Autoimmune Diseases

Dermatomyositis (DM) is an autoimmune condition characterized by skin and muscle inflammation with an estimated incidence of 9 cases per 1 million people. The incidence of amyopathic DM, which includes antimelanoma differentiation–associated gene 5 (anti-MDA5) DM, is approximately 2 cases per 1 million people.¹ Classic cutaneous manifestations of DM include a heliotrope rash, Gottron papules, and the shawl sign. Features of anti-MDA5 DM include cutaneous ulcerations, most commonly overlying Gottron papules on the elbows and digits, as well as painful palmar macules and papules. We describe 2 patients with anti-MDA5 DM who presented with an ulcerative heliotrope rash. Although heliotrope rash is classic for DM and cutaneous ulcerations are a hallmark of the anti-MDA5 subtype of DM, overlap of these cutaneous manifestations is not commonly reported. Furthermore, ulcerations of the lateral canthi were associated with rapidly progressive interstitial lung disease (ILD).

Case Reports

Patient 1
A woman in her 30s presented with diffuse arthralgias, bilateral eyelid edema, fatigue, and a progressive diffuse exanthem of 3 months’ duration. A review of systems was notable for the absence of myalgias. Physical examination revealed periorbital poikilodermatous patches with erythematous-to-violaceous plaques along the eyelid margins, violaceous papules on the dorsal knuckles, and edematous eroded plaques on the palmar fingertips. The patient was found to have a positive antinuclear antibody titer of 1:320 (reference range, <1:80) with a speckled pattern. A computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest showed patchy bilateral ground-glass opacities that were concerning for ILD. The cutaneous erosions, absence of myalgias, considerable proximal weakness, radiographic evidence of ILD, and positive antinuclear antibody test were clinically suggestive of anti-MDA5 DM. Further workup confirmed this diagnosis with positive reactivity to MDA5 by line immunoassay. The patient was treated with intravenous corticosteroids and was discharged after a 17-day hospitalization; however, she presented 2 months later to outpatient dermatology for progression of the cutaneous ulcerations, at which time an ulcerative heliotrope rash (Figure 1) was identified. Despite compliance with oral corticosteroids (1 mg/kg/d), she was hospitalized 1 month later for progressive respiratory insufficiency. A chest CT showed ground-glass linear opacities centrally located in all lobes of both lungs, consistent with rapidly progressive ILD. Over the course of her 5-day hospitalization, she was treated with corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), and mycophenolate mofetil. The patient responded well to these therapies, leading to resolution of the respiratory symptoms, and she was discharged with plans to continue this regimen as an outpatient.

Patient 2
A woman in her late 30s with a history of known anti-MDA5 DM confirmed by line immunoassay 1 year prior presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath due to progressive ILD and a worsening exanthem. Dermatology was consulted to provide treatment recommendations. The treatment team was concerned for infection or anti-MDA5 DM disease progression. Physical examination revealed an ulcerative heliotrope rash (Figure 2) in addition to cutaneous findings classic for anti-MDA5 DM. Despite interventions, including high-dose corticosteroids, rituximab, IVIG, and plasma exchange, the ILD continued to progress, and the patient and her family elected to de-escalate aggressive medical care and pursue comfort care. The patient later died in in patient hospice.

Comment

Clinical Presentation of Anti-MDA5 DM
Dermatomyositis classically presents with cutaneous manifestations including a heliotropic erythematous rash and Gottron papules as well as accompanying muscle weakness.² However, a subtype known as amyopathic DM, which includes anti-MDA5 DM, usually presents without muscle involvement.³ Clinical muscle weakness has been reported in cases of anti-MDA5 DM, though it is less likely in these patients.⁴ The characteristic cutaneous phenotype of anti-MDA5 DM was described by Fiorentino et al⁵ in 2011 through a seminal retrospective study. Kurtzman and Vleugels⁶ provided validation of the clinical features of anti-MDA5 DM in their 2018 review. The classic cutaneous phenotype of anti-MDA5 DM consists of tender palmar papules and/or skin ulcerations that commonly develop over Gottron papules on the knuckles and digits, lateral nail folds, and elbows.^7-10 A meta-analysis of 1500 patients with anti-MDA5 DM found a statistically significant association with alopecia, Gottron sign or papules, mechanic’s hands, and V rash (P<.05), as well as skin ulcers, panniculitis, arthritis/arthralgia, pneumomediastinum, and rapidly progressive ILD (RP-ILD)(P≤.01).⁴ Rapidly progressive ILD is highly associated with anti-MDA5 DM.^6,11

While a heliotrope rash is classic for DM, and ulcerations are a hallmark of the anti-MDA5 DM subtype, overlap of these cutaneous manifestations is not commonly reported. In both cases presented here, ulcerations of the lateral canthi were associated with progression of ILD.

Diagnosis of Anti-MDA5 DM
Anti-MDA5 DM is defined by the presence of the anti-MDA5 antibody in the serum, named for its reactivity against the RNA helicase encoded by MDA5, within the clinical context of cutaneous signs of DM as described above.¹²

As described by Rider et al,¹³ a thorough laboratory analysis, including complete blood cell count, serum electrolytes, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and thyroid-stimulating hormone, is necessary to rule out conditions with similar presentations. Additionally, serum analysis for elevated muscle enzymes (creatinine phosphokinase, aldolase, lactate dehydrogenase, alanine aminotransferase, and aspartate aminotransferase) is necessary to assess for subclinical muscle involvement. Serologic evidence of myositis usually denotes an alternative diagnosis.¹³ Antinuclear antibodies and myositis-specific antibody positivity are much less frequent in the anti-MDA5 DM subtype than in other forms of DM.⁶

Anti-MDA5 antibody titer, ferritin, and IL-18 can be trended and may be useful in the evaluation of the response to treatment and ILD status in patients with anti-MDA5 DM.^14,15 Elevated alveolar-arterial gradient, serum ferritin, serum chitotriosidase, and serum chitinase-3-like protein 1 (YKL-40) have each been associated with poorer prognosis of anti-MDA5 DM. The aforementioned serologies therefore may be helpful in determination of risk stratification and treatment aggressiveness.^16-19

Because of its strong association with RP-ILD, screening for pulmonary disease is necessary in all patients with confirmed or strongly suspected anti-MDA5 DM. Screening can be performed with pulmonary function testing; however, high-resolution chest CT is the gold standard for diagnosis of ILD.²⁰

Finally, all patients with a new diagnosis of DM should be evaluated for underlying malignancy through cancer screenings, given the propensity for DM to present as a paraneoplastic process.²¹ However, reports have indicated that the anti-MDA5 DM subtype may have a reduced risk for or an inverse relationship with underlying malignancy.⁵

Treatment Options for Anti-MDA5 DM
Early and aggressive therapy should be considered in the treatment of anti-MDA5 DM because of its association with RP-ILD. No treatment protocol is well established; thus, an individualized therapeutic approach may be guided by symptom severity and the clinical, radiographic, or functional evidence of ILD.⁶ High-dose systemic corticosteroids are first line, either in combination with or as a bridge to corticosteroid-sparing agents for immunosuppression. Many steroid-sparing medications have been employed with varying success. Mycophenolate mofetil is a reasonable first-line corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressant agent, given its added benefit of attenuating ILD progression.⁶ A combination of high-dose corticosteroids, cyclosporine, and cyclophosphamide is utilized by some initially in the treatment of anti-MDA5 with ILD.^22,23 While others have used combinations of these immunomodulatory agents with mycophenolate mofetil, IVIG, rituximab, azathioprine, tofacitinib, and polymyxin B, direct hemoperfusion has been added, leading to successful remission.^23-28

Conclusion

We present 2 patients with anti-MDA5 DM who demonstrated a rare cutaneous manifestation of an ulcerative heliotrope rash. In both cases, this cutaneous finding was associated with the development of RP-ILD. Because of the strong association with and rapid progression of ILD seen in anti-MDA5 DM, early identification and aggressive treatment of this subtype are imperative. The clinician should recognize nonacral locations of cutaneous ulcerations, including an ulcerated heliotrope rash, to optimize diagnosis and management.

Dermatomyositis (DM) is an autoimmune condition characterized by skin and muscle inflammation with an estimated incidence of 9 cases per 1 million people. The incidence of amyopathic DM, which includes antimelanoma differentiation–associated gene 5 (anti-MDA5) DM, is approximately 2 cases per 1 million people.¹ Classic cutaneous manifestations of DM include a heliotrope rash, Gottron papules, and the shawl sign. Features of anti-MDA5 DM include cutaneous ulcerations, most commonly overlying Gottron papules on the elbows and digits, as well as painful palmar macules and papules. We describe 2 patients with anti-MDA5 DM who presented with an ulcerative heliotrope rash. Although heliotrope rash is classic for DM and cutaneous ulcerations are a hallmark of the anti-MDA5 subtype of DM, overlap of these cutaneous manifestations is not commonly reported. Furthermore, ulcerations of the lateral canthi were associated with rapidly progressive interstitial lung disease (ILD).

Case Reports

Patient 1
A woman in her 30s presented with diffuse arthralgias, bilateral eyelid edema, fatigue, and a progressive diffuse exanthem of 3 months’ duration. A review of systems was notable for the absence of myalgias. Physical examination revealed periorbital poikilodermatous patches with erythematous-to-violaceous plaques along the eyelid margins, violaceous papules on the dorsal knuckles, and edematous eroded plaques on the palmar fingertips. The patient was found to have a positive antinuclear antibody titer of 1:320 (reference range, <1:80) with a speckled pattern. A computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest showed patchy bilateral ground-glass opacities that were concerning for ILD. The cutaneous erosions, absence of myalgias, considerable proximal weakness, radiographic evidence of ILD, and positive antinuclear antibody test were clinically suggestive of anti-MDA5 DM. Further workup confirmed this diagnosis with positive reactivity to MDA5 by line immunoassay. The patient was treated with intravenous corticosteroids and was discharged after a 17-day hospitalization; however, she presented 2 months later to outpatient dermatology for progression of the cutaneous ulcerations, at which time an ulcerative heliotrope rash (Figure 1) was identified. Despite compliance with oral corticosteroids (1 mg/kg/d), she was hospitalized 1 month later for progressive respiratory insufficiency. A chest CT showed ground-glass linear opacities centrally located in all lobes of both lungs, consistent with rapidly progressive ILD. Over the course of her 5-day hospitalization, she was treated with corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), and mycophenolate mofetil. The patient responded well to these therapies, leading to resolution of the respiratory symptoms, and she was discharged with plans to continue this regimen as an outpatient.

Patient 2
A woman in her late 30s with a history of known anti-MDA5 DM confirmed by line immunoassay 1 year prior presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath due to progressive ILD and a worsening exanthem. Dermatology was consulted to provide treatment recommendations. The treatment team was concerned for infection or anti-MDA5 DM disease progression. Physical examination revealed an ulcerative heliotrope rash (Figure 2) in addition to cutaneous findings classic for anti-MDA5 DM. Despite interventions, including high-dose corticosteroids, rituximab, IVIG, and plasma exchange, the ILD continued to progress, and the patient and her family elected to de-escalate aggressive medical care and pursue comfort care. The patient later died in in patient hospice.

Comment

Clinical Presentation of Anti-MDA5 DM
Dermatomyositis classically presents with cutaneous manifestations including a heliotropic erythematous rash and Gottron papules as well as accompanying muscle weakness.² However, a subtype known as amyopathic DM, which includes anti-MDA5 DM, usually presents without muscle involvement.³ Clinical muscle weakness has been reported in cases of anti-MDA5 DM, though it is less likely in these patients.⁴ The characteristic cutaneous phenotype of anti-MDA5 DM was described by Fiorentino et al⁵ in 2011 through a seminal retrospective study. Kurtzman and Vleugels⁶ provided validation of the clinical features of anti-MDA5 DM in their 2018 review. The classic cutaneous phenotype of anti-MDA5 DM consists of tender palmar papules and/or skin ulcerations that commonly develop over Gottron papules on the knuckles and digits, lateral nail folds, and elbows.^7-10 A meta-analysis of 1500 patients with anti-MDA5 DM found a statistically significant association with alopecia, Gottron sign or papules, mechanic’s hands, and V rash (P<.05), as well as skin ulcers, panniculitis, arthritis/arthralgia, pneumomediastinum, and rapidly progressive ILD (RP-ILD)(P≤.01).⁴ Rapidly progressive ILD is highly associated with anti-MDA5 DM.^6,11

While a heliotrope rash is classic for DM, and ulcerations are a hallmark of the anti-MDA5 DM subtype, overlap of these cutaneous manifestations is not commonly reported. In both cases presented here, ulcerations of the lateral canthi were associated with progression of ILD.

Diagnosis of Anti-MDA5 DM
Anti-MDA5 DM is defined by the presence of the anti-MDA5 antibody in the serum, named for its reactivity against the RNA helicase encoded by MDA5, within the clinical context of cutaneous signs of DM as described above.¹²

As described by Rider et al,¹³ a thorough laboratory analysis, including complete blood cell count, serum electrolytes, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and thyroid-stimulating hormone, is necessary to rule out conditions with similar presentations. Additionally, serum analysis for elevated muscle enzymes (creatinine phosphokinase, aldolase, lactate dehydrogenase, alanine aminotransferase, and aspartate aminotransferase) is necessary to assess for subclinical muscle involvement. Serologic evidence of myositis usually denotes an alternative diagnosis.¹³ Antinuclear antibodies and myositis-specific antibody positivity are much less frequent in the anti-MDA5 DM subtype than in other forms of DM.⁶

Anti-MDA5 antibody titer, ferritin, and IL-18 can be trended and may be useful in the evaluation of the response to treatment and ILD status in patients with anti-MDA5 DM.^14,15 Elevated alveolar-arterial gradient, serum ferritin, serum chitotriosidase, and serum chitinase-3-like protein 1 (YKL-40) have each been associated with poorer prognosis of anti-MDA5 DM. The aforementioned serologies therefore may be helpful in determination of risk stratification and treatment aggressiveness.^16-19

Because of its strong association with RP-ILD, screening for pulmonary disease is necessary in all patients with confirmed or strongly suspected anti-MDA5 DM. Screening can be performed with pulmonary function testing; however, high-resolution chest CT is the gold standard for diagnosis of ILD.²⁰

Finally, all patients with a new diagnosis of DM should be evaluated for underlying malignancy through cancer screenings, given the propensity for DM to present as a paraneoplastic process.²¹ However, reports have indicated that the anti-MDA5 DM subtype may have a reduced risk for or an inverse relationship with underlying malignancy.⁵

Treatment Options for Anti-MDA5 DM
Early and aggressive therapy should be considered in the treatment of anti-MDA5 DM because of its association with RP-ILD. No treatment protocol is well established; thus, an individualized therapeutic approach may be guided by symptom severity and the clinical, radiographic, or functional evidence of ILD.⁶ High-dose systemic corticosteroids are first line, either in combination with or as a bridge to corticosteroid-sparing agents for immunosuppression. Many steroid-sparing medications have been employed with varying success. Mycophenolate mofetil is a reasonable first-line corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressant agent, given its added benefit of attenuating ILD progression.⁶ A combination of high-dose corticosteroids, cyclosporine, and cyclophosphamide is utilized by some initially in the treatment of anti-MDA5 with ILD.^22,23 While others have used combinations of these immunomodulatory agents with mycophenolate mofetil, IVIG, rituximab, azathioprine, tofacitinib, and polymyxin B, direct hemoperfusion has been added, leading to successful remission.^23-28

Conclusion

We present 2 patients with anti-MDA5 DM who demonstrated a rare cutaneous manifestation of an ulcerative heliotrope rash. In both cases, this cutaneous finding was associated with the development of RP-ILD. Because of the strong association with and rapid progression of ILD seen in anti-MDA5 DM, early identification and aggressive treatment of this subtype are imperative. The clinician should recognize nonacral locations of cutaneous ulcerations, including an ulcerated heliotrope rash, to optimize diagnosis and management.

