 more years. After a median follow-up of 10.3 years, letrozole significantly improved disease-free survival (10-year absolute benefit 3.4%; HR 0.85; P = .01) compared with placebo, although there were no differences noted in overall survival between the groups (HR 0.97, P = .74). Furthermore, letrozole significantly reduced the breast cancer–free interval (HR 0.75, ,P = .003) and distant recurrence (HR 0.72, P = .01). There were no notable differences in toxicity, particularly rates of osteoporotic fractures and arterial thrombotic events, between the groups. Extended therapy with aromatase inhibitors beyond 5 years can be considered for select patients with early-stage breast cancer. Careful consideration of risks and benefits is needed to make these recommendations. 

Despite using methotrexate (MTX) in the management of psoriasis and PsA for more than 50 years, there is paucity of data on its effectiveness in PsA. It is also largely assumed that MTX is more effective for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than for PsA. To evaluate MTX effectiveness vis-à-vis RA, Lindström and colleagues conducted an observational study with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive patients with newly diagnosed PsA (n = 3642) who initiated MTX and matched comparator patients with RA (n = 3642) from national Swedish registers. At 6 months, although both groups of patients had improvement in pain, global health, and remission, the rates were higher in RA compared with PsA. Overall, 71% of patients with PsA and 76% of patients with RA were still taking MTX 2 years after initiating MTX. The time to starting another DMARD was shorter in RA compared with PsA. Thus, in early PsA, MTX treatment seems to provide significant benefits. However, the improvements are less impressive than they are for RA.

Biologic agents are generally safe and effective in the treatment of PsA. However, there are limited data on the safety and effectiveness in older and younger populations with PsA. Gossec and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the PsABio trial that included patients with PsA who received ustekinumab, an interleukin 12/23 inhibitor, and were subgrouped into those < 60 years (n = 336) and ≥ 60 years (n = 103). At 6 months, a numerically higher proportion of patients < 60 years achieved clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity compared with those ≥ 60 years. The proportions of patients reporting at least one (32.7% vs 40.9%) or serious (5.3% vs 9.6%) adverse events were numerically higher in the older population. However, treatment persistence was numerically higher in the older subgroup. These differences were not clinically meaningful; thus, ustekinumab may be safely used in older populations.

There are also limited data on the effectiveness of biologics in patients with juvenile PsA (jPsA). To address this, Correll and colleagues evaluated the safety and effectiveness of etanercept, an anti–tumor necrosis factor agent, in patients with jPsA using data from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry. In 226 patients, the overall incidence of adverse events of special interest and serious adverse events were low and included three cases of uveitis (incidence rate [IR]/100 person-years 0.55; 95% CI 0.18-1.69), one of neuropathy (IR/100 person-years 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-1.29), and one of cancer (IR/100 person-years 0.13; 95% CI 0.02-0.90). The ACR provisional criteria for inactive disease were achieved by 51.9% and 43.8% of patients at 6 and 12 months. Thus, etanercept is safe and effective in jPsA.

Despite using methotrexate (MTX) in the management of psoriasis and PsA for more than 50 years, there is paucity of data on its effectiveness in PsA. It is also largely assumed that MTX is more effective for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than for PsA. To evaluate MTX effectiveness vis-à-vis RA, Lindström and colleagues conducted an observational study with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive patients with newly diagnosed PsA (n = 3642) who initiated MTX and matched comparator patients with RA (n = 3642) from national Swedish registers. At 6 months, although both groups of patients had improvement in pain, global health, and remission, the rates were higher in RA compared with PsA. Overall, 71% of patients with PsA and 76% of patients with RA were still taking MTX 2 years after initiating MTX. The time to starting another DMARD was shorter in RA compared with PsA. Thus, in early PsA, MTX treatment seems to provide significant benefits. However, the improvements are less impressive than they are for RA.

Biologic agents are generally safe and effective in the treatment of PsA. However, there are limited data on the safety and effectiveness in older and younger populations with PsA. Gossec and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the PsABio trial that included patients with PsA who received ustekinumab, an interleukin 12/23 inhibitor, and were subgrouped into those < 60 years (n = 336) and ≥ 60 years (n = 103). At 6 months, a numerically higher proportion of patients < 60 years achieved clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity compared with those ≥ 60 years. The proportions of patients reporting at least one (32.7% vs 40.9%) or serious (5.3% vs 9.6%) adverse events were numerically higher in the older population. However, treatment persistence was numerically higher in the older subgroup. These differences were not clinically meaningful; thus, ustekinumab may be safely used in older populations.

There are also limited data on the effectiveness of biologics in patients with juvenile PsA (jPsA). To address this, Correll and colleagues evaluated the safety and effectiveness of etanercept, an anti–tumor necrosis factor agent, in patients with jPsA using data from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry. In 226 patients, the overall incidence of adverse events of special interest and serious adverse events were low and included three cases of uveitis (incidence rate [IR]/100 person-years 0.55; 95% CI 0.18-1.69), one of neuropathy (IR/100 person-years 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-1.29), and one of cancer (IR/100 person-years 0.13; 95% CI 0.02-0.90). The ACR provisional criteria for inactive disease were achieved by 51.9% and 43.8% of patients at 6 and 12 months. Thus, etanercept is safe and effective in jPsA.

Despite using methotrexate (MTX) in the management of psoriasis and PsA for more than 50 years, there is paucity of data on its effectiveness in PsA. It is also largely assumed that MTX is more effective for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than for PsA. To evaluate MTX effectiveness vis-à-vis RA, Lindström and colleagues conducted an observational study with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive patients with newly diagnosed PsA (n = 3642) who initiated MTX and matched comparator patients with RA (n = 3642) from national Swedish registers. At 6 months, although both groups of patients had improvement in pain, global health, and remission, the rates were higher in RA compared with PsA. Overall, 71% of patients with PsA and 76% of patients with RA were still taking MTX 2 years after initiating MTX. The time to starting another DMARD was shorter in RA compared with PsA. Thus, in early PsA, MTX treatment seems to provide significant benefits. However, the improvements are less impressive than they are for RA.

Biologic agents are generally safe and effective in the treatment of PsA. However, there are limited data on the safety and effectiveness in older and younger populations with PsA. Gossec and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the PsABio trial that included patients with PsA who received ustekinumab, an interleukin 12/23 inhibitor, and were subgrouped into those < 60 years (n = 336) and ≥ 60 years (n = 103). At 6 months, a numerically higher proportion of patients < 60 years achieved clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity compared with those ≥ 60 years. The proportions of patients reporting at least one (32.7% vs 40.9%) or serious (5.3% vs 9.6%) adverse events were numerically higher in the older population. However, treatment persistence was numerically higher in the older subgroup. These differences were not clinically meaningful; thus, ustekinumab may be safely used in older populations.

There are also limited data on the effectiveness of biologics in patients with juvenile PsA (jPsA). To address this, Correll and colleagues evaluated the safety and effectiveness of etanercept, an anti–tumor necrosis factor agent, in patients with jPsA using data from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry. In 226 patients, the overall incidence of adverse events of special interest and serious adverse events were low and included three cases of uveitis (incidence rate [IR]/100 person-years 0.55; 95% CI 0.18-1.69), one of neuropathy (IR/100 person-years 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-1.29), and one of cancer (IR/100 person-years 0.13; 95% CI 0.02-0.90). The ACR provisional criteria for inactive disease were achieved by 51.9% and 43.8% of patients at 6 and 12 months. Thus, etanercept is safe and effective in jPsA.

Despite using methotrexate (MTX) in the management of psoriasis and PsA for more than 50 years, there is paucity of data on its effectiveness in PsA. It is also largely assumed that MTX is more effective for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than for PsA. To evaluate MTX effectiveness vis-à-vis RA, Lindström and colleagues conducted an observational study with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive patients with newly diagnosed PsA (n = 3642) who initiated MTX and matched comparator patients with RA (n = 3642) from national Swedish registers. At 6 months, although both groups of patients had improvement in pain, global health, and remission, the rates were higher in RA compared with PsA. Overall, 71% of patients with PsA and 76% of patients with RA were still taking MTX 2 years after initiating MTX. The time to starting another DMARD was shorter in RA compared with PsA. Thus, in early PsA, MTX treatment seems to provide significant benefits. However, the improvements are less impressive than they are for RA.

Biologic agents are generally safe and effective in the treatment of PsA. However, there are limited data on the safety and effectiveness in older and younger populations with PsA. Gossec and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the PsABio trial that included patients with PsA who received ustekinumab, an interleukin 12/23 inhibitor, and were subgrouped into those < 60 years (n = 336) and ≥ 60 years (n = 103). At 6 months, a numerically higher proportion of patients < 60 years achieved clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity compared with those ≥ 60 years. The proportions of patients reporting at least one (32.7% vs 40.9%) or serious (5.3% vs 9.6%) adverse events were numerically higher in the older population. However, treatment persistence was numerically higher in the older subgroup. These differences were not clinically meaningful; thus, ustekinumab may be safely used in older populations.

There are also limited data on the effectiveness of biologics in patients with juvenile PsA (jPsA). To address this, Correll and colleagues evaluated the safety and effectiveness of etanercept, an anti–tumor necrosis factor agent, in patients with jPsA using data from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry. In 226 patients, the overall incidence of adverse events of special interest and serious adverse events were low and included three cases of uveitis (incidence rate [IR]/100 person-years 0.55; 95% CI 0.18-1.69), one of neuropathy (IR/100 person-years 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-1.29), and one of cancer (IR/100 person-years 0.13; 95% CI 0.02-0.90). The ACR provisional criteria for inactive disease were achieved by 51.9% and 43.8% of patients at 6 and 12 months. Thus, etanercept is safe and effective in jPsA.

Despite using methotrexate (MTX) in the management of psoriasis and PsA for more than 50 years, there is paucity of data on its effectiveness in PsA. It is also largely assumed that MTX is more effective for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than for PsA. To evaluate MTX effectiveness vis-à-vis RA, Lindström and colleagues conducted an observational study with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive patients with newly diagnosed PsA (n = 3642) who initiated MTX and matched comparator patients with RA (n = 3642) from national Swedish registers. At 6 months, although both groups of patients had improvement in pain, global health, and remission, the rates were higher in RA compared with PsA. Overall, 71% of patients with PsA and 76% of patients with RA were still taking MTX 2 years after initiating MTX. The time to starting another DMARD was shorter in RA compared with PsA. Thus, in early PsA, MTX treatment seems to provide significant benefits. However, the improvements are less impressive than they are for RA.

