Psoriasis

Are there clinically significant differences between axial spondyloarthritis with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis with axial symptoms? Does it matter?

It all depends on whom you ask, but right now the evidence seems to be tipping in favor of the “splitters” who cite evidence supporting their contention that axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA)/ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with axial symptoms are distinct clinical entities that require more precise diagnosis and treatment.

“Lumpers,” in contrast, argue that they are different points on the same clinical spectrum.

The debate is not just of academic interest, but has real consequences for patients, say specialists on both sides of the aisle.
 

Overlapping features, different presentations

“Axial SpA and axPsA have overlapping features but also meaningful differences in genetics, clinical presentation, imaging, and immunophenotype. Efforts are underway to develop classification criteria for axPsA to aid research efforts as well as clinical diagnosis and management,” Philip J. Mease, MD, director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence–St. Joseph Health in Seattle, and colleagues contend.

In an editorial published in the International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, Dr. Mease and colleagues noted that, although HLA-B*27 is a genetic risk factor for both axPsA and axSpA, some HLA-B alleles are significantly associated with axPsA, whereas other alleles are associated with axSpA.

In addition, while genes in the interleukin-23 and IL-17 pathway are associated with increased risk for axSpA, genes in the IL-13 pathway have been identified as risk markers for axPsA, they noted.
 

Two cohorts better than one?

Dafna Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and senior scientist at the Schroeder Arthritis Institute at Toronto Western Hospital, and colleagues have a unique perspective on the similarities and differences between the disease entities.

Her group’s research uses data on cohorts of patients treated in two separate clinics at Toronto Western Hospital: one for patients with PsA, and one for patients with axial spondyloarthritis, including those with ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axSpA, and spondylitis associated with inflammatory bowel disease.

“Our work has shown that there are differences, and one of the reasons that it’s now important is that the anti–IL-23 medications, both the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab [Stelara] and the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab [Tremfya] work for psoriatic arthritis, whereas IL-23 did not work in ankylosing spondylitis, so that provided further impetus to look into the distinction between the two groups,” Dr. Gladman said in an interview.

Dr. Gladman and colleagues published a study in Rheumatology in which they compared clinical presentations and features of patients with AS with or without psoriasis with patients with axPsA.

They found that patients with AS with or without psoriasis tended to be younger, had a higher proportion of males to females, and were more likely to be positive for HLA-B*27. Patients with AS also had more back pain at presentation, worse axial disease activity scores, worse global assessments by physicians, and higher grades of sacroiliitis, and they were more likely to be taking biologic agents.

“What that showed, right off the top, that whether we’re looking at the total group or we’re looking specifically at those patients who have psoriasis or don’t have psoriasis, they are different from those with psoriatic arthritis with axial disease,” she said.

They concluded that “axPsA seems to be a distinct entity.”
 

Two clinics, same presentation

Because the aforementioned study included all patients with PsA with or without peripheral disease, the investigators decided to filter out some of the background noise and conduct a second study in which they compared patients who presented to the two clinics with the same presentation, either with spinal disease and psoriasis to the spondylitis clinic, or with psoriasis and isolated axial disease to the PsA clinic.

The results, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showed that just 2.03% of patients with PsA had isolated axial disease, and an additional 29.38% had axial and peripheral disease.

In this study, “you can see that even in that group there are distinct differences. The patients that are labeled psoriatic spondylitis are different from those that are labeled ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis,” Dr. Gladman said.

Isolated axial disease in patients with PsA was associated with HLA-B*27 positivity and lower Health Assessment Questionnaire scores. In addition, patients who were HLA-B*27 positive also had a nearly eightfold higher risk for developing peripheral disease over time.

Patients with isolated axial PsA were significantly more likely to be diagnosed at an older age (mean, 37.44 vs. 29.65 years), had higher Psoriasis Area Severity Index scores and a higher likelihood of having psoriatic nail lesions than patients with AS with isolated axial disease and psoriasis.

In contrast, patients with isolated axSpA with psoriasis were more likely to have inflammatory back pain, spinal pain, joint pain/swelling, and areas of localized tenderness, and they had greater severity of morning stiffness.

Dr. Gladman noted that, although AS and PsA are associated with the same gene that encodes for the IL-23 receptor, each condition is associated with a different single-nucleotide polymorphism.

Same disease, different flavors?

But as Mark Twain said, it is difference of opinion that makes horse races, and some specialists in rheumatology say that axSpA amd axPsA are just two sides of the same coin.

Pramod Rathod

“There are always different schools of thought. I believe that they are not different diseases, but a spectrum of diseases,” said Shailendra Singh, MD, a rheumatologist at Unity Health Medical Center in Searcy, Ark., and past president of the Arkansas Rheumatology Association.

In an interview, Dr. Singh said that the spectrum ranges from diseases with primarily axial involvement, such as AS, to those with primarily peripheral involvement, such as reactive arthritis.

He pointed out that these conditions have overlapping symptoms, including enthesitis, dactylitis, and uveitis, and inflammatory arthritis.

Daniel Wendling, MD, PhD, from the Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Besançon (France), Université de Franche-Comté, and colleagues agreed.

“The criteria currently available for both SpA [ASAS (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society) criteria] and PsA [CASPAR (Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria] are classification criteria, not diagnostic criteria. They are not very stringent and are not exclusive. Thus, the same patient can easily be classified simultaneously in both entities, making the distinction between axSpA with psoriasis and axPsA theoretical,” they wrote in an editorial published in Joint Bone Spine.

They cited as an example of the allegedly fuzzy criteria a prospective study conducted by the investigators in Bath, England, in which modified New York criteria for AS were met by 24% of patients with AS, and CASPAR criteria for PsA were met by an equal number of patients with AS.
 

Therapeutic implications

Dr. Wendling and colleagues acknowledge the differences cited in studies by Dr. Gladman, Dr. Mease, and others between patients with axPsA and those with axSpA, but argue that the differences are not that great and not so clear.

“It should also be emphasized that, although some differences between axPsA and axSpA reach statistical significance, they are mostly at the margin, with low odd ratios,” they wrote.

“It is also important to consider the variability in the definition of axPsA, sometimes simply ‘physician reported’ and elsewhere based on the modified New York radiographic criteria; the latter are only present late in the course of the disease, and this may induce bias,” they continued.

Dr. Singh agreed that, as noted by Dr. Gladman, some patients will respond to anti–IL-17, anti–IL-23, and anti–IL-12/23 agents, whereas others will have better responses with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, and still others, such as those with peripheral involvement in the hands and feet may fare better with nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs such as methotrexate.
 

Answers to come?

Dr. Gladman noted that the information available to date about the efficacy of IL-23 inhibition in axPsA is based on a post hoc analysis of the PSUMMIT 1 and 2 controlled trials in PsA, and is not definitive.

The randomized, controlled STAR trial, currently recruiting patients, is designed to see whether guselkumab can reduce axial symptoms and inflammation in patients with active axPsA.

“What I say is, there is a rationale for [anti–IL-23] to work in psoriatic arthritis, and not work in ankylosing spondylitis,” she said.

In contrast, IL-17 inhibitors, anti-TNF agents, and Janus kinase inhibitors show efficacy against both axPsA and AS. Rituximab is ineffective against PsA, but has shown efficacy against AS, especially in patients with neurologic complications from anti-TNF agents.

“There may be other medications that would work more specifically in axial psoriatic arthritis that don’t work in ankylosing spondylitis, but at least recognizing that there may be some differences, and that therefore a correct diagnosis should be obtained, might be important,” she said.

Ideally, the picture will become clearer with results from the ongoing Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, a joint project of ASAS and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. The multinational, cross-sectional study is designed “to systematically evaluate clinical and imaging manifestations indicative of axial involvement in patients with PsA and to develop classification criteria and a unified nomenclature for axial involvement in PsA that would allow defining a homogeneous subgroup of patients for research.”

Stay tuned.

Dr. Gladman’s research is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. Dr. Singh disclosed research support from various companies. Funding sources and conflict of interest disclosures from other works cited are contained in their respective references.

Are there clinically significant differences between axial spondyloarthritis with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis with axial symptoms? Does it matter?

It all depends on whom you ask, but right now the evidence seems to be tipping in favor of the “splitters” who cite evidence supporting their contention that axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA)/ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with axial symptoms are distinct clinical entities that require more precise diagnosis and treatment.

“Lumpers,” in contrast, argue that they are different points on the same clinical spectrum.

The debate is not just of academic interest, but has real consequences for patients, say specialists on both sides of the aisle.
 

Overlapping features, different presentations

“Axial SpA and axPsA have overlapping features but also meaningful differences in genetics, clinical presentation, imaging, and immunophenotype. Efforts are underway to develop classification criteria for axPsA to aid research efforts as well as clinical diagnosis and management,” Philip J. Mease, MD, director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence–St. Joseph Health in Seattle, and colleagues contend.

In an editorial published in the International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, Dr. Mease and colleagues noted that, although HLA-B*27 is a genetic risk factor for both axPsA and axSpA, some HLA-B alleles are significantly associated with axPsA, whereas other alleles are associated with axSpA.

In addition, while genes in the interleukin-23 and IL-17 pathway are associated with increased risk for axSpA, genes in the IL-13 pathway have been identified as risk markers for axPsA, they noted.
 

Two cohorts better than one?

Dafna Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and senior scientist at the Schroeder Arthritis Institute at Toronto Western Hospital, and colleagues have a unique perspective on the similarities and differences between the disease entities.

Her group’s research uses data on cohorts of patients treated in two separate clinics at Toronto Western Hospital: one for patients with PsA, and one for patients with axial spondyloarthritis, including those with ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axSpA, and spondylitis associated with inflammatory bowel disease.

“Our work has shown that there are differences, and one of the reasons that it’s now important is that the anti–IL-23 medications, both the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab [Stelara] and the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab [Tremfya] work for psoriatic arthritis, whereas IL-23 did not work in ankylosing spondylitis, so that provided further impetus to look into the distinction between the two groups,” Dr. Gladman said in an interview.

Dr. Gladman and colleagues published a study in Rheumatology in which they compared clinical presentations and features of patients with AS with or without psoriasis with patients with axPsA.

They found that patients with AS with or without psoriasis tended to be younger, had a higher proportion of males to females, and were more likely to be positive for HLA-B*27. Patients with AS also had more back pain at presentation, worse axial disease activity scores, worse global assessments by physicians, and higher grades of sacroiliitis, and they were more likely to be taking biologic agents.

“What that showed, right off the top, that whether we’re looking at the total group or we’re looking specifically at those patients who have psoriasis or don’t have psoriasis, they are different from those with psoriatic arthritis with axial disease,” she said.

They concluded that “axPsA seems to be a distinct entity.”
 

Two clinics, same presentation

Because the aforementioned study included all patients with PsA with or without peripheral disease, the investigators decided to filter out some of the background noise and conduct a second study in which they compared patients who presented to the two clinics with the same presentation, either with spinal disease and psoriasis to the spondylitis clinic, or with psoriasis and isolated axial disease to the PsA clinic.

The results, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showed that just 2.03% of patients with PsA had isolated axial disease, and an additional 29.38% had axial and peripheral disease.

In this study, “you can see that even in that group there are distinct differences. The patients that are labeled psoriatic spondylitis are different from those that are labeled ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis,” Dr. Gladman said.

Isolated axial disease in patients with PsA was associated with HLA-B*27 positivity and lower Health Assessment Questionnaire scores. In addition, patients who were HLA-B*27 positive also had a nearly eightfold higher risk for developing peripheral disease over time.

Patients with isolated axial PsA were significantly more likely to be diagnosed at an older age (mean, 37.44 vs. 29.65 years), had higher Psoriasis Area Severity Index scores and a higher likelihood of having psoriatic nail lesions than patients with AS with isolated axial disease and psoriasis.

In contrast, patients with isolated axSpA with psoriasis were more likely to have inflammatory back pain, spinal pain, joint pain/swelling, and areas of localized tenderness, and they had greater severity of morning stiffness.

Dr. Gladman noted that, although AS and PsA are associated with the same gene that encodes for the IL-23 receptor, each condition is associated with a different single-nucleotide polymorphism.

Same disease, different flavors?

But as Mark Twain said, it is difference of opinion that makes horse races, and some specialists in rheumatology say that axSpA amd axPsA are just two sides of the same coin.

Pramod Rathod

“There are always different schools of thought. I believe that they are not different diseases, but a spectrum of diseases,” said Shailendra Singh, MD, a rheumatologist at Unity Health Medical Center in Searcy, Ark., and past president of the Arkansas Rheumatology Association.

In an interview, Dr. Singh said that the spectrum ranges from diseases with primarily axial involvement, such as AS, to those with primarily peripheral involvement, such as reactive arthritis.

He pointed out that these conditions have overlapping symptoms, including enthesitis, dactylitis, and uveitis, and inflammatory arthritis.

Daniel Wendling, MD, PhD, from the Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Besançon (France), Université de Franche-Comté, and colleagues agreed.

“The criteria currently available for both SpA [ASAS (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society) criteria] and PsA [CASPAR (Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria] are classification criteria, not diagnostic criteria. They are not very stringent and are not exclusive. Thus, the same patient can easily be classified simultaneously in both entities, making the distinction between axSpA with psoriasis and axPsA theoretical,” they wrote in an editorial published in Joint Bone Spine.

They cited as an example of the allegedly fuzzy criteria a prospective study conducted by the investigators in Bath, England, in which modified New York criteria for AS were met by 24% of patients with AS, and CASPAR criteria for PsA were met by an equal number of patients with AS.
 

Therapeutic implications

Dr. Wendling and colleagues acknowledge the differences cited in studies by Dr. Gladman, Dr. Mease, and others between patients with axPsA and those with axSpA, but argue that the differences are not that great and not so clear.

“It should also be emphasized that, although some differences between axPsA and axSpA reach statistical significance, they are mostly at the margin, with low odd ratios,” they wrote.

“It is also important to consider the variability in the definition of axPsA, sometimes simply ‘physician reported’ and elsewhere based on the modified New York radiographic criteria; the latter are only present late in the course of the disease, and this may induce bias,” they continued.