Dermatomyositis (DM) is an autoimmune condition characterized by skin and muscle inflammation with an estimated incidence of 9 cases per 1 million people. The incidence of amyopathic DM, which includes antimelanoma differentiation–associated gene 5 (anti-MDA5) DM, is approximately 2 cases per 1 million people.¹ Classic cutaneous manifestations of DM include a heliotrope rash, Gottron papules, and the shawl sign. Features of anti-MDA5 DM include cutaneous ulcerations, most commonly overlying Gottron papules on the elbows and digits, as well as painful palmar macules and papules. We describe 2 patients with anti-MDA5 DM who presented with an ulcerative heliotrope rash. Although heliotrope rash is classic for DM and cutaneous ulcerations are a hallmark of the anti-MDA5 subtype of DM, overlap of these cutaneous manifestations is not commonly reported. Furthermore, ulcerations of the lateral canthi were associated with rapidly progressive interstitial lung disease (ILD).

Case Reports

Patient 1
A woman in her 30s presented with diffuse arthralgias, bilateral eyelid edema, fatigue, and a progressive diffuse exanthem of 3 months’ duration. A review of systems was notable for the absence of myalgias. Physical examination revealed periorbital poikilodermatous patches with erythematous-to-violaceous plaques along the eyelid margins, violaceous papules on the dorsal knuckles, and edematous eroded plaques on the palmar fingertips. The patient was found to have a positive antinuclear antibody titer of 1:320 (reference range, <1:80) with a speckled pattern. A computed tomography (CT) scan of the chest showed patchy bilateral ground-glass opacities that were concerning for ILD. The cutaneous erosions, absence of myalgias, considerable proximal weakness, radiographic evidence of ILD, and positive antinuclear antibody test were clinically suggestive of anti-MDA5 DM. Further workup confirmed this diagnosis with positive reactivity to MDA5 by line immunoassay. The patient was treated with intravenous corticosteroids and was discharged after a 17-day hospitalization; however, she presented 2 months later to outpatient dermatology for progression of the cutaneous ulcerations, at which time an ulcerative heliotrope rash (Figure 1) was identified. Despite compliance with oral corticosteroids (1 mg/kg/d), she was hospitalized 1 month later for progressive respiratory insufficiency. A chest CT showed ground-glass linear opacities centrally located in all lobes of both lungs, consistent with rapidly progressive ILD. Over the course of her 5-day hospitalization, she was treated with corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), and mycophenolate mofetil. The patient responded well to these therapies, leading to resolution of the respiratory symptoms, and she was discharged with plans to continue this regimen as an outpatient.

Patient 2
A woman in her late 30s with a history of known anti-MDA5 DM confirmed by line immunoassay 1 year prior presented to the emergency department with shortness of breath due to progressive ILD and a worsening exanthem. Dermatology was consulted to provide treatment recommendations. The treatment team was concerned for infection or anti-MDA5 DM disease progression. Physical examination revealed an ulcerative heliotrope rash (Figure 2) in addition to cutaneous findings classic for anti-MDA5 DM. Despite interventions, including high-dose corticosteroids, rituximab, IVIG, and plasma exchange, the ILD continued to progress, and the patient and her family elected to de-escalate aggressive medical care and pursue comfort care. The patient later died in in patient hospice.

Comment

Clinical Presentation of Anti-MDA5 DM
Dermatomyositis classically presents with cutaneous manifestations including a heliotropic erythematous rash and Gottron papules as well as accompanying muscle weakness.² However, a subtype known as amyopathic DM, which includes anti-MDA5 DM, usually presents without muscle involvement.³ Clinical muscle weakness has been reported in cases of anti-MDA5 DM, though it is less likely in these patients.⁴ The characteristic cutaneous phenotype of anti-MDA5 DM was described by Fiorentino et al⁵ in 2011 through a seminal retrospective study. Kurtzman and Vleugels⁶ provided validation of the clinical features of anti-MDA5 DM in their 2018 review. The classic cutaneous phenotype of anti-MDA5 DM consists of tender palmar papules and/or skin ulcerations that commonly develop over Gottron papules on the knuckles and digits, lateral nail folds, and elbows.^7-10 A meta-analysis of 1500 patients with anti-MDA5 DM found a statistically significant association with alopecia, Gottron sign or papules, mechanic’s hands, and V rash (P<.05), as well as skin ulcers, panniculitis, arthritis/arthralgia, pneumomediastinum, and rapidly progressive ILD (RP-ILD)(P≤.01).⁴ Rapidly progressive ILD is highly associated with anti-MDA5 DM.^6,11

While a heliotrope rash is classic for DM, and ulcerations are a hallmark of the anti-MDA5 DM subtype, overlap of these cutaneous manifestations is not commonly reported. In both cases presented here, ulcerations of the lateral canthi were associated with progression of ILD.

Diagnosis of Anti-MDA5 DM
Anti-MDA5 DM is defined by the presence of the anti-MDA5 antibody in the serum, named for its reactivity against the RNA helicase encoded by MDA5, within the clinical context of cutaneous signs of DM as described above.¹²

As described by Rider et al,¹³ a thorough laboratory analysis, including complete blood cell count, serum electrolytes, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and thyroid-stimulating hormone, is necessary to rule out conditions with similar presentations. Additionally, serum analysis for elevated muscle enzymes (creatinine phosphokinase, aldolase, lactate dehydrogenase, alanine aminotransferase, and aspartate aminotransferase) is necessary to assess for subclinical muscle involvement. Serologic evidence of myositis usually denotes an alternative diagnosis.¹³ Antinuclear antibodies and myositis-specific antibody positivity are much less frequent in the anti-MDA5 DM subtype than in other forms of DM.⁶

Anti-MDA5 antibody titer, ferritin, and IL-18 can be trended and may be useful in the evaluation of the response to treatment and ILD status in patients with anti-MDA5 DM.^14,15 Elevated alveolar-arterial gradient, serum ferritin, serum chitotriosidase, and serum chitinase-3-like protein 1 (YKL-40) have each been associated with poorer prognosis of anti-MDA5 DM. The aforementioned serologies therefore may be helpful in determination of risk stratification and treatment aggressiveness.^16-19

Because of its strong association with RP-ILD, screening for pulmonary disease is necessary in all patients with confirmed or strongly suspected anti-MDA5 DM. Screening can be performed with pulmonary function testing; however, high-resolution chest CT is the gold standard for diagnosis of ILD.²⁰

Finally, all patients with a new diagnosis of DM should be evaluated for underlying malignancy through cancer screenings, given the propensity for DM to present as a paraneoplastic process.²¹ However, reports have indicated that the anti-MDA5 DM subtype may have a reduced risk for or an inverse relationship with underlying malignancy.⁵

Treatment Options for Anti-MDA5 DM
Early and aggressive therapy should be considered in the treatment of anti-MDA5 DM because of its association with RP-ILD. No treatment protocol is well established; thus, an individualized therapeutic approach may be guided by symptom severity and the clinical, radiographic, or functional evidence of ILD.⁶ High-dose systemic corticosteroids are first line, either in combination with or as a bridge to corticosteroid-sparing agents for immunosuppression. Many steroid-sparing medications have been employed with varying success. Mycophenolate mofetil is a reasonable first-line corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressant agent, given its added benefit of attenuating ILD progression.⁶ A combination of high-dose corticosteroids, cyclosporine, and cyclophosphamide is utilized by some initially in the treatment of anti-MDA5 with ILD.^22,23 While others have used combinations of these immunomodulatory agents with mycophenolate mofetil, IVIG, rituximab, azathioprine, tofacitinib, and polymyxin B, direct hemoperfusion has been added, leading to successful remission.^23-28

Conclusion

We present 2 patients with anti-MDA5 DM who demonstrated a rare cutaneous manifestation of an ulcerative heliotrope rash. In both cases, this cutaneous finding was associated with the development of RP-ILD. Because of the strong association with and rapid progression of ILD seen in anti-MDA5 DM, early identification and aggressive treatment of this subtype are imperative. The clinician should recognize nonacral locations of cutaneous ulcerations, including an ulcerated heliotrope rash, to optimize diagnosis and management.

Tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitor–induced psoriasis is a known paradoxical adverse effect of this family of medications, which includes infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, and certolizumab. In the pediatric population, these therapies recently gained approval for nondermatologic conditions—meaning that this phenomenon is encountered more frequently.¹ In a systematic review of TNF-α inhibitor–induced psoriasis, severe scalp involvement was associated with alopecia in 7.5% of cases.² Onset of scalp psoriasis with alopecia in patients being treated with a TNF-α inhibitor should lead to consideration of this condition.

Psoriatic alopecia is an uncommon presentation of psoriasis. Although well described, alopecia as a clinical manifestation of scalp psoriasis is not a well-known concept among clinicians and has never been widely accepted. Adding to the diagnostic challenge is that psoriatic alopecia secondary to TNF-α inhibitor–induced psoriasis rarely has been reported in adults or children.^3-5 Including our case, our review of the literature yielded 7 pediatric cases (≤18 years) of TNF-α inhibitor–induced psoriatic alopecia.^6,7 A primary literature search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE was conducted using the terms psoriatic alopecia, psoriasiform alopecia, TNF-α inhibitors, infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, and certolizumab.

We present the case of a pediatric patient with psoriatic alopecia secondary to treatment with adalimumab for Crohn disease (CD). We also provide a review of reported cases of psoriatic alopecia induced by a TNF-α inhibitor in the literature.

Case Report

A 12-year-old girl presented to our dermatology clinic with erythematous scaly plaques on the trunk, scalp, arms, and legs of 2 months’ duration. The lesions involved approximately 15% of the body surface area. The patient’s medical history was remarkable for CD diagnosed 4 years prior to presentation of the skin lesions. She had been treated for the past 2 years with adalimumab 40 mg once every 2 weeks and azathioprine 100 mg once daily. Because her CD was poorly controlled, the dosage of adalimumab was increased to 40 mg once weekly 6 months prior to the current presentation.

Our diagnosis was TNF-α inhibitor-induced psoriasis secondary to treatment with adalimumab.

The patient was treated with mometasone lotion 0.1% for the scalp lesions and triamcinolone cream 0.1% for the body lesions. Because of the extent of the psoriasis, we recommended changing adalimumab to ustekinumab, which is approved for CD in adults but is off label in children.

At 1-month follow-up, after receiving the induction dose of ustekinumab, the patient presented with partial improvement of the skin lesions but had developed a large, alopecic, erythematous plaque with thick yellowish scales on the scalp (Figure 1). She also had a positive hair pull test. The presumptive initial diagnosis of the alopecic scalp lesion was tinea capitis, for which multiple potassium hydroxide preparations of scales were performed, all yielding negative results. In addition, histopathologic examination with hematoxylin and eosin staining was performed (Figures 2A and 2B). Sterile tissue cultures for bacteria, fungi, and acid-fast bacilli were obtained and showed no growth. Periodic acid–Schiff staining was negative for fungal structures.

Comment

Psoriatic alopecia induced by a TNF-α inhibitor was first reported in 2007 in a 30-year-old woman with ankylosing spondylitis who was being treated with adalimumab.⁸ She had erythematous, scaly, alopecic plaques on the scalp and palmoplantar pustulosis. Findings on skin biopsy were compatible with psoriasis. The patient’s severe scalp psoriasis failed to respond to topical steroid treatment and adalimumab cessation. The extensive hair loss responded to cyclosporine 3 mg/kg daily.⁸

After conducting an extensive literature review, we found 26 cases of TNF-α–induced psoriatic alopecia, including the current case (Table).^6-16 The mean age at diagnosis was 27.8 years (SD, 13.6 years; range, 7–60 years). The female-to-male ratio was 3.3:1. The most common underlying condition for which TNF-α inhibitors were prescribed was CD (77% [20/26]). Psoriatic alopecia most commonly was reported secondary to treatment with infliximab (54% [14/26]), followed by adalimumab (42% [11/26]). Golimumab was the causative drug in 1 (4%) case. We did not find reports of etanercept or certolizumab having induced this manifestation. The onset of the scalp lesions occurred 2 to 46 months after starting treatment with the causative medication.

Previously reported cases have demonstrated various treatment options that yielded improvement or resolution of TNF-α inhibitor–induced psoriatic alopecia. These include either continuation or discontinuation of the TNF-α inhibitor combined with topical or intralesional steroids, methotrexate, or cyclosporine. Another option is to switch the TNF-α inhibitor to another biologic. Outcomes vary from patient to patient, making the physician’s clinical judgment crucial in deciding which treatment route to take. Our patient showed notable improvement when she was switched from adalimumab to ustekinumab as well as the combination of ustekinumab and clobetasol lotion 0.05%.

Conclusion

We recommend an individualized approach that provides patients with the safest and least invasive treatment option for TNF-α inhibitor–induced psoriatic alopecia. In most reported cases, the problem resolved with treatment, thereby classifying this form of alopecia as noncicatricial alopecia.

Tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitor–induced psoriasis is a known paradoxical adverse effect of this family of medications, which includes infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, and certolizumab. In the pediatric population, these therapies recently gained approval for nondermatologic conditions—meaning that this phenomenon is encountered more frequently.¹ In a systematic review of TNF-α inhibitor–induced psoriasis, severe scalp involvement was associated with alopecia in 7.5% of cases.² Onset of scalp psoriasis with alopecia in patients being treated with a TNF-α inhibitor should lead to consideration of this condition.

Psoriatic alopecia is an uncommon presentation of psoriasis. Although well described, alopecia as a clinical manifestation of scalp psoriasis is not a well-known concept among clinicians and has never been widely accepted. Adding to the diagnostic challenge is that psoriatic alopecia secondary to TNF-α inhibitor–induced psoriasis rarely has been reported in adults or children.^3-5 Including our case, our review of the literature yielded 7 pediatric cases (≤18 years) of TNF-α inhibitor–induced psoriatic alopecia.^6,7 A primary literature search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE was conducted using the terms psoriatic alopecia, psoriasiform alopecia, TNF-α inhibitors, infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, and certolizumab.

We present the case of a pediatric patient with psoriatic alopecia secondary to treatment with adalimumab for Crohn disease (CD). We also provide a review of reported cases of psoriatic alopecia induced by a TNF-α inhibitor in the literature.

Case Report

A 12-year-old girl presented to our dermatology clinic with erythematous scaly plaques on the trunk, scalp, arms, and legs of 2 months’ duration. The lesions involved approximately 15% of the body surface area. The patient’s medical history was remarkable for CD diagnosed 4 years prior to presentation of the skin lesions. She had been treated for the past 2 years with adalimumab 40 mg once every 2 weeks and azathioprine 100 mg once daily. Because her CD was poorly controlled, the dosage of adalimumab was increased to 40 mg once weekly 6 months prior to the current presentation.