Biologic agents are generally safe and effective in the treatment of PsA. However, there are limited data on the safety and effectiveness in older and younger populations with PsA. Gossec and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the PsABio trial that included patients with PsA who received ustekinumab, an interleukin 12/23 inhibitor, and were subgrouped into those < 60 years (n = 336) and ≥ 60 years (n = 103). At 6 months, a numerically higher proportion of patients < 60 years achieved clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity compared with those ≥ 60 years. The proportions of patients reporting at least one (32.7% vs 40.9%) or serious (5.3% vs 9.6%) adverse events were numerically higher in the older population. However, treatment persistence was numerically higher in the older subgroup. These differences were not clinically meaningful; thus, ustekinumab may be safely used in older populations.

There are also limited data on the effectiveness of biologics in patients with juvenile PsA (jPsA). To address this, Correll and colleagues evaluated the safety and effectiveness of etanercept, an anti–tumor necrosis factor agent, in patients with jPsA using data from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry. In 226 patients, the overall incidence of adverse events of special interest and serious adverse events were low and included three cases of uveitis (incidence rate [IR]/100 person-years 0.55; 95% CI 0.18-1.69), one of neuropathy (IR/100 person-years 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-1.29), and one of cancer (IR/100 person-years 0.13; 95% CI 0.02-0.90). The ACR provisional criteria for inactive disease were achieved by 51.9% and 43.8% of patients at 6 and 12 months. Thus, etanercept is safe and effective in jPsA.

Despite using methotrexate (MTX) in the management of psoriasis and PsA for more than 50 years, there is paucity of data on its effectiveness in PsA. It is also largely assumed that MTX is more effective for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than for PsA. To evaluate MTX effectiveness vis-à-vis RA, Lindström and colleagues conducted an observational study with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive patients with newly diagnosed PsA (n = 3642) who initiated MTX and matched comparator patients with RA (n = 3642) from national Swedish registers. At 6 months, although both groups of patients had improvement in pain, global health, and remission, the rates were higher in RA compared with PsA. Overall, 71% of patients with PsA and 76% of patients with RA were still taking MTX 2 years after initiating MTX. The time to starting another DMARD was shorter in RA compared with PsA. Thus, in early PsA, MTX treatment seems to provide significant benefits. However, the improvements are less impressive than they are for RA.

Biologic agents are generally safe and effective in the treatment of PsA. However, there are limited data on the safety and effectiveness in older and younger populations with PsA. Gossec and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the PsABio trial that included patients with PsA who received ustekinumab, an interleukin 12/23 inhibitor, and were subgrouped into those < 60 years (n = 336) and ≥ 60 years (n = 103). At 6 months, a numerically higher proportion of patients < 60 years achieved clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity compared with those ≥ 60 years. The proportions of patients reporting at least one (32.7% vs 40.9%) or serious (5.3% vs 9.6%) adverse events were numerically higher in the older population. However, treatment persistence was numerically higher in the older subgroup. These differences were not clinically meaningful; thus, ustekinumab may be safely used in older populations.

There are also limited data on the effectiveness of biologics in patients with juvenile PsA (jPsA). To address this, Correll and colleagues evaluated the safety and effectiveness of etanercept, an anti–tumor necrosis factor agent, in patients with jPsA using data from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry. In 226 patients, the overall incidence of adverse events of special interest and serious adverse events were low and included three cases of uveitis (incidence rate [IR]/100 person-years 0.55; 95% CI 0.18-1.69), one of neuropathy (IR/100 person-years 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-1.29), and one of cancer (IR/100 person-years 0.13; 95% CI 0.02-0.90). The ACR provisional criteria for inactive disease were achieved by 51.9% and 43.8% of patients at 6 and 12 months. Thus, etanercept is safe and effective in jPsA.

The neoadjuvant setting provides a favorable environment to study de-escalation approaches as treatment response (via pathologic complete response [pCR] assessment) can be used as a surrogate marker for outcome. Studies have shown the effect of HER2-enriched subtype and high ERBB2 expression on pCR rates after receipt of a chemotherapy-free, dual HER2-targeted regimen.² The prospective, multicenter, neoadjuvant phase 2 WSG-TP-II trial randomly assigned 207 patients with HR+/HER2+ early breast cancer to 12 weeks of endocrine therapy (ET)–trastuzumab-pertuzumab vs paclitaxel-trastuzumab-pertuzumab. The pCR rate was inferior in the ET arm compared with the paclitaxel arm (23.7% vs 56.4%; odds ratio 0.24; 95% CI 0.12-0.46; P < .001). In addition, an immunohistochemistry ERBB2 score of 3 or higher and ERBB2-enriched subtype were predictors of higher pCR rates in both arms (Gluz et al). This study not only supports a deescalated chemotherapy neoadjuvant strategy of paclitaxel + dual HER2 blockade but also suggests that a portion of patients may potentially be spared chemotherapy with very good results. The role of biomarkers is integral to patient selection for these approaches, and the evaluation of response in real-time will allow for the tailoring of therapy to achieve the best outcome.

Systemic staging for locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) is important for informing prognosis as well as aiding in development of an appropriate treatment plan for patients. The PETABC study included 369 patients with LABC (TNM stage III or IIB [T3N0]) with random assignment to ¹⁸F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT or conventional staging (bone scan, CT of chest/abdomen/pelvis), and was designed to assess the rate of upstaging with each imaging modality and effect on treatment (Dayes et al). In the PET-CT group, 23% (N = 43) of patients were upstaged to stage IV compared with 11% (N = 21) in the conventional-staging group (absolute difference 12.3%; 95% CI 3.9-19.9; P = .002). Fewer patients in the PET-CT group received combined modality treatment vs those patients in the conventional staging group (81% vs 89.2%; P = .03). These results support the consideration of PET-CT as a staging tool for LABC, and this is reflected in various clinical guidelines. Furthermore, the evolving role of other imaging techniques such as ¹⁸F-fluoroestradiol (18F-FES) PET-CT in detection of metastatic lesions related to estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer³ will continue to advance the field of imaging.

Additional References

1. Rugo HS, Lerebours F, Ciruelos E, et al. Alpelisib plus fulvestrant in PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer after a CDK4/6 inhibitor (BYLieve): One cohort of a phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-comparative study. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:489-498. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00034-6. Erratum in: Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(5):e184. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00194-7
2. Prat A, Pascual T, De Angelis C, et al. HER2-enriched subtype and ERBB2 expression in HER2-positive breast cancer treated with dual HER2 blockade. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;112:46-54. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz042
3. Ulaner GA, Jhaveri K, Chandarlapaty S, et al. Head-to-head evaluation of ¹⁸F-FES and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in metastatic invasive lobular breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:326-331. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.120.247882

The neoadjuvant setting provides a favorable environment to study de-escalation approaches as treatment response (via pathologic complete response [pCR] assessment) can be used as a surrogate marker for outcome. Studies have shown the effect of HER2-enriched subtype and high ERBB2 expression on pCR rates after receipt of a chemotherapy-free, dual HER2-targeted regimen.² The prospective, multicenter, neoadjuvant phase 2 WSG-TP-II trial randomly assigned 207 patients with HR+/HER2+ early breast cancer to 12 weeks of endocrine therapy (ET)–trastuzumab-pertuzumab vs paclitaxel-trastuzumab-pertuzumab. The pCR rate was inferior in the ET arm compared with the paclitaxel arm (23.7% vs 56.4%; odds ratio 0.24; 95% CI 0.12-0.46; P < .001). In addition, an immunohistochemistry ERBB2 score of 3 or higher and ERBB2-enriched subtype were predictors of higher pCR rates in both arms (Gluz et al). This study not only supports a deescalated chemotherapy neoadjuvant strategy of paclitaxel + dual HER2 blockade but also suggests that a portion of patients may potentially be spared chemotherapy with very good results. The role of biomarkers is integral to patient selection for these approaches, and the evaluation of response in real-time will allow for the tailoring of therapy to achieve the best outcome.

Systemic staging for locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) is important for informing prognosis as well as aiding in development of an appropriate treatment plan for patients. The PETABC study included 369 patients with LABC (TNM stage III or IIB [T3N0]) with random assignment to ¹⁸F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT or conventional staging (bone scan, CT of chest/abdomen/pelvis), and was designed to assess the rate of upstaging with each imaging modality and effect on treatment (Dayes et al). In the PET-CT group, 23% (N = 43) of patients were upstaged to stage IV compared with 11% (N = 21) in the conventional-staging group (absolute difference 12.3%; 95% CI 3.9-19.9; P = .002). Fewer patients in the PET-CT group received combined modality treatment vs those patients in the conventional staging group (81% vs 89.2%; P = .03). These results support the consideration of PET-CT as a staging tool for LABC, and this is reflected in various clinical guidelines. Furthermore, the evolving role of other imaging techniques such as ¹⁸F-fluoroestradiol (18F-FES) PET-CT in detection of metastatic lesions related to estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer³ will continue to advance the field of imaging.

Additional References

1. Rugo HS, Lerebours F, Ciruelos E, et al. Alpelisib plus fulvestrant in PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer after a CDK4/6 inhibitor (BYLieve): One cohort of a phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-comparative study. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:489-498. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00034-6. Erratum in: Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(5):e184. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00194-7
2. Prat A, Pascual T, De Angelis C, et al. HER2-enriched subtype and ERBB2 expression in HER2-positive breast cancer treated with dual HER2 blockade. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;112:46-54. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz042
3. Ulaner GA, Jhaveri K, Chandarlapaty S, et al. Head-to-head evaluation of ¹⁸F-FES and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in metastatic invasive lobular breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:326-331. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.120.247882

The neoadjuvant setting provides a favorable environment to study de-escalation approaches as treatment response (via pathologic complete response [pCR] assessment) can be used as a surrogate marker for outcome. Studies have shown the effect of HER2-enriched subtype and high ERBB2 expression on pCR rates after receipt of a chemotherapy-free, dual HER2-targeted regimen.² The prospective, multicenter, neoadjuvant phase 2 WSG-TP-II trial randomly assigned 207 patients with HR+/HER2+ early breast cancer to 12 weeks of endocrine therapy (ET)–trastuzumab-pertuzumab vs paclitaxel-trastuzumab-pertuzumab. The pCR rate was inferior in the ET arm compared with the paclitaxel arm (23.7% vs 56.4%; odds ratio 0.24; 95% CI 0.12-0.46; P < .001). In addition, an immunohistochemistry ERBB2 score of 3 or higher and ERBB2-enriched subtype were predictors of higher pCR rates in both arms (Gluz et al). This study not only supports a deescalated chemotherapy neoadjuvant strategy of paclitaxel + dual HER2 blockade but also suggests that a portion of patients may potentially be spared chemotherapy with very good results. The role of biomarkers is integral to patient selection for these approaches, and the evaluation of response in real-time will allow for the tailoring of therapy to achieve the best outcome.