Dr. Singh agreed that, as noted by Dr. Gladman, some patients will respond to anti–IL-17, anti–IL-23, and anti–IL-12/23 agents, whereas others will have better responses with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, and still others, such as those with peripheral involvement in the hands and feet may fare better with nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs such as methotrexate.
 

Answers to come?

Dr. Gladman noted that the information available to date about the efficacy of IL-23 inhibition in axPsA is based on a post hoc analysis of the PSUMMIT 1 and 2 controlled trials in PsA, and is not definitive.

The randomized, controlled STAR trial, currently recruiting patients, is designed to see whether guselkumab can reduce axial symptoms and inflammation in patients with active axPsA.

“What I say is, there is a rationale for [anti–IL-23] to work in psoriatic arthritis, and not work in ankylosing spondylitis,” she said.

In contrast, IL-17 inhibitors, anti-TNF agents, and Janus kinase inhibitors show efficacy against both axPsA and AS. Rituximab is ineffective against PsA, but has shown efficacy against AS, especially in patients with neurologic complications from anti-TNF agents.

“There may be other medications that would work more specifically in axial psoriatic arthritis that don’t work in ankylosing spondylitis, but at least recognizing that there may be some differences, and that therefore a correct diagnosis should be obtained, might be important,” she said.

Ideally, the picture will become clearer with results from the ongoing Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, a joint project of ASAS and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. The multinational, cross-sectional study is designed “to systematically evaluate clinical and imaging manifestations indicative of axial involvement in patients with PsA and to develop classification criteria and a unified nomenclature for axial involvement in PsA that would allow defining a homogeneous subgroup of patients for research.”

Stay tuned.

Dr. Gladman’s research is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. Dr. Singh disclosed research support from various companies. Funding sources and conflict of interest disclosures from other works cited are contained in their respective references.

Are there clinically significant differences between axial spondyloarthritis with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis with axial symptoms? Does it matter?

It all depends on whom you ask, but right now the evidence seems to be tipping in favor of the “splitters” who cite evidence supporting their contention that axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA)/ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with axial symptoms are distinct clinical entities that require more precise diagnosis and treatment.

“Lumpers,” in contrast, argue that they are different points on the same clinical spectrum.

The debate is not just of academic interest, but has real consequences for patients, say specialists on both sides of the aisle.
 

Overlapping features, different presentations

“Axial SpA and axPsA have overlapping features but also meaningful differences in genetics, clinical presentation, imaging, and immunophenotype. Efforts are underway to develop classification criteria for axPsA to aid research efforts as well as clinical diagnosis and management,” Philip J. Mease, MD, director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence–St. Joseph Health in Seattle, and colleagues contend.

In an editorial published in the International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, Dr. Mease and colleagues noted that, although HLA-B*27 is a genetic risk factor for both axPsA and axSpA, some HLA-B alleles are significantly associated with axPsA, whereas other alleles are associated with axSpA.

In addition, while genes in the interleukin-23 and IL-17 pathway are associated with increased risk for axSpA, genes in the IL-13 pathway have been identified as risk markers for axPsA, they noted.
 

Two cohorts better than one?

Dafna Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and senior scientist at the Schroeder Arthritis Institute at Toronto Western Hospital, and colleagues have a unique perspective on the similarities and differences between the disease entities.

Her group’s research uses data on cohorts of patients treated in two separate clinics at Toronto Western Hospital: one for patients with PsA, and one for patients with axial spondyloarthritis, including those with ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axSpA, and spondylitis associated with inflammatory bowel disease.

“Our work has shown that there are differences, and one of the reasons that it’s now important is that the anti–IL-23 medications, both the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab [Stelara] and the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab [Tremfya] work for psoriatic arthritis, whereas IL-23 did not work in ankylosing spondylitis, so that provided further impetus to look into the distinction between the two groups,” Dr. Gladman said in an interview.

Dr. Gladman and colleagues published a study in Rheumatology in which they compared clinical presentations and features of patients with AS with or without psoriasis with patients with axPsA.

They found that patients with AS with or without psoriasis tended to be younger, had a higher proportion of males to females, and were more likely to be positive for HLA-B*27. Patients with AS also had more back pain at presentation, worse axial disease activity scores, worse global assessments by physicians, and higher grades of sacroiliitis, and they were more likely to be taking biologic agents.

“What that showed, right off the top, that whether we’re looking at the total group or we’re looking specifically at those patients who have psoriasis or don’t have psoriasis, they are different from those with psoriatic arthritis with axial disease,” she said.

They concluded that “axPsA seems to be a distinct entity.”
 

Two clinics, same presentation

Because the aforementioned study included all patients with PsA with or without peripheral disease, the investigators decided to filter out some of the background noise and conduct a second study in which they compared patients who presented to the two clinics with the same presentation, either with spinal disease and psoriasis to the spondylitis clinic, or with psoriasis and isolated axial disease to the PsA clinic.

The results, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showed that just 2.03% of patients with PsA had isolated axial disease, and an additional 29.38% had axial and peripheral disease.

In this study, “you can see that even in that group there are distinct differences. The patients that are labeled psoriatic spondylitis are different from those that are labeled ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis,” Dr. Gladman said.

Isolated axial disease in patients with PsA was associated with HLA-B*27 positivity and lower Health Assessment Questionnaire scores. In addition, patients who were HLA-B*27 positive also had a nearly eightfold higher risk for developing peripheral disease over time.

Patients with isolated axial PsA were significantly more likely to be diagnosed at an older age (mean, 37.44 vs. 29.65 years), had higher Psoriasis Area Severity Index scores and a higher likelihood of having psoriatic nail lesions than patients with AS with isolated axial disease and psoriasis.

In contrast, patients with isolated axSpA with psoriasis were more likely to have inflammatory back pain, spinal pain, joint pain/swelling, and areas of localized tenderness, and they had greater severity of morning stiffness.

Dr. Gladman noted that, although AS and PsA are associated with the same gene that encodes for the IL-23 receptor, each condition is associated with a different single-nucleotide polymorphism.

Same disease, different flavors?

But as Mark Twain said, it is difference of opinion that makes horse races, and some specialists in rheumatology say that axSpA amd axPsA are just two sides of the same coin.

Pramod Rathod

“There are always different schools of thought. I believe that they are not different diseases, but a spectrum of diseases,” said Shailendra Singh, MD, a rheumatologist at Unity Health Medical Center in Searcy, Ark., and past president of the Arkansas Rheumatology Association.

In an interview, Dr. Singh said that the spectrum ranges from diseases with primarily axial involvement, such as AS, to those with primarily peripheral involvement, such as reactive arthritis.

He pointed out that these conditions have overlapping symptoms, including enthesitis, dactylitis, and uveitis, and inflammatory arthritis.

Daniel Wendling, MD, PhD, from the Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Besançon (France), Université de Franche-Comté, and colleagues agreed.

“The criteria currently available for both SpA [ASAS (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society) criteria] and PsA [CASPAR (Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria] are classification criteria, not diagnostic criteria. They are not very stringent and are not exclusive. Thus, the same patient can easily be classified simultaneously in both entities, making the distinction between axSpA with psoriasis and axPsA theoretical,” they wrote in an editorial published in Joint Bone Spine.

They cited as an example of the allegedly fuzzy criteria a prospective study conducted by the investigators in Bath, England, in which modified New York criteria for AS were met by 24% of patients with AS, and CASPAR criteria for PsA were met by an equal number of patients with AS.
 

Therapeutic implications

Dr. Wendling and colleagues acknowledge the differences cited in studies by Dr. Gladman, Dr. Mease, and others between patients with axPsA and those with axSpA, but argue that the differences are not that great and not so clear.

“It should also be emphasized that, although some differences between axPsA and axSpA reach statistical significance, they are mostly at the margin, with low odd ratios,” they wrote.

“It is also important to consider the variability in the definition of axPsA, sometimes simply ‘physician reported’ and elsewhere based on the modified New York radiographic criteria; the latter are only present late in the course of the disease, and this may induce bias,” they continued.

Dr. Singh agreed that, as noted by Dr. Gladman, some patients will respond to anti–IL-17, anti–IL-23, and anti–IL-12/23 agents, whereas others will have better responses with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, and still others, such as those with peripheral involvement in the hands and feet may fare better with nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs such as methotrexate.
 

Answers to come?

Dr. Gladman noted that the information available to date about the efficacy of IL-23 inhibition in axPsA is based on a post hoc analysis of the PSUMMIT 1 and 2 controlled trials in PsA, and is not definitive.

The randomized, controlled STAR trial, currently recruiting patients, is designed to see whether guselkumab can reduce axial symptoms and inflammation in patients with active axPsA.

“What I say is, there is a rationale for [anti–IL-23] to work in psoriatic arthritis, and not work in ankylosing spondylitis,” she said.

In contrast, IL-17 inhibitors, anti-TNF agents, and Janus kinase inhibitors show efficacy against both axPsA and AS. Rituximab is ineffective against PsA, but has shown efficacy against AS, especially in patients with neurologic complications from anti-TNF agents.

“There may be other medications that would work more specifically in axial psoriatic arthritis that don’t work in ankylosing spondylitis, but at least recognizing that there may be some differences, and that therefore a correct diagnosis should be obtained, might be important,” she said.

Ideally, the picture will become clearer with results from the ongoing Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, a joint project of ASAS and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. The multinational, cross-sectional study is designed “to systematically evaluate clinical and imaging manifestations indicative of axial involvement in patients with PsA and to develop classification criteria and a unified nomenclature for axial involvement in PsA that would allow defining a homogeneous subgroup of patients for research.”

Stay tuned.

Dr. Gladman’s research is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. Dr. Singh disclosed research support from various companies. Funding sources and conflict of interest disclosures from other works cited are contained in their respective references.

New research is shedding light on how an infection with COVID-19 may reactivate, or even cause, psoriasis. 

 Psoriasis has several well-established triggers, including stress, skin injury, cold or warm air, and allergies. Illnesses like strep throat can also cause a psoriasis flare in some people – and it appears COVID may also do so. “Psoriasis flares have long been associated with bacterial and viral infections, particularly a form of psoriasis called guttate, which is characterized by tons of tiny red scaly bumps all over the body,” said Joel M. Gelfand, MD, a professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Infection with COVID-19 has been associated with flares of guttate and pustular psoriasis, and even psoriasis that affects 100% of the skin ... in many published case reports.”

Israeli researchers recently found that psoriasis patients have a slightly higher risk of getting COVID,  although they are not at higher risk of hospitalization or death, which could be related to treatment with immune-modulating therapy, which can increase their risk of infections.
 

How could COVID cause psoriasis to flare? 

Psoriasis is an autoimmune condition, and inflammation can cause symptoms.

Investigators for a study from Albany (N.Y.) Medical College and Weirton (Pa.) Medical Center found that people in the study who were already diagnosed with the skin condition had an unexpected flare within a week to a month after testing positive for COVID. New psoriasis after a COVID infection was also found. The researchers think this could be because COVID causes inflammation in the body, which negatively affects previously well-controlled psoriasis. They also think it’s possible that COVID-related inflammation could trigger a genetic tendency to have psoriasis, which may explain why it can appear for the first time after a positive test.

“A viral infection like COVID-19 can signal the release of proinflammatory factors that can appear as rashes, such as with psoriasis.” said Robert O. Carpenter, MD, director of wellness at Texas A&M University in Bryan.
 

What are the symptoms of COVID-related psoriasis?

The signs are the same as those of any form of psoriasis.
 

For a patient with psoriasis, will COVID automatically make it worse?

Not necessarily.

“Psoriasis is a common condition, so people should be aware that new psoriasis that develops may not be related to COVID-19,” said Esther Freeman MD, PhD, director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

As with every aspect of COVID, doctors and scientists are still learning about how serious and widespread a problem psoriasis after COVID-19 may be. “We have seen case reports that psoriasis can flare after COVID-19,” said Dr. Freeman, who is also an associate professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School. “I will say, this has not been a tidal wave – more like sporadic cases here and there. So I do not think psoriasis flares are a major post-COVID finding, nor do they necessarily mean you have long COVID. That being said, we know that many different infections can cause psoriasis flares, and so, in that respect, it’s not that surprising that SARS-CoV-2, like other infections, could trigger a psoriasis flare.”

Could getting COVID more than once cause psoriasis to flare? It’s possible.

“Your body can change after having COVID-19,” said Dr. Carpenter. “We don’t know the long-term implications, but having COVID-19 repeatedly can increase the risk of long COVID, which can cause many systemic changes in your body.” 

Another important point: For patients who take biologics for treating psoriasis, getting vaccinated and boosted for COVID is an important step to take to help protect themselves.
 

Is psoriasis itself a potential symptom of COVID? 

“Yes, but we don’t know the frequency at which this may occur, and a causal relationship is difficult to establish from just case reports,” said Dr. Gelfand, who’s also medical director of the clinical studies unit in the department of dermatology at his university. “Typically, if a patient presents with a flare of psoriasis, particularly guttate, pustular, or erythrodermic forms, an infectious trigger should be considered, and testing for strep and possibly COVID-19 may be appropriate.”
 

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

New research is shedding light on how an infection with COVID-19 may reactivate, or even cause, psoriasis. 

 Psoriasis has several well-established triggers, including stress, skin injury, cold or warm air, and allergies. Illnesses like strep throat can also cause a psoriasis flare in some people – and it appears COVID may also do so. “Psoriasis flares have long been associated with bacterial and viral infections, particularly a form of psoriasis called guttate, which is characterized by tons of tiny red scaly bumps all over the body,” said Joel M. Gelfand, MD, a professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Infection with COVID-19 has been associated with flares of guttate and pustular psoriasis, and even psoriasis that affects 100% of the skin ... in many published case reports.”

Israeli researchers recently found that psoriasis patients have a slightly higher risk of getting COVID,  although they are not at higher risk of hospitalization or death, which could be related to treatment with immune-modulating therapy, which can increase their risk of infections.
 

How could COVID cause psoriasis to flare? 

Psoriasis is an autoimmune condition, and inflammation can cause symptoms.