Our diagnosis was TNF-α inhibitor-induced psoriasis secondary to treatment with adalimumab.

The patient was treated with mometasone lotion 0.1% for the scalp lesions and triamcinolone cream 0.1% for the body lesions. Because of the extent of the psoriasis, we recommended changing adalimumab to ustekinumab, which is approved for CD in adults but is off label in children.

At 1-month follow-up, after receiving the induction dose of ustekinumab, the patient presented with partial improvement of the skin lesions but had developed a large, alopecic, erythematous plaque with thick yellowish scales on the scalp (Figure 1). She also had a positive hair pull test. The presumptive initial diagnosis of the alopecic scalp lesion was tinea capitis, for which multiple potassium hydroxide preparations of scales were performed, all yielding negative results. In addition, histopathologic examination with hematoxylin and eosin staining was performed (Figures 2A and 2B). Sterile tissue cultures for bacteria, fungi, and acid-fast bacilli were obtained and showed no growth. Periodic acid–Schiff staining was negative for fungal structures.

Comment

Psoriatic alopecia induced by a TNF-α inhibitor was first reported in 2007 in a 30-year-old woman with ankylosing spondylitis who was being treated with adalimumab.⁸ She had erythematous, scaly, alopecic plaques on the scalp and palmoplantar pustulosis. Findings on skin biopsy were compatible with psoriasis. The patient’s severe scalp psoriasis failed to respond to topical steroid treatment and adalimumab cessation. The extensive hair loss responded to cyclosporine 3 mg/kg daily.⁸

After conducting an extensive literature review, we found 26 cases of TNF-α–induced psoriatic alopecia, including the current case (Table).^6-16 The mean age at diagnosis was 27.8 years (SD, 13.6 years; range, 7–60 years). The female-to-male ratio was 3.3:1. The most common underlying condition for which TNF-α inhibitors were prescribed was CD (77% [20/26]). Psoriatic alopecia most commonly was reported secondary to treatment with infliximab (54% [14/26]), followed by adalimumab (42% [11/26]). Golimumab was the causative drug in 1 (4%) case. We did not find reports of etanercept or certolizumab having induced this manifestation. The onset of the scalp lesions occurred 2 to 46 months after starting treatment with the causative medication.

Previously reported cases have demonstrated various treatment options that yielded improvement or resolution of TNF-α inhibitor–induced psoriatic alopecia. These include either continuation or discontinuation of the TNF-α inhibitor combined with topical or intralesional steroids, methotrexate, or cyclosporine. Another option is to switch the TNF-α inhibitor to another biologic. Outcomes vary from patient to patient, making the physician’s clinical judgment crucial in deciding which treatment route to take. Our patient showed notable improvement when she was switched from adalimumab to ustekinumab as well as the combination of ustekinumab and clobetasol lotion 0.05%.

Conclusion

We recommend an individualized approach that provides patients with the safest and least invasive treatment option for TNF-α inhibitor–induced psoriatic alopecia. In most reported cases, the problem resolved with treatment, thereby classifying this form of alopecia as noncicatricial alopecia.

Tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitor–induced psoriasis is a known paradoxical adverse effect of this family of medications, which includes infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, and certolizumab. In the pediatric population, these therapies recently gained approval for nondermatologic conditions—meaning that this phenomenon is encountered more frequently.¹ In a systematic review of TNF-α inhibitor–induced psoriasis, severe scalp involvement was associated with alopecia in 7.5% of cases.² Onset of scalp psoriasis with alopecia in patients being treated with a TNF-α inhibitor should lead to consideration of this condition.

Psoriatic alopecia is an uncommon presentation of psoriasis. Although well described, alopecia as a clinical manifestation of scalp psoriasis is not a well-known concept among clinicians and has never been widely accepted. Adding to the diagnostic challenge is that psoriatic alopecia secondary to TNF-α inhibitor–induced psoriasis rarely has been reported in adults or children.^3-5 Including our case, our review of the literature yielded 7 pediatric cases (≤18 years) of TNF-α inhibitor–induced psoriatic alopecia.^6,7 A primary literature search of PubMed articles indexed for MEDLINE was conducted using the terms psoriatic alopecia, psoriasiform alopecia, TNF-α inhibitors, infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, and certolizumab.

We present the case of a pediatric patient with psoriatic alopecia secondary to treatment with adalimumab for Crohn disease (CD). We also provide a review of reported cases of psoriatic alopecia induced by a TNF-α inhibitor in the literature.

Case Report

A 12-year-old girl presented to our dermatology clinic with erythematous scaly plaques on the trunk, scalp, arms, and legs of 2 months’ duration. The lesions involved approximately 15% of the body surface area. The patient’s medical history was remarkable for CD diagnosed 4 years prior to presentation of the skin lesions. She had been treated for the past 2 years with adalimumab 40 mg once every 2 weeks and azathioprine 100 mg once daily. Because her CD was poorly controlled, the dosage of adalimumab was increased to 40 mg once weekly 6 months prior to the current presentation.

Our diagnosis was TNF-α inhibitor-induced psoriasis secondary to treatment with adalimumab.

The patient was treated with mometasone lotion 0.1% for the scalp lesions and triamcinolone cream 0.1% for the body lesions. Because of the extent of the psoriasis, we recommended changing adalimumab to ustekinumab, which is approved for CD in adults but is off label in children.

At 1-month follow-up, after receiving the induction dose of ustekinumab, the patient presented with partial improvement of the skin lesions but had developed a large, alopecic, erythematous plaque with thick yellowish scales on the scalp (Figure 1). She also had a positive hair pull test. The presumptive initial diagnosis of the alopecic scalp lesion was tinea capitis, for which multiple potassium hydroxide preparations of scales were performed, all yielding negative results. In addition, histopathologic examination with hematoxylin and eosin staining was performed (Figures 2A and 2B). Sterile tissue cultures for bacteria, fungi, and acid-fast bacilli were obtained and showed no growth. Periodic acid–Schiff staining was negative for fungal structures.

Comment

Psoriatic alopecia induced by a TNF-α inhibitor was first reported in 2007 in a 30-year-old woman with ankylosing spondylitis who was being treated with adalimumab.⁸ She had erythematous, scaly, alopecic plaques on the scalp and palmoplantar pustulosis. Findings on skin biopsy were compatible with psoriasis. The patient’s severe scalp psoriasis failed to respond to topical steroid treatment and adalimumab cessation. The extensive hair loss responded to cyclosporine 3 mg/kg daily.⁸

After conducting an extensive literature review, we found 26 cases of TNF-α–induced psoriatic alopecia, including the current case (Table).^6-16 The mean age at diagnosis was 27.8 years (SD, 13.6 years; range, 7–60 years). The female-to-male ratio was 3.3:1. The most common underlying condition for which TNF-α inhibitors were prescribed was CD (77% [20/26]). Psoriatic alopecia most commonly was reported secondary to treatment with infliximab (54% [14/26]), followed by adalimumab (42% [11/26]). Golimumab was the causative drug in 1 (4%) case. We did not find reports of etanercept or certolizumab having induced this manifestation. The onset of the scalp lesions occurred 2 to 46 months after starting treatment with the causative medication.

Previously reported cases have demonstrated various treatment options that yielded improvement or resolution of TNF-α inhibitor–induced psoriatic alopecia. These include either continuation or discontinuation of the TNF-α inhibitor combined with topical or intralesional steroids, methotrexate, or cyclosporine. Another option is to switch the TNF-α inhibitor to another biologic. Outcomes vary from patient to patient, making the physician’s clinical judgment crucial in deciding which treatment route to take. Our patient showed notable improvement when she was switched from adalimumab to ustekinumab as well as the combination of ustekinumab and clobetasol lotion 0.05%.

Conclusion

We recommend an individualized approach that provides patients with the safest and least invasive treatment option for TNF-α inhibitor–induced psoriatic alopecia. In most reported cases, the problem resolved with treatment, thereby classifying this form of alopecia as noncicatricial alopecia.

A panel of federal advisers on May 6 lent support to the ChemoCentryx bid for approval of avacopan for a rare and serious autoimmune condition. But they also flagged concerns about both the evidence supporting claims of a benefit for this experimental drug and its safety.

At a meeting of the Food and Drug Administration’s Arthritis Advisory Committee, panelists voted 10-8 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx is seeking approval of avacopan for antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis in the subtypes of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).

Regardless of their vote on this approval question, the panelists shared an interest in avacopan’s potential to reduce glucocorticoid use among some patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, also called AAV. Mara L. Becker, MD, MSCE, the chair of the FDA’s panel, was among the panelists who said they reluctantly voted no.

“It pains me because I really want more steroid-sparing” medicines, said Dr. Becker of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cited a need to gather more data on avacopan.

Margrit Wiesendanger, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was among the panelists voting yes, spoke of a need for caution if the FDA approves avacopan.

“Judicious use of this new medication will be warranted and perhaps additional guidance could be given to rheumatologists to help them decide for whom this medication is best,” she said.

Panelists had spoken earlier of avacopan as a possible alternative medicine for people with AAV who have conditions that make glucocorticoids riskier for them, such as those who have diabetes.
 

Close votes on safety profile, efficacy

The panel also voted 10-8 on a question about whether the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

In addition, the panel voted 9-9 on a question about whether efficacy data support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory panels, but is not bound by them.

The FDA staff clearly expressed the view that ChemoCentryx fell short with the evidence presented for avacopan approval. Shares of San Carlos, Calif.–based ChemoCentryx dropped sharply from a May 3 closing price of $48.82 to a May 4 closing price of $26.63 after the FDA released the staff’s review of avacopan.

In a briefing prepared for the meeting, FDA staff detailed concerns about the evidence ChemoCentryx is using to seek approval. While acknowledging a need for new treatments for AAV as a rare condition, FDA staff honed in on what they described flaws in the testing of this experimental medicine, which is a small-molecule antagonist of the receptor of C5a, an end product of the complement cascade that acts as a potent neutrophil chemoattractant and agonist.

The FDA usually requires two phase 3 studies for approval of a new medicine but will do so with a single trial in cases of exceptional need, the agency staff said. But in these cases, the bar rises for the evidence provided from that single trial.
 

Difficulties in interpretation of complex study design

In the case of avacopan, though, the data from the key avacopan trial, Study CL010_168, known as ADVOCATE, there were substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.

In the briefing document, the FDA staff noted that it had “communicated many of the concerns” about ChemoCentryx’s research earlier to the company.

“Complexities of the study design, as detailed in the briefing document, raise questions about the interpretability of the data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV,” the FDA staff wrote.

“We acknowledge that AAV is a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality. It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies. However, FDA wants to ensure that new products have a defined context of use, i.e., how a product would be used, and a favorable benefit-risk assessment for patients,” the staff added.

In addition, there were differences in the assessments performed by investigators and the adjudication committee, most frequently related to the attribution of persistent vasculitis, the FDA staff noted.

Statistical analyses of the primary endpoint using investigators’ estimates “resulted in more conservative estimates of treatment effect, e.g., statistical significance for superiority would no longer be demonstrated,” the FDA staff noted. “While the prespecified analysis used the Adjudicator assessments, the assessment based on the Investigators, experienced in management of vasculitis, may better reflect real-world use.”
 

Imbalances in use of glucocorticoids and maintenance therapy

Also among the complications in assessing the ADVOCATE trial data were the glucocorticoids taken by patients in the study, the FDA staff said.

In the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received non–study-supplied glucocorticoids. In addition, more avacopan‐treated patients experienced adverse events and serious adverse events within the hepatobiliary system leading to discontinuation.

Subgroups given different treatments represented another challenge in interpreting ADVOCATE results for the FDA staff.

At week 26, the proportion of patients in disease remission in the avacopan group (72.3%) was noninferior to the prednisone group (70.1%), the FDA staff said in the briefing document.

But at week 52, a disparity was observed between subgroups that had received rituximab and cyclophosphamide (intravenous and oral) induction treatment. The estimated risk difference for disease remission at week 52 was 15.0% (95% CI, 2.2%-27.7%) in the subgroup receiving induction with rituximab and 3.3% (95% CI, –14.8% to 21.4%) in the cyclophosphamide plus maintenance azathioprine subgroup, the agency’s staff said.

“Based on the data, there is no evidence of clinically meaningful treatment effect in the cyclophosphamide induction subgroup,” the FDA staff wrote. “Further, the treatment comparison in the complementary rituximab induction subgroup may not be considered meaningful because these patients did not receive maintenance therapy, i.e., due to undertreating of patients, the effect observed in the rituximab subgroup may not represent a clinically meaningful treatment effect, compared to standard of care.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Rachel L. Glaser, MD, clinical team leader in FDA’s division of rheumatology and transplant medicine, reiterated these concerns to the advisory committee at the May 6 meeting.

“Throughout the development program, FDA advised the applicant that a noninferiority comparison would not be sufficient to show that avacopan can replaced glucocorticoids as it would be difficult to establish whether avacopan is effective or whether an effect was due to the rituximab or cyclophosphamide administered to both treatment arms,” she said.

In its briefing for the meeting, ChemoCentryx noted the limits of treatments now available for AAV. It also emphasized the toll of the condition, ranging from skin manifestations to glomerulonephritis to life-threatening pulmonary hemorrhage. If untreated, 80% of patients with GPA or MPA die within 2 years of disease onset, ChemoCentryx said in its briefing materials for the meeting.

The side effects of glucocorticoids were well known to the FDA panelists and the ChemoCentryx presenters. Witnesses at an open public hearing told their own stories of depression, anxiety, and irritability caused by these medicines.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

During the ChemoCentryx presentation, a presenter for the company, Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said avacopan would provide patients with AAV with an alternative allowing them “to go on a much lower glucocorticoids regimen.”

A similar view was presented in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Avacopan – Time to Replace Glucocorticoids?” Written by Kenneth J. Warrington, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., the opinion article called the ADVOCATE trial “a milestone in the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; complement inhibition with avacopan has glucocorticoid-sparing effects and results in superior disease control.”

Dr. Warrington reported no conflicts in connection with his editorial nor payments from ChemoCentryx. He did report grants from other firms such as Eli Lilly.

Julia Lewis, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., was among the more skeptical members of the FDA panel. She was among the “nays” in all three voting questions put to the panel. Still, she said there were signs of “clinically meaningful benefit” in the data presented, but noted that the nonstudy use of glucocorticoids made it difficult to interpret the ADVOCATE results.

Dr. Lewis noted that the FDA usually requires two studies for a drug approval, particularly with a compound not yet cleared for any use. While ANCA-associated vasculitis is rare, it would be possible to recruit patients for another trial of avacopan, adding to the results reported already for avacopan from ADVOCATE, she said.

“Were there to be another study, this would certainly be a supportive study and maybe qualify as two studies,” she said.

A panel of federal advisers on May 6 lent support to the ChemoCentryx bid for approval of avacopan for a rare and serious autoimmune condition. But they also flagged concerns about both the evidence supporting claims of a benefit for this experimental drug and its safety.

At a meeting of the Food and Drug Administration’s Arthritis Advisory Committee, panelists voted 10-8 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx is seeking approval of avacopan for antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis in the subtypes of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).