Systemic staging for locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) is important for informing prognosis as well as aiding in development of an appropriate treatment plan for patients. The PETABC study included 369 patients with LABC (TNM stage III or IIB [T3N0]) with random assignment to ¹⁸F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT or conventional staging (bone scan, CT of chest/abdomen/pelvis), and was designed to assess the rate of upstaging with each imaging modality and effect on treatment (Dayes et al). In the PET-CT group, 23% (N = 43) of patients were upstaged to stage IV compared with 11% (N = 21) in the conventional-staging group (absolute difference 12.3%; 95% CI 3.9-19.9; P = .002). Fewer patients in the PET-CT group received combined modality treatment vs those patients in the conventional staging group (81% vs 89.2%; P = .03). These results support the consideration of PET-CT as a staging tool for LABC, and this is reflected in various clinical guidelines. Furthermore, the evolving role of other imaging techniques such as ¹⁸F-fluoroestradiol (18F-FES) PET-CT in detection of metastatic lesions related to estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer³ will continue to advance the field of imaging.

Additional References

1. Rugo HS, Lerebours F, Ciruelos E, et al. Alpelisib plus fulvestrant in PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer after a CDK4/6 inhibitor (BYLieve): One cohort of a phase 2, multicentre, open-label, non-comparative study. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:489-498. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00034-6. Erratum in: Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(5):e184. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00194-7
2. Prat A, Pascual T, De Angelis C, et al. HER2-enriched subtype and ERBB2 expression in HER2-positive breast cancer treated with dual HER2 blockade. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;112:46-54. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz042
3. Ulaner GA, Jhaveri K, Chandarlapaty S, et al. Head-to-head evaluation of ¹⁸F-FES and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in metastatic invasive lobular breast cancer. J Nucl Med. 2021;62:326-331. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.120.247882

Silverberg and colleagues described a very well-designed, vehicle-controlled, randomized 8-week study of a topical formulation of a purified strain of Nitrosomonas eutropha, an ammonia-oxidizing bacterium. In theory, this bacterium may reduce Staphylococcus aureus. The study compared two concentrations of the bacterium vs vehicle delivered as a spray twice per day. Study participants were adults with AD affecting 10%-40% of body surface area.

The study found "meaningful" improvements in itch and objective signs of disease, with clear separation between both doses of the bacterial spray compared with vehicle. At week 4, about 23% of participants treated with the bacterium were clear or almost clear (with a 2-point improvement) compared with 12% in the vehicle group (for comparison, in a phase 2 study comparing topical ruxolitinib with 0.1% triamcinolone cream, there was a 25% clear or almost clear rate [with 2-point improvement] in the triamcinolone-treated individuals).

Though an "all-natural" bacterial approach to managing AD may be appealing to some, it sounded like magic to me. But this well-done study makes it seem like the bacterial approach could be more promising than I had thought. This study also reported about twice as many adverse events (including gastrointestinal issues) with the bacterium-treated participants compared with those who received vehicle, adding to my belief that the bacterial product has efficacy. Whether any other topical will be more effective and safer than is topical triamcinolone remains to be seen. I'm still pessimistic about topicals because of patients' poor adherence to topical treatment, but perhaps an easy-to-use spray that isn't associated with patients' fear of "steroids" will be helpful.

Chen and colleagues. They analyzed data on hundreds of thousands of patients with and without AD. Adults with AD had a "significantly increased risk" of developing venous thromboembolism compared with adults without AD. The huge sample size of their study seems compelling. That huge sample size allows detection of effects so small that they may be clinically insignificant.

They report that patients with AD had a venous thromboembolism at a rate of 1.05/1000 patients-years; the rate was 0.82 for patients without AD. From that, we can calculate that there would be an additional 23 patients with venous thromboembolism for every 100,000 patient-years or about one more venous thromboembolism in the AD group in every 4000 patient-years. Though the finding was statistically significant, I don't think it is clinically meaningful.

The authors correctly conclude that "vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients with AD who present with relevant symptoms (eg, unexplained dyspnea, chest tightness, and limb swelling)." But it is probably also true that vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients without AD who present with those symptoms. I think the authors might have been on solid ground if they had concluded that there was a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increased risk for venous thromboembolism in patients with AD.

Eichenfeld and colleagues examined the use of topical crisaborole once per day as a maintenance treatment for patients with mild to moderate AD. The study compared patients given topical crisaborole with those randomly assigned to vehicle. The active treatment was effective because topical crisaborole treated patients had longer times to the first flare following treatment and fewer flares over the 1 year of treatment. The differences were not huge, but I think they were clinically meaningful. I'm guessing that the topical crisaborole maintenance treatment would have been even more effective had it been used regularly. The study did not, as far as I could tell, assess how well the treatment was used.

An interesting aspect of this study is that it began with nearly 500 participants who started on twice daily topical crisaborole. The 270 patients who responded to the treatment (achieving clear or almost clear with at least a 2-point improvement) were enrolled in the 1-year maintenance phase. Thus, the participants in the maintenance phase were preselected for patients who respond to topical crisaborole. We don't know why they were responders (I, of course, expect it is because they selected for patients who are better than others are at using a topical treatment), but it may be best not to try to generalize these results and assume this form of maintenance treatment would work equally well in a population who achieve initial success with an oral therapy regimen (for example, a quick course of oral prednisone).

Dupilumab was a revolutionary treatment for AD. I didn't think that I'd ever see a more effective treatment. It's so safe too! It has been a first-line treatment for AD since its introduction. Now, we also have oral Janus kinase inhibitor options. Blauvelt and colleagues examined what happens when patients who have been on dupilumab are switched to a high dose (30 mg/d) of upadacitinib (the standard starting dose of upadacitinib is 15 mg/d). Though dupilumab is very effective, upadacitinib is more so. After 4 weeks of switching to upadacitinib, nearly half the patients were completely clear of AD compared with only 16.0% after 24 weeks of dupilumab! The authors point out, optimistically, that "No new safety risks were observed." Though there were no cancers, gastrointestinal perforations, major adverse cardiovascular events, or venous thromboembolic events, there were cases of eczema herpeticum and zoster in patients treated with upadacitinib. Having upadacitinib available for patients who fail dupilumab is a clear benefit; the role of upadacitinib before dupilumab seems less clear.

Patients doing great on dupilumab for AD may be wondering: Do I still need to take it every 2 weeks? Spekhorst and colleagues may have the answer. They describe the response to tapering dupilumab in patients who had been on the drug for at least 1 year with well-controlled disease for at least 6 months. Patients in the study then continued dupilumab with the longest possible dosing interval while maintaining control of their AD.

Generally, patients maintained good control of their AD, with only a small increase in mean disease severity and in concomitant use of topical steroids. For the patients who attempted prolongation, 83% successfully continued dupilumab treatment with a prolonged interval. Not at all surprisingly, the authors calculated that prolonging the interval between dosing led to large savings in cost.

One of the nice features of dupilumab treatment is that loss of response over time seems unusual. Perhaps there is a low propensity for forming antidrug antibodies when dupilumab is used in the standard every 2-week dosing regimen. I don't know whether antidrug antibodies would be more likely with the intermittent dosing regimen. But now that we have other good systemic treatment options for AD, losing dupilumab efficacy would not be as critical a problem as it used to be. I also want to point out that patients' adherence to injection treatment, though better than adherence to topicals, is far from perfect. It's likely that many patients have already been prolonging the interval between taking their treatments. If you want to know, just ask them. The way I like to phrase the question is: "Are you keeping the extra injectors you've accumulated refrigerated like you are supposed to?"

Silverberg and colleagues described a very well-designed, vehicle-controlled, randomized 8-week study of a topical formulation of a purified strain of Nitrosomonas eutropha, an ammonia-oxidizing bacterium. In theory, this bacterium may reduce Staphylococcus aureus. The study compared two concentrations of the bacterium vs vehicle delivered as a spray twice per day. Study participants were adults with AD affecting 10%-40% of body surface area.

The study found "meaningful" improvements in itch and objective signs of disease, with clear separation between both doses of the bacterial spray compared with vehicle. At week 4, about 23% of participants treated with the bacterium were clear or almost clear (with a 2-point improvement) compared with 12% in the vehicle group (for comparison, in a phase 2 study comparing topical ruxolitinib with 0.1% triamcinolone cream, there was a 25% clear or almost clear rate [with 2-point improvement] in the triamcinolone-treated individuals).

Though an "all-natural" bacterial approach to managing AD may be appealing to some, it sounded like magic to me. But this well-done study makes it seem like the bacterial approach could be more promising than I had thought. This study also reported about twice as many adverse events (including gastrointestinal issues) with the bacterium-treated participants compared with those who received vehicle, adding to my belief that the bacterial product has efficacy. Whether any other topical will be more effective and safer than is topical triamcinolone remains to be seen. I'm still pessimistic about topicals because of patients' poor adherence to topical treatment, but perhaps an easy-to-use spray that isn't associated with patients' fear of "steroids" will be helpful.

Chen and colleagues. They analyzed data on hundreds of thousands of patients with and without AD. Adults with AD had a "significantly increased risk" of developing venous thromboembolism compared with adults without AD. The huge sample size of their study seems compelling. That huge sample size allows detection of effects so small that they may be clinically insignificant.

They report that patients with AD had a venous thromboembolism at a rate of 1.05/1000 patients-years; the rate was 0.82 for patients without AD. From that, we can calculate that there would be an additional 23 patients with venous thromboembolism for every 100,000 patient-years or about one more venous thromboembolism in the AD group in every 4000 patient-years. Though the finding was statistically significant, I don't think it is clinically meaningful.

The authors correctly conclude that "vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients with AD who present with relevant symptoms (eg, unexplained dyspnea, chest tightness, and limb swelling)." But it is probably also true that vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients without AD who present with those symptoms. I think the authors might have been on solid ground if they had concluded that there was a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increased risk for venous thromboembolism in patients with AD.

Eichenfeld and colleagues examined the use of topical crisaborole once per day as a maintenance treatment for patients with mild to moderate AD. The study compared patients given topical crisaborole with those randomly assigned to vehicle. The active treatment was effective because topical crisaborole treated patients had longer times to the first flare following treatment and fewer flares over the 1 year of treatment. The differences were not huge, but I think they were clinically meaningful. I'm guessing that the topical crisaborole maintenance treatment would have been even more effective had it been used regularly. The study did not, as far as I could tell, assess how well the treatment was used.

An interesting aspect of this study is that it began with nearly 500 participants who started on twice daily topical crisaborole. The 270 patients who responded to the treatment (achieving clear or almost clear with at least a 2-point improvement) were enrolled in the 1-year maintenance phase. Thus, the participants in the maintenance phase were preselected for patients who respond to topical crisaborole. We don't know why they were responders (I, of course, expect it is because they selected for patients who are better than others are at using a topical treatment), but it may be best not to try to generalize these results and assume this form of maintenance treatment would work equally well in a population who achieve initial success with an oral therapy regimen (for example, a quick course of oral prednisone).