Investigators for a study from Albany (N.Y.) Medical College and Weirton (Pa.) Medical Center found that people in the study who were already diagnosed with the skin condition had an unexpected flare within a week to a month after testing positive for COVID. New psoriasis after a COVID infection was also found. The researchers think this could be because COVID causes inflammation in the body, which negatively affects previously well-controlled psoriasis. They also think it’s possible that COVID-related inflammation could trigger a genetic tendency to have psoriasis, which may explain why it can appear for the first time after a positive test.

“A viral infection like COVID-19 can signal the release of proinflammatory factors that can appear as rashes, such as with psoriasis.” said Robert O. Carpenter, MD, director of wellness at Texas A&M University in Bryan.
 

What are the symptoms of COVID-related psoriasis?

The signs are the same as those of any form of psoriasis.
 

For a patient with psoriasis, will COVID automatically make it worse?

Not necessarily.

“Psoriasis is a common condition, so people should be aware that new psoriasis that develops may not be related to COVID-19,” said Esther Freeman MD, PhD, director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

As with every aspect of COVID, doctors and scientists are still learning about how serious and widespread a problem psoriasis after COVID-19 may be. “We have seen case reports that psoriasis can flare after COVID-19,” said Dr. Freeman, who is also an associate professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School. “I will say, this has not been a tidal wave – more like sporadic cases here and there. So I do not think psoriasis flares are a major post-COVID finding, nor do they necessarily mean you have long COVID. That being said, we know that many different infections can cause psoriasis flares, and so, in that respect, it’s not that surprising that SARS-CoV-2, like other infections, could trigger a psoriasis flare.”

Could getting COVID more than once cause psoriasis to flare? It’s possible.

“Your body can change after having COVID-19,” said Dr. Carpenter. “We don’t know the long-term implications, but having COVID-19 repeatedly can increase the risk of long COVID, which can cause many systemic changes in your body.” 

Another important point: For patients who take biologics for treating psoriasis, getting vaccinated and boosted for COVID is an important step to take to help protect themselves.
 

Is psoriasis itself a potential symptom of COVID? 

“Yes, but we don’t know the frequency at which this may occur, and a causal relationship is difficult to establish from just case reports,” said Dr. Gelfand, who’s also medical director of the clinical studies unit in the department of dermatology at his university. “Typically, if a patient presents with a flare of psoriasis, particularly guttate, pustular, or erythrodermic forms, an infectious trigger should be considered, and testing for strep and possibly COVID-19 may be appropriate.”
 

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

New research is shedding light on how an infection with COVID-19 may reactivate, or even cause, psoriasis. 

 Psoriasis has several well-established triggers, including stress, skin injury, cold or warm air, and allergies. Illnesses like strep throat can also cause a psoriasis flare in some people – and it appears COVID may also do so. “Psoriasis flares have long been associated with bacterial and viral infections, particularly a form of psoriasis called guttate, which is characterized by tons of tiny red scaly bumps all over the body,” said Joel M. Gelfand, MD, a professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Infection with COVID-19 has been associated with flares of guttate and pustular psoriasis, and even psoriasis that affects 100% of the skin ... in many published case reports.”

Israeli researchers recently found that psoriasis patients have a slightly higher risk of getting COVID,  although they are not at higher risk of hospitalization or death, which could be related to treatment with immune-modulating therapy, which can increase their risk of infections.
 

How could COVID cause psoriasis to flare? 

Psoriasis is an autoimmune condition, and inflammation can cause symptoms.

Investigators for a study from Albany (N.Y.) Medical College and Weirton (Pa.) Medical Center found that people in the study who were already diagnosed with the skin condition had an unexpected flare within a week to a month after testing positive for COVID. New psoriasis after a COVID infection was also found. The researchers think this could be because COVID causes inflammation in the body, which negatively affects previously well-controlled psoriasis. They also think it’s possible that COVID-related inflammation could trigger a genetic tendency to have psoriasis, which may explain why it can appear for the first time after a positive test.

“A viral infection like COVID-19 can signal the release of proinflammatory factors that can appear as rashes, such as with psoriasis.” said Robert O. Carpenter, MD, director of wellness at Texas A&M University in Bryan.
 

What are the symptoms of COVID-related psoriasis?

The signs are the same as those of any form of psoriasis.
 

For a patient with psoriasis, will COVID automatically make it worse?

Not necessarily.

“Psoriasis is a common condition, so people should be aware that new psoriasis that develops may not be related to COVID-19,” said Esther Freeman MD, PhD, director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

As with every aspect of COVID, doctors and scientists are still learning about how serious and widespread a problem psoriasis after COVID-19 may be. “We have seen case reports that psoriasis can flare after COVID-19,” said Dr. Freeman, who is also an associate professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School. “I will say, this has not been a tidal wave – more like sporadic cases here and there. So I do not think psoriasis flares are a major post-COVID finding, nor do they necessarily mean you have long COVID. That being said, we know that many different infections can cause psoriasis flares, and so, in that respect, it’s not that surprising that SARS-CoV-2, like other infections, could trigger a psoriasis flare.”

Could getting COVID more than once cause psoriasis to flare? It’s possible.

“Your body can change after having COVID-19,” said Dr. Carpenter. “We don’t know the long-term implications, but having COVID-19 repeatedly can increase the risk of long COVID, which can cause many systemic changes in your body.” 

Another important point: For patients who take biologics for treating psoriasis, getting vaccinated and boosted for COVID is an important step to take to help protect themselves.
 

Is psoriasis itself a potential symptom of COVID? 

“Yes, but we don’t know the frequency at which this may occur, and a causal relationship is difficult to establish from just case reports,” said Dr. Gelfand, who’s also medical director of the clinical studies unit in the department of dermatology at his university. “Typically, if a patient presents with a flare of psoriasis, particularly guttate, pustular, or erythrodermic forms, an infectious trigger should be considered, and testing for strep and possibly COVID-19 may be appropriate.”
 

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

Since the COVID-19 pandemic started more than 3 years ago, the longer-lasting effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection have continued to reveal themselves. Approximately 28% of Americans report having ever experienced post-COVID conditions, such as brain fog, postexertional malaise, and joint pain, and 11% say they are still experiencing these long-term effects. Now, new research is showing that people who have had COVID are more likely to newly develop an autoimmune disease. Exactly why this is happening is less clear, experts say.

Two preprint studies and one study published in a peer-reviewed journal provide strong evidence that patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at elevated risk of developing an autoimmune disease. The studies retrospectively reviewed medical records from three countries and compared the incidence of new-onset autoimmune disease among patients who had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 and those who had never been diagnosed with the virus.

A study analyzing the health records of 3.8 million U.S. patients – more than 888,460 with confirmed COVID-19 – found that the COVID-19 group was two to three times as likely to develop various autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and systemic sclerosis. A U.K. preprint study that included more than 458,000 people with confirmed COVID found that those who had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2 were 22% more likely to develop an autoimmune disease compared with the control group. In this cohort, the diseases most strongly associated with COVID-19 were type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis. A preprint study from German researchers found that COVID-19 patients were almost 43% more likely to develop an autoimmune disease, compared with those who had never been infected. COVID-19 was most strongly linked to vasculitis.
 

These large studies are telling us, “Yes, this link is there, so we have to accept it,” Sonia Sharma, PhD, of the Center for Autoimmunity and Inflammation at the La Jolla (Calif.) Institute for Immunology, told this news organization. But this is not the first time that autoimmune diseases have been linked to previous infections.

La Jolla Institute for Immunology

Researchers have known for decades that Epstein-Barr virus infection is linked to several autoimmune diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. More recent research suggests the virus may activate certain genes associated with these immune disorders. Hepatitis C virus can induce cryoglobulinemia, and infection with cytomegalovirus has been implicated in several autoimmune diseases. Bacterial infections have also been linked to autoimmunity, such as group A streptococcus and rheumatic fever, as well as salmonella and reactive arthritis, to name only a few.

“In a way, this isn’t necessarily a new concept to physicians, particularly rheumatologists,” said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “There’s a fine line between appropriately clearing an infection and the body overreacting and setting off a cascade where the immune system is chronically overactive that can manifest as an autoimmune disease,” he told this news organization.

A dysregulated response to infection

It takes the immune system a week or two to develop antigen-specific antibodies to a new pathogen. But for patients with serious infections – in this instance, COVID-19 – that’s time they don’t have. Therefore, the immune system has an alternative pathway, called extrafollicular activation, that creates fast-acting antibodies, explained Matthew Woodruff, PhD, an instructor of immunology and rheumatology at Emory University, Atlanta.

Emory University School of Medicine

The trade-off is that these antibodies are not as specific and can target the body’s own tissues. This dysregulation of antibody selection is generally short lived and fades when more targeted antibodies are produced and take over, but in some cases, this process can lead to high levels of self-targeting antibodies that can harm the body’s organs and tissues. Research also suggests that for patients who experience long COVID, the same autoantibodies that drive the initial immune response are detectable in the body months after infection, though it is not known whether these lingering immune cells cause these longer-lasting symptoms.

“If you have a virus that causes hyperinflammation plus organ damage, that is a recipe for disaster,” Dr. Sharma said. “It’s a recipe for autoantibodies and autoreactive T cells that down the road can attack the body’s own tissues, especially in people whose immune system is trained in such a way to cause self-reactivity,” she added.

This hyperinflammation can result in rare but serious complications, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adults, which can occur 2-6 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection. But even in these patients with severe illness, organ-specific complications tend to resolve in 6 months with “no significant sequelae 1 year after diagnosis,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And while long COVID can last for a year or longer, data suggest that symptoms do eventually resolve for most people. What is not clear is why acute autoimmunity triggered by COVID-19 can become a chronic condition in certain patients.
 

Predisposition to autoimmunity

P. J. Utz, MD, PhD, professor of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that people who develop autoimmune disease after SARS-CoV-2 infection may have already been predisposed toward autoimmunity. Especially for autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes and lupus, autoantibodies can appear and circulate in the body for more than a decade in some people before they present with any clinical symptoms. “Their immune system is primed such that if they get infected with something – or they have some other environmental trigger that maybe we don’t know about yet – that is enough to then push them over the edge so that they get full-blown autoimmunity,” he said. What is not known is whether these patients’ conditions would have advanced to true clinical disease had they not been infected, he said.

Steve Fisch

He also noted that the presence of autoantibodies does not necessarily mean someone has autoimmune disease; healthy people can also have autoantibodies, and everyone develops them with age. “My advice would be, ‘Don’t lose sleep over this,’ “ he said.

Dr. Sparks agreed that while these retrospective studies did show an elevated risk of autoimmune disease after COVID-19, that risk appears to be relatively small. “As a practicing rheumatologist, we aren’t seeing a stampede of patients with new-onset rheumatic diseases,” he said. “It’s not like we’re overwhelmed with autoimmune patients, even though almost everyone’s had COVID. So, if there is a risk, it’s very modest.”

Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Utz receives research funding from Pfizer. Dr. Sharma and Dr. Woodruff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Since the COVID-19 pandemic started more than 3 years ago, the longer-lasting effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection have continued to reveal themselves. Approximately 28% of Americans report having ever experienced post-COVID conditions, such as brain fog, postexertional malaise, and joint pain, and 11% say they are still experiencing these long-term effects. Now, new research is showing that people who have had COVID are more likely to newly develop an autoimmune disease. Exactly why this is happening is less clear, experts say.

Two preprint studies and one study published in a peer-reviewed journal provide strong evidence that patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at elevated risk of developing an autoimmune disease. The studies retrospectively reviewed medical records from three countries and compared the incidence of new-onset autoimmune disease among patients who had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 and those who had never been diagnosed with the virus.

A study analyzing the health records of 3.8 million U.S. patients – more than 888,460 with confirmed COVID-19 – found that the COVID-19 group was two to three times as likely to develop various autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and systemic sclerosis. A U.K. preprint study that included more than 458,000 people with confirmed COVID found that those who had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2 were 22% more likely to develop an autoimmune disease compared with the control group. In this cohort, the diseases most strongly associated with COVID-19 were type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis. A preprint study from German researchers found that COVID-19 patients were almost 43% more likely to develop an autoimmune disease, compared with those who had never been infected. COVID-19 was most strongly linked to vasculitis.
 

These large studies are telling us, “Yes, this link is there, so we have to accept it,” Sonia Sharma, PhD, of the Center for Autoimmunity and Inflammation at the La Jolla (Calif.) Institute for Immunology, told this news organization. But this is not the first time that autoimmune diseases have been linked to previous infections.

La Jolla Institute for Immunology

Researchers have known for decades that Epstein-Barr virus infection is linked to several autoimmune diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. More recent research suggests the virus may activate certain genes associated with these immune disorders. Hepatitis C virus can induce cryoglobulinemia, and infection with cytomegalovirus has been implicated in several autoimmune diseases. Bacterial infections have also been linked to autoimmunity, such as group A streptococcus and rheumatic fever, as well as salmonella and reactive arthritis, to name only a few.

“In a way, this isn’t necessarily a new concept to physicians, particularly rheumatologists,” said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “There’s a fine line between appropriately clearing an infection and the body overreacting and setting off a cascade where the immune system is chronically overactive that can manifest as an autoimmune disease,” he told this news organization.

A dysregulated response to infection

It takes the immune system a week or two to develop antigen-specific antibodies to a new pathogen. But for patients with serious infections – in this instance, COVID-19 – that’s time they don’t have. Therefore, the immune system has an alternative pathway, called extrafollicular activation, that creates fast-acting antibodies, explained Matthew Woodruff, PhD, an instructor of immunology and rheumatology at Emory University, Atlanta.

Emory University School of Medicine

The trade-off is that these antibodies are not as specific and can target the body’s own tissues. This dysregulation of antibody selection is generally short lived and fades when more targeted antibodies are produced and take over, but in some cases, this process can lead to high levels of self-targeting antibodies that can harm the body’s organs and tissues. Research also suggests that for patients who experience long COVID, the same autoantibodies that drive the initial immune response are detectable in the body months after infection, though it is not known whether these lingering immune cells cause these longer-lasting symptoms.

“If you have a virus that causes hyperinflammation plus organ damage, that is a recipe for disaster,” Dr. Sharma said. “It’s a recipe for autoantibodies and autoreactive T cells that down the road can attack the body’s own tissues, especially in people whose immune system is trained in such a way to cause self-reactivity,” she added.