Regardless of their vote on this approval question, the panelists shared an interest in avacopan’s potential to reduce glucocorticoid use among some patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, also called AAV. Mara L. Becker, MD, MSCE, the chair of the FDA’s panel, was among the panelists who said they reluctantly voted no.

“It pains me because I really want more steroid-sparing” medicines, said Dr. Becker of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cited a need to gather more data on avacopan.

Margrit Wiesendanger, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was among the panelists voting yes, spoke of a need for caution if the FDA approves avacopan.

“Judicious use of this new medication will be warranted and perhaps additional guidance could be given to rheumatologists to help them decide for whom this medication is best,” she said.

Panelists had spoken earlier of avacopan as a possible alternative medicine for people with AAV who have conditions that make glucocorticoids riskier for them, such as those who have diabetes.
 

Close votes on safety profile, efficacy

The panel also voted 10-8 on a question about whether the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

In addition, the panel voted 9-9 on a question about whether efficacy data support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory panels, but is not bound by them.

The FDA staff clearly expressed the view that ChemoCentryx fell short with the evidence presented for avacopan approval. Shares of San Carlos, Calif.–based ChemoCentryx dropped sharply from a May 3 closing price of $48.82 to a May 4 closing price of $26.63 after the FDA released the staff’s review of avacopan.

In a briefing prepared for the meeting, FDA staff detailed concerns about the evidence ChemoCentryx is using to seek approval. While acknowledging a need for new treatments for AAV as a rare condition, FDA staff honed in on what they described flaws in the testing of this experimental medicine, which is a small-molecule antagonist of the receptor of C5a, an end product of the complement cascade that acts as a potent neutrophil chemoattractant and agonist.

The FDA usually requires two phase 3 studies for approval of a new medicine but will do so with a single trial in cases of exceptional need, the agency staff said. But in these cases, the bar rises for the evidence provided from that single trial.
 

Difficulties in interpretation of complex study design

In the case of avacopan, though, the data from the key avacopan trial, Study CL010_168, known as ADVOCATE, there were substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.

In the briefing document, the FDA staff noted that it had “communicated many of the concerns” about ChemoCentryx’s research earlier to the company.

“Complexities of the study design, as detailed in the briefing document, raise questions about the interpretability of the data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV,” the FDA staff wrote.

“We acknowledge that AAV is a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality. It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies. However, FDA wants to ensure that new products have a defined context of use, i.e., how a product would be used, and a favorable benefit-risk assessment for patients,” the staff added.

In addition, there were differences in the assessments performed by investigators and the adjudication committee, most frequently related to the attribution of persistent vasculitis, the FDA staff noted.

Statistical analyses of the primary endpoint using investigators’ estimates “resulted in more conservative estimates of treatment effect, e.g., statistical significance for superiority would no longer be demonstrated,” the FDA staff noted. “While the prespecified analysis used the Adjudicator assessments, the assessment based on the Investigators, experienced in management of vasculitis, may better reflect real-world use.”
 

Imbalances in use of glucocorticoids and maintenance therapy

Also among the complications in assessing the ADVOCATE trial data were the glucocorticoids taken by patients in the study, the FDA staff said.

In the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received non–study-supplied glucocorticoids. In addition, more avacopan‐treated patients experienced adverse events and serious adverse events within the hepatobiliary system leading to discontinuation.

Subgroups given different treatments represented another challenge in interpreting ADVOCATE results for the FDA staff.

At week 26, the proportion of patients in disease remission in the avacopan group (72.3%) was noninferior to the prednisone group (70.1%), the FDA staff said in the briefing document.

But at week 52, a disparity was observed between subgroups that had received rituximab and cyclophosphamide (intravenous and oral) induction treatment. The estimated risk difference for disease remission at week 52 was 15.0% (95% CI, 2.2%-27.7%) in the subgroup receiving induction with rituximab and 3.3% (95% CI, –14.8% to 21.4%) in the cyclophosphamide plus maintenance azathioprine subgroup, the agency’s staff said.

“Based on the data, there is no evidence of clinically meaningful treatment effect in the cyclophosphamide induction subgroup,” the FDA staff wrote. “Further, the treatment comparison in the complementary rituximab induction subgroup may not be considered meaningful because these patients did not receive maintenance therapy, i.e., due to undertreating of patients, the effect observed in the rituximab subgroup may not represent a clinically meaningful treatment effect, compared to standard of care.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Rachel L. Glaser, MD, clinical team leader in FDA’s division of rheumatology and transplant medicine, reiterated these concerns to the advisory committee at the May 6 meeting.

“Throughout the development program, FDA advised the applicant that a noninferiority comparison would not be sufficient to show that avacopan can replaced glucocorticoids as it would be difficult to establish whether avacopan is effective or whether an effect was due to the rituximab or cyclophosphamide administered to both treatment arms,” she said.

In its briefing for the meeting, ChemoCentryx noted the limits of treatments now available for AAV. It also emphasized the toll of the condition, ranging from skin manifestations to glomerulonephritis to life-threatening pulmonary hemorrhage. If untreated, 80% of patients with GPA or MPA die within 2 years of disease onset, ChemoCentryx said in its briefing materials for the meeting.

The side effects of glucocorticoids were well known to the FDA panelists and the ChemoCentryx presenters. Witnesses at an open public hearing told their own stories of depression, anxiety, and irritability caused by these medicines.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

During the ChemoCentryx presentation, a presenter for the company, Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said avacopan would provide patients with AAV with an alternative allowing them “to go on a much lower glucocorticoids regimen.”

A similar view was presented in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Avacopan – Time to Replace Glucocorticoids?” Written by Kenneth J. Warrington, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., the opinion article called the ADVOCATE trial “a milestone in the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; complement inhibition with avacopan has glucocorticoid-sparing effects and results in superior disease control.”

Dr. Warrington reported no conflicts in connection with his editorial nor payments from ChemoCentryx. He did report grants from other firms such as Eli Lilly.

Julia Lewis, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., was among the more skeptical members of the FDA panel. She was among the “nays” in all three voting questions put to the panel. Still, she said there were signs of “clinically meaningful benefit” in the data presented, but noted that the nonstudy use of glucocorticoids made it difficult to interpret the ADVOCATE results.

Dr. Lewis noted that the FDA usually requires two studies for a drug approval, particularly with a compound not yet cleared for any use. While ANCA-associated vasculitis is rare, it would be possible to recruit patients for another trial of avacopan, adding to the results reported already for avacopan from ADVOCATE, she said.

“Were there to be another study, this would certainly be a supportive study and maybe qualify as two studies,” she said.

A panel of federal advisers on May 6 lent support to the ChemoCentryx bid for approval of avacopan for a rare and serious autoimmune condition. But they also flagged concerns about both the evidence supporting claims of a benefit for this experimental drug and its safety.

At a meeting of the Food and Drug Administration’s Arthritis Advisory Committee, panelists voted 10-8 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx is seeking approval of avacopan for antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis in the subtypes of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).

Regardless of their vote on this approval question, the panelists shared an interest in avacopan’s potential to reduce glucocorticoid use among some patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, also called AAV. Mara L. Becker, MD, MSCE, the chair of the FDA’s panel, was among the panelists who said they reluctantly voted no.

“It pains me because I really want more steroid-sparing” medicines, said Dr. Becker of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cited a need to gather more data on avacopan.

Margrit Wiesendanger, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was among the panelists voting yes, spoke of a need for caution if the FDA approves avacopan.

“Judicious use of this new medication will be warranted and perhaps additional guidance could be given to rheumatologists to help them decide for whom this medication is best,” she said.

Panelists had spoken earlier of avacopan as a possible alternative medicine for people with AAV who have conditions that make glucocorticoids riskier for them, such as those who have diabetes.
 

Close votes on safety profile, efficacy

The panel also voted 10-8 on a question about whether the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

In addition, the panel voted 9-9 on a question about whether efficacy data support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory panels, but is not bound by them.

The FDA staff clearly expressed the view that ChemoCentryx fell short with the evidence presented for avacopan approval. Shares of San Carlos, Calif.–based ChemoCentryx dropped sharply from a May 3 closing price of $48.82 to a May 4 closing price of $26.63 after the FDA released the staff’s review of avacopan.

In a briefing prepared for the meeting, FDA staff detailed concerns about the evidence ChemoCentryx is using to seek approval. While acknowledging a need for new treatments for AAV as a rare condition, FDA staff honed in on what they described flaws in the testing of this experimental medicine, which is a small-molecule antagonist of the receptor of C5a, an end product of the complement cascade that acts as a potent neutrophil chemoattractant and agonist.

The FDA usually requires two phase 3 studies for approval of a new medicine but will do so with a single trial in cases of exceptional need, the agency staff said. But in these cases, the bar rises for the evidence provided from that single trial.
 

Difficulties in interpretation of complex study design

In the case of avacopan, though, the data from the key avacopan trial, Study CL010_168, known as ADVOCATE, there were substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.

In the briefing document, the FDA staff noted that it had “communicated many of the concerns” about ChemoCentryx’s research earlier to the company.

“Complexities of the study design, as detailed in the briefing document, raise questions about the interpretability of the data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV,” the FDA staff wrote.

“We acknowledge that AAV is a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality. It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies. However, FDA wants to ensure that new products have a defined context of use, i.e., how a product would be used, and a favorable benefit-risk assessment for patients,” the staff added.

In addition, there were differences in the assessments performed by investigators and the adjudication committee, most frequently related to the attribution of persistent vasculitis, the FDA staff noted.

Statistical analyses of the primary endpoint using investigators’ estimates “resulted in more conservative estimates of treatment effect, e.g., statistical significance for superiority would no longer be demonstrated,” the FDA staff noted. “While the prespecified analysis used the Adjudicator assessments, the assessment based on the Investigators, experienced in management of vasculitis, may better reflect real-world use.”
 

Imbalances in use of glucocorticoids and maintenance therapy

Also among the complications in assessing the ADVOCATE trial data were the glucocorticoids taken by patients in the study, the FDA staff said.

In the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received non–study-supplied glucocorticoids. In addition, more avacopan‐treated patients experienced adverse events and serious adverse events within the hepatobiliary system leading to discontinuation.

Subgroups given different treatments represented another challenge in interpreting ADVOCATE results for the FDA staff.

At week 26, the proportion of patients in disease remission in the avacopan group (72.3%) was noninferior to the prednisone group (70.1%), the FDA staff said in the briefing document.

But at week 52, a disparity was observed between subgroups that had received rituximab and cyclophosphamide (intravenous and oral) induction treatment. The estimated risk difference for disease remission at week 52 was 15.0% (95% CI, 2.2%-27.7%) in the subgroup receiving induction with rituximab and 3.3% (95% CI, –14.8% to 21.4%) in the cyclophosphamide plus maintenance azathioprine subgroup, the agency’s staff said.

“Based on the data, there is no evidence of clinically meaningful treatment effect in the cyclophosphamide induction subgroup,” the FDA staff wrote. “Further, the treatment comparison in the complementary rituximab induction subgroup may not be considered meaningful because these patients did not receive maintenance therapy, i.e., due to undertreating of patients, the effect observed in the rituximab subgroup may not represent a clinically meaningful treatment effect, compared to standard of care.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Rachel L. Glaser, MD, clinical team leader in FDA’s division of rheumatology and transplant medicine, reiterated these concerns to the advisory committee at the May 6 meeting.

“Throughout the development program, FDA advised the applicant that a noninferiority comparison would not be sufficient to show that avacopan can replaced glucocorticoids as it would be difficult to establish whether avacopan is effective or whether an effect was due to the rituximab or cyclophosphamide administered to both treatment arms,” she said.

In its briefing for the meeting, ChemoCentryx noted the limits of treatments now available for AAV. It also emphasized the toll of the condition, ranging from skin manifestations to glomerulonephritis to life-threatening pulmonary hemorrhage. If untreated, 80% of patients with GPA or MPA die within 2 years of disease onset, ChemoCentryx said in its briefing materials for the meeting.

The side effects of glucocorticoids were well known to the FDA panelists and the ChemoCentryx presenters. Witnesses at an open public hearing told their own stories of depression, anxiety, and irritability caused by these medicines.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

During the ChemoCentryx presentation, a presenter for the company, Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said avacopan would provide patients with AAV with an alternative allowing them “to go on a much lower glucocorticoids regimen.”

A similar view was presented in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Avacopan – Time to Replace Glucocorticoids?” Written by Kenneth J. Warrington, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., the opinion article called the ADVOCATE trial “a milestone in the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; complement inhibition with avacopan has glucocorticoid-sparing effects and results in superior disease control.”

Dr. Warrington reported no conflicts in connection with his editorial nor payments from ChemoCentryx. He did report grants from other firms such as Eli Lilly.

Julia Lewis, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., was among the more skeptical members of the FDA panel. She was among the “nays” in all three voting questions put to the panel. Still, she said there were signs of “clinically meaningful benefit” in the data presented, but noted that the nonstudy use of glucocorticoids made it difficult to interpret the ADVOCATE results.

Dr. Lewis noted that the FDA usually requires two studies for a drug approval, particularly with a compound not yet cleared for any use. While ANCA-associated vasculitis is rare, it would be possible to recruit patients for another trial of avacopan, adding to the results reported already for avacopan from ADVOCATE, she said.

“Were there to be another study, this would certainly be a supportive study and maybe qualify as two studies,” she said.

Black patients diagnosed by dermatologists with cutaneous sarcoidosis were significantly more likely to have unrecognized systemic organ involvement than were non-Black patients, according to a retrospective chart review of patients seen at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

Black patients were also significantly more likely to have two or more organs involved and have higher rates of cardiac involvement, the latter of which is associated with worse prognosis. “Our data suggest there may be substantial variations in organ involvement between racial groups of patients presenting with cutaneous sarcoidosis,” said medical student Kylee Kus, a medical student at Oakland University, Auburn Hills, Mich., who presented the findings with Bina Kassamali, a medical student at Harvard University, Boston, at the annual Skin of Color Society scientific symposium.

Sotonye Imadojemu, MD, MBE; Avery LeChance, MD, MPH; and Ruth Anne Vleugels, MD, MPH, MBA; of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, are cosenior authors of the abstract.

The researchers identified 111 patients who were diagnosed with cutaneous sarcoidosis over a 20-year period (January 2000–December 2019), 50 of whom presented without established extracutaneous disease. They examined the charts of these 50 patients for whether subsequent work-up revealed systemic disease.

Of the 50 patients, 9 were Black. Seven of these nine patients (77.8%), were found to have systemic involvement, compared with 14 of 41 (46.3%) non-Black patients – a 31.5% higher probability (P < .05). One-third of the nine Black patients were found to have disease in one organ, and 44.4% in two or more organs. In non-Black patients, these rates were 12.2% and 34.1%, respectively.

Cardiovascular involvement was not found in any of the non-Black patients who had extracutaneous disease, but was found in 29% of the Black patients with extracutaneous disease, a statistically significant difference.

Black patients are known to be at higher risk for sarcoidosis than non-Black patients, and because “there is an association between cardiac sarcoid involvement and poor prognosis largely due to manifestations such as heart block, arrhythmias, and heart failure ... the study helps demonstrate how this organ involvement can disproportionately affect the Black population,” Ms. Kassamali said in an interview after the meeting.