Dupilumab was a revolutionary treatment for AD. I didn't think that I'd ever see a more effective treatment. It's so safe too! It has been a first-line treatment for AD since its introduction. Now, we also have oral Janus kinase inhibitor options. Blauvelt and colleagues examined what happens when patients who have been on dupilumab are switched to a high dose (30 mg/d) of upadacitinib (the standard starting dose of upadacitinib is 15 mg/d). Though dupilumab is very effective, upadacitinib is more so. After 4 weeks of switching to upadacitinib, nearly half the patients were completely clear of AD compared with only 16.0% after 24 weeks of dupilumab! The authors point out, optimistically, that "No new safety risks were observed." Though there were no cancers, gastrointestinal perforations, major adverse cardiovascular events, or venous thromboembolic events, there were cases of eczema herpeticum and zoster in patients treated with upadacitinib. Having upadacitinib available for patients who fail dupilumab is a clear benefit; the role of upadacitinib before dupilumab seems less clear.

Patients doing great on dupilumab for AD may be wondering: Do I still need to take it every 2 weeks? Spekhorst and colleagues may have the answer. They describe the response to tapering dupilumab in patients who had been on the drug for at least 1 year with well-controlled disease for at least 6 months. Patients in the study then continued dupilumab with the longest possible dosing interval while maintaining control of their AD.

Generally, patients maintained good control of their AD, with only a small increase in mean disease severity and in concomitant use of topical steroids. For the patients who attempted prolongation, 83% successfully continued dupilumab treatment with a prolonged interval. Not at all surprisingly, the authors calculated that prolonging the interval between dosing led to large savings in cost.

One of the nice features of dupilumab treatment is that loss of response over time seems unusual. Perhaps there is a low propensity for forming antidrug antibodies when dupilumab is used in the standard every 2-week dosing regimen. I don't know whether antidrug antibodies would be more likely with the intermittent dosing regimen. But now that we have other good systemic treatment options for AD, losing dupilumab efficacy would not be as critical a problem as it used to be. I also want to point out that patients' adherence to injection treatment, though better than adherence to topicals, is far from perfect. It's likely that many patients have already been prolonging the interval between taking their treatments. If you want to know, just ask them. The way I like to phrase the question is: "Are you keeping the extra injectors you've accumulated refrigerated like you are supposed to?"

Silverberg and colleagues described a very well-designed, vehicle-controlled, randomized 8-week study of a topical formulation of a purified strain of Nitrosomonas eutropha, an ammonia-oxidizing bacterium. In theory, this bacterium may reduce Staphylococcus aureus. The study compared two concentrations of the bacterium vs vehicle delivered as a spray twice per day. Study participants were adults with AD affecting 10%-40% of body surface area.

The study found "meaningful" improvements in itch and objective signs of disease, with clear separation between both doses of the bacterial spray compared with vehicle. At week 4, about 23% of participants treated with the bacterium were clear or almost clear (with a 2-point improvement) compared with 12% in the vehicle group (for comparison, in a phase 2 study comparing topical ruxolitinib with 0.1% triamcinolone cream, there was a 25% clear or almost clear rate [with 2-point improvement] in the triamcinolone-treated individuals).

Though an "all-natural" bacterial approach to managing AD may be appealing to some, it sounded like magic to me. But this well-done study makes it seem like the bacterial approach could be more promising than I had thought. This study also reported about twice as many adverse events (including gastrointestinal issues) with the bacterium-treated participants compared with those who received vehicle, adding to my belief that the bacterial product has efficacy. Whether any other topical will be more effective and safer than is topical triamcinolone remains to be seen. I'm still pessimistic about topicals because of patients' poor adherence to topical treatment, but perhaps an easy-to-use spray that isn't associated with patients' fear of "steroids" will be helpful.

Chen and colleagues. They analyzed data on hundreds of thousands of patients with and without AD. Adults with AD had a "significantly increased risk" of developing venous thromboembolism compared with adults without AD. The huge sample size of their study seems compelling. That huge sample size allows detection of effects so small that they may be clinically insignificant.

They report that patients with AD had a venous thromboembolism at a rate of 1.05/1000 patients-years; the rate was 0.82 for patients without AD. From that, we can calculate that there would be an additional 23 patients with venous thromboembolism for every 100,000 patient-years or about one more venous thromboembolism in the AD group in every 4000 patient-years. Though the finding was statistically significant, I don't think it is clinically meaningful.

The authors correctly conclude that "vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients with AD who present with relevant symptoms (eg, unexplained dyspnea, chest tightness, and limb swelling)." But it is probably also true that vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients without AD who present with those symptoms. I think the authors might have been on solid ground if they had concluded that there was a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increased risk for venous thromboembolism in patients with AD.

Eichenfeld and colleagues examined the use of topical crisaborole once per day as a maintenance treatment for patients with mild to moderate AD. The study compared patients given topical crisaborole with those randomly assigned to vehicle. The active treatment was effective because topical crisaborole treated patients had longer times to the first flare following treatment and fewer flares over the 1 year of treatment. The differences were not huge, but I think they were clinically meaningful. I'm guessing that the topical crisaborole maintenance treatment would have been even more effective had it been used regularly. The study did not, as far as I could tell, assess how well the treatment was used.

An interesting aspect of this study is that it began with nearly 500 participants who started on twice daily topical crisaborole. The 270 patients who responded to the treatment (achieving clear or almost clear with at least a 2-point improvement) were enrolled in the 1-year maintenance phase. Thus, the participants in the maintenance phase were preselected for patients who respond to topical crisaborole. We don't know why they were responders (I, of course, expect it is because they selected for patients who are better than others are at using a topical treatment), but it may be best not to try to generalize these results and assume this form of maintenance treatment would work equally well in a population who achieve initial success with an oral therapy regimen (for example, a quick course of oral prednisone).

Dupilumab was a revolutionary treatment for AD. I didn't think that I'd ever see a more effective treatment. It's so safe too! It has been a first-line treatment for AD since its introduction. Now, we also have oral Janus kinase inhibitor options. Blauvelt and colleagues examined what happens when patients who have been on dupilumab are switched to a high dose (30 mg/d) of upadacitinib (the standard starting dose of upadacitinib is 15 mg/d). Though dupilumab is very effective, upadacitinib is more so. After 4 weeks of switching to upadacitinib, nearly half the patients were completely clear of AD compared with only 16.0% after 24 weeks of dupilumab! The authors point out, optimistically, that "No new safety risks were observed." Though there were no cancers, gastrointestinal perforations, major adverse cardiovascular events, or venous thromboembolic events, there were cases of eczema herpeticum and zoster in patients treated with upadacitinib. Having upadacitinib available for patients who fail dupilumab is a clear benefit; the role of upadacitinib before dupilumab seems less clear.

Patients doing great on dupilumab for AD may be wondering: Do I still need to take it every 2 weeks? Spekhorst and colleagues may have the answer. They describe the response to tapering dupilumab in patients who had been on the drug for at least 1 year with well-controlled disease for at least 6 months. Patients in the study then continued dupilumab with the longest possible dosing interval while maintaining control of their AD.

Generally, patients maintained good control of their AD, with only a small increase in mean disease severity and in concomitant use of topical steroids. For the patients who attempted prolongation, 83% successfully continued dupilumab treatment with a prolonged interval. Not at all surprisingly, the authors calculated that prolonging the interval between dosing led to large savings in cost.

One of the nice features of dupilumab treatment is that loss of response over time seems unusual. Perhaps there is a low propensity for forming antidrug antibodies when dupilumab is used in the standard every 2-week dosing regimen. I don't know whether antidrug antibodies would be more likely with the intermittent dosing regimen. But now that we have other good systemic treatment options for AD, losing dupilumab efficacy would not be as critical a problem as it used to be. I also want to point out that patients' adherence to injection treatment, though better than adherence to topicals, is far from perfect. It's likely that many patients have already been prolonging the interval between taking their treatments. If you want to know, just ask them. The way I like to phrase the question is: "Are you keeping the extra injectors you've accumulated refrigerated like you are supposed to?"

There is a tremendous amount of atopic dermatitis (AD) research underway. This month, we have several interesting articles to present.

Silverberg and colleagues described a very well-designed, vehicle-controlled, randomized 8-week study of a topical formulation of a purified strain of Nitrosomonas eutropha, an ammonia-oxidizing bacterium. In theory, this bacterium may reduce Staphylococcus aureus. The study compared two concentrations of the bacterium vs vehicle delivered as a spray twice per day. Study participants were adults with AD affecting 10%-40% of body surface area.

The study found "meaningful" improvements in itch and objective signs of disease, with clear separation between both doses of the bacterial spray compared with vehicle. At week 4, about 23% of participants treated with the bacterium were clear or almost clear (with a 2-point improvement) compared with 12% in the vehicle group (for comparison, in a phase 2 study comparing topical ruxolitinib with 0.1% triamcinolone cream, there was a 25% clear or almost clear rate [with 2-point improvement] in the triamcinolone-treated individuals).

Though an "all-natural" bacterial approach to managing AD may be appealing to some, it sounded like magic to me. But this well-done study makes it seem like the bacterial approach could be more promising than I had thought. This study also reported about twice as many adverse events (including gastrointestinal issues) with the bacterium-treated participants compared with those who received vehicle, adding to my belief that the bacterial product has efficacy. Whether any other topical will be more effective and safer than is topical triamcinolone remains to be seen. I'm still pessimistic about topicals because of patients' poor adherence to topical treatment, but perhaps an easy-to-use spray that isn't associated with patients' fear of "steroids" will be helpful.

I love articles like this one from Chen and colleagues. They analyzed data on hundreds of thousands of patients with and without AD. Adults with AD had a "significantly increased risk" of developing venous thromboembolism compared with adults without AD. The huge sample size of their study seems compelling. That huge sample size allows detection of effects so small that they may be clinically insignificant.

They report that patients with AD had a venous thromboembolism at a rate of 1.05/1000 patients-years; the rate was 0.82 for patients without AD. From that, we can calculate that there would be an additional 23 patients with venous thromboembolism for every 100,000 patient-years or about one more venous thromboembolism in the AD group in every 4000 patient-years. Though the finding was statistically significant, I don't think it is clinically meaningful.

The authors correctly conclude that "vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients with AD who present with relevant symptoms (eg, unexplained dyspnea, chest tightness, and limb swelling)." But it is probably also true that vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients without AD who present with those symptoms. I think the authors might have been on solid ground if they had concluded that there was a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increased risk for venous thromboembolism in patients with AD.

Eichenfeld and colleagues examined the use of topical crisaborole once per day as a maintenance treatment for patients with mild to moderate AD. The study compared patients given topical crisaborole with those randomly assigned to vehicle. The active treatment was effective because topical crisaborole treated patients had longer times to the first flare following treatment and fewer flares over the 1 year of treatment. The differences were not huge, but I think they were clinically meaningful. I'm guessing that the topical crisaborole maintenance treatment would have been even more effective had it been used regularly. The study did not, as far as I could tell, assess how well the treatment was used.