This hyperinflammation can result in rare but serious complications, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adults, which can occur 2-6 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection. But even in these patients with severe illness, organ-specific complications tend to resolve in 6 months with “no significant sequelae 1 year after diagnosis,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And while long COVID can last for a year or longer, data suggest that symptoms do eventually resolve for most people. What is not clear is why acute autoimmunity triggered by COVID-19 can become a chronic condition in certain patients.
 

Predisposition to autoimmunity

P. J. Utz, MD, PhD, professor of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that people who develop autoimmune disease after SARS-CoV-2 infection may have already been predisposed toward autoimmunity. Especially for autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes and lupus, autoantibodies can appear and circulate in the body for more than a decade in some people before they present with any clinical symptoms. “Their immune system is primed such that if they get infected with something – or they have some other environmental trigger that maybe we don’t know about yet – that is enough to then push them over the edge so that they get full-blown autoimmunity,” he said. What is not known is whether these patients’ conditions would have advanced to true clinical disease had they not been infected, he said.

Steve Fisch

He also noted that the presence of autoantibodies does not necessarily mean someone has autoimmune disease; healthy people can also have autoantibodies, and everyone develops them with age. “My advice would be, ‘Don’t lose sleep over this,’ “ he said.

Dr. Sparks agreed that while these retrospective studies did show an elevated risk of autoimmune disease after COVID-19, that risk appears to be relatively small. “As a practicing rheumatologist, we aren’t seeing a stampede of patients with new-onset rheumatic diseases,” he said. “It’s not like we’re overwhelmed with autoimmune patients, even though almost everyone’s had COVID. So, if there is a risk, it’s very modest.”

Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Utz receives research funding from Pfizer. Dr. Sharma and Dr. Woodruff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Since the COVID-19 pandemic started more than 3 years ago, the longer-lasting effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection have continued to reveal themselves. Approximately 28% of Americans report having ever experienced post-COVID conditions, such as brain fog, postexertional malaise, and joint pain, and 11% say they are still experiencing these long-term effects. Now, new research is showing that people who have had COVID are more likely to newly develop an autoimmune disease. Exactly why this is happening is less clear, experts say.

Two preprint studies and one study published in a peer-reviewed journal provide strong evidence that patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at elevated risk of developing an autoimmune disease. The studies retrospectively reviewed medical records from three countries and compared the incidence of new-onset autoimmune disease among patients who had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 and those who had never been diagnosed with the virus.

A study analyzing the health records of 3.8 million U.S. patients – more than 888,460 with confirmed COVID-19 – found that the COVID-19 group was two to three times as likely to develop various autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and systemic sclerosis. A U.K. preprint study that included more than 458,000 people with confirmed COVID found that those who had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2 were 22% more likely to develop an autoimmune disease compared with the control group. In this cohort, the diseases most strongly associated with COVID-19 were type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis. A preprint study from German researchers found that COVID-19 patients were almost 43% more likely to develop an autoimmune disease, compared with those who had never been infected. COVID-19 was most strongly linked to vasculitis.
 

These large studies are telling us, “Yes, this link is there, so we have to accept it,” Sonia Sharma, PhD, of the Center for Autoimmunity and Inflammation at the La Jolla (Calif.) Institute for Immunology, told this news organization. But this is not the first time that autoimmune diseases have been linked to previous infections.

La Jolla Institute for Immunology

Researchers have known for decades that Epstein-Barr virus infection is linked to several autoimmune diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. More recent research suggests the virus may activate certain genes associated with these immune disorders. Hepatitis C virus can induce cryoglobulinemia, and infection with cytomegalovirus has been implicated in several autoimmune diseases. Bacterial infections have also been linked to autoimmunity, such as group A streptococcus and rheumatic fever, as well as salmonella and reactive arthritis, to name only a few.

“In a way, this isn’t necessarily a new concept to physicians, particularly rheumatologists,” said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “There’s a fine line between appropriately clearing an infection and the body overreacting and setting off a cascade where the immune system is chronically overactive that can manifest as an autoimmune disease,” he told this news organization.

A dysregulated response to infection

It takes the immune system a week or two to develop antigen-specific antibodies to a new pathogen. But for patients with serious infections – in this instance, COVID-19 – that’s time they don’t have. Therefore, the immune system has an alternative pathway, called extrafollicular activation, that creates fast-acting antibodies, explained Matthew Woodruff, PhD, an instructor of immunology and rheumatology at Emory University, Atlanta.

Emory University School of Medicine

The trade-off is that these antibodies are not as specific and can target the body’s own tissues. This dysregulation of antibody selection is generally short lived and fades when more targeted antibodies are produced and take over, but in some cases, this process can lead to high levels of self-targeting antibodies that can harm the body’s organs and tissues. Research also suggests that for patients who experience long COVID, the same autoantibodies that drive the initial immune response are detectable in the body months after infection, though it is not known whether these lingering immune cells cause these longer-lasting symptoms.

“If you have a virus that causes hyperinflammation plus organ damage, that is a recipe for disaster,” Dr. Sharma said. “It’s a recipe for autoantibodies and autoreactive T cells that down the road can attack the body’s own tissues, especially in people whose immune system is trained in such a way to cause self-reactivity,” she added.

This hyperinflammation can result in rare but serious complications, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adults, which can occur 2-6 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection. But even in these patients with severe illness, organ-specific complications tend to resolve in 6 months with “no significant sequelae 1 year after diagnosis,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And while long COVID can last for a year or longer, data suggest that symptoms do eventually resolve for most people. What is not clear is why acute autoimmunity triggered by COVID-19 can become a chronic condition in certain patients.
 

Predisposition to autoimmunity

P. J. Utz, MD, PhD, professor of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that people who develop autoimmune disease after SARS-CoV-2 infection may have already been predisposed toward autoimmunity. Especially for autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes and lupus, autoantibodies can appear and circulate in the body for more than a decade in some people before they present with any clinical symptoms. “Their immune system is primed such that if they get infected with something – or they have some other environmental trigger that maybe we don’t know about yet – that is enough to then push them over the edge so that they get full-blown autoimmunity,” he said. What is not known is whether these patients’ conditions would have advanced to true clinical disease had they not been infected, he said.

Steve Fisch

He also noted that the presence of autoantibodies does not necessarily mean someone has autoimmune disease; healthy people can also have autoantibodies, and everyone develops them with age. “My advice would be, ‘Don’t lose sleep over this,’ “ he said.

Dr. Sparks agreed that while these retrospective studies did show an elevated risk of autoimmune disease after COVID-19, that risk appears to be relatively small. “As a practicing rheumatologist, we aren’t seeing a stampede of patients with new-onset rheumatic diseases,” he said. “It’s not like we’re overwhelmed with autoimmune patients, even though almost everyone’s had COVID. So, if there is a risk, it’s very modest.”

Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Utz receives research funding from Pfizer. Dr. Sharma and Dr. Woodruff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

A position paper by the National Psoriasis Foundation’s Telemedicine Task Force outlines key principles and practices for managing psoriatic disease via telemedicine.

The success of telemedicine in managing chronic inflammatory skin conditions including psoriasis during the COVID-19 pandemic “highlighted that teledermatology can be used beyond the context of a global health crisis to provide continuity of care and improve access to health care more broadly,” the task force wrote in a paper published online in JAAD International.

Jean-philippe WALLET/Getty Images

Co–senior author George Han, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the impetus for the guidelines came from NPF patient advocates, who realized that the organization needed something to take to payers and governmental agencies to advocate for better access to dermatologic care. He is associate professor of dermatology and director of teledermatology at the Hofstra/Northwell department of dermatology, Hyde Park, New York.

“We realized that, in many places around the country, people don’t have access to dermatology.” In upstate New York, said Dr. Han, his anecdotal research has revealed wait times of 6 months or more.

As a guiding principle, the authors pronounce teledermatology “a reasonable alternative for providing long-term management of patients with psoriasis.” Research shows that nearly all dermatologists used teledermatology during the pandemic, the authors noted, and that well-run programs improve Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores and other measures on par with in-person care. Telemedicine may be especially useful for initial visits, they added, particularly when distance, patient incapacity, and circumstances prevent face-to-face evaluation.

Additional position statements emphasize that teledermatology should support rather than supplant in-person visits, and that this balance may be particularly important in cases involving psoriatic arthritis (PsA). “Even though we can’t do a physical exam and palpate some of those joints in person,” said Dr. Han, “tools have been developed that, through a series of questions the patient can answer, can guide you towards whether there is a high index of suspicion for psoriatic arthritis.” Such patients require in-person evaluation with urgency, he said, because delays in PsA diagnosis and treatment can lead to irreversible joint damage and significant functional impairment.

Another motivation for producing the guidelines, said Dr. Han, was that, even when underserved patients get a dermatology appointment, some providers may not have all the latest tools or medicines available for treating psoriasis. In such cases, telemedicine may allow dermatologists specializing in psoriasis care to extend their reach in comanaging patients with primary care physicians and community dermatologists.

Before the appointment, guidelines suggest determining what form of teledermatology will best suit each patient. Authors recommended gauging patients’ savviness with computers and cameras, and counseling patients regarding available virtual evaluation tools – such as live video visits, store-and-forward photo strategies, and assessment-tool training videos.

A subsequent guideline underscores the importance of continuously improving technology to support expeditious image capture and workflows that emulate in-person practice. Dr. Han explained, “we wanted to make sure that on the back end there’s adequate support such that – if through teledermatology, we determine that the patient should get, say, a systemic treatment – the patient is able to get the appropriate lab tests, get the medicine, and know how to inject it.”

Regarding reimbursement, Dr. Han said that policies varied prepandemic, but many commercial insurers covered telemedicine at a rate 20% lower than the in-person rate. During the pandemic, he said, insurers shifted to provide the higher rate for telemedicine, consistent with policies adopted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“There are differences in coverage and reimbursement from plan to plan,” Dr. Han added. “And even within the same plan, there are carve-outs so that some plans don’t allow certain services. The big picture is that for the most part these services are covered at a level comparable to an in-person visit at present.”

With the Department of Health & Human Services’ public health emergency declaration expiring in May, he said, physicians have worried that some of the allowances made by CMS – such as lifting requirements that Medicare patients in rural areas be seen at care sites – will expire. “It seems that some of those limitations have been addressed, and those allowances are going to be extended until Congress is able to pass something that gives us durable access to telemedicine care. We think that based on the current environment telemedicine is here to stay.”

The study was funded by the NPF. Dr. Han has been an investigator, adviser, speaker, or researcher for AbbVie, Amgen, Apogee Therapeutics, Arcutis, Athenex, Bausch Health, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bond Avillion, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CeraVe, Dermavant, DermTech, Eli Lilly, EPI Health, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, L’Oreal, MC2 Therapeutics, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, PellePharm, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, SUN Pharmaceuticals, and UCB.

A position paper by the National Psoriasis Foundation’s Telemedicine Task Force outlines key principles and practices for managing psoriatic disease via telemedicine.

The success of telemedicine in managing chronic inflammatory skin conditions including psoriasis during the COVID-19 pandemic “highlighted that teledermatology can be used beyond the context of a global health crisis to provide continuity of care and improve access to health care more broadly,” the task force wrote in a paper published online in JAAD International.

Jean-philippe WALLET/Getty Images

Co–senior author George Han, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the impetus for the guidelines came from NPF patient advocates, who realized that the organization needed something to take to payers and governmental agencies to advocate for better access to dermatologic care. He is associate professor of dermatology and director of teledermatology at the Hofstra/Northwell department of dermatology, Hyde Park, New York.

“We realized that, in many places around the country, people don’t have access to dermatology.” In upstate New York, said Dr. Han, his anecdotal research has revealed wait times of 6 months or more.

As a guiding principle, the authors pronounce teledermatology “a reasonable alternative for providing long-term management of patients with psoriasis.” Research shows that nearly all dermatologists used teledermatology during the pandemic, the authors noted, and that well-run programs improve Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores and other measures on par with in-person care. Telemedicine may be especially useful for initial visits, they added, particularly when distance, patient incapacity, and circumstances prevent face-to-face evaluation.

Additional position statements emphasize that teledermatology should support rather than supplant in-person visits, and that this balance may be particularly important in cases involving psoriatic arthritis (PsA). “Even though we can’t do a physical exam and palpate some of those joints in person,” said Dr. Han, “tools have been developed that, through a series of questions the patient can answer, can guide you towards whether there is a high index of suspicion for psoriatic arthritis.” Such patients require in-person evaluation with urgency, he said, because delays in PsA diagnosis and treatment can lead to irreversible joint damage and significant functional impairment.

Another motivation for producing the guidelines, said Dr. Han, was that, even when underserved patients get a dermatology appointment, some providers may not have all the latest tools or medicines available for treating psoriasis. In such cases, telemedicine may allow dermatologists specializing in psoriasis care to extend their reach in comanaging patients with primary care physicians and community dermatologists.

Before the appointment, guidelines suggest determining what form of teledermatology will best suit each patient. Authors recommended gauging patients’ savviness with computers and cameras, and counseling patients regarding available virtual evaluation tools – such as live video visits, store-and-forward photo strategies, and assessment-tool training videos.

A subsequent guideline underscores the importance of continuously improving technology to support expeditious image capture and workflows that emulate in-person practice. Dr. Han explained, “we wanted to make sure that on the back end there’s adequate support such that – if through teledermatology, we determine that the patient should get, say, a systemic treatment – the patient is able to get the appropriate lab tests, get the medicine, and know how to inject it.”

Regarding reimbursement, Dr. Han said that policies varied prepandemic, but many commercial insurers covered telemedicine at a rate 20% lower than the in-person rate. During the pandemic, he said, insurers shifted to provide the higher rate for telemedicine, consistent with policies adopted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“There are differences in coverage and reimbursement from plan to plan,” Dr. Han added. “And even within the same plan, there are carve-outs so that some plans don’t allow certain services. The big picture is that for the most part these services are covered at a level comparable to an in-person visit at present.”