A separate, recently published analysis of data from the same patient population examined the work-ups that patients received after a dermatologist’s diagnosis of sarcoidosis and found that patients with no previous systemic work-up were subsequently assessed for cardiac involvement in only 58.3% of cases. Assessment for pulmonary and ocular disease was completed more than 90% of the time.

“Crucial testing for cardiac involvement fell short,” Dr. Imadojemu, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and coinvestigators wrote in the research letter.

“Because the cutaneous manifestations of sarcoidosis often present at disease onset, dermatologists may be the first physicians to diagnose a patient with sarcoidosis,” they wrote. “As such, dermatologists are often responsible for initiating the appropriate evaluation of patients with sarcoidosis.”

Pulmonary involvement occurs in nearly all cases of sarcoidosis, while ocular and cardiac disease develop in approximately 25% and 10% of patients, respectively. Cardiac sarcoidosis is usually asymptomatic and accounts for 13%-25% of sarcoidosis-related deaths in the United States, they wrote.

An electrocardiogram is the appropriate initial screening tool and “is warranted in all patients with sarcoidosis,” they advised.

Black patients diagnosed by dermatologists with cutaneous sarcoidosis were significantly more likely to have unrecognized systemic organ involvement than were non-Black patients, according to a retrospective chart review of patients seen at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

Black patients were also significantly more likely to have two or more organs involved and have higher rates of cardiac involvement, the latter of which is associated with worse prognosis. “Our data suggest there may be substantial variations in organ involvement between racial groups of patients presenting with cutaneous sarcoidosis,” said medical student Kylee Kus, a medical student at Oakland University, Auburn Hills, Mich., who presented the findings with Bina Kassamali, a medical student at Harvard University, Boston, at the annual Skin of Color Society scientific symposium.

Sotonye Imadojemu, MD, MBE; Avery LeChance, MD, MPH; and Ruth Anne Vleugels, MD, MPH, MBA; of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, are cosenior authors of the abstract.

The researchers identified 111 patients who were diagnosed with cutaneous sarcoidosis over a 20-year period (January 2000–December 2019), 50 of whom presented without established extracutaneous disease. They examined the charts of these 50 patients for whether subsequent work-up revealed systemic disease.

Of the 50 patients, 9 were Black. Seven of these nine patients (77.8%), were found to have systemic involvement, compared with 14 of 41 (46.3%) non-Black patients – a 31.5% higher probability (P < .05). One-third of the nine Black patients were found to have disease in one organ, and 44.4% in two or more organs. In non-Black patients, these rates were 12.2% and 34.1%, respectively.

Cardiovascular involvement was not found in any of the non-Black patients who had extracutaneous disease, but was found in 29% of the Black patients with extracutaneous disease, a statistically significant difference.

Black patients are known to be at higher risk for sarcoidosis than non-Black patients, and because “there is an association between cardiac sarcoid involvement and poor prognosis largely due to manifestations such as heart block, arrhythmias, and heart failure ... the study helps demonstrate how this organ involvement can disproportionately affect the Black population,” Ms. Kassamali said in an interview after the meeting.

A separate, recently published analysis of data from the same patient population examined the work-ups that patients received after a dermatologist’s diagnosis of sarcoidosis and found that patients with no previous systemic work-up were subsequently assessed for cardiac involvement in only 58.3% of cases. Assessment for pulmonary and ocular disease was completed more than 90% of the time.

“Crucial testing for cardiac involvement fell short,” Dr. Imadojemu, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and coinvestigators wrote in the research letter.

“Because the cutaneous manifestations of sarcoidosis often present at disease onset, dermatologists may be the first physicians to diagnose a patient with sarcoidosis,” they wrote. “As such, dermatologists are often responsible for initiating the appropriate evaluation of patients with sarcoidosis.”

Pulmonary involvement occurs in nearly all cases of sarcoidosis, while ocular and cardiac disease develop in approximately 25% and 10% of patients, respectively. Cardiac sarcoidosis is usually asymptomatic and accounts for 13%-25% of sarcoidosis-related deaths in the United States, they wrote.

An electrocardiogram is the appropriate initial screening tool and “is warranted in all patients with sarcoidosis,” they advised.

Black patients diagnosed by dermatologists with cutaneous sarcoidosis were significantly more likely to have unrecognized systemic organ involvement than were non-Black patients, according to a retrospective chart review of patients seen at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

Black patients were also significantly more likely to have two or more organs involved and have higher rates of cardiac involvement, the latter of which is associated with worse prognosis. “Our data suggest there may be substantial variations in organ involvement between racial groups of patients presenting with cutaneous sarcoidosis,” said medical student Kylee Kus, a medical student at Oakland University, Auburn Hills, Mich., who presented the findings with Bina Kassamali, a medical student at Harvard University, Boston, at the annual Skin of Color Society scientific symposium.

Sotonye Imadojemu, MD, MBE; Avery LeChance, MD, MPH; and Ruth Anne Vleugels, MD, MPH, MBA; of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, are cosenior authors of the abstract.

The researchers identified 111 patients who were diagnosed with cutaneous sarcoidosis over a 20-year period (January 2000–December 2019), 50 of whom presented without established extracutaneous disease. They examined the charts of these 50 patients for whether subsequent work-up revealed systemic disease.

Of the 50 patients, 9 were Black. Seven of these nine patients (77.8%), were found to have systemic involvement, compared with 14 of 41 (46.3%) non-Black patients – a 31.5% higher probability (P < .05). One-third of the nine Black patients were found to have disease in one organ, and 44.4% in two or more organs. In non-Black patients, these rates were 12.2% and 34.1%, respectively.

Cardiovascular involvement was not found in any of the non-Black patients who had extracutaneous disease, but was found in 29% of the Black patients with extracutaneous disease, a statistically significant difference.

Black patients are known to be at higher risk for sarcoidosis than non-Black patients, and because “there is an association between cardiac sarcoid involvement and poor prognosis largely due to manifestations such as heart block, arrhythmias, and heart failure ... the study helps demonstrate how this organ involvement can disproportionately affect the Black population,” Ms. Kassamali said in an interview after the meeting.

A separate, recently published analysis of data from the same patient population examined the work-ups that patients received after a dermatologist’s diagnosis of sarcoidosis and found that patients with no previous systemic work-up were subsequently assessed for cardiac involvement in only 58.3% of cases. Assessment for pulmonary and ocular disease was completed more than 90% of the time.

“Crucial testing for cardiac involvement fell short,” Dr. Imadojemu, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and coinvestigators wrote in the research letter.

“Because the cutaneous manifestations of sarcoidosis often present at disease onset, dermatologists may be the first physicians to diagnose a patient with sarcoidosis,” they wrote. “As such, dermatologists are often responsible for initiating the appropriate evaluation of patients with sarcoidosis.”

Pulmonary involvement occurs in nearly all cases of sarcoidosis, while ocular and cardiac disease develop in approximately 25% and 10% of patients, respectively. Cardiac sarcoidosis is usually asymptomatic and accounts for 13%-25% of sarcoidosis-related deaths in the United States, they wrote.

An electrocardiogram is the appropriate initial screening tool and “is warranted in all patients with sarcoidosis,” they advised.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition with high morbidity rates. Symptoms typically develop between puberty and the third decade of life, affecting twice as many females as males, with an overall disease prevalence of 1% to 4%.¹ The pathogenesis is theorized to be related to an immune response to follicular occlusion and rupture in genetically susceptible individuals.

Among the complications associated with HS, the development of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is 4.6-times more likely within HS lesions than in normal skin and typically is seen in the setting of long-standing disease, particularly in men with HS lesions located on the buttocks and genital region for more than 20 years.² In 2015, the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk for skin cancer in other clinical settings.^3,4 We present a case of locally advanced SCC that developed in a patient with HS who was treated with adalimumab and infliximab (both TNF-α inhibitors), ultimately leading to the patient’s death.

A 59-year-old man who smoked with a 40-year history of severe HS, who previously was lost to follow-up, presented to our dermatology clinic with lesions on the buttocks. Physical examination demonstrated confluent, indurated, boggy plaques; scattered sinus tracts with purulent drainage; scattered cystlike nodules; and tenderness to palpation consistent with Hurley stage III disease (Figure 1A). No involvement of the axillae or groin was noted. He was started on doxycycline and a prednisone taper with minimal improvement and subsequently was switched to adalimumab 3 months later. Adalimumab provided little relief and was discontinued; therapy was transitioned to infliximab 3 months later.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition with high morbidity rates. Symptoms typically develop between puberty and the third decade of life, affecting twice as many females as males, with an overall disease prevalence of 1% to 4%.¹ The pathogenesis is theorized to be related to an immune response to follicular occlusion and rupture in genetically susceptible individuals.

Among the complications associated with HS, the development of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is 4.6-times more likely within HS lesions than in normal skin and typically is seen in the setting of long-standing disease, particularly in men with HS lesions located on the buttocks and genital region for more than 20 years.² In 2015, the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk for skin cancer in other clinical settings.^3,4 We present a case of locally advanced SCC that developed in a patient with HS who was treated with adalimumab and infliximab (both TNF-α inhibitors), ultimately leading to the patient’s death.

A 59-year-old man who smoked with a 40-year history of severe HS, who previously was lost to follow-up, presented to our dermatology clinic with lesions on the buttocks. Physical examination demonstrated confluent, indurated, boggy plaques; scattered sinus tracts with purulent drainage; scattered cystlike nodules; and tenderness to palpation consistent with Hurley stage III disease (Figure 1A). No involvement of the axillae or groin was noted. He was started on doxycycline and a prednisone taper with minimal improvement and subsequently was switched to adalimumab 3 months later. Adalimumab provided little relief and was discontinued; therapy was transitioned to infliximab 3 months later.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition with high morbidity rates. Symptoms typically develop between puberty and the third decade of life, affecting twice as many females as males, with an overall disease prevalence of 1% to 4%.¹ The pathogenesis is theorized to be related to an immune response to follicular occlusion and rupture in genetically susceptible individuals.

Among the complications associated with HS, the development of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is 4.6-times more likely within HS lesions than in normal skin and typically is seen in the setting of long-standing disease, particularly in men with HS lesions located on the buttocks and genital region for more than 20 years.² In 2015, the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk for skin cancer in other clinical settings.^3,4 We present a case of locally advanced SCC that developed in a patient with HS who was treated with adalimumab and infliximab (both TNF-α inhibitors), ultimately leading to the patient’s death.

A 59-year-old man who smoked with a 40-year history of severe HS, who previously was lost to follow-up, presented to our dermatology clinic with lesions on the buttocks. Physical examination demonstrated confluent, indurated, boggy plaques; scattered sinus tracts with purulent drainage; scattered cystlike nodules; and tenderness to palpation consistent with Hurley stage III disease (Figure 1A). No involvement of the axillae or groin was noted. He was started on doxycycline and a prednisone taper with minimal improvement and subsequently was switched to adalimumab 3 months later. Adalimumab provided little relief and was discontinued; therapy was transitioned to infliximab 3 months later.

Severe COVID-19 infection was more likely in hospitalized patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who had comorbidities and risk factors associated with severe infection in the general population, notably older age, male gender, and hypertension, based on data from a nationwide epidemiologic study of inpatients in France.

“Recently, anti-interferon antibodies have been implicated in severe SARS-CoV-2 infection while it has been known for decades that patients with SLE may produce such autoantibodies,” but large-scale data on the risk of severe COVID-19 infection in SLE patients are limited, Arthur Mageau, MD, of Bichat–Claude Bernard Hospital in Paris, and colleagues wrote.

In a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers used the French health care database Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d’Information to identify 11,055 adult SLE patients who had at least one hospital stay between March 1, 2020, and Oct.31, 2020. Of these, 1,411 (12.8%) also were diagnosed with COVID-19, and these patients had a total of 1,721 hospital stays.

Overall, in-hospital mortality was approximately four times higher among SLE patients with COVID-19 infection, compared with SLE patients without COVID-19 infection (9.5% vs. 2.4%, P < .001), and 293 (17%) of the COVID-19 hospital stays involved an intensive care unit. In the ICU, 78 (26.7%) of the COVID-19 patients required invasive ventilation, and 71 (24.7%) required noninvasive mechanical ventilation.

The SLE patients with COVID-19 who died were significantly more likely than the SLE patients with COVID-19 who recovered to be older and male, and to have conditions including chronic kidney disease, high blood pressure, chronic pulmonary disease, and a history of cardiovascular events or lupus nephritis. The study findings were limited by the focus on hospitalized patients only, so the results cannot be generalized to all lupus patients, the researchers said.

“Interestingly, while the overall mortality rate was lower in SLE/COVID-19–positive inpatients as compared with the total population admitted for SARS-CoV-2 infection in France during the same period (9.5% vs 15.7%, P < .0001), the mortality rate at a younger age tended to be higher in patients with SLE,” the researchers wrote, but the difference for these younger patients was not statistically significant. This disparity may be caused by the reduced need for immunosuppressive drugs in SLE patients as they age, and the observed increased mortality in younger SLE patients, compared with the general population, suggests that SLE may promote poor outcomes from COVID-19 infection.

Dr. Mageau received PhD fellowship support from the Agence Nationale pour la recherche. He and the other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The study received no outside funding.

Severe COVID-19 infection was more likely in hospitalized patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who had comorbidities and risk factors associated with severe infection in the general population, notably older age, male gender, and hypertension, based on data from a nationwide epidemiologic study of inpatients in France.

“Recently, anti-interferon antibodies have been implicated in severe SARS-CoV-2 infection while it has been known for decades that patients with SLE may produce such autoantibodies,” but large-scale data on the risk of severe COVID-19 infection in SLE patients are limited, Arthur Mageau, MD, of Bichat–Claude Bernard Hospital in Paris, and colleagues wrote.

In a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers used the French health care database Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d’Information to identify 11,055 adult SLE patients who had at least one hospital stay between March 1, 2020, and Oct.31, 2020. Of these, 1,411 (12.8%) also were diagnosed with COVID-19, and these patients had a total of 1,721 hospital stays.

Overall, in-hospital mortality was approximately four times higher among SLE patients with COVID-19 infection, compared with SLE patients without COVID-19 infection (9.5% vs. 2.4%, P < .001), and 293 (17%) of the COVID-19 hospital stays involved an intensive care unit. In the ICU, 78 (26.7%) of the COVID-19 patients required invasive ventilation, and 71 (24.7%) required noninvasive mechanical ventilation.

The SLE patients with COVID-19 who died were significantly more likely than the SLE patients with COVID-19 who recovered to be older and male, and to have conditions including chronic kidney disease, high blood pressure, chronic pulmonary disease, and a history of cardiovascular events or lupus nephritis. The study findings were limited by the focus on hospitalized patients only, so the results cannot be generalized to all lupus patients, the researchers said.

“Interestingly, while the overall mortality rate was lower in SLE/COVID-19–positive inpatients as compared with the total population admitted for SARS-CoV-2 infection in France during the same period (9.5% vs 15.7%, P < .0001), the mortality rate at a younger age tended to be higher in patients with SLE,” the researchers wrote, but the difference for these younger patients was not statistically significant. This disparity may be caused by the reduced need for immunosuppressive drugs in SLE patients as they age, and the observed increased mortality in younger SLE patients, compared with the general population, suggests that SLE may promote poor outcomes from COVID-19 infection.