An interesting aspect of this study is that it began with nearly 500 participants who started on twice daily topical crisaborole. The 270 patients who responded to the treatment (achieving clear or almost clear with at least a 2-point improvement) were enrolled in the 1-year maintenance phase. Thus, the participants in the maintenance phase were preselected for patients who respond to topical crisaborole. We don't know why they were responders (I, of course, expect it is because they selected for patients who are better than others are at using a topical treatment), but it may be best not to try to generalize these results and assume this form of maintenance treatment would work equally well in a population who achieve initial success with an oral therapy regimen (for example, a quick course of oral prednisone).

Dupilumab was a revolutionary treatment for AD. I didn't think that I'd ever see a more effective treatment. It's so safe too! It has been a first-line treatment for AD since its introduction. Now, we also have oral Janus kinase inhibitor options. Blauvelt and colleagues examined what happens when patients who have been on dupilumab are switched to a high dose (30 mg/d) of upadacitinib (the standard starting dose of upadacitinib is 15 mg/d). Though dupilumab is very effective, upadacitinib is more so. After 4 weeks of switching to upadacitinib, nearly half the patients were completely clear of AD compared with only 16.0% after 24 weeks of dupilumab! The authors point out, optimistically, that "No new safety risks were observed." Though there were no cancers, gastrointestinal perforations, major adverse cardiovascular events, or venous thromboembolic events, there were cases of eczema herpeticum and zoster in patients treated with upadacitinib. Having upadacitinib available for patients who fail dupilumab is a clear benefit; the role of upadacitinib before dupilumab seems less clear.

Patients doing great on dupilumab for AD may be wondering: Do I still need to take it every 2 weeks? Spekhorst and colleagues may have the answer. They describe the response to tapering dupilumab in patients who had been on the drug for at least 1 year with well-controlled disease for at least 6 months. Patients in the study then continued dupilumab with the longest possible dosing interval while maintaining control of their AD.

Generally, patients maintained good control of their AD, with only a small increase in mean disease severity and in concomitant use of topical steroids. For the patients who attempted prolongation, 83% successfully continued dupilumab treatment with a prolonged interval. Not at all surprisingly, the authors calculated that prolonging the interval between dosing led to large savings in cost.

One of the nice features of dupilumab treatment is that loss of response over time seems unusual. Perhaps there is a low propensity for forming antidrug antibodies when dupilumab is used in the standard every 2-week dosing regimen. I don't know whether antidrug antibodies would be more likely with the intermittent dosing regimen. But now that we have other good systemic treatment options for AD, losing dupilumab efficacy would not be as critical a problem as it used to be. I also want to point out that patients' adherence to injection treatment, though better than adherence to topicals, is far from perfect. It's likely that many patients have already been prolonging the interval between taking their treatments. If you want to know, just ask them. The way I like to phrase the question is: "Are you keeping the extra injectors you've accumulated refrigerated like you are supposed to?"

There is a tremendous amount of atopic dermatitis (AD) research underway. This month, we have several interesting articles to present.

Silverberg and colleagues described a very well-designed, vehicle-controlled, randomized 8-week study of a topical formulation of a purified strain of Nitrosomonas eutropha, an ammonia-oxidizing bacterium. In theory, this bacterium may reduce Staphylococcus aureus. The study compared two concentrations of the bacterium vs vehicle delivered as a spray twice per day. Study participants were adults with AD affecting 10%-40% of body surface area.

The study found "meaningful" improvements in itch and objective signs of disease, with clear separation between both doses of the bacterial spray compared with vehicle. At week 4, about 23% of participants treated with the bacterium were clear or almost clear (with a 2-point improvement) compared with 12% in the vehicle group (for comparison, in a phase 2 study comparing topical ruxolitinib with 0.1% triamcinolone cream, there was a 25% clear or almost clear rate [with 2-point improvement] in the triamcinolone-treated individuals).

Though an "all-natural" bacterial approach to managing AD may be appealing to some, it sounded like magic to me. But this well-done study makes it seem like the bacterial approach could be more promising than I had thought. This study also reported about twice as many adverse events (including gastrointestinal issues) with the bacterium-treated participants compared with those who received vehicle, adding to my belief that the bacterial product has efficacy. Whether any other topical will be more effective and safer than is topical triamcinolone remains to be seen. I'm still pessimistic about topicals because of patients' poor adherence to topical treatment, but perhaps an easy-to-use spray that isn't associated with patients' fear of "steroids" will be helpful.

I love articles like this one from Chen and colleagues. They analyzed data on hundreds of thousands of patients with and without AD. Adults with AD had a "significantly increased risk" of developing venous thromboembolism compared with adults without AD. The huge sample size of their study seems compelling. That huge sample size allows detection of effects so small that they may be clinically insignificant.

They report that patients with AD had a venous thromboembolism at a rate of 1.05/1000 patients-years; the rate was 0.82 for patients without AD. From that, we can calculate that there would be an additional 23 patients with venous thromboembolism for every 100,000 patient-years or about one more venous thromboembolism in the AD group in every 4000 patient-years. Though the finding was statistically significant, I don't think it is clinically meaningful.

The authors correctly conclude that "vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients with AD who present with relevant symptoms (eg, unexplained dyspnea, chest tightness, and limb swelling)." But it is probably also true that vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients without AD who present with those symptoms. I think the authors might have been on solid ground if they had concluded that there was a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increased risk for venous thromboembolism in patients with AD.

Eichenfeld and colleagues examined the use of topical crisaborole once per day as a maintenance treatment for patients with mild to moderate AD. The study compared patients given topical crisaborole with those randomly assigned to vehicle. The active treatment was effective because topical crisaborole treated patients had longer times to the first flare following treatment and fewer flares over the 1 year of treatment. The differences were not huge, but I think they were clinically meaningful. I'm guessing that the topical crisaborole maintenance treatment would have been even more effective had it been used regularly. The study did not, as far as I could tell, assess how well the treatment was used.

An interesting aspect of this study is that it began with nearly 500 participants who started on twice daily topical crisaborole. The 270 patients who responded to the treatment (achieving clear or almost clear with at least a 2-point improvement) were enrolled in the 1-year maintenance phase. Thus, the participants in the maintenance phase were preselected for patients who respond to topical crisaborole. We don't know why they were responders (I, of course, expect it is because they selected for patients who are better than others are at using a topical treatment), but it may be best not to try to generalize these results and assume this form of maintenance treatment would work equally well in a population who achieve initial success with an oral therapy regimen (for example, a quick course of oral prednisone).

Dupilumab was a revolutionary treatment for AD. I didn't think that I'd ever see a more effective treatment. It's so safe too! It has been a first-line treatment for AD since its introduction. Now, we also have oral Janus kinase inhibitor options. Blauvelt and colleagues examined what happens when patients who have been on dupilumab are switched to a high dose (30 mg/d) of upadacitinib (the standard starting dose of upadacitinib is 15 mg/d). Though dupilumab is very effective, upadacitinib is more so. After 4 weeks of switching to upadacitinib, nearly half the patients were completely clear of AD compared with only 16.0% after 24 weeks of dupilumab! The authors point out, optimistically, that "No new safety risks were observed." Though there were no cancers, gastrointestinal perforations, major adverse cardiovascular events, or venous thromboembolic events, there were cases of eczema herpeticum and zoster in patients treated with upadacitinib. Having upadacitinib available for patients who fail dupilumab is a clear benefit; the role of upadacitinib before dupilumab seems less clear.

Patients doing great on dupilumab for AD may be wondering: Do I still need to take it every 2 weeks? Spekhorst and colleagues may have the answer. They describe the response to tapering dupilumab in patients who had been on the drug for at least 1 year with well-controlled disease for at least 6 months. Patients in the study then continued dupilumab with the longest possible dosing interval while maintaining control of their AD.

Generally, patients maintained good control of their AD, with only a small increase in mean disease severity and in concomitant use of topical steroids. For the patients who attempted prolongation, 83% successfully continued dupilumab treatment with a prolonged interval. Not at all surprisingly, the authors calculated that prolonging the interval between dosing led to large savings in cost.

One of the nice features of dupilumab treatment is that loss of response over time seems unusual. Perhaps there is a low propensity for forming antidrug antibodies when dupilumab is used in the standard every 2-week dosing regimen. I don't know whether antidrug antibodies would be more likely with the intermittent dosing regimen. But now that we have other good systemic treatment options for AD, losing dupilumab efficacy would not be as critical a problem as it used to be. I also want to point out that patients' adherence to injection treatment, though better than adherence to topicals, is far from perfect. It's likely that many patients have already been prolonging the interval between taking their treatments. If you want to know, just ask them. The way I like to phrase the question is: "Are you keeping the extra injectors you've accumulated refrigerated like you are supposed to?"

There is a tremendous amount of atopic dermatitis (AD) research underway. This month, we have several interesting articles to present.

Silverberg and colleagues described a very well-designed, vehicle-controlled, randomized 8-week study of a topical formulation of a purified strain of Nitrosomonas eutropha, an ammonia-oxidizing bacterium. In theory, this bacterium may reduce Staphylococcus aureus. The study compared two concentrations of the bacterium vs vehicle delivered as a spray twice per day. Study participants were adults with AD affecting 10%-40% of body surface area.

The study found "meaningful" improvements in itch and objective signs of disease, with clear separation between both doses of the bacterial spray compared with vehicle. At week 4, about 23% of participants treated with the bacterium were clear or almost clear (with a 2-point improvement) compared with 12% in the vehicle group (for comparison, in a phase 2 study comparing topical ruxolitinib with 0.1% triamcinolone cream, there was a 25% clear or almost clear rate [with 2-point improvement] in the triamcinolone-treated individuals).

Though an "all-natural" bacterial approach to managing AD may be appealing to some, it sounded like magic to me. But this well-done study makes it seem like the bacterial approach could be more promising than I had thought. This study also reported about twice as many adverse events (including gastrointestinal issues) with the bacterium-treated participants compared with those who received vehicle, adding to my belief that the bacterial product has efficacy. Whether any other topical will be more effective and safer than is topical triamcinolone remains to be seen. I'm still pessimistic about topicals because of patients' poor adherence to topical treatment, but perhaps an easy-to-use spray that isn't associated with patients' fear of "steroids" will be helpful.

I love articles like this one from Chen and colleagues. They analyzed data on hundreds of thousands of patients with and without AD. Adults with AD had a "significantly increased risk" of developing venous thromboembolism compared with adults without AD. The huge sample size of their study seems compelling. That huge sample size allows detection of effects so small that they may be clinically insignificant.

They report that patients with AD had a venous thromboembolism at a rate of 1.05/1000 patients-years; the rate was 0.82 for patients without AD. From that, we can calculate that there would be an additional 23 patients with venous thromboembolism for every 100,000 patient-years or about one more venous thromboembolism in the AD group in every 4000 patient-years. Though the finding was statistically significant, I don't think it is clinically meaningful.