With the Department of Health & Human Services’ public health emergency declaration expiring in May, he said, physicians have worried that some of the allowances made by CMS – such as lifting requirements that Medicare patients in rural areas be seen at care sites – will expire. “It seems that some of those limitations have been addressed, and those allowances are going to be extended until Congress is able to pass something that gives us durable access to telemedicine care. We think that based on the current environment telemedicine is here to stay.”

The study was funded by the NPF. Dr. Han has been an investigator, adviser, speaker, or researcher for AbbVie, Amgen, Apogee Therapeutics, Arcutis, Athenex, Bausch Health, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bond Avillion, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CeraVe, Dermavant, DermTech, Eli Lilly, EPI Health, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, L’Oreal, MC2 Therapeutics, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, PellePharm, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, SUN Pharmaceuticals, and UCB.

A position paper by the National Psoriasis Foundation’s Telemedicine Task Force outlines key principles and practices for managing psoriatic disease via telemedicine.

The success of telemedicine in managing chronic inflammatory skin conditions including psoriasis during the COVID-19 pandemic “highlighted that teledermatology can be used beyond the context of a global health crisis to provide continuity of care and improve access to health care more broadly,” the task force wrote in a paper published online in JAAD International.

Jean-philippe WALLET/Getty Images

Co–senior author George Han, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the impetus for the guidelines came from NPF patient advocates, who realized that the organization needed something to take to payers and governmental agencies to advocate for better access to dermatologic care. He is associate professor of dermatology and director of teledermatology at the Hofstra/Northwell department of dermatology, Hyde Park, New York.

“We realized that, in many places around the country, people don’t have access to dermatology.” In upstate New York, said Dr. Han, his anecdotal research has revealed wait times of 6 months or more.

As a guiding principle, the authors pronounce teledermatology “a reasonable alternative for providing long-term management of patients with psoriasis.” Research shows that nearly all dermatologists used teledermatology during the pandemic, the authors noted, and that well-run programs improve Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores and other measures on par with in-person care. Telemedicine may be especially useful for initial visits, they added, particularly when distance, patient incapacity, and circumstances prevent face-to-face evaluation.

Additional position statements emphasize that teledermatology should support rather than supplant in-person visits, and that this balance may be particularly important in cases involving psoriatic arthritis (PsA). “Even though we can’t do a physical exam and palpate some of those joints in person,” said Dr. Han, “tools have been developed that, through a series of questions the patient can answer, can guide you towards whether there is a high index of suspicion for psoriatic arthritis.” Such patients require in-person evaluation with urgency, he said, because delays in PsA diagnosis and treatment can lead to irreversible joint damage and significant functional impairment.

Another motivation for producing the guidelines, said Dr. Han, was that, even when underserved patients get a dermatology appointment, some providers may not have all the latest tools or medicines available for treating psoriasis. In such cases, telemedicine may allow dermatologists specializing in psoriasis care to extend their reach in comanaging patients with primary care physicians and community dermatologists.

Before the appointment, guidelines suggest determining what form of teledermatology will best suit each patient. Authors recommended gauging patients’ savviness with computers and cameras, and counseling patients regarding available virtual evaluation tools – such as live video visits, store-and-forward photo strategies, and assessment-tool training videos.

A subsequent guideline underscores the importance of continuously improving technology to support expeditious image capture and workflows that emulate in-person practice. Dr. Han explained, “we wanted to make sure that on the back end there’s adequate support such that – if through teledermatology, we determine that the patient should get, say, a systemic treatment – the patient is able to get the appropriate lab tests, get the medicine, and know how to inject it.”

Regarding reimbursement, Dr. Han said that policies varied prepandemic, but many commercial insurers covered telemedicine at a rate 20% lower than the in-person rate. During the pandemic, he said, insurers shifted to provide the higher rate for telemedicine, consistent with policies adopted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“There are differences in coverage and reimbursement from plan to plan,” Dr. Han added. “And even within the same plan, there are carve-outs so that some plans don’t allow certain services. The big picture is that for the most part these services are covered at a level comparable to an in-person visit at present.”

With the Department of Health & Human Services’ public health emergency declaration expiring in May, he said, physicians have worried that some of the allowances made by CMS – such as lifting requirements that Medicare patients in rural areas be seen at care sites – will expire. “It seems that some of those limitations have been addressed, and those allowances are going to be extended until Congress is able to pass something that gives us durable access to telemedicine care. We think that based on the current environment telemedicine is here to stay.”

The study was funded by the NPF. Dr. Han has been an investigator, adviser, speaker, or researcher for AbbVie, Amgen, Apogee Therapeutics, Arcutis, Athenex, Bausch Health, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bond Avillion, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CeraVe, Dermavant, DermTech, Eli Lilly, EPI Health, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, L’Oreal, MC2 Therapeutics, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, PellePharm, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, SUN Pharmaceuticals, and UCB.

Citrus bergamia (bergamot) is a fruit tree thought to originate in the Mediterranean area; its fruit has been a part of the diet in that region since the early 18th century.¹ Bergamot is known to confer antioxidant as well as anti-inflammatory activity, and yields proapoptotic effects in the sebaceous gland.^2,3 The plant contains the natural furocoumarin bergapten, which is also known as 5-methoxypsoralen.⁴

Antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, hypolipemic, and anticancer properties have been associated with bergapten, which is primarily found in bergamot essential oil and used effectively as a photosensitizing agent.⁵ In this capacity, bergamot oil has been used for photodynamic therapy of cutaneous conditions such as vitiligo.⁶ In fact, for several years 5-methoxypsoralen and 8-methoxypsoralen have been used to achieve acceptable clearance rates of psoriasis and vitiligo.⁷ This column focuses on bergapten, as well as the cutaneous conditions for which bergamot has been shown to have some benefits warranting application or further investigation.
 

Bergapten

In a 2021 literature review, Liang et al. cited the anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, anticancer, and other salutary effects associated with bergapten. Based on numerous citations, they also cautioned about the phototoxicity of the compound combined with ultraviolet (UV) light while noting the photoactivation of bergapten for anticancer uses.⁴

The following year, Quetglas-Llabrés et al. acknowledged, in another literature review, the numerous preclinical and in vitro studies demonstrating the therapeutic activity of bergapten and highlighted clinical trials revealing notable lesion clearance rates of psoriasis or vitiligo imparted by oral or topical bergapten along with UV irradiation. Bergapten was also found to be effective as hypolipemic therapy.⁵

Anti-inflammatory topical uses

In a 2017 study by Han et al. of 10 essential oils, bergamot was among the investigated oils, all of which exhibited significant anti-proliferative activity in a preinflamed human dermal fibroblast system simulating chronic inflammation. Bergamot was among three essential oils that also suppressed protein molecules involved with inflammation, immune responses, and tissue remodeling, indicating anti-inflammatory and wound healing characteristics.⁸

More recently, Cristiano et al. reported that ultradeformable nanocarriers containing bergamot essential oil and ammonium glycyrrhizinate were demonstrated in healthy human volunteers to be characterized by the appropriate mean size, size distribution, surface charge, and long-term stability for topical administration. Topical administration on human volunteers also revealed greater activity of the combined agents as compared with a nanosystem loaded only with ammonium glycyrrhizinate. The researchers concluded that this combination of ingredients in ultradeformable vesicles shows potential as topical anti-inflammatory treatment.³

Acne

In a 2020 study using golden hamsters, Sun et al. assessed the effects of the juice and essential oils of bergamot and sweet orange on acne vulgaris engendered by excessive androgen secretion. Among 80 male hamsters randomly divided into 10 groups ranging from low to high doses, all results demonstrated improvement with treatment as seen by decreased growth rates of sebaceous glands, suppressed triglyceride accumulation, lowered inflammatory cytokine release, and apoptosis promotion in sebaceous glands. The authors noted that the essential oils yielded better dose-dependent effects than the juices.²

Psoriasis

In 2019, Perna et al. conducted a literature review on the effects of bergamot essential oil, extract, juice, and polyphenolic fraction on various health metrics. Thirty-one studies (20 involving humans with 1,709 subjects and 11 in rats and mice) were identified. Animal models indicated that bergamot essential oil (10 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg daily for 20 weeks) reduced psoriatic plaques, increased skin collagen content, and fostered hair growth and that bergamot juice (20 mg/kg) diminished proinflammatory cytokines. Human studies showed that bergamot extract and essential oil may reduce blood pressure and improve mental conditions.⁹

Vitiligo

In 2019, Shaaban et al. prepared elastic nanocarriers (spanlastics) to deliver psoralen-containing bergamot oil along with PUVB with the intention of harnessing melanogenic activity to treat vitiligo. Histopathologic assessment on rat skin was conducted before clinical treatment in patients with vitiligo. The spanlastics were deemed to be of suitable nanosize and deformable, yielding consistent bergamot oil release. The bergamot oil included in the nanocarrier was found to enhance photostability and photodynamic activity, with the researchers concluding that bergamot oil nanospanlastics with psoralen-UVB therapy shows potential as a vitiligo therapy.¹⁰

Two years later, Shaaban evaluated bergamot oil formulated in nanostructured lipid carriers as a photosensitizer for photodynamic treatment of vitiligo. The botanical oil was effectively used in the nanostructured lipid carriers with a gel consistency that delivered sustained release of the oil for 24 hours. Preclinical and clinical results in patients were encouraging for the topical photodynamic treatment of vitiligo, with the nanostructured lipid carriers improving the photostability and photodynamic activity of bergamot oil.⁶

Photoaging, photoprotection, and safety concerns

Three decades ago, an international cooperative study of the photophysical, photomutagenic, and photocarcinogenic characteristics of bergamot oil and the effect of UVA and UVB sunscreens found that UVB and UVA sunscreens at low concentration (0.5%-1%) in perfumes could not inhibit the phototoxicity of bergamot oil on human skin.¹¹

In a 2015 study assessing the impact of 38% bergamot polyphenolic fraction (a highly concentrated Citrus bergamia fruit extract) on UVB-generated photoaging, Nisticò et al. found that the bergamot compound dose-dependently protected HaCaT cells against UVB-caused oxidative stress and photoaging markers. Suggesting that the high-antioxidant bergamot polyphenolic fraction has potential for use in skin care formulations, the researchers added that the extract seems to induce antiproliferative, immune-modulating, and antiaging activity.¹²In 2022, Alexa et al. performed in vitro tests and found that natural preparations containing bergamot, orange, and clove essential oils do not significantly alter physiological skin parameters and were deemed safe for topical use. An emulsion with bergamot essential oil was also found to reduce the viability of oral squamous cell carcinoma cells.¹³

Conclusion

As a photosensitizing agent, bergamot has an established role in skin care. Beyond its niche role in treatments for vitiligo and psoriasis, this botanical product appears to show potential as an anti-inflammatory agent as well as an ingredient to combat photoaging and skin cancer. Much more research is needed to elucidate the possible wider benefits of this Mediterranean staple.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Juber M. Health benefits of bergamot. WebMD. November 29, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023.

2. Sun P et al. Mediators Inflamm. 2020 Oct 6;2020:8868107.

3. Cristiano MC et al. Biomedicines. 2022 Apr 30;10(5):1039.

4. Liang Y et al. Phytother Res. 2021 Nov;35(11):6131-47.

5. Quetglas-Llabrés MM et al. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022 Apr 25;2022:8615242.

6. Shaaban M et al. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2021 Jan;18(1):139-50.

7. McNeely W, Goa KL. Drugs. 1998 Oct;56(4):667-90.

8. Han X, Beaumont C, Stevens N. Biochim Open. 2017 Apr 26;5:1-7.

9. Perna S et al. Food Sci Nutr. 2019 Jan 25;7(2):369-84.

10. Shaaban M et al. Drug Deliv Transl Res. 2019 Dec;9(6):1106-16.

11. Dubertret L et al. J Photochem Photobiol B. 1990 Nov;7(2-4):251-9.

12. Nisticò S et al. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2015 Jul-Sep;29(3):723-8.

13. Alexa VT et al. Molecules. 2022 Feb 1;27(3):990.

Citrus bergamia (bergamot) is a fruit tree thought to originate in the Mediterranean area; its fruit has been a part of the diet in that region since the early 18th century.¹ Bergamot is known to confer antioxidant as well as anti-inflammatory activity, and yields proapoptotic effects in the sebaceous gland.^2,3 The plant contains the natural furocoumarin bergapten, which is also known as 5-methoxypsoralen.⁴

Antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, hypolipemic, and anticancer properties have been associated with bergapten, which is primarily found in bergamot essential oil and used effectively as a photosensitizing agent.⁵ In this capacity, bergamot oil has been used for photodynamic therapy of cutaneous conditions such as vitiligo.⁶ In fact, for several years 5-methoxypsoralen and 8-methoxypsoralen have been used to achieve acceptable clearance rates of psoriasis and vitiligo.⁷ This column focuses on bergapten, as well as the cutaneous conditions for which bergamot has been shown to have some benefits warranting application or further investigation.
 