Dr. Mageau received PhD fellowship support from the Agence Nationale pour la recherche. He and the other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The study received no outside funding.

Severe COVID-19 infection was more likely in hospitalized patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who had comorbidities and risk factors associated with severe infection in the general population, notably older age, male gender, and hypertension, based on data from a nationwide epidemiologic study of inpatients in France.

“Recently, anti-interferon antibodies have been implicated in severe SARS-CoV-2 infection while it has been known for decades that patients with SLE may produce such autoantibodies,” but large-scale data on the risk of severe COVID-19 infection in SLE patients are limited, Arthur Mageau, MD, of Bichat–Claude Bernard Hospital in Paris, and colleagues wrote.

In a research letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers used the French health care database Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d’Information to identify 11,055 adult SLE patients who had at least one hospital stay between March 1, 2020, and Oct.31, 2020. Of these, 1,411 (12.8%) also were diagnosed with COVID-19, and these patients had a total of 1,721 hospital stays.

Overall, in-hospital mortality was approximately four times higher among SLE patients with COVID-19 infection, compared with SLE patients without COVID-19 infection (9.5% vs. 2.4%, P < .001), and 293 (17%) of the COVID-19 hospital stays involved an intensive care unit. In the ICU, 78 (26.7%) of the COVID-19 patients required invasive ventilation, and 71 (24.7%) required noninvasive mechanical ventilation.

The SLE patients with COVID-19 who died were significantly more likely than the SLE patients with COVID-19 who recovered to be older and male, and to have conditions including chronic kidney disease, high blood pressure, chronic pulmonary disease, and a history of cardiovascular events or lupus nephritis. The study findings were limited by the focus on hospitalized patients only, so the results cannot be generalized to all lupus patients, the researchers said.

“Interestingly, while the overall mortality rate was lower in SLE/COVID-19–positive inpatients as compared with the total population admitted for SARS-CoV-2 infection in France during the same period (9.5% vs 15.7%, P < .0001), the mortality rate at a younger age tended to be higher in patients with SLE,” the researchers wrote, but the difference for these younger patients was not statistically significant. This disparity may be caused by the reduced need for immunosuppressive drugs in SLE patients as they age, and the observed increased mortality in younger SLE patients, compared with the general population, suggests that SLE may promote poor outcomes from COVID-19 infection.

Dr. Mageau received PhD fellowship support from the Agence Nationale pour la recherche. He and the other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The study received no outside funding.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by the development of painful abscesses, fistulous tracts, and scars. It most commonly affects the apocrine gland–bearing areas of the body such as the axillary, inguinal, and anogenital regions. With a prevalence of approximately 1%, HS can lead to notable morbidity.¹ The pathogenesis is thought to be due to occlusion of terminal hair follicles that subsequently stimulates release of proinflammatory cytokines from nearby keratinocytes. The mechanism of initial occlusion is not well understood but may be due to friction or trauma. An inflammatory mechanism of disease also has been hypothesized; however, the exact cytokine profile is not known. Treatment of HS consists of several different modalities, including oral retinoids, antibiotics, antiandrogenic therapy, and surgery.^1,2 Adalimumab is a well-known biologic that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS.

Adalimumab is a human monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α and is thought to improve HS by several mechanisms. Inhibition of TNF-α and other proinflammatory cytokines found in inflammatory lesions and apocrine glands directly decreases the severity of lesion size and the frequency of recurrence.³ Adalimumab also is thought to downregulate expression of keratin 6 and prevent the hyperkeratinization seen in HS.⁴ Additionally, TNF-α inhibition decreases production of IL-1, which has been shown to cause hypercornification of follicles and perpetuate HS pathogenesis.⁵

Adalimumab is considered a safe medication with a low toxicity profile and rarely is associated with serious adverse effects. The most common adverse effects are injection-site reaction, headache, and rash. However, as with any immunosuppressant, there is an elevated incidence of opportunistic infections. Anti-TNF medications have been associated with an increased incidence of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. We present a patient who developed Candida esophagitis 6 weeks after starting treatment with adalimumab for the treatment of HS. This case highlights the development of esophageal candidiasis as a notable adverse event.

A 41-year-old woman with a history of endometriosis, adenomyosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, interstitial cystitis, asthma, fibromyalgia, depression, and Hashimoto thyroiditis presented to our dermatology clinic with active draining lesions and sinus tracts in the perivaginal area that were consistent with HS, which initially was treated with doxycycline 100 mg twice daily. She experienced minimal improvement of the HS lesions at 2-month follow-up.

Due to disease severity, adalimumab was started. The patient received a loading dose of 4 injections totaling 160 mg and 80 mg on day 15, followed by a maintenance dose of 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly. The patient reported substantial improvement of pain, and complete resolution of active lesions was noted on physical examination after 4 weeks of treatment with adalimumab.

Six weeks after adalimumab was started, the patient developed severe dysphagia. She was evaluated by a gastroenterologist and underwent endoscopy (Figure), which led to a diagnosis of esophageal candidiasis. Adalimumab was discontinued immediately thereafter. The patient started treatment with nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily and oral fluconazole 200 mg daily. The candidiasis resolved within 2 weeks; however, she experienced recurrence of HS with draining lesions in the perivaginal area approximately 8 weeks after discontinuation of adalimumab. The patient requested to restart adalimumab treatment despite the recent history of esophagitis. Adalimumab 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly was restarted along with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice weekly and nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of HS symptoms within 6 weeks with no recurrence of esophageal candidiasis during 6 months of follow-up.

Patients receiving adalimumab for dermatologic or other conditions should be closely monitored for opportunistic infections. Although immunomodulatory medications offer promising therapeutic benefits in patients with HS, larger studies regarding treatment with anti-TNF agents in HS are warranted to prevent complications from treatment and promote long-term efficacy and safety.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by the development of painful abscesses, fistulous tracts, and scars. It most commonly affects the apocrine gland–bearing areas of the body such as the axillary, inguinal, and anogenital regions. With a prevalence of approximately 1%, HS can lead to notable morbidity.¹ The pathogenesis is thought to be due to occlusion of terminal hair follicles that subsequently stimulates release of proinflammatory cytokines from nearby keratinocytes. The mechanism of initial occlusion is not well understood but may be due to friction or trauma. An inflammatory mechanism of disease also has been hypothesized; however, the exact cytokine profile is not known. Treatment of HS consists of several different modalities, including oral retinoids, antibiotics, antiandrogenic therapy, and surgery.^1,2 Adalimumab is a well-known biologic that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS.

Adalimumab is a human monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α and is thought to improve HS by several mechanisms. Inhibition of TNF-α and other proinflammatory cytokines found in inflammatory lesions and apocrine glands directly decreases the severity of lesion size and the frequency of recurrence.³ Adalimumab also is thought to downregulate expression of keratin 6 and prevent the hyperkeratinization seen in HS.⁴ Additionally, TNF-α inhibition decreases production of IL-1, which has been shown to cause hypercornification of follicles and perpetuate HS pathogenesis.⁵

Adalimumab is considered a safe medication with a low toxicity profile and rarely is associated with serious adverse effects. The most common adverse effects are injection-site reaction, headache, and rash. However, as with any immunosuppressant, there is an elevated incidence of opportunistic infections. Anti-TNF medications have been associated with an increased incidence of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. We present a patient who developed Candida esophagitis 6 weeks after starting treatment with adalimumab for the treatment of HS. This case highlights the development of esophageal candidiasis as a notable adverse event.

A 41-year-old woman with a history of endometriosis, adenomyosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, interstitial cystitis, asthma, fibromyalgia, depression, and Hashimoto thyroiditis presented to our dermatology clinic with active draining lesions and sinus tracts in the perivaginal area that were consistent with HS, which initially was treated with doxycycline 100 mg twice daily. She experienced minimal improvement of the HS lesions at 2-month follow-up.

Due to disease severity, adalimumab was started. The patient received a loading dose of 4 injections totaling 160 mg and 80 mg on day 15, followed by a maintenance dose of 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly. The patient reported substantial improvement of pain, and complete resolution of active lesions was noted on physical examination after 4 weeks of treatment with adalimumab.

Six weeks after adalimumab was started, the patient developed severe dysphagia. She was evaluated by a gastroenterologist and underwent endoscopy (Figure), which led to a diagnosis of esophageal candidiasis. Adalimumab was discontinued immediately thereafter. The patient started treatment with nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily and oral fluconazole 200 mg daily. The candidiasis resolved within 2 weeks; however, she experienced recurrence of HS with draining lesions in the perivaginal area approximately 8 weeks after discontinuation of adalimumab. The patient requested to restart adalimumab treatment despite the recent history of esophagitis. Adalimumab 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly was restarted along with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice weekly and nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of HS symptoms within 6 weeks with no recurrence of esophageal candidiasis during 6 months of follow-up.

Patients receiving adalimumab for dermatologic or other conditions should be closely monitored for opportunistic infections. Although immunomodulatory medications offer promising therapeutic benefits in patients with HS, larger studies regarding treatment with anti-TNF agents in HS are warranted to prevent complications from treatment and promote long-term efficacy and safety.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by the development of painful abscesses, fistulous tracts, and scars. It most commonly affects the apocrine gland–bearing areas of the body such as the axillary, inguinal, and anogenital regions. With a prevalence of approximately 1%, HS can lead to notable morbidity.¹ The pathogenesis is thought to be due to occlusion of terminal hair follicles that subsequently stimulates release of proinflammatory cytokines from nearby keratinocytes. The mechanism of initial occlusion is not well understood but may be due to friction or trauma. An inflammatory mechanism of disease also has been hypothesized; however, the exact cytokine profile is not known. Treatment of HS consists of several different modalities, including oral retinoids, antibiotics, antiandrogenic therapy, and surgery.^1,2 Adalimumab is a well-known biologic that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS.

Adalimumab is a human monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor (TNF) α and is thought to improve HS by several mechanisms. Inhibition of TNF-α and other proinflammatory cytokines found in inflammatory lesions and apocrine glands directly decreases the severity of lesion size and the frequency of recurrence.³ Adalimumab also is thought to downregulate expression of keratin 6 and prevent the hyperkeratinization seen in HS.⁴ Additionally, TNF-α inhibition decreases production of IL-1, which has been shown to cause hypercornification of follicles and perpetuate HS pathogenesis.⁵

Adalimumab is considered a safe medication with a low toxicity profile and rarely is associated with serious adverse effects. The most common adverse effects are injection-site reaction, headache, and rash. However, as with any immunosuppressant, there is an elevated incidence of opportunistic infections. Anti-TNF medications have been associated with an increased incidence of viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. We present a patient who developed Candida esophagitis 6 weeks after starting treatment with adalimumab for the treatment of HS. This case highlights the development of esophageal candidiasis as a notable adverse event.

A 41-year-old woman with a history of endometriosis, adenomyosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, interstitial cystitis, asthma, fibromyalgia, depression, and Hashimoto thyroiditis presented to our dermatology clinic with active draining lesions and sinus tracts in the perivaginal area that were consistent with HS, which initially was treated with doxycycline 100 mg twice daily. She experienced minimal improvement of the HS lesions at 2-month follow-up.

Due to disease severity, adalimumab was started. The patient received a loading dose of 4 injections totaling 160 mg and 80 mg on day 15, followed by a maintenance dose of 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly. The patient reported substantial improvement of pain, and complete resolution of active lesions was noted on physical examination after 4 weeks of treatment with adalimumab.

Six weeks after adalimumab was started, the patient developed severe dysphagia. She was evaluated by a gastroenterologist and underwent endoscopy (Figure), which led to a diagnosis of esophageal candidiasis. Adalimumab was discontinued immediately thereafter. The patient started treatment with nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily and oral fluconazole 200 mg daily. The candidiasis resolved within 2 weeks; however, she experienced recurrence of HS with draining lesions in the perivaginal area approximately 8 weeks after discontinuation of adalimumab. The patient requested to restart adalimumab treatment despite the recent history of esophagitis. Adalimumab 40 mg/0.4 mL weekly was restarted along with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice weekly and nystatin oral rinse 4 times daily. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of HS symptoms within 6 weeks with no recurrence of esophageal candidiasis during 6 months of follow-up.

Patients receiving adalimumab for dermatologic or other conditions should be closely monitored for opportunistic infections. Although immunomodulatory medications offer promising therapeutic benefits in patients with HS, larger studies regarding treatment with anti-TNF agents in HS are warranted to prevent complications from treatment and promote long-term efficacy and safety.

People with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) experienced significantly higher rates of first severe infections, a higher number of severe infections overall, and greater infection-related mortality, compared with controls, based on data from a population-based cohort study of more than 30,000 individuals.

Infections remain a leading cause of morbidity and early mortality in patients with SLE, wrote Kai Zhao, MSc, of Arthritis Research Canada, Richmond, and colleagues. However, “limitations from existing studies including selected samples, small sizes, and prevalent cohorts can negatively affect the accuracy of both the absolute and relative risk estimates of infections in SLE at the population level,” they said.

In a study published in Rheumatology, the researchers identified 5,169 people newly diagnosed with SLE between Jan. 1, 1997, and March 31, 2015, and matched them with 25,845 non-SLE controls using an administrative health database of all health care services funded in British Columbia during the time period. The investigators said the study is the first “to evaluate the risk of severe infections in a large population-based and incident SLE cohort.”

The average age of the patients was 46.9 at the time of their index SLE diagnosis, and 86% were women. The average follow-up period was approximately 10 years.

The primary outcome was the first severe infection after the onset of SLE that required hospitalization or occurred in the hospital setting. A total of 955 (18.5%) first severe infections occurred in the SLE group, compared with 1,988 (7.7%) in the controls, for incidence rates of 19.7 events per 1,000 person-years and 7.6 events per 1,000 person-years, respectively, yielding an 82% increased risk of severe infection for SLE patients after adjustment for confounding baseline factors.

Secondary outcomes of the total number of severe infections and infection-related mortality both showed significant increases in SLE patients, compared with controls. The total number of severe infections in the SLE and control groups was 1,898 and 3,114, respectively, with an adjusted risk ratio of 2.07.

As for mortality, a total of 539 deaths occurred in SLE patients during the study period, and 114 (21%) were related to severe infection. A total of 1,495 deaths occurred in the control group, including 269 (18%) related to severe infection. The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.61 after adjustment for confounding baseline variables.

The risks for first severe infection, total number of severe infections, and infection-related mortality were “independent of traditional risk factors for infection and the results remain robust in the presence of an unmeasured confounder (smoking) and competing risk of death,” the researchers said. Reasons for the increased risk are uncertain, but likely result from intrinsic factors such as immune system dysfunction and extrinsic factors such as the impact of immunosuppressive medications. “Future research can focus on quantifying the relative contributions of these intrinsic and extrinsic factors on the increased infection risk in SLE patients,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors linked to the observational design, including possible misdiagnosis of SLE and inaccurate measure of SLE onset, the researchers noted. In addition, no data were available for certain confounders such as smoking and nonhospitalized infections, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large size and general population and the use of sensitivity analyses, they noted. For SLE patients, “increased awareness of the risk of infections can identify their early signs and potentially prevent hospitalizations,” and clinicians can promote infection prevention strategies, including vaccinations when appropriate, they added.