The authors correctly conclude that "vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients with AD who present with relevant symptoms (eg, unexplained dyspnea, chest tightness, and limb swelling)." But it is probably also true that vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients without AD who present with those symptoms. I think the authors might have been on solid ground if they had concluded that there was a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increased risk for venous thromboembolism in patients with AD.

Eichenfeld and colleagues examined the use of topical crisaborole once per day as a maintenance treatment for patients with mild to moderate AD. The study compared patients given topical crisaborole with those randomly assigned to vehicle. The active treatment was effective because topical crisaborole treated patients had longer times to the first flare following treatment and fewer flares over the 1 year of treatment. The differences were not huge, but I think they were clinically meaningful. I'm guessing that the topical crisaborole maintenance treatment would have been even more effective had it been used regularly. The study did not, as far as I could tell, assess how well the treatment was used.

An interesting aspect of this study is that it began with nearly 500 participants who started on twice daily topical crisaborole. The 270 patients who responded to the treatment (achieving clear or almost clear with at least a 2-point improvement) were enrolled in the 1-year maintenance phase. Thus, the participants in the maintenance phase were preselected for patients who respond to topical crisaborole. We don't know why they were responders (I, of course, expect it is because they selected for patients who are better than others are at using a topical treatment), but it may be best not to try to generalize these results and assume this form of maintenance treatment would work equally well in a population who achieve initial success with an oral therapy regimen (for example, a quick course of oral prednisone).

Dupilumab was a revolutionary treatment for AD. I didn't think that I'd ever see a more effective treatment. It's so safe too! It has been a first-line treatment for AD since its introduction. Now, we also have oral Janus kinase inhibitor options. Blauvelt and colleagues examined what happens when patients who have been on dupilumab are switched to a high dose (30 mg/d) of upadacitinib (the standard starting dose of upadacitinib is 15 mg/d). Though dupilumab is very effective, upadacitinib is more so. After 4 weeks of switching to upadacitinib, nearly half the patients were completely clear of AD compared with only 16.0% after 24 weeks of dupilumab! The authors point out, optimistically, that "No new safety risks were observed." Though there were no cancers, gastrointestinal perforations, major adverse cardiovascular events, or venous thromboembolic events, there were cases of eczema herpeticum and zoster in patients treated with upadacitinib. Having upadacitinib available for patients who fail dupilumab is a clear benefit; the role of upadacitinib before dupilumab seems less clear.

Patients doing great on dupilumab for AD may be wondering: Do I still need to take it every 2 weeks? Spekhorst and colleagues may have the answer. They describe the response to tapering dupilumab in patients who had been on the drug for at least 1 year with well-controlled disease for at least 6 months. Patients in the study then continued dupilumab with the longest possible dosing interval while maintaining control of their AD.

Generally, patients maintained good control of their AD, with only a small increase in mean disease severity and in concomitant use of topical steroids. For the patients who attempted prolongation, 83% successfully continued dupilumab treatment with a prolonged interval. Not at all surprisingly, the authors calculated that prolonging the interval between dosing led to large savings in cost.

One of the nice features of dupilumab treatment is that loss of response over time seems unusual. Perhaps there is a low propensity for forming antidrug antibodies when dupilumab is used in the standard every 2-week dosing regimen. I don't know whether antidrug antibodies would be more likely with the intermittent dosing regimen. But now that we have other good systemic treatment options for AD, losing dupilumab efficacy would not be as critical a problem as it used to be. I also want to point out that patients' adherence to injection treatment, though better than adherence to topicals, is far from perfect. It's likely that many patients have already been prolonging the interval between taking their treatments. If you want to know, just ask them. The way I like to phrase the question is: "Are you keeping the extra injectors you've accumulated refrigerated like you are supposed to?"

Novel therapies have transformed the management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) over the past decade. With the advent of new options, the optimal therapy for newly diagnosed patients has become less clear. Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors have led to improvement in outcomes for most patients with CLL compared with chemoimmunotherapy (CIT).^1,2 Second-generation BTK inhibitors, such as acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, are also available and appear to have an improved safety profile compared with ibrutinib. Similarly, the B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL2) inhibitor venetoclax, in combination with obinutuzumab, is an effective option in first-line treatment that offers a time-limited approach.³ Studies combining BTK and BCL2 inhibitors are also promising in this setting.

Recently, the phase 3 GAIA-CLL13 study aimed to address the question of optimal time-limited first-line treatment for fit patients with CLL. Of note, patients with TP53 aberrations were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four treatment arms: CIT (fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab), venetoclax-obinutuzumab, venetoclax-rituximab, or venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinub.

At 15 months, the rate of undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD) was higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (86.5%; 97.5% CI 80.6-91.1) and the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group (92.2%; 97.5% CI 87.3-95.7) compared with the CIT group (52.0%; 97.5% CI 44.4-59.5; P < .001 for both comparisons). The rate of uMRD for the venetoclax-rituximab group, however, was not higher than the rate in the CIT group (57.0%; 97.5%, CI 49.5-64.2; P = .32). The 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 90.5% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group and 75.5% in the CIT group (hazard ratio [HR] for disease progression or death 0.32; 97.5% CI 0.19-0.54; P < .001). PFS at 3 years was also higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (87.7%; HR for disease progression or death, 0.42; 97.5% CI 0.26-0.68; P < .001), but not with venetoclax-rituximab group (80.8%; HR 0.79; 97.5% CI 0.53-1.18; P = .18). Grade 3 and grade 4 infections were more common with CIT (18.5%) and venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib (21.2%) than with venetoclax-rituximab (10.5%) or venetoclax-obinutuzumab (13.2%).

This study confirms the role of fixed-duration venetoclax-based therapy for younger, fit patients with CLL. Interestingly, this study also suggests that rates of uMRD and PFS are superior with the use of obinutuzumab rather than with rituximab. Also of note, though the uMRD and PFS were highest with the triplet combination, it was not clearly superior to venetoclax-obinutuzumab alone and was associated with greater rates of toxicity.

Another ongoing randomized trial in first-line treatment of CLL is the FLAIR trial. This study was initially designed to compare ibrutinib-rituximab with standard CIT, though it was later modified to include an arm of ibrutinib alone and ibrutinib-venetoclax. Recently, the results of the first formal interim analysis comparing fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (n = 385) to ibrutinib-rituximb (n = 386), were published. This study, like the ECOG1912 study², demonstrated improved outcomes with a BTK inhibitor over standard CIT in fit patients with CLL. After a median follow-up of 53 months, the median PFS was not reached in patients receiving ibrutinib-rituximab and was 67 months (95% CI 63 to not reached) in those receiving fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (HR 0.44; P < .0001). A substantial number of sudden cardiac or unexplained deaths occurred, which were more frequent in the ibrutinib-rituximab group.

Though questions regarding optimal treatment remain, there are now multiple studies to suggest an advantage of novel agents over traditional CIT. Furthermore, regardless of approach, outcomes appear favorable for patients with CLL, even among higher-risk patients.

Other studies are also evaluating alternative ways to sequence therapy. A recent phase 2 study, for example, evaluated venetoclax consolidation for patients on ibrutinib. Forty-five patients with CLL and detectable disease (≥ 0.01% minimal residual disease in bone marrow [BM]) after treatment with ibrutinib for 12 or more months who had one or more high-risk feature for disease progression were included. Patients received combined treatment with ibrutinib (previously tolerated dose) and venetoclax (escalated to 400 mg once daily) for 24 or less cycles. Venetoclax was continued until patients achieved uMRD. Patients with uMRD also had the option of discontinuing ibrutinib. Adding venetoclax to ibrutinib led to a cumulative BM uMRD rate of 73%. BM uMRD was achieved by 71% of patients after venetoclax therapy completion and by 38% and 57% of patients after 6 and 12 cycles, respectively. This trial highlights the potential use of MRD to guide treatment as well as consolidation strategies to allow for time-limited treatment.

Additional References

1. Woyach JA, Ruppert AS, Heerema NA, et al. Ibrutinib regimens versus chemoimmunotherapy in older patients with untreated CLL. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2517-2528. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1812836
2. Shanafelt TD, Wang XV, Kay NE, et al. Ibrutinib-rituximab or chemoimmunotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:432-443. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1817073
3. Fischer K, Al-Sawaf O, Bahlo J, et al. Venetoclax and obinutuzumab in patients with CLL and coexisting conditions. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:2225-2236. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1815281

Novel therapies have transformed the management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) over the past decade. With the advent of new options, the optimal therapy for newly diagnosed patients has become less clear. Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors have led to improvement in outcomes for most patients with CLL compared with chemoimmunotherapy (CIT).^1,2 Second-generation BTK inhibitors, such as acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, are also available and appear to have an improved safety profile compared with ibrutinib. Similarly, the B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL2) inhibitor venetoclax, in combination with obinutuzumab, is an effective option in first-line treatment that offers a time-limited approach.³ Studies combining BTK and BCL2 inhibitors are also promising in this setting.

Recently, the phase 3 GAIA-CLL13 study aimed to address the question of optimal time-limited first-line treatment for fit patients with CLL. Of note, patients with TP53 aberrations were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four treatment arms: CIT (fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab), venetoclax-obinutuzumab, venetoclax-rituximab, or venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinub.

At 15 months, the rate of undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD) was higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (86.5%; 97.5% CI 80.6-91.1) and the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group (92.2%; 97.5% CI 87.3-95.7) compared with the CIT group (52.0%; 97.5% CI 44.4-59.5; P < .001 for both comparisons). The rate of uMRD for the venetoclax-rituximab group, however, was not higher than the rate in the CIT group (57.0%; 97.5%, CI 49.5-64.2; P = .32). The 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 90.5% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group and 75.5% in the CIT group (hazard ratio [HR] for disease progression or death 0.32; 97.5% CI 0.19-0.54; P < .001). PFS at 3 years was also higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (87.7%; HR for disease progression or death, 0.42; 97.5% CI 0.26-0.68; P < .001), but not with venetoclax-rituximab group (80.8%; HR 0.79; 97.5% CI 0.53-1.18; P = .18). Grade 3 and grade 4 infections were more common with CIT (18.5%) and venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib (21.2%) than with venetoclax-rituximab (10.5%) or venetoclax-obinutuzumab (13.2%).

This study confirms the role of fixed-duration venetoclax-based therapy for younger, fit patients with CLL. Interestingly, this study also suggests that rates of uMRD and PFS are superior with the use of obinutuzumab rather than with rituximab. Also of note, though the uMRD and PFS were highest with the triplet combination, it was not clearly superior to venetoclax-obinutuzumab alone and was associated with greater rates of toxicity.