Bergapten

In a 2021 literature review, Liang et al. cited the anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, anticancer, and other salutary effects associated with bergapten. Based on numerous citations, they also cautioned about the phototoxicity of the compound combined with ultraviolet (UV) light while noting the photoactivation of bergapten for anticancer uses.⁴

The following year, Quetglas-Llabrés et al. acknowledged, in another literature review, the numerous preclinical and in vitro studies demonstrating the therapeutic activity of bergapten and highlighted clinical trials revealing notable lesion clearance rates of psoriasis or vitiligo imparted by oral or topical bergapten along with UV irradiation. Bergapten was also found to be effective as hypolipemic therapy.⁵

Anti-inflammatory topical uses

In a 2017 study by Han et al. of 10 essential oils, bergamot was among the investigated oils, all of which exhibited significant anti-proliferative activity in a preinflamed human dermal fibroblast system simulating chronic inflammation. Bergamot was among three essential oils that also suppressed protein molecules involved with inflammation, immune responses, and tissue remodeling, indicating anti-inflammatory and wound healing characteristics.⁸

More recently, Cristiano et al. reported that ultradeformable nanocarriers containing bergamot essential oil and ammonium glycyrrhizinate were demonstrated in healthy human volunteers to be characterized by the appropriate mean size, size distribution, surface charge, and long-term stability for topical administration. Topical administration on human volunteers also revealed greater activity of the combined agents as compared with a nanosystem loaded only with ammonium glycyrrhizinate. The researchers concluded that this combination of ingredients in ultradeformable vesicles shows potential as topical anti-inflammatory treatment.³

Acne

In a 2020 study using golden hamsters, Sun et al. assessed the effects of the juice and essential oils of bergamot and sweet orange on acne vulgaris engendered by excessive androgen secretion. Among 80 male hamsters randomly divided into 10 groups ranging from low to high doses, all results demonstrated improvement with treatment as seen by decreased growth rates of sebaceous glands, suppressed triglyceride accumulation, lowered inflammatory cytokine release, and apoptosis promotion in sebaceous glands. The authors noted that the essential oils yielded better dose-dependent effects than the juices.²

Psoriasis

In 2019, Perna et al. conducted a literature review on the effects of bergamot essential oil, extract, juice, and polyphenolic fraction on various health metrics. Thirty-one studies (20 involving humans with 1,709 subjects and 11 in rats and mice) were identified. Animal models indicated that bergamot essential oil (10 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg daily for 20 weeks) reduced psoriatic plaques, increased skin collagen content, and fostered hair growth and that bergamot juice (20 mg/kg) diminished proinflammatory cytokines. Human studies showed that bergamot extract and essential oil may reduce blood pressure and improve mental conditions.⁹

Vitiligo

In 2019, Shaaban et al. prepared elastic nanocarriers (spanlastics) to deliver psoralen-containing bergamot oil along with PUVB with the intention of harnessing melanogenic activity to treat vitiligo. Histopathologic assessment on rat skin was conducted before clinical treatment in patients with vitiligo. The spanlastics were deemed to be of suitable nanosize and deformable, yielding consistent bergamot oil release. The bergamot oil included in the nanocarrier was found to enhance photostability and photodynamic activity, with the researchers concluding that bergamot oil nanospanlastics with psoralen-UVB therapy shows potential as a vitiligo therapy.¹⁰

Two years later, Shaaban evaluated bergamot oil formulated in nanostructured lipid carriers as a photosensitizer for photodynamic treatment of vitiligo. The botanical oil was effectively used in the nanostructured lipid carriers with a gel consistency that delivered sustained release of the oil for 24 hours. Preclinical and clinical results in patients were encouraging for the topical photodynamic treatment of vitiligo, with the nanostructured lipid carriers improving the photostability and photodynamic activity of bergamot oil.⁶

Photoaging, photoprotection, and safety concerns

Three decades ago, an international cooperative study of the photophysical, photomutagenic, and photocarcinogenic characteristics of bergamot oil and the effect of UVA and UVB sunscreens found that UVB and UVA sunscreens at low concentration (0.5%-1%) in perfumes could not inhibit the phototoxicity of bergamot oil on human skin.¹¹

In a 2015 study assessing the impact of 38% bergamot polyphenolic fraction (a highly concentrated Citrus bergamia fruit extract) on UVB-generated photoaging, Nisticò et al. found that the bergamot compound dose-dependently protected HaCaT cells against UVB-caused oxidative stress and photoaging markers. Suggesting that the high-antioxidant bergamot polyphenolic fraction has potential for use in skin care formulations, the researchers added that the extract seems to induce antiproliferative, immune-modulating, and antiaging activity.¹²In 2022, Alexa et al. performed in vitro tests and found that natural preparations containing bergamot, orange, and clove essential oils do not significantly alter physiological skin parameters and were deemed safe for topical use. An emulsion with bergamot essential oil was also found to reduce the viability of oral squamous cell carcinoma cells.¹³

Conclusion

As a photosensitizing agent, bergamot has an established role in skin care. Beyond its niche role in treatments for vitiligo and psoriasis, this botanical product appears to show potential as an anti-inflammatory agent as well as an ingredient to combat photoaging and skin cancer. Much more research is needed to elucidate the possible wider benefits of this Mediterranean staple.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Juber M. Health benefits of bergamot. WebMD. November 29, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023.

2. Sun P et al. Mediators Inflamm. 2020 Oct 6;2020:8868107.

3. Cristiano MC et al. Biomedicines. 2022 Apr 30;10(5):1039.

4. Liang Y et al. Phytother Res. 2021 Nov;35(11):6131-47.

5. Quetglas-Llabrés MM et al. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022 Apr 25;2022:8615242.

6. Shaaban M et al. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2021 Jan;18(1):139-50.

7. McNeely W, Goa KL. Drugs. 1998 Oct;56(4):667-90.

8. Han X, Beaumont C, Stevens N. Biochim Open. 2017 Apr 26;5:1-7.

9. Perna S et al. Food Sci Nutr. 2019 Jan 25;7(2):369-84.

10. Shaaban M et al. Drug Deliv Transl Res. 2019 Dec;9(6):1106-16.

11. Dubertret L et al. J Photochem Photobiol B. 1990 Nov;7(2-4):251-9.

12. Nisticò S et al. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2015 Jul-Sep;29(3):723-8.

13. Alexa VT et al. Molecules. 2022 Feb 1;27(3):990.

Citrus bergamia (bergamot) is a fruit tree thought to originate in the Mediterranean area; its fruit has been a part of the diet in that region since the early 18th century.¹ Bergamot is known to confer antioxidant as well as anti-inflammatory activity, and yields proapoptotic effects in the sebaceous gland.^2,3 The plant contains the natural furocoumarin bergapten, which is also known as 5-methoxypsoralen.⁴

Antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, hypolipemic, and anticancer properties have been associated with bergapten, which is primarily found in bergamot essential oil and used effectively as a photosensitizing agent.⁵ In this capacity, bergamot oil has been used for photodynamic therapy of cutaneous conditions such as vitiligo.⁶ In fact, for several years 5-methoxypsoralen and 8-methoxypsoralen have been used to achieve acceptable clearance rates of psoriasis and vitiligo.⁷ This column focuses on bergapten, as well as the cutaneous conditions for which bergamot has been shown to have some benefits warranting application or further investigation.
 

Bergapten

In a 2021 literature review, Liang et al. cited the anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, anticancer, and other salutary effects associated with bergapten. Based on numerous citations, they also cautioned about the phototoxicity of the compound combined with ultraviolet (UV) light while noting the photoactivation of bergapten for anticancer uses.⁴

The following year, Quetglas-Llabrés et al. acknowledged, in another literature review, the numerous preclinical and in vitro studies demonstrating the therapeutic activity of bergapten and highlighted clinical trials revealing notable lesion clearance rates of psoriasis or vitiligo imparted by oral or topical bergapten along with UV irradiation. Bergapten was also found to be effective as hypolipemic therapy.⁵

Anti-inflammatory topical uses

In a 2017 study by Han et al. of 10 essential oils, bergamot was among the investigated oils, all of which exhibited significant anti-proliferative activity in a preinflamed human dermal fibroblast system simulating chronic inflammation. Bergamot was among three essential oils that also suppressed protein molecules involved with inflammation, immune responses, and tissue remodeling, indicating anti-inflammatory and wound healing characteristics.⁸

More recently, Cristiano et al. reported that ultradeformable nanocarriers containing bergamot essential oil and ammonium glycyrrhizinate were demonstrated in healthy human volunteers to be characterized by the appropriate mean size, size distribution, surface charge, and long-term stability for topical administration. Topical administration on human volunteers also revealed greater activity of the combined agents as compared with a nanosystem loaded only with ammonium glycyrrhizinate. The researchers concluded that this combination of ingredients in ultradeformable vesicles shows potential as topical anti-inflammatory treatment.³

Acne

In a 2020 study using golden hamsters, Sun et al. assessed the effects of the juice and essential oils of bergamot and sweet orange on acne vulgaris engendered by excessive androgen secretion. Among 80 male hamsters randomly divided into 10 groups ranging from low to high doses, all results demonstrated improvement with treatment as seen by decreased growth rates of sebaceous glands, suppressed triglyceride accumulation, lowered inflammatory cytokine release, and apoptosis promotion in sebaceous glands. The authors noted that the essential oils yielded better dose-dependent effects than the juices.²

Psoriasis

In 2019, Perna et al. conducted a literature review on the effects of bergamot essential oil, extract, juice, and polyphenolic fraction on various health metrics. Thirty-one studies (20 involving humans with 1,709 subjects and 11 in rats and mice) were identified. Animal models indicated that bergamot essential oil (10 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg daily for 20 weeks) reduced psoriatic plaques, increased skin collagen content, and fostered hair growth and that bergamot juice (20 mg/kg) diminished proinflammatory cytokines. Human studies showed that bergamot extract and essential oil may reduce blood pressure and improve mental conditions.⁹

Vitiligo

In 2019, Shaaban et al. prepared elastic nanocarriers (spanlastics) to deliver psoralen-containing bergamot oil along with PUVB with the intention of harnessing melanogenic activity to treat vitiligo. Histopathologic assessment on rat skin was conducted before clinical treatment in patients with vitiligo. The spanlastics were deemed to be of suitable nanosize and deformable, yielding consistent bergamot oil release. The bergamot oil included in the nanocarrier was found to enhance photostability and photodynamic activity, with the researchers concluding that bergamot oil nanospanlastics with psoralen-UVB therapy shows potential as a vitiligo therapy.¹⁰

Two years later, Shaaban evaluated bergamot oil formulated in nanostructured lipid carriers as a photosensitizer for photodynamic treatment of vitiligo. The botanical oil was effectively used in the nanostructured lipid carriers with a gel consistency that delivered sustained release of the oil for 24 hours. Preclinical and clinical results in patients were encouraging for the topical photodynamic treatment of vitiligo, with the nanostructured lipid carriers improving the photostability and photodynamic activity of bergamot oil.⁶

Photoaging, photoprotection, and safety concerns

Three decades ago, an international cooperative study of the photophysical, photomutagenic, and photocarcinogenic characteristics of bergamot oil and the effect of UVA and UVB sunscreens found that UVB and UVA sunscreens at low concentration (0.5%-1%) in perfumes could not inhibit the phototoxicity of bergamot oil on human skin.¹¹

In a 2015 study assessing the impact of 38% bergamot polyphenolic fraction (a highly concentrated Citrus bergamia fruit extract) on UVB-generated photoaging, Nisticò et al. found that the bergamot compound dose-dependently protected HaCaT cells against UVB-caused oxidative stress and photoaging markers. Suggesting that the high-antioxidant bergamot polyphenolic fraction has potential for use in skin care formulations, the researchers added that the extract seems to induce antiproliferative, immune-modulating, and antiaging activity.¹²In 2022, Alexa et al. performed in vitro tests and found that natural preparations containing bergamot, orange, and clove essential oils do not significantly alter physiological skin parameters and were deemed safe for topical use. An emulsion with bergamot essential oil was also found to reduce the viability of oral squamous cell carcinoma cells.¹³

Conclusion

As a photosensitizing agent, bergamot has an established role in skin care. Beyond its niche role in treatments for vitiligo and psoriasis, this botanical product appears to show potential as an anti-inflammatory agent as well as an ingredient to combat photoaging and skin cancer. Much more research is needed to elucidate the possible wider benefits of this Mediterranean staple.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Juber M. Health benefits of bergamot. WebMD. November 29, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023.

2. Sun P et al. Mediators Inflamm. 2020 Oct 6;2020:8868107.

3. Cristiano MC et al. Biomedicines. 2022 Apr 30;10(5):1039.

4. Liang Y et al. Phytother Res. 2021 Nov;35(11):6131-47.

5. Quetglas-Llabrés MM et al. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022 Apr 25;2022:8615242.

6. Shaaban M et al. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2021 Jan;18(1):139-50.

7. McNeely W, Goa KL. Drugs. 1998 Oct;56(4):667-90.

8. Han X, Beaumont C, Stevens N. Biochim Open. 2017 Apr 26;5:1-7.

9. Perna S et al. Food Sci Nutr. 2019 Jan 25;7(2):369-84.

10. Shaaban M et al. Drug Deliv Transl Res. 2019 Dec;9(6):1106-16.

11. Dubertret L et al. J Photochem Photobiol B. 1990 Nov;7(2-4):251-9.

12. Nisticò S et al. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2015 Jul-Sep;29(3):723-8.

13. Alexa VT et al. Molecules. 2022 Feb 1;27(3):990.

Just 16% of psoriasis-related visits to dermatology providers in the United States involve screening for cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, with screening lowest in the region with the highest CV disease burden, according to an analysis of 10 years of national survey data.

From 2007 to 2016, national screening rates for four CV risk factors at 14.8 million psoriasis-related visits to dermatology providers were 11% (body-mass index), 7.4% (blood pressure), 2.9% (cholesterol), and 1.7% (glucose). Data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey showed that at least one of the four factors was screened at 16% of dermatology visits, said William B. Song, BS, of the department of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and associates.

The main focus of their study, however, was regional differences. “CV risk factor screening by dermatology providers for patients with psoriasis is low across all regions of the United States and lowest in the South, the region that experiences the highest CVD burden in the United States,” they wrote in a letter to the editor.

Compared with the South, the adjusted odds of any CV screening were 0.98 in the West, 1.25 in the Northeast, and 1.92 in the Midwest. Blood pressure screening was significantly higher in all three regions, compared with the South, while BMI screening was actually lower in the West (0.74), the investigators reported. Odds ratios were not available for cholesterol and glucose screening because of sample size limitations.

The regional variation in screening rates “is not explained by patient demographics or disease severity,” they noted, adding that 2.8 million visits with BP screening would have been added over the 10-year study period “if providers in the South screened patients with psoriasis for high blood pressure at the same rate as providers in the Northeast.”

Guidelines published in 2019 by the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation – which were cowritten by Joel M. Gelfand, MD, senior author of the current study – noted that dermatologists “play an important role in evidence-based screening of CV risk factors in patients with psoriasis,” the investigators wrote. But the regional variations suggest “that some regions experience barriers to appropriate screening or challenges in adhering to guidelines for managing psoriasis and CV risk.”

While the lack of data from after 2016 is one of the study limitations, they added, “continued efforts to develop effective interventions to improve CV screening and care for people with psoriasis in all regions of the U.S. are needed to more effectively address the burden of CV disease experienced by people with psoriasis.”