Based on their findings, “we recommend a closer surveillance for severe infections in SLE patients and risk assessment for severe infections for SLE patients after diagnosis,” the researchers emphasized. “Further studies are warranted to further identify risk factors for infections in SLE patients to develop personalized treatment regimens and to select treatment in practice by synthesizing patient information,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

People with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) experienced significantly higher rates of first severe infections, a higher number of severe infections overall, and greater infection-related mortality, compared with controls, based on data from a population-based cohort study of more than 30,000 individuals.

Infections remain a leading cause of morbidity and early mortality in patients with SLE, wrote Kai Zhao, MSc, of Arthritis Research Canada, Richmond, and colleagues. However, “limitations from existing studies including selected samples, small sizes, and prevalent cohorts can negatively affect the accuracy of both the absolute and relative risk estimates of infections in SLE at the population level,” they said.

In a study published in Rheumatology, the researchers identified 5,169 people newly diagnosed with SLE between Jan. 1, 1997, and March 31, 2015, and matched them with 25,845 non-SLE controls using an administrative health database of all health care services funded in British Columbia during the time period. The investigators said the study is the first “to evaluate the risk of severe infections in a large population-based and incident SLE cohort.”

The average age of the patients was 46.9 at the time of their index SLE diagnosis, and 86% were women. The average follow-up period was approximately 10 years.

The primary outcome was the first severe infection after the onset of SLE that required hospitalization or occurred in the hospital setting. A total of 955 (18.5%) first severe infections occurred in the SLE group, compared with 1,988 (7.7%) in the controls, for incidence rates of 19.7 events per 1,000 person-years and 7.6 events per 1,000 person-years, respectively, yielding an 82% increased risk of severe infection for SLE patients after adjustment for confounding baseline factors.

Secondary outcomes of the total number of severe infections and infection-related mortality both showed significant increases in SLE patients, compared with controls. The total number of severe infections in the SLE and control groups was 1,898 and 3,114, respectively, with an adjusted risk ratio of 2.07.

As for mortality, a total of 539 deaths occurred in SLE patients during the study period, and 114 (21%) were related to severe infection. A total of 1,495 deaths occurred in the control group, including 269 (18%) related to severe infection. The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.61 after adjustment for confounding baseline variables.

The risks for first severe infection, total number of severe infections, and infection-related mortality were “independent of traditional risk factors for infection and the results remain robust in the presence of an unmeasured confounder (smoking) and competing risk of death,” the researchers said. Reasons for the increased risk are uncertain, but likely result from intrinsic factors such as immune system dysfunction and extrinsic factors such as the impact of immunosuppressive medications. “Future research can focus on quantifying the relative contributions of these intrinsic and extrinsic factors on the increased infection risk in SLE patients,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors linked to the observational design, including possible misdiagnosis of SLE and inaccurate measure of SLE onset, the researchers noted. In addition, no data were available for certain confounders such as smoking and nonhospitalized infections, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large size and general population and the use of sensitivity analyses, they noted. For SLE patients, “increased awareness of the risk of infections can identify their early signs and potentially prevent hospitalizations,” and clinicians can promote infection prevention strategies, including vaccinations when appropriate, they added.

Based on their findings, “we recommend a closer surveillance for severe infections in SLE patients and risk assessment for severe infections for SLE patients after diagnosis,” the researchers emphasized. “Further studies are warranted to further identify risk factors for infections in SLE patients to develop personalized treatment regimens and to select treatment in practice by synthesizing patient information,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

People with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) experienced significantly higher rates of first severe infections, a higher number of severe infections overall, and greater infection-related mortality, compared with controls, based on data from a population-based cohort study of more than 30,000 individuals.

Infections remain a leading cause of morbidity and early mortality in patients with SLE, wrote Kai Zhao, MSc, of Arthritis Research Canada, Richmond, and colleagues. However, “limitations from existing studies including selected samples, small sizes, and prevalent cohorts can negatively affect the accuracy of both the absolute and relative risk estimates of infections in SLE at the population level,” they said.

In a study published in Rheumatology, the researchers identified 5,169 people newly diagnosed with SLE between Jan. 1, 1997, and March 31, 2015, and matched them with 25,845 non-SLE controls using an administrative health database of all health care services funded in British Columbia during the time period. The investigators said the study is the first “to evaluate the risk of severe infections in a large population-based and incident SLE cohort.”

The average age of the patients was 46.9 at the time of their index SLE diagnosis, and 86% were women. The average follow-up period was approximately 10 years.

The primary outcome was the first severe infection after the onset of SLE that required hospitalization or occurred in the hospital setting. A total of 955 (18.5%) first severe infections occurred in the SLE group, compared with 1,988 (7.7%) in the controls, for incidence rates of 19.7 events per 1,000 person-years and 7.6 events per 1,000 person-years, respectively, yielding an 82% increased risk of severe infection for SLE patients after adjustment for confounding baseline factors.

Secondary outcomes of the total number of severe infections and infection-related mortality both showed significant increases in SLE patients, compared with controls. The total number of severe infections in the SLE and control groups was 1,898 and 3,114, respectively, with an adjusted risk ratio of 2.07.

As for mortality, a total of 539 deaths occurred in SLE patients during the study period, and 114 (21%) were related to severe infection. A total of 1,495 deaths occurred in the control group, including 269 (18%) related to severe infection. The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.61 after adjustment for confounding baseline variables.

The risks for first severe infection, total number of severe infections, and infection-related mortality were “independent of traditional risk factors for infection and the results remain robust in the presence of an unmeasured confounder (smoking) and competing risk of death,” the researchers said. Reasons for the increased risk are uncertain, but likely result from intrinsic factors such as immune system dysfunction and extrinsic factors such as the impact of immunosuppressive medications. “Future research can focus on quantifying the relative contributions of these intrinsic and extrinsic factors on the increased infection risk in SLE patients,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors linked to the observational design, including possible misdiagnosis of SLE and inaccurate measure of SLE onset, the researchers noted. In addition, no data were available for certain confounders such as smoking and nonhospitalized infections, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large size and general population and the use of sensitivity analyses, they noted. For SLE patients, “increased awareness of the risk of infections can identify their early signs and potentially prevent hospitalizations,” and clinicians can promote infection prevention strategies, including vaccinations when appropriate, they added.

Based on their findings, “we recommend a closer surveillance for severe infections in SLE patients and risk assessment for severe infections for SLE patients after diagnosis,” the researchers emphasized. “Further studies are warranted to further identify risk factors for infections in SLE patients to develop personalized treatment regimens and to select treatment in practice by synthesizing patient information,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS)(also known as acne inversa) is a chronic, recurrent, and debilitating inflammatory dermatologic disease of the hair follicle. It usually presents after puberty, with painful, deep-seated, inflamed lesions in apocrine gland–bearing areas of the body, most commonly the axillae and inguinal and anogenital regions.¹

Hidradenitis suppurativa patients have a high rate of psychologic and psychiatric comorbidities that often are interrelated and multidirectional. Approximately 1 in 4 adults with HS also experience depression (prevalence among all HS patients, 16.9%), and 1 in 5 experience anxiety (prevalence, 4.9%).^2,3 Hidradenitis suppurativa has been associated with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and suicidality.^2,4

These comorbidity factors have a remarkable impact on HS patients’ quality of life (QOL). Compared to other diseases, including psoriasis, stroke, and conditions that create candidacy for heart transplantation, HS was identified as the most impairing condition.^5,6 It is estimated that more than 50% of HS patients experience a very or extremely large effect on their QOL, as measured by the dermatology life quality index.⁶

Pain, a major component of low QOL in HS patients, has an adverse impact on emotional health. Hidradenitis suppurativa causes body image dissatisfaction, leading to shame, embarrassment, lack of self-confidence, stigmatization, and social isolation.^7-9 Furthermore, patients with HS have an increased risk for antidepressant drug use, completed suicide, and suicidal behavior compared to the general population.¹⁰

Focusing therapy on physical manifestations of HS only while ignoring the psychologic aspect could lead to a vicious cycle in which stress triggers flares, leading to worsening HS, leading to more stress, and so on.¹¹ Therefore, psychological support for HS patients is critical, and we believe it should be an integral part of managing the disease.

There is no evidence to support effective therapeutic intervention for psychological aspects of HS. We conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term hidradenitis in combination with psychology, psychological, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioral therapy. No relevant articles were found. Most articles on HS focused on the low QOL associated with the disease and patient coping mechanisms. However, there are a number of psychological therapies to consider and evaluate for the management of HS.

Psychological Therapies to Consider in HS

Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
Cognitive behavioral treatment has been successfully used to manage skin diseases other than HS.¹² Patients’ shame and stigmatization due to body dissatisfaction often cause social isolation, which might appear as social anxiety.^9,13 Cognitive behavioral treatment, or compassion-focused therapy, could increase patients’ self-acceptance and reduce shameful feelings.¹³

Group Therapy
Alternatively, group therapy might be beneficial for HS patients. Research has shown that most HS patients know others affected by the same disease or attend an HS support group, and patients value the support of peers with the disease.¹³ Therefore, group therapy meetings with HS patients that are directed by a health care professional might reduce feelings of shame and stigmatization and increase feelings of social acceptance.

Mindfulness
Another approach for managing psychological aspects of skin diseases that might be useful in HS is mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), developed by Kabat-Zinn and colleagues,¹⁴ which helps patients develop mindfulness through training in meditation. It is an intensive, structured, patient-centered approach that has been successfully used in a variety of settings.^14,15

Current evidence supports the use of MBSR in the adjunct treatment of chronic pain, anxiety, and depression—symptoms that have a great impact on HS patients’ QOL.¹⁶ Furthermore, MBSR is offered in a group setting, which is potentially an opportunity for peer support and understanding; social support has been reported to be highly beneficial for HS patients.¹⁷

Can the Placebo Effect Aid in Managing HS?

A recent review that assessed the placebo effect in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of treatments for cutaneous disease demonstrated that the placebo effect in HS therapy trials is higher than in RCTs of therapies for psoriasis and eczema. This finding highlights the importance of the physician-patient relationship when managing HS, which can result in greater treatment adherence and more patient education, empowerment, and encouragement toward beneficial lifestyle changes.¹⁸

Complementary psychological interventions for managing HS might maximize the placebo effect in clinical practice.¹⁸ The placebo effect in RCTs is higher for HS treatments than for psoriasis treatments, and if patients with psoriasis improved with psychological interventions,¹² it would be reasonable to expect an improvement in QOL with psychological interventions for HS.

Final Thoughts

Although a number of studies have been published in the medical literature regarding psychological intervention in psoriasis management,¹² we found no clinical studies assessing the psychological management of HS. We conclude that more research is necessary to develop psychological interventions targeting HS patients because a multidisciplinary and patient-centered approach is essential for the management of HS.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS)(also known as acne inversa) is a chronic, recurrent, and debilitating inflammatory dermatologic disease of the hair follicle. It usually presents after puberty, with painful, deep-seated, inflamed lesions in apocrine gland–bearing areas of the body, most commonly the axillae and inguinal and anogenital regions.¹

Hidradenitis suppurativa patients have a high rate of psychologic and psychiatric comorbidities that often are interrelated and multidirectional. Approximately 1 in 4 adults with HS also experience depression (prevalence among all HS patients, 16.9%), and 1 in 5 experience anxiety (prevalence, 4.9%).^2,3 Hidradenitis suppurativa has been associated with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and suicidality.^2,4

These comorbidity factors have a remarkable impact on HS patients’ quality of life (QOL). Compared to other diseases, including psoriasis, stroke, and conditions that create candidacy for heart transplantation, HS was identified as the most impairing condition.^5,6 It is estimated that more than 50% of HS patients experience a very or extremely large effect on their QOL, as measured by the dermatology life quality index.⁶

Pain, a major component of low QOL in HS patients, has an adverse impact on emotional health. Hidradenitis suppurativa causes body image dissatisfaction, leading to shame, embarrassment, lack of self-confidence, stigmatization, and social isolation.^7-9 Furthermore, patients with HS have an increased risk for antidepressant drug use, completed suicide, and suicidal behavior compared to the general population.¹⁰

Focusing therapy on physical manifestations of HS only while ignoring the psychologic aspect could lead to a vicious cycle in which stress triggers flares, leading to worsening HS, leading to more stress, and so on.¹¹ Therefore, psychological support for HS patients is critical, and we believe it should be an integral part of managing the disease.

There is no evidence to support effective therapeutic intervention for psychological aspects of HS. We conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term hidradenitis in combination with psychology, psychological, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioral therapy. No relevant articles were found. Most articles on HS focused on the low QOL associated with the disease and patient coping mechanisms. However, there are a number of psychological therapies to consider and evaluate for the management of HS.

Psychological Therapies to Consider in HS

Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
Cognitive behavioral treatment has been successfully used to manage skin diseases other than HS.¹² Patients’ shame and stigmatization due to body dissatisfaction often cause social isolation, which might appear as social anxiety.^9,13 Cognitive behavioral treatment, or compassion-focused therapy, could increase patients’ self-acceptance and reduce shameful feelings.¹³

Group Therapy
Alternatively, group therapy might be beneficial for HS patients. Research has shown that most HS patients know others affected by the same disease or attend an HS support group, and patients value the support of peers with the disease.¹³ Therefore, group therapy meetings with HS patients that are directed by a health care professional might reduce feelings of shame and stigmatization and increase feelings of social acceptance.

Mindfulness
Another approach for managing psychological aspects of skin diseases that might be useful in HS is mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), developed by Kabat-Zinn and colleagues,¹⁴ which helps patients develop mindfulness through training in meditation. It is an intensive, structured, patient-centered approach that has been successfully used in a variety of settings.^14,15

Current evidence supports the use of MBSR in the adjunct treatment of chronic pain, anxiety, and depression—symptoms that have a great impact on HS patients’ QOL.¹⁶ Furthermore, MBSR is offered in a group setting, which is potentially an opportunity for peer support and understanding; social support has been reported to be highly beneficial for HS patients.¹⁷

Can the Placebo Effect Aid in Managing HS?

A recent review that assessed the placebo effect in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of treatments for cutaneous disease demonstrated that the placebo effect in HS therapy trials is higher than in RCTs of therapies for psoriasis and eczema. This finding highlights the importance of the physician-patient relationship when managing HS, which can result in greater treatment adherence and more patient education, empowerment, and encouragement toward beneficial lifestyle changes.¹⁸

Complementary psychological interventions for managing HS might maximize the placebo effect in clinical practice.¹⁸ The placebo effect in RCTs is higher for HS treatments than for psoriasis treatments, and if patients with psoriasis improved with psychological interventions,¹² it would be reasonable to expect an improvement in QOL with psychological interventions for HS.