Another ongoing randomized trial in first-line treatment of CLL is the FLAIR trial. This study was initially designed to compare ibrutinib-rituximab with standard CIT, though it was later modified to include an arm of ibrutinib alone and ibrutinib-venetoclax. Recently, the results of the first formal interim analysis comparing fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (n = 385) to ibrutinib-rituximb (n = 386), were published. This study, like the ECOG1912 study², demonstrated improved outcomes with a BTK inhibitor over standard CIT in fit patients with CLL. After a median follow-up of 53 months, the median PFS was not reached in patients receiving ibrutinib-rituximab and was 67 months (95% CI 63 to not reached) in those receiving fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (HR 0.44; P < .0001). A substantial number of sudden cardiac or unexplained deaths occurred, which were more frequent in the ibrutinib-rituximab group.

Though questions regarding optimal treatment remain, there are now multiple studies to suggest an advantage of novel agents over traditional CIT. Furthermore, regardless of approach, outcomes appear favorable for patients with CLL, even among higher-risk patients.

Other studies are also evaluating alternative ways to sequence therapy. A recent phase 2 study, for example, evaluated venetoclax consolidation for patients on ibrutinib. Forty-five patients with CLL and detectable disease (≥ 0.01% minimal residual disease in bone marrow [BM]) after treatment with ibrutinib for 12 or more months who had one or more high-risk feature for disease progression were included. Patients received combined treatment with ibrutinib (previously tolerated dose) and venetoclax (escalated to 400 mg once daily) for 24 or less cycles. Venetoclax was continued until patients achieved uMRD. Patients with uMRD also had the option of discontinuing ibrutinib. Adding venetoclax to ibrutinib led to a cumulative BM uMRD rate of 73%. BM uMRD was achieved by 71% of patients after venetoclax therapy completion and by 38% and 57% of patients after 6 and 12 cycles, respectively. This trial highlights the potential use of MRD to guide treatment as well as consolidation strategies to allow for time-limited treatment.

Additional References

1. Woyach JA, Ruppert AS, Heerema NA, et al. Ibrutinib regimens versus chemoimmunotherapy in older patients with untreated CLL. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2517-2528. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1812836
2. Shanafelt TD, Wang XV, Kay NE, et al. Ibrutinib-rituximab or chemoimmunotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:432-443. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1817073
3. Fischer K, Al-Sawaf O, Bahlo J, et al. Venetoclax and obinutuzumab in patients with CLL and coexisting conditions. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:2225-2236. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1815281

Novel therapies have transformed the management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) over the past decade. With the advent of new options, the optimal therapy for newly diagnosed patients has become less clear. Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors have led to improvement in outcomes for most patients with CLL compared with chemoimmunotherapy (CIT).^1,2 Second-generation BTK inhibitors, such as acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib, are also available and appear to have an improved safety profile compared with ibrutinib. Similarly, the B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL2) inhibitor venetoclax, in combination with obinutuzumab, is an effective option in first-line treatment that offers a time-limited approach.³ Studies combining BTK and BCL2 inhibitors are also promising in this setting.

Recently, the phase 3 GAIA-CLL13 study aimed to address the question of optimal time-limited first-line treatment for fit patients with CLL. Of note, patients with TP53 aberrations were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four treatment arms: CIT (fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab), venetoclax-obinutuzumab, venetoclax-rituximab, or venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinub.

At 15 months, the rate of undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD) was higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (86.5%; 97.5% CI 80.6-91.1) and the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group (92.2%; 97.5% CI 87.3-95.7) compared with the CIT group (52.0%; 97.5% CI 44.4-59.5; P < .001 for both comparisons). The rate of uMRD for the venetoclax-rituximab group, however, was not higher than the rate in the CIT group (57.0%; 97.5%, CI 49.5-64.2; P = .32). The 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 90.5% in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib group and 75.5% in the CIT group (hazard ratio [HR] for disease progression or death 0.32; 97.5% CI 0.19-0.54; P < .001). PFS at 3 years was also higher in the venetoclax-obinutuzumab group (87.7%; HR for disease progression or death, 0.42; 97.5% CI 0.26-0.68; P < .001), but not with venetoclax-rituximab group (80.8%; HR 0.79; 97.5% CI 0.53-1.18; P = .18). Grade 3 and grade 4 infections were more common with CIT (18.5%) and venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib (21.2%) than with venetoclax-rituximab (10.5%) or venetoclax-obinutuzumab (13.2%).

This study confirms the role of fixed-duration venetoclax-based therapy for younger, fit patients with CLL. Interestingly, this study also suggests that rates of uMRD and PFS are superior with the use of obinutuzumab rather than with rituximab. Also of note, though the uMRD and PFS were highest with the triplet combination, it was not clearly superior to venetoclax-obinutuzumab alone and was associated with greater rates of toxicity.

Another ongoing randomized trial in first-line treatment of CLL is the FLAIR trial. This study was initially designed to compare ibrutinib-rituximab with standard CIT, though it was later modified to include an arm of ibrutinib alone and ibrutinib-venetoclax. Recently, the results of the first formal interim analysis comparing fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (n = 385) to ibrutinib-rituximb (n = 386), were published. This study, like the ECOG1912 study², demonstrated improved outcomes with a BTK inhibitor over standard CIT in fit patients with CLL. After a median follow-up of 53 months, the median PFS was not reached in patients receiving ibrutinib-rituximab and was 67 months (95% CI 63 to not reached) in those receiving fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (HR 0.44; P < .0001). A substantial number of sudden cardiac or unexplained deaths occurred, which were more frequent in the ibrutinib-rituximab group.

Though questions regarding optimal treatment remain, there are now multiple studies to suggest an advantage of novel agents over traditional CIT. Furthermore, regardless of approach, outcomes appear favorable for patients with CLL, even among higher-risk patients.

Other studies are also evaluating alternative ways to sequence therapy. A recent phase 2 study, for example, evaluated venetoclax consolidation for patients on ibrutinib. Forty-five patients with CLL and detectable disease (≥ 0.01% minimal residual disease in bone marrow [BM]) after treatment with ibrutinib for 12 or more months who had one or more high-risk feature for disease progression were included. Patients received combined treatment with ibrutinib (previously tolerated dose) and venetoclax (escalated to 400 mg once daily) for 24 or less cycles. Venetoclax was continued until patients achieved uMRD. Patients with uMRD also had the option of discontinuing ibrutinib. Adding venetoclax to ibrutinib led to a cumulative BM uMRD rate of 73%. BM uMRD was achieved by 71% of patients after venetoclax therapy completion and by 38% and 57% of patients after 6 and 12 cycles, respectively. This trial highlights the potential use of MRD to guide treatment as well as consolidation strategies to allow for time-limited treatment.

Additional References

1. Woyach JA, Ruppert AS, Heerema NA, et al. Ibrutinib regimens versus chemoimmunotherapy in older patients with untreated CLL. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2517-2528. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1812836
2. Shanafelt TD, Wang XV, Kay NE, et al. Ibrutinib-rituximab or chemoimmunotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:432-443. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1817073
3. Fischer K, Al-Sawaf O, Bahlo J, et al. Venetoclax and obinutuzumab in patients with CLL and coexisting conditions. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:2225-2236. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1815281

Several environmental risk factors are associated with the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with smoking having one of the strongest associations. Exposure to airborne toxins has also been associated with development of anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies. Beidelschies and colleagues performed a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to examine a potential interaction between smoking and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) affecting the development of RA. Stored blood and urine samples of survey respondents were examined, and levels of PAH as well as other toxicants were measured. Of nearly 22,000 participants, about 1400 of whom reported a diagnosis of RA, toxicants were measured in about 7000. Higher levels of PAH and phthalate metabolites were more strongly associated with development of RA. Because cigarettes are a source of PAH, the authors postulated that PAH mediated the impact of smoking on development of RA, a plausible explanation given that smoking was not associated with RA after adjustment for PAH levels. However, given the cross-sectional design, causality cannot be determined.

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have been found in several surveillance studies to be associated with an increased risk for cancer and cardiovascular events. Westermann and colleagues performed an observational cohort study using Danish nationwide registries to evaluate cancer risk (other than nonmelanomatous skin cancer) in patients with RA treated with tofacitinib or baricitinib. Among 875 patients treated with JAK inhibitors vs 4247 patients treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), cancer incidence rates were similar (14.4 vs 12.9 per 1000 patient-years, respectively). Interestingly, though cancer incidence rates increased in patients > 50 and those > 65 years of age, the effect was similar between patients treated with JAK inhibitors and bDMARD. The largest difference was seen in patients up to 1 year vs > 1 year of follow-up, with hazard ratios of 1.54 vs 1.07. These findings are somewhat reassuring in light of results from the ORAL Surveillance study, suggesting increased cancer and cardiovascular risk among older patients with RA. However, as with bDMARD, increased scrutiny may be warranted among patients > 65 years, especially in the first year of treatment.

Finally, regarding withdrawal of therapy, Curtis and colleagues performed a randomized controlled study of patients with RA on combination therapy with methotrexate and etanercept and evaluated factors associated with maintenance of remission. In this study, withdrawal of methotrexate and etanercept were compared: About 250 patients whose disease was in remission, on the basis of the Simplified Disease Activity Index, were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive methotrexate monotherapy, etanercept monotherapy, or combination therapy. Prior analyses of these data have shown that continuing etanercept monotherapy showed a benefit in maintaining remission compared with continuing methotrexate monotherapy. Several baseline characteristics, including higher patient global activity at baseline and rheumatoid factor seropositivity, were associated with a lower likelihood of maintaining remission or low disease activity. Interestingly, higher serum magnesium levels seemed to negatively affect maintenance of remission, though the mechanism for this finding is not clear. In general, however, this study did not add more information to prior work in terms of shedding light on which patients may be able to stop therapy.

Several environmental risk factors are associated with the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with smoking having one of the strongest associations. Exposure to airborne toxins has also been associated with development of anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies. Beidelschies and colleagues performed a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to examine a potential interaction between smoking and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) affecting the development of RA. Stored blood and urine samples of survey respondents were examined, and levels of PAH as well as other toxicants were measured. Of nearly 22,000 participants, about 1400 of whom reported a diagnosis of RA, toxicants were measured in about 7000. Higher levels of PAH and phthalate metabolites were more strongly associated with development of RA. Because cigarettes are a source of PAH, the authors postulated that PAH mediated the impact of smoking on development of RA, a plausible explanation given that smoking was not associated with RA after adjustment for PAH levels. However, given the cross-sectional design, causality cannot be determined.

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have been found in several surveillance studies to be associated with an increased risk for cancer and cardiovascular events. Westermann and colleagues performed an observational cohort study using Danish nationwide registries to evaluate cancer risk (other than nonmelanomatous skin cancer) in patients with RA treated with tofacitinib or baricitinib. Among 875 patients treated with JAK inhibitors vs 4247 patients treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), cancer incidence rates were similar (14.4 vs 12.9 per 1000 patient-years, respectively). Interestingly, though cancer incidence rates increased in patients > 50 and those > 65 years of age, the effect was similar between patients treated with JAK inhibitors and bDMARD. The largest difference was seen in patients up to 1 year vs > 1 year of follow-up, with hazard ratios of 1.54 vs 1.07. These findings are somewhat reassuring in light of results from the ORAL Surveillance study, suggesting increased cancer and cardiovascular risk among older patients with RA. However, as with bDMARD, increased scrutiny may be warranted among patients > 65 years, especially in the first year of treatment.