The study was partly funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Three of the seven investigators disclosed earnings from private companies in the form of consultant fees, research support, and honoraria. Dr. Gelfand is a deputy editor for the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

Just 16% of psoriasis-related visits to dermatology providers in the United States involve screening for cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, with screening lowest in the region with the highest CV disease burden, according to an analysis of 10 years of national survey data.

From 2007 to 2016, national screening rates for four CV risk factors at 14.8 million psoriasis-related visits to dermatology providers were 11% (body-mass index), 7.4% (blood pressure), 2.9% (cholesterol), and 1.7% (glucose). Data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey showed that at least one of the four factors was screened at 16% of dermatology visits, said William B. Song, BS, of the department of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and associates.

The main focus of their study, however, was regional differences. “CV risk factor screening by dermatology providers for patients with psoriasis is low across all regions of the United States and lowest in the South, the region that experiences the highest CVD burden in the United States,” they wrote in a letter to the editor.

Compared with the South, the adjusted odds of any CV screening were 0.98 in the West, 1.25 in the Northeast, and 1.92 in the Midwest. Blood pressure screening was significantly higher in all three regions, compared with the South, while BMI screening was actually lower in the West (0.74), the investigators reported. Odds ratios were not available for cholesterol and glucose screening because of sample size limitations.

The regional variation in screening rates “is not explained by patient demographics or disease severity,” they noted, adding that 2.8 million visits with BP screening would have been added over the 10-year study period “if providers in the South screened patients with psoriasis for high blood pressure at the same rate as providers in the Northeast.”

Guidelines published in 2019 by the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation – which were cowritten by Joel M. Gelfand, MD, senior author of the current study – noted that dermatologists “play an important role in evidence-based screening of CV risk factors in patients with psoriasis,” the investigators wrote. But the regional variations suggest “that some regions experience barriers to appropriate screening or challenges in adhering to guidelines for managing psoriasis and CV risk.”

While the lack of data from after 2016 is one of the study limitations, they added, “continued efforts to develop effective interventions to improve CV screening and care for people with psoriasis in all regions of the U.S. are needed to more effectively address the burden of CV disease experienced by people with psoriasis.”

The study was partly funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Three of the seven investigators disclosed earnings from private companies in the form of consultant fees, research support, and honoraria. Dr. Gelfand is a deputy editor for the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

Just 16% of psoriasis-related visits to dermatology providers in the United States involve screening for cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, with screening lowest in the region with the highest CV disease burden, according to an analysis of 10 years of national survey data.

From 2007 to 2016, national screening rates for four CV risk factors at 14.8 million psoriasis-related visits to dermatology providers were 11% (body-mass index), 7.4% (blood pressure), 2.9% (cholesterol), and 1.7% (glucose). Data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey showed that at least one of the four factors was screened at 16% of dermatology visits, said William B. Song, BS, of the department of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and associates.

The main focus of their study, however, was regional differences. “CV risk factor screening by dermatology providers for patients with psoriasis is low across all regions of the United States and lowest in the South, the region that experiences the highest CVD burden in the United States,” they wrote in a letter to the editor.

Compared with the South, the adjusted odds of any CV screening were 0.98 in the West, 1.25 in the Northeast, and 1.92 in the Midwest. Blood pressure screening was significantly higher in all three regions, compared with the South, while BMI screening was actually lower in the West (0.74), the investigators reported. Odds ratios were not available for cholesterol and glucose screening because of sample size limitations.

The regional variation in screening rates “is not explained by patient demographics or disease severity,” they noted, adding that 2.8 million visits with BP screening would have been added over the 10-year study period “if providers in the South screened patients with psoriasis for high blood pressure at the same rate as providers in the Northeast.”

Guidelines published in 2019 by the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation – which were cowritten by Joel M. Gelfand, MD, senior author of the current study – noted that dermatologists “play an important role in evidence-based screening of CV risk factors in patients with psoriasis,” the investigators wrote. But the regional variations suggest “that some regions experience barriers to appropriate screening or challenges in adhering to guidelines for managing psoriasis and CV risk.”

While the lack of data from after 2016 is one of the study limitations, they added, “continued efforts to develop effective interventions to improve CV screening and care for people with psoriasis in all regions of the U.S. are needed to more effectively address the burden of CV disease experienced by people with psoriasis.”

The study was partly funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Three of the seven investigators disclosed earnings from private companies in the form of consultant fees, research support, and honoraria. Dr. Gelfand is a deputy editor for the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

Rheumatologist Marcus Snow, MD, is comfortable with prescribing biosimilars as a first-line, first-time biologic, and discussing them with patients.

“If a biosimilar is on the market, it has gone through rigorous study proving its effectiveness and equivalence to a bio-originator,” said Dr. Snow, a rheumatologist with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care.

The formulary makes a big difference in the conversation about options, he said. “The formularies dictate what we can prescribe. It may not be appropriate, but it is reality. The cost of biologics for a patient without insurance coverage makes it impossible to afford.”

He will often tell patients that he’ll fight any changes or formulary restrictions he does not agree with. “However, when I see patients in follow-up, even if there is no known change on the horizon, I may bring up biosimilars when we have a moment to chat about them to familiarize them with what may happen in the future.”

The need for patient education on biosimilars presents a barrier to realizing their potential to save money and expand choice, noted Cardinal Health in its 2023 biosimilars report. Of 103 rheumatologists who responded to a Cardinal Health survey, 85% agreed that patient education was important. But those conversations can take an uncomfortable turn if the patient pushes back against taking a biosimilar owing to cost or safety concerns.

It’s not uncommon for a patient to express some anxiety about biosimilars, especially if they’re doing well on a current treatment plan. Most patients do not want any changes that may lead to worsening disease control, Dr. Snow said.

Kaiser Permanente

Patients and physicians alike often don’t understand the mechanics of biosimilars. “There’s a lot of misinformation about this,” said Sameer Awsare, MD, an associate executive director for The Permanente Medical Group in Campbell, Calif. Patients should know that a biosimilar will be as clinically efficacious as the medicine they’ve been on, with the same safety profiles, said Dr. Awsare, who works with Kaiser Permanente’s pharmacy partners on biosimilars.
 

Insurance often drives the conversation

The global anti-inflammatory biologics market is anticipated to reach $150 billion by 2027, according to a recent CVS report. As of March 2023, the Food and Drug Administration had approved 40 biosimilars to 11 different reference products. There are 28 on the U.S. market and 100 more in development. Projected to save more than $180 billion over the next 5 years, they are anticipated to expand choice and drive competition.

Rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists are frequent prescribers, although their choices for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab [Remicade] originator and adalimumab [Humira] originator) and anti-CD20 agents, such as rituximab (Rituxan) originator.

Benefit design or formulary usually dictates what medicine a patient receives. “Because of significantly higher out-of-pocket cost or formulary positioning, patients may end up with a generic or a biosimilar instead of a brand-name medicine or branded biologic,” said Robert Popovian, PharmD, MS, chief science policy officer of the Global Healthy Living Foundation.

Insurers rarely offer both Remicade and biosimilar infliximab, allowing the doctor to choose, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, who prescribes infliximab biosimilars. Most often, the payer will choose the lower-cost biosimilar. “I am fine with the biosimilar, either as a new start or a switch from the reference product.”

However, the patient might feel differently. They can form an attachment to the reference medication if it has prevented severe illness. “They do not want to change, as they feel they are going on a ‘new’ medication that will not work as well,” Dr. Regueiro said.

This is where the education comes in: to reassure patients that a biosimilar will work just as well as the reference product. “For patients who have done well for years on a biologic, more time needs to be spent reassuring them and answering questions,” compared with a patient just starting on a biosimilar, he advised.

But not all physicians are quick to prescribe biosimilars.

Julie Miller Photography

Especially with psoriasis, which has so many strong options for reference drugs, a switch may be hard to justify, said dermatologist Stephanie K. Fabbro, MD, assistant professor at Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown. “If I have a preference, I would rather switch a patient to a drug from a different class without a biosimilar option to reduce the possibility of pushback.”

Dr. Fabbro, part of the core faculty in the Riverside Methodist Hospital Dermatology Residency Program in Columbus, will share data from clinical trials and postmarket surveillance with patients to support her decision.
 

Conversations about cost

Patients may also push back if they don’t save money when switching to a biosimilar. “This dilemma raises the question of who is profiting when a biosimilar is dispensed,” Dr. Popovian said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that take additional concessions from biopharmaceutical manufacturers in the form of rebates and fees will often pocket this money as profit instead of passing savings back to the patient to help reduce their out-of-pocket requirement, he added.

If an originator biologic and a biosimilar are available, “as a pharmacist, I will choose the medicine that will incur the lowest out-of-pocket cost for the patient,” Dr. Popovian said.

Discussing cost – and who dictates which biosimilar is on the formulary – is an important conversation to have with patients, said Vivek Kaul, MD, Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

Providing equivalent clinical efficacy while saving costs is the economic reality of biosimilars, Dr. Kaul said. Third-party payers regularly evaluate how to provide the same quality of care while saving money. Physicians and patients alike “must be mindful that as time goes on, if the science on biosimilars stays robust, if the adoption is more widespread and the cost-saving proposition turns out to be true, more formularies will be attracted to replacing the reference product with the biosimilar counterpart.”

Providers and patients can weigh the options if a formulary suddenly switches to a biosimilar, Dr. Kaul continued. “You can accept the novel product on the formulary or may have to face out-of-pocket expenses as a patient.” If providers and patients have concerns about the biosimilar, they can always appeal if there’s solid scientific evidence that supports reverting back to the reference product.

“If you think the biosimilar is equally efficacious, comes at a lower cost, and is right for the patient, then the providers should tell the patient that,” he added.

Some studies have questioned whether the biosimilars will save money, compared with the reference drug, Dr. Fabbro noted. Medicare, for example, may pay only for a certain percentage of an approved biosimilar, saddling the patient with a monthly copay costing thousands of dollars. “It is unclear whether biosimilar manufacturers will have the same level of patient support programs as the reference drug companies.”

For that reason, physicians should also inform patients about the robust patient assistance and copay assistance programs many reference drug manufacturers offer, she said.

Biosimilars 101: Familiarizing patients

Safety and ease of use are other common concerns about biosimilars. Patients may ask if the application is different, or why it’s advantageous to switch to a biosimilar, Dr. Awsare said.

Sometimes the syringe or injector for a biosimilar might look different from that of the originator drug, he said.

Anecdotally, Dr. Fabbro has heard stories of patients having injection reactions that they did not experience with the reference drug or having a disease flare-up after starting a biosimilar. 

rubberball/Getty Images

As is the case with reference products, in their conversations with patients, clinicians should address the adverse event profile of biosimilars, offering data points from published studies and clinical guidelines that support the use of these products. “There should be an emphasis on patient education around efficacy and any side effects, and how the profile of the reference product compares with a proposed biosimilar,” Dr. Kaul suggested.

When Dr. Snow discusses biosimilars and generics, “I make sure to share this in an understandable way based on the patient’s scientific background, or lack thereof,” he said. If there is enough time, he also discusses how European- and U.S.-sourced biologics are slightly different.

Pharmacists should tell patients to expect the same clinical outcomes from a biosimilar, Dr. Popovian said. However, if they have any reduction in efficacy or potential safety concerns, they should communicate with their physician or pharmacist immediately.

In Dr. Regueiro’s practice, a pharmacist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease often has a one-on-one meeting with patients to educate and answer questions. “Additionally, we provide them the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation web link on biosimilars,” said Dr. Regueiro.
 

A village approach to education

When biosimilars first came out, there were no formal education materials, Dr. Awsare said. Kaiser Permanente decided to create its own educational materials, not just for patients but also to help educate its primary care doctors; the rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists using the biosimilars; the nurses infusing patients; and the pharmacists preparing the biosimilars.

The health system also has a different approach to choosing medication. Instead of having an insurance company or PBM decide what’s in the formulary, clinicians work with the pharmacists at Kaiser to look at clinical evidence and decide which biosimilar to use. Most of its plans also provide lower copays to patients when they use the biosimilar. 

This was the approach for Humira biosimilars, Dr. Awsare said. Eight will be on the market in 2023. “Our rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists looked at the data from Europe, looked at some real-world evidence, and then said: ‘We think this one’s going to be the best one for our patients.’ ”

Having clinicians choose the biosimilar instead of a health plan makes it a lot easier to have conversations with patients, he said. “Once we’ve moved that market share to that particular biosimilar, we give our physicians the time to have those discussions.”

Clinical pharmacists also provide educational support, offering guidance on issues such as side effects, as patients transition to the biosimilar. “We like to use the word ‘transition’ because it’s essentially the same biologic. So, you’re not actually switching,” Dr. Awsare said.

No consensus on interchangeability

Whether the conversation on interchangeability will affect patient conversations with physicians depends on who you ask.

If a biosimilar has an interchangeability designation, it means that the pharmacist can substitute it without the intervention of the clinician who prescribed the reference product. It does not relate to the quality, safety, or effectiveness of biosimilars or interchangeable biosimilar products, Dr. Popovian said.

The United States is the only country that has this designation. Even though it’s not identical to the originator drug, a biosimilar has the same clinical efficacy and safety profile. “So clinically, interchangeability is meaningless,” Dr. Awsare said.

In its report on biosimilars in the autoimmune category, CVS acknowledged that interchangeability was important but would not be a significant factor in driving adoption of biosimilars. However, in a Cardinal Health survey of 72 gastroenterologists, 38% cited the interchangeability of biosimilars as a top concern for adalimumab biosimilars, along with transitioning patients from Humira to a biosimilar (44%).

“Patient education regarding biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability appears paramount to the acceptance of these products, particularly for patients who are switched from a reference product,” Dr. Kaul noted in the Cardinal Health report.

Wherever supported by data, Dr. Kaul recommends incorporating biosimilar use and interchangeability into best practice guidelines going forward. “That will go a long way in disseminating the latest information on this topic and position this paradigm for increased adoption among providers.”

Some physicians like Dr. Snow aren’t that concerned with interchangeability. This hasn’t affected conversations with patients, he said. Multiple studies demonstrating the lack of antibody formation with multiple switches from different biosimilar drugs has eased his concern about multiple switches causing problems.