Final Thoughts

Although a number of studies have been published in the medical literature regarding psychological intervention in psoriasis management,¹² we found no clinical studies assessing the psychological management of HS. We conclude that more research is necessary to develop psychological interventions targeting HS patients because a multidisciplinary and patient-centered approach is essential for the management of HS.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS)(also known as acne inversa) is a chronic, recurrent, and debilitating inflammatory dermatologic disease of the hair follicle. It usually presents after puberty, with painful, deep-seated, inflamed lesions in apocrine gland–bearing areas of the body, most commonly the axillae and inguinal and anogenital regions.¹

Hidradenitis suppurativa patients have a high rate of psychologic and psychiatric comorbidities that often are interrelated and multidirectional. Approximately 1 in 4 adults with HS also experience depression (prevalence among all HS patients, 16.9%), and 1 in 5 experience anxiety (prevalence, 4.9%).^2,3 Hidradenitis suppurativa has been associated with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and suicidality.^2,4

These comorbidity factors have a remarkable impact on HS patients’ quality of life (QOL). Compared to other diseases, including psoriasis, stroke, and conditions that create candidacy for heart transplantation, HS was identified as the most impairing condition.^5,6 It is estimated that more than 50% of HS patients experience a very or extremely large effect on their QOL, as measured by the dermatology life quality index.⁶

Pain, a major component of low QOL in HS patients, has an adverse impact on emotional health. Hidradenitis suppurativa causes body image dissatisfaction, leading to shame, embarrassment, lack of self-confidence, stigmatization, and social isolation.^7-9 Furthermore, patients with HS have an increased risk for antidepressant drug use, completed suicide, and suicidal behavior compared to the general population.¹⁰

Focusing therapy on physical manifestations of HS only while ignoring the psychologic aspect could lead to a vicious cycle in which stress triggers flares, leading to worsening HS, leading to more stress, and so on.¹¹ Therefore, psychological support for HS patients is critical, and we believe it should be an integral part of managing the disease.

There is no evidence to support effective therapeutic intervention for psychological aspects of HS. We conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the term hidradenitis in combination with psychology, psychological, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioral therapy. No relevant articles were found. Most articles on HS focused on the low QOL associated with the disease and patient coping mechanisms. However, there are a number of psychological therapies to consider and evaluate for the management of HS.

Psychological Therapies to Consider in HS

Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
Cognitive behavioral treatment has been successfully used to manage skin diseases other than HS.¹² Patients’ shame and stigmatization due to body dissatisfaction often cause social isolation, which might appear as social anxiety.^9,13 Cognitive behavioral treatment, or compassion-focused therapy, could increase patients’ self-acceptance and reduce shameful feelings.¹³

Group Therapy
Alternatively, group therapy might be beneficial for HS patients. Research has shown that most HS patients know others affected by the same disease or attend an HS support group, and patients value the support of peers with the disease.¹³ Therefore, group therapy meetings with HS patients that are directed by a health care professional might reduce feelings of shame and stigmatization and increase feelings of social acceptance.

Mindfulness
Another approach for managing psychological aspects of skin diseases that might be useful in HS is mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), developed by Kabat-Zinn and colleagues,¹⁴ which helps patients develop mindfulness through training in meditation. It is an intensive, structured, patient-centered approach that has been successfully used in a variety of settings.^14,15

Current evidence supports the use of MBSR in the adjunct treatment of chronic pain, anxiety, and depression—symptoms that have a great impact on HS patients’ QOL.¹⁶ Furthermore, MBSR is offered in a group setting, which is potentially an opportunity for peer support and understanding; social support has been reported to be highly beneficial for HS patients.¹⁷

Can the Placebo Effect Aid in Managing HS?

A recent review that assessed the placebo effect in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of treatments for cutaneous disease demonstrated that the placebo effect in HS therapy trials is higher than in RCTs of therapies for psoriasis and eczema. This finding highlights the importance of the physician-patient relationship when managing HS, which can result in greater treatment adherence and more patient education, empowerment, and encouragement toward beneficial lifestyle changes.¹⁸

Complementary psychological interventions for managing HS might maximize the placebo effect in clinical practice.¹⁸ The placebo effect in RCTs is higher for HS treatments than for psoriasis treatments, and if patients with psoriasis improved with psychological interventions,¹² it would be reasonable to expect an improvement in QOL with psychological interventions for HS.

Final Thoughts

Although a number of studies have been published in the medical literature regarding psychological intervention in psoriasis management,¹² we found no clinical studies assessing the psychological management of HS. We conclude that more research is necessary to develop psychological interventions targeting HS patients because a multidisciplinary and patient-centered approach is essential for the management of HS.

Hydroxychloroquine can be used safely and effectively with attention to dosing, risk factors, and screening, but communication among physicians, patients, and eye care specialists is key to optimizing outcomes and preventing complications, according to a joint statement from four medical societies.

The American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Dermatology, Rheumatologic Dermatology Society, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology have produced a statement, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, “to emphasize points of agreement that should be recognized by practitioners in all specialties,” lead author James T. Rosenbaum, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues wrote.

The statement was developed by a working group that included rheumatologists, ophthalmologists, and dermatologists with records of published studies on the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and its toxicity. The statement updated elements of the 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology guidelines for monitoring patients for retinal toxicity when using HCQ.

“The need for collaborative management has triggered this joint statement, which applies only to managing the risk of HCQ retinopathy and does not include consideration of cardiac, muscle, dermatologic, or other toxicities,” the authors noted.

The authors emphasized that HCQ plays a valuable role in controlling many rheumatic diseases, and should not be abandoned out of fear of retinopathy. However, proper dosing, recognition of risk factors, and screening strategies are essential.
 

Dosing data

Data on HCQ dosing and retinopathy are limited, but the authors cited a study of 2,361 rheumatic disease patients with an average HCQ dosing regimen of 5.0 mg/kg per day or less in which the toxicity risk was less than 2% for up to 10 years of use. Although data show some increase in risk with duration of use, “for a patient with a normal screening exam in a given year, the risk of developing retinopathy in the ensuing year is low (e.g., less than 5%), even after 20 years of use,” the authors said.

Risk factor recognition

“High daily [HCQ] dosage relative to body weight and cumulative dose are the primary risk factors for retinopathy,” the authors noted. Reduced renal function is an additional risk factor, and patients with renal insufficiency should be monitored and may need lower doses.

In addition, patients with a phenotype of initial parafoveal toxicity may be at increased risk for advanced disease evidenced by damage to the foveal center. “The phenotype of initial parafoveal toxicity is not universal, and in many patients (East Asians particularly) the retinal changes may appear initially along the pericentral vascular arcades,” so these patients should be screened with additional tests beyond the central macula, they emphasized.

Screening strategies

Patients should receive a baseline retinal exam within a few months of starting HCQ to rule out underlying retinal disease, according to the statement. The goal of screening is “to detect early retinopathy before a bullseye becomes visible on ophthalmoscopy, since at that severe stage the damage tends to progress even after discontinuing the medication and may eventually threaten central vision,” the authors said.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

In the absence of risk factors, patients can defer screening for 5 years, but should be screened annually from 5 years and forward, they said. Examples of underlying retinal disease include “significant macular degeneration, severe diabetic retinopathy, or hereditary disorders of retinal function, but these are judgments best made by the ophthalmologist since mild and stable abnormalities that do not interfere with interpretation of critical diagnostic tests may not be a contraindication” to use of HCQ.

The consensus opinion statement has limitations, notably the shortage of data on optimum HCQ dosage and the lack of prospective studies of toxicity, including the need for studies of the impact of blood levels on toxicity and studies of pharmacogenomics to stratify risk, the authors noted.

“It is important that the drug is not stopped prematurely, but also that it is not continued in the face of definitive evidence of retinal toxicity except in some situations with unusual medical need,” they said.

“Suggestive or uncertain findings should be discussed with the patient and prescribing physician to justify further examinations, but the drug need not be stopped until evidence for retinopathy is definitive, in particular for patients with active rheumatic or cutaneous disease,” and the overall risk of retinopathy remains low if the principles described in the statement are followed, they concluded.

First author Dr. Rosenbaum disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, UCB, Gilead, Novartis, Horizon, Roche, Eyevensys, Santen, Corvus, Affibody, Kyverna, Pfizer, Horizon, and UpToDate. Another 5 of the study’s 11 authors also disclosed relationships with multiple companies.

Hydroxychloroquine can be used safely and effectively with attention to dosing, risk factors, and screening, but communication among physicians, patients, and eye care specialists is key to optimizing outcomes and preventing complications, according to a joint statement from four medical societies.

The American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Dermatology, Rheumatologic Dermatology Society, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology have produced a statement, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, “to emphasize points of agreement that should be recognized by practitioners in all specialties,” lead author James T. Rosenbaum, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues wrote.

The statement was developed by a working group that included rheumatologists, ophthalmologists, and dermatologists with records of published studies on the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and its toxicity. The statement updated elements of the 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology guidelines for monitoring patients for retinal toxicity when using HCQ.

“The need for collaborative management has triggered this joint statement, which applies only to managing the risk of HCQ retinopathy and does not include consideration of cardiac, muscle, dermatologic, or other toxicities,” the authors noted.

The authors emphasized that HCQ plays a valuable role in controlling many rheumatic diseases, and should not be abandoned out of fear of retinopathy. However, proper dosing, recognition of risk factors, and screening strategies are essential.
 

Dosing data

Data on HCQ dosing and retinopathy are limited, but the authors cited a study of 2,361 rheumatic disease patients with an average HCQ dosing regimen of 5.0 mg/kg per day or less in which the toxicity risk was less than 2% for up to 10 years of use. Although data show some increase in risk with duration of use, “for a patient with a normal screening exam in a given year, the risk of developing retinopathy in the ensuing year is low (e.g., less than 5%), even after 20 years of use,” the authors said.

Risk factor recognition

“High daily [HCQ] dosage relative to body weight and cumulative dose are the primary risk factors for retinopathy,” the authors noted. Reduced renal function is an additional risk factor, and patients with renal insufficiency should be monitored and may need lower doses.

In addition, patients with a phenotype of initial parafoveal toxicity may be at increased risk for advanced disease evidenced by damage to the foveal center. “The phenotype of initial parafoveal toxicity is not universal, and in many patients (East Asians particularly) the retinal changes may appear initially along the pericentral vascular arcades,” so these patients should be screened with additional tests beyond the central macula, they emphasized.

Screening strategies

Patients should receive a baseline retinal exam within a few months of starting HCQ to rule out underlying retinal disease, according to the statement. The goal of screening is “to detect early retinopathy before a bullseye becomes visible on ophthalmoscopy, since at that severe stage the damage tends to progress even after discontinuing the medication and may eventually threaten central vision,” the authors said.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

In the absence of risk factors, patients can defer screening for 5 years, but should be screened annually from 5 years and forward, they said. Examples of underlying retinal disease include “significant macular degeneration, severe diabetic retinopathy, or hereditary disorders of retinal function, but these are judgments best made by the ophthalmologist since mild and stable abnormalities that do not interfere with interpretation of critical diagnostic tests may not be a contraindication” to use of HCQ.

The consensus opinion statement has limitations, notably the shortage of data on optimum HCQ dosage and the lack of prospective studies of toxicity, including the need for studies of the impact of blood levels on toxicity and studies of pharmacogenomics to stratify risk, the authors noted.

“It is important that the drug is not stopped prematurely, but also that it is not continued in the face of definitive evidence of retinal toxicity except in some situations with unusual medical need,” they said.

“Suggestive or uncertain findings should be discussed with the patient and prescribing physician to justify further examinations, but the drug need not be stopped until evidence for retinopathy is definitive, in particular for patients with active rheumatic or cutaneous disease,” and the overall risk of retinopathy remains low if the principles described in the statement are followed, they concluded.

First author Dr. Rosenbaum disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, UCB, Gilead, Novartis, Horizon, Roche, Eyevensys, Santen, Corvus, Affibody, Kyverna, Pfizer, Horizon, and UpToDate. Another 5 of the study’s 11 authors also disclosed relationships with multiple companies.

Hydroxychloroquine can be used safely and effectively with attention to dosing, risk factors, and screening, but communication among physicians, patients, and eye care specialists is key to optimizing outcomes and preventing complications, according to a joint statement from four medical societies.

The American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Dermatology, Rheumatologic Dermatology Society, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology have produced a statement, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, “to emphasize points of agreement that should be recognized by practitioners in all specialties,” lead author James T. Rosenbaum, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues wrote.

The statement was developed by a working group that included rheumatologists, ophthalmologists, and dermatologists with records of published studies on the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and its toxicity. The statement updated elements of the 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology guidelines for monitoring patients for retinal toxicity when using HCQ.

“The need for collaborative management has triggered this joint statement, which applies only to managing the risk of HCQ retinopathy and does not include consideration of cardiac, muscle, dermatologic, or other toxicities,” the authors noted.

The authors emphasized that HCQ plays a valuable role in controlling many rheumatic diseases, and should not be abandoned out of fear of retinopathy. However, proper dosing, recognition of risk factors, and screening strategies are essential.
 

Dosing data

Data on HCQ dosing and retinopathy are limited, but the authors cited a study of 2,361 rheumatic disease patients with an average HCQ dosing regimen of 5.0 mg/kg per day or less in which the toxicity risk was less than 2% for up to 10 years of use. Although data show some increase in risk with duration of use, “for a patient with a normal screening exam in a given year, the risk of developing retinopathy in the ensuing year is low (e.g., less than 5%), even after 20 years of use,” the authors said.

Risk factor recognition

“High daily [HCQ] dosage relative to body weight and cumulative dose are the primary risk factors for retinopathy,” the authors noted. Reduced renal function is an additional risk factor, and patients with renal insufficiency should be monitored and may need lower doses.

In addition, patients with a phenotype of initial parafoveal toxicity may be at increased risk for advanced disease evidenced by damage to the foveal center. “The phenotype of initial parafoveal toxicity is not universal, and in many patients (East Asians particularly) the retinal changes may appear initially along the pericentral vascular arcades,” so these patients should be screened with additional tests beyond the central macula, they emphasized.

Screening strategies

Patients should receive a baseline retinal exam within a few months of starting HCQ to rule out underlying retinal disease, according to the statement. The goal of screening is “to detect early retinopathy before a bullseye becomes visible on ophthalmoscopy, since at that severe stage the damage tends to progress even after discontinuing the medication and may eventually threaten central vision,” the authors said.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

In the absence of risk factors, patients can defer screening for 5 years, but should be screened annually from 5 years and forward, they said. Examples of underlying retinal disease include “significant macular degeneration, severe diabetic retinopathy, or hereditary disorders of retinal function, but these are judgments best made by the ophthalmologist since mild and stable abnormalities that do not interfere with interpretation of critical diagnostic tests may not be a contraindication” to use of HCQ.

The consensus opinion statement has limitations, notably the shortage of data on optimum HCQ dosage and the lack of prospective studies of toxicity, including the need for studies of the impact of blood levels on toxicity and studies of pharmacogenomics to stratify risk, the authors noted.

“It is important that the drug is not stopped prematurely, but also that it is not continued in the face of definitive evidence of retinal toxicity except in some situations with unusual medical need,” they said.

“Suggestive or uncertain findings should be discussed with the patient and prescribing physician to justify further examinations, but the drug need not be stopped until evidence for retinopathy is definitive, in particular for patients with active rheumatic or cutaneous disease,” and the overall risk of retinopathy remains low if the principles described in the statement are followed, they concluded.

First author Dr. Rosenbaum disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, UCB, Gilead, Novartis, Horizon, Roche, Eyevensys, Santen, Corvus, Affibody, Kyverna, Pfizer, Horizon, and UpToDate. Another 5 of the study’s 11 authors also disclosed relationships with multiple companies.