Finally, regarding withdrawal of therapy, Curtis and colleagues performed a randomized controlled study of patients with RA on combination therapy with methotrexate and etanercept and evaluated factors associated with maintenance of remission. In this study, withdrawal of methotrexate and etanercept were compared: About 250 patients whose disease was in remission, on the basis of the Simplified Disease Activity Index, were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive methotrexate monotherapy, etanercept monotherapy, or combination therapy. Prior analyses of these data have shown that continuing etanercept monotherapy showed a benefit in maintaining remission compared with continuing methotrexate monotherapy. Several baseline characteristics, including higher patient global activity at baseline and rheumatoid factor seropositivity, were associated with a lower likelihood of maintaining remission or low disease activity. Interestingly, higher serum magnesium levels seemed to negatively affect maintenance of remission, though the mechanism for this finding is not clear. In general, however, this study did not add more information to prior work in terms of shedding light on which patients may be able to stop therapy.

Several environmental risk factors are associated with the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with smoking having one of the strongest associations. Exposure to airborne toxins has also been associated with development of anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies. Beidelschies and colleagues performed a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to examine a potential interaction between smoking and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) affecting the development of RA. Stored blood and urine samples of survey respondents were examined, and levels of PAH as well as other toxicants were measured. Of nearly 22,000 participants, about 1400 of whom reported a diagnosis of RA, toxicants were measured in about 7000. Higher levels of PAH and phthalate metabolites were more strongly associated with development of RA. Because cigarettes are a source of PAH, the authors postulated that PAH mediated the impact of smoking on development of RA, a plausible explanation given that smoking was not associated with RA after adjustment for PAH levels. However, given the cross-sectional design, causality cannot be determined.

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have been found in several surveillance studies to be associated with an increased risk for cancer and cardiovascular events. Westermann and colleagues performed an observational cohort study using Danish nationwide registries to evaluate cancer risk (other than nonmelanomatous skin cancer) in patients with RA treated with tofacitinib or baricitinib. Among 875 patients treated with JAK inhibitors vs 4247 patients treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), cancer incidence rates were similar (14.4 vs 12.9 per 1000 patient-years, respectively). Interestingly, though cancer incidence rates increased in patients > 50 and those > 65 years of age, the effect was similar between patients treated with JAK inhibitors and bDMARD. The largest difference was seen in patients up to 1 year vs > 1 year of follow-up, with hazard ratios of 1.54 vs 1.07. These findings are somewhat reassuring in light of results from the ORAL Surveillance study, suggesting increased cancer and cardiovascular risk among older patients with RA. However, as with bDMARD, increased scrutiny may be warranted among patients > 65 years, especially in the first year of treatment.

Finally, regarding withdrawal of therapy, Curtis and colleagues performed a randomized controlled study of patients with RA on combination therapy with methotrexate and etanercept and evaluated factors associated with maintenance of remission. In this study, withdrawal of methotrexate and etanercept were compared: About 250 patients whose disease was in remission, on the basis of the Simplified Disease Activity Index, were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive methotrexate monotherapy, etanercept monotherapy, or combination therapy. Prior analyses of these data have shown that continuing etanercept monotherapy showed a benefit in maintaining remission compared with continuing methotrexate monotherapy. Several baseline characteristics, including higher patient global activity at baseline and rheumatoid factor seropositivity, were associated with a lower likelihood of maintaining remission or low disease activity. Interestingly, higher serum magnesium levels seemed to negatively affect maintenance of remission, though the mechanism for this finding is not clear. In general, however, this study did not add more information to prior work in terms of shedding light on which patients may be able to stop therapy.

The most common adverse events were acne, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) level elevations, and nasopharyngitis. I'm confident that none of my patients will have CPK elevations detected, because I won't be testing for it. I suspect that CPK elevations come from people being more physically active when their skin clears up.

I have the sense that our comfort with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibition will grow rapidly as we use the drug for patients with vitiligo, alopecia areata, resistant atopic dermatitis, and other diseases. Many of us are comfortable with methotrexate, dapsone, cyclosporine, and mycophenolate; our comfort with JAK inhibitors for our patients who need it will almost surely follow.

Williams and colleagues did a meta-analysis looking at the relationship between AD and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They claim that “patients with AD had significantly increased odds of comorbid RA.” This claim should not be taken at face value. What they found was that the observed rate of RA was higher in patients with AD than in controls, and the difference was not something you would see by chance very often. But that does not make something significant. To truly be significant, you'd expect it to be clinically meaningful. The relationship they found — even if not due to chance or to some unmeasured bias — wasn't clinically relevant, in my opinion. RA is a relatively rare phenomenon. If it is barely more common in patients with AD than in controls, it is still rare in AD patients. We don't need to screen for RA in AD patients. We don't need to do anything with this apparent association.

The bottom line is to be wary when you see an article that reports a “significant” finding, especially when it is based on a higher relative risk, like an odds ratio. What we need to know is what the absolute magnitude of the risk is. We need to know how many patients with AD you'd have to see before you'd see one more case of RA due to AD. Williams and colleagues' study doesn't report the information we need as clinicians.

Fijan and colleagues did a meta-analysis to assess the effects of single-strain probiotic lactobacilli on atopic dermatitis. The found a “significant” (meaning, statistically significant) reduction with the lactobacilli treatment compared with placebo. They used the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index as the outcome. There was a mean 4.5-unit improvement.

For comparison, Wollenberg and colleagues¹ reported the SCORAD improvement seen with dupilumab: 49- and 46-unit improvements in children and adolescents, respectively.

While I'm sure that patients would love a safe, effective, “all natural” probiotic option for atopic dermatitis, I'm not optimistic that this gut magic is going to work.

Additional Reference

1. Wollenberg A, Marcoux D, Silverberg JI, et al. Dupilumab provides rapid and sustained improvement in SCORing Atopic Dermatitis outcomes in paediatric patients with atopic dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol. 2022;102:adv00726. doi: 10.2340/actadv.v102.854

The most common adverse events were acne, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) level elevations, and nasopharyngitis. I'm confident that none of my patients will have CPK elevations detected, because I won't be testing for it. I suspect that CPK elevations come from people being more physically active when their skin clears up.

I have the sense that our comfort with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibition will grow rapidly as we use the drug for patients with vitiligo, alopecia areata, resistant atopic dermatitis, and other diseases. Many of us are comfortable with methotrexate, dapsone, cyclosporine, and mycophenolate; our comfort with JAK inhibitors for our patients who need it will almost surely follow.

Williams and colleagues did a meta-analysis looking at the relationship between AD and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They claim that “patients with AD had significantly increased odds of comorbid RA.” This claim should not be taken at face value. What they found was that the observed rate of RA was higher in patients with AD than in controls, and the difference was not something you would see by chance very often. But that does not make something significant. To truly be significant, you'd expect it to be clinically meaningful. The relationship they found — even if not due to chance or to some unmeasured bias — wasn't clinically relevant, in my opinion. RA is a relatively rare phenomenon. If it is barely more common in patients with AD than in controls, it is still rare in AD patients. We don't need to screen for RA in AD patients. We don't need to do anything with this apparent association.

The bottom line is to be wary when you see an article that reports a “significant” finding, especially when it is based on a higher relative risk, like an odds ratio. What we need to know is what the absolute magnitude of the risk is. We need to know how many patients with AD you'd have to see before you'd see one more case of RA due to AD. Williams and colleagues' study doesn't report the information we need as clinicians.

Fijan and colleagues did a meta-analysis to assess the effects of single-strain probiotic lactobacilli on atopic dermatitis. The found a “significant” (meaning, statistically significant) reduction with the lactobacilli treatment compared with placebo. They used the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index as the outcome. There was a mean 4.5-unit improvement.

For comparison, Wollenberg and colleagues¹ reported the SCORAD improvement seen with dupilumab: 49- and 46-unit improvements in children and adolescents, respectively.

While I'm sure that patients would love a safe, effective, “all natural” probiotic option for atopic dermatitis, I'm not optimistic that this gut magic is going to work.

Additional Reference

1. Wollenberg A, Marcoux D, Silverberg JI, et al. Dupilumab provides rapid and sustained improvement in SCORing Atopic Dermatitis outcomes in paediatric patients with atopic dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol. 2022;102:adv00726. doi: 10.2340/actadv.v102.854

The most common adverse events were acne, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) level elevations, and nasopharyngitis. I'm confident that none of my patients will have CPK elevations detected, because I won't be testing for it. I suspect that CPK elevations come from people being more physically active when their skin clears up.

I have the sense that our comfort with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibition will grow rapidly as we use the drug for patients with vitiligo, alopecia areata, resistant atopic dermatitis, and other diseases. Many of us are comfortable with methotrexate, dapsone, cyclosporine, and mycophenolate; our comfort with JAK inhibitors for our patients who need it will almost surely follow.

Williams and colleagues did a meta-analysis looking at the relationship between AD and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They claim that “patients with AD had significantly increased odds of comorbid RA.” This claim should not be taken at face value. What they found was that the observed rate of RA was higher in patients with AD than in controls, and the difference was not something you would see by chance very often. But that does not make something significant. To truly be significant, you'd expect it to be clinically meaningful. The relationship they found — even if not due to chance or to some unmeasured bias — wasn't clinically relevant, in my opinion. RA is a relatively rare phenomenon. If it is barely more common in patients with AD than in controls, it is still rare in AD patients. We don't need to screen for RA in AD patients. We don't need to do anything with this apparent association.

The bottom line is to be wary when you see an article that reports a “significant” finding, especially when it is based on a higher relative risk, like an odds ratio. What we need to know is what the absolute magnitude of the risk is. We need to know how many patients with AD you'd have to see before you'd see one more case of RA due to AD. Williams and colleagues' study doesn't report the information we need as clinicians.

Fijan and colleagues did a meta-analysis to assess the effects of single-strain probiotic lactobacilli on atopic dermatitis. The found a “significant” (meaning, statistically significant) reduction with the lactobacilli treatment compared with placebo. They used the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index as the outcome. There was a mean 4.5-unit improvement.

For comparison, Wollenberg and colleagues¹ reported the SCORAD improvement seen with dupilumab: 49- and 46-unit improvements in children and adolescents, respectively.

While I'm sure that patients would love a safe, effective, “all natural” probiotic option for atopic dermatitis, I'm not optimistic that this gut magic is going to work.

Additional Reference

1. Wollenberg A, Marcoux D, Silverberg JI, et al. Dupilumab provides rapid and sustained improvement in SCORing Atopic Dermatitis outcomes in paediatric patients with atopic dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol. 2022;102:adv00726. doi: 10.2340/actadv.v102.854