“Initially, there was a gap in demonstrating the long-term effect of multiple switches on antibody production and drug effectiveness. That gap has started to close as more data from Europe’s experience with biosimilars becomes available,” Dr. Snow said.
 

Resources for physicians, patients

The federal government has taken steps to advance biosimilars education and adoption. In 2021, President Biden signed the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act into law, which directs the FDA to develop or improve continuing education programs that address prescribing of biosimilars and biological products.

The FDA provides educational materials on its website, including a comprehensive curriculum toolkit. The Accreditation Council for Medical Affairs has also created an online 40-hour curriculum for health care professionals called the Board-Certified Biologics and Biosimilars Specialist Program.

Dr. Fabbro recommended patients use the FDA page Biosimilar Basics for Patients to educate themselves on biosimilars. The Global Healthy Living Foundation’s podcast, Breaking Down Biosimilars, is another free resource for patients.

“While much has changed, the continued need for multistakeholder education, awareness, and dedicated research remains even more important as we expand into newer therapeutic areas and classes,” wrote the authors of the Cardinal Health report.

Help patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at gastro.org/biosimilars.

Dr. Regueiro is on advisory boards and consults for AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Organon, Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, Celgene, TARGET PharmaSolutions, Trellis, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fabbro is a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences, on the speakers bureau for Valchlor, and on the advisory boards of Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Popovian, Dr. Snow, Dr. Awsare, and Dr. Kaul had no disclosures.

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

Rheumatologist Marcus Snow, MD, is comfortable with prescribing biosimilars as a first-line, first-time biologic, and discussing them with patients.

“If a biosimilar is on the market, it has gone through rigorous study proving its effectiveness and equivalence to a bio-originator,” said Dr. Snow, a rheumatologist with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care.

The formulary makes a big difference in the conversation about options, he said. “The formularies dictate what we can prescribe. It may not be appropriate, but it is reality. The cost of biologics for a patient without insurance coverage makes it impossible to afford.”

He will often tell patients that he’ll fight any changes or formulary restrictions he does not agree with. “However, when I see patients in follow-up, even if there is no known change on the horizon, I may bring up biosimilars when we have a moment to chat about them to familiarize them with what may happen in the future.”

The need for patient education on biosimilars presents a barrier to realizing their potential to save money and expand choice, noted Cardinal Health in its 2023 biosimilars report. Of 103 rheumatologists who responded to a Cardinal Health survey, 85% agreed that patient education was important. But those conversations can take an uncomfortable turn if the patient pushes back against taking a biosimilar owing to cost or safety concerns.

It’s not uncommon for a patient to express some anxiety about biosimilars, especially if they’re doing well on a current treatment plan. Most patients do not want any changes that may lead to worsening disease control, Dr. Snow said.

Kaiser Permanente

Patients and physicians alike often don’t understand the mechanics of biosimilars. “There’s a lot of misinformation about this,” said Sameer Awsare, MD, an associate executive director for The Permanente Medical Group in Campbell, Calif. Patients should know that a biosimilar will be as clinically efficacious as the medicine they’ve been on, with the same safety profiles, said Dr. Awsare, who works with Kaiser Permanente’s pharmacy partners on biosimilars.
 

Insurance often drives the conversation

The global anti-inflammatory biologics market is anticipated to reach $150 billion by 2027, according to a recent CVS report. As of March 2023, the Food and Drug Administration had approved 40 biosimilars to 11 different reference products. There are 28 on the U.S. market and 100 more in development. Projected to save more than $180 billion over the next 5 years, they are anticipated to expand choice and drive competition.

Rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists are frequent prescribers, although their choices for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab [Remicade] originator and adalimumab [Humira] originator) and anti-CD20 agents, such as rituximab (Rituxan) originator.

Benefit design or formulary usually dictates what medicine a patient receives. “Because of significantly higher out-of-pocket cost or formulary positioning, patients may end up with a generic or a biosimilar instead of a brand-name medicine or branded biologic,” said Robert Popovian, PharmD, MS, chief science policy officer of the Global Healthy Living Foundation.

Insurers rarely offer both Remicade and biosimilar infliximab, allowing the doctor to choose, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, who prescribes infliximab biosimilars. Most often, the payer will choose the lower-cost biosimilar. “I am fine with the biosimilar, either as a new start or a switch from the reference product.”

However, the patient might feel differently. They can form an attachment to the reference medication if it has prevented severe illness. “They do not want to change, as they feel they are going on a ‘new’ medication that will not work as well,” Dr. Regueiro said.

This is where the education comes in: to reassure patients that a biosimilar will work just as well as the reference product. “For patients who have done well for years on a biologic, more time needs to be spent reassuring them and answering questions,” compared with a patient just starting on a biosimilar, he advised.

But not all physicians are quick to prescribe biosimilars.

Julie Miller Photography

Especially with psoriasis, which has so many strong options for reference drugs, a switch may be hard to justify, said dermatologist Stephanie K. Fabbro, MD, assistant professor at Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown. “If I have a preference, I would rather switch a patient to a drug from a different class without a biosimilar option to reduce the possibility of pushback.”

Dr. Fabbro, part of the core faculty in the Riverside Methodist Hospital Dermatology Residency Program in Columbus, will share data from clinical trials and postmarket surveillance with patients to support her decision.
 

Conversations about cost

Patients may also push back if they don’t save money when switching to a biosimilar. “This dilemma raises the question of who is profiting when a biosimilar is dispensed,” Dr. Popovian said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that take additional concessions from biopharmaceutical manufacturers in the form of rebates and fees will often pocket this money as profit instead of passing savings back to the patient to help reduce their out-of-pocket requirement, he added.

If an originator biologic and a biosimilar are available, “as a pharmacist, I will choose the medicine that will incur the lowest out-of-pocket cost for the patient,” Dr. Popovian said.

Discussing cost – and who dictates which biosimilar is on the formulary – is an important conversation to have with patients, said Vivek Kaul, MD, Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

Providing equivalent clinical efficacy while saving costs is the economic reality of biosimilars, Dr. Kaul said. Third-party payers regularly evaluate how to provide the same quality of care while saving money. Physicians and patients alike “must be mindful that as time goes on, if the science on biosimilars stays robust, if the adoption is more widespread and the cost-saving proposition turns out to be true, more formularies will be attracted to replacing the reference product with the biosimilar counterpart.”

Providers and patients can weigh the options if a formulary suddenly switches to a biosimilar, Dr. Kaul continued. “You can accept the novel product on the formulary or may have to face out-of-pocket expenses as a patient.” If providers and patients have concerns about the biosimilar, they can always appeal if there’s solid scientific evidence that supports reverting back to the reference product.

“If you think the biosimilar is equally efficacious, comes at a lower cost, and is right for the patient, then the providers should tell the patient that,” he added.

Some studies have questioned whether the biosimilars will save money, compared with the reference drug, Dr. Fabbro noted. Medicare, for example, may pay only for a certain percentage of an approved biosimilar, saddling the patient with a monthly copay costing thousands of dollars. “It is unclear whether biosimilar manufacturers will have the same level of patient support programs as the reference drug companies.”

For that reason, physicians should also inform patients about the robust patient assistance and copay assistance programs many reference drug manufacturers offer, she said.

Biosimilars 101: Familiarizing patients

Safety and ease of use are other common concerns about biosimilars. Patients may ask if the application is different, or why it’s advantageous to switch to a biosimilar, Dr. Awsare said.

Sometimes the syringe or injector for a biosimilar might look different from that of the originator drug, he said.

Anecdotally, Dr. Fabbro has heard stories of patients having injection reactions that they did not experience with the reference drug or having a disease flare-up after starting a biosimilar. 

rubberball/Getty Images

As is the case with reference products, in their conversations with patients, clinicians should address the adverse event profile of biosimilars, offering data points from published studies and clinical guidelines that support the use of these products. “There should be an emphasis on patient education around efficacy and any side effects, and how the profile of the reference product compares with a proposed biosimilar,” Dr. Kaul suggested.

When Dr. Snow discusses biosimilars and generics, “I make sure to share this in an understandable way based on the patient’s scientific background, or lack thereof,” he said. If there is enough time, he also discusses how European- and U.S.-sourced biologics are slightly different.

Pharmacists should tell patients to expect the same clinical outcomes from a biosimilar, Dr. Popovian said. However, if they have any reduction in efficacy or potential safety concerns, they should communicate with their physician or pharmacist immediately.

In Dr. Regueiro’s practice, a pharmacist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease often has a one-on-one meeting with patients to educate and answer questions. “Additionally, we provide them the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation web link on biosimilars,” said Dr. Regueiro.
 

A village approach to education

When biosimilars first came out, there were no formal education materials, Dr. Awsare said. Kaiser Permanente decided to create its own educational materials, not just for patients but also to help educate its primary care doctors; the rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists using the biosimilars; the nurses infusing patients; and the pharmacists preparing the biosimilars.

The health system also has a different approach to choosing medication. Instead of having an insurance company or PBM decide what’s in the formulary, clinicians work with the pharmacists at Kaiser to look at clinical evidence and decide which biosimilar to use. Most of its plans also provide lower copays to patients when they use the biosimilar. 

This was the approach for Humira biosimilars, Dr. Awsare said. Eight will be on the market in 2023. “Our rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists looked at the data from Europe, looked at some real-world evidence, and then said: ‘We think this one’s going to be the best one for our patients.’ ”

Having clinicians choose the biosimilar instead of a health plan makes it a lot easier to have conversations with patients, he said. “Once we’ve moved that market share to that particular biosimilar, we give our physicians the time to have those discussions.”

Clinical pharmacists also provide educational support, offering guidance on issues such as side effects, as patients transition to the biosimilar. “We like to use the word ‘transition’ because it’s essentially the same biologic. So, you’re not actually switching,” Dr. Awsare said.

No consensus on interchangeability

Whether the conversation on interchangeability will affect patient conversations with physicians depends on who you ask.

If a biosimilar has an interchangeability designation, it means that the pharmacist can substitute it without the intervention of the clinician who prescribed the reference product. It does not relate to the quality, safety, or effectiveness of biosimilars or interchangeable biosimilar products, Dr. Popovian said.

The United States is the only country that has this designation. Even though it’s not identical to the originator drug, a biosimilar has the same clinical efficacy and safety profile. “So clinically, interchangeability is meaningless,” Dr. Awsare said.

In its report on biosimilars in the autoimmune category, CVS acknowledged that interchangeability was important but would not be a significant factor in driving adoption of biosimilars. However, in a Cardinal Health survey of 72 gastroenterologists, 38% cited the interchangeability of biosimilars as a top concern for adalimumab biosimilars, along with transitioning patients from Humira to a biosimilar (44%).

“Patient education regarding biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability appears paramount to the acceptance of these products, particularly for patients who are switched from a reference product,” Dr. Kaul noted in the Cardinal Health report.

Wherever supported by data, Dr. Kaul recommends incorporating biosimilar use and interchangeability into best practice guidelines going forward. “That will go a long way in disseminating the latest information on this topic and position this paradigm for increased adoption among providers.”

Some physicians like Dr. Snow aren’t that concerned with interchangeability. This hasn’t affected conversations with patients, he said. Multiple studies demonstrating the lack of antibody formation with multiple switches from different biosimilar drugs has eased his concern about multiple switches causing problems.

“Initially, there was a gap in demonstrating the long-term effect of multiple switches on antibody production and drug effectiveness. That gap has started to close as more data from Europe’s experience with biosimilars becomes available,” Dr. Snow said.
 

Resources for physicians, patients

The federal government has taken steps to advance biosimilars education and adoption. In 2021, President Biden signed the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act into law, which directs the FDA to develop or improve continuing education programs that address prescribing of biosimilars and biological products.

The FDA provides educational materials on its website, including a comprehensive curriculum toolkit. The Accreditation Council for Medical Affairs has also created an online 40-hour curriculum for health care professionals called the Board-Certified Biologics and Biosimilars Specialist Program.

Dr. Fabbro recommended patients use the FDA page Biosimilar Basics for Patients to educate themselves on biosimilars. The Global Healthy Living Foundation’s podcast, Breaking Down Biosimilars, is another free resource for patients.

“While much has changed, the continued need for multistakeholder education, awareness, and dedicated research remains even more important as we expand into newer therapeutic areas and classes,” wrote the authors of the Cardinal Health report.

Help patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at gastro.org/biosimilars.

Dr. Regueiro is on advisory boards and consults for AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Organon, Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, Celgene, TARGET PharmaSolutions, Trellis, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fabbro is a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences, on the speakers bureau for Valchlor, and on the advisory boards of Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Popovian, Dr. Snow, Dr. Awsare, and Dr. Kaul had no disclosures.

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

Rheumatologist Marcus Snow, MD, is comfortable with prescribing biosimilars as a first-line, first-time biologic, and discussing them with patients.

“If a biosimilar is on the market, it has gone through rigorous study proving its effectiveness and equivalence to a bio-originator,” said Dr. Snow, a rheumatologist with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care.

The formulary makes a big difference in the conversation about options, he said. “The formularies dictate what we can prescribe. It may not be appropriate, but it is reality. The cost of biologics for a patient without insurance coverage makes it impossible to afford.”

He will often tell patients that he’ll fight any changes or formulary restrictions he does not agree with. “However, when I see patients in follow-up, even if there is no known change on the horizon, I may bring up biosimilars when we have a moment to chat about them to familiarize them with what may happen in the future.”

The need for patient education on biosimilars presents a barrier to realizing their potential to save money and expand choice, noted Cardinal Health in its 2023 biosimilars report. Of 103 rheumatologists who responded to a Cardinal Health survey, 85% agreed that patient education was important. But those conversations can take an uncomfortable turn if the patient pushes back against taking a biosimilar owing to cost or safety concerns.

It’s not uncommon for a patient to express some anxiety about biosimilars, especially if they’re doing well on a current treatment plan. Most patients do not want any changes that may lead to worsening disease control, Dr. Snow said.

Kaiser Permanente

Patients and physicians alike often don’t understand the mechanics of biosimilars. “There’s a lot of misinformation about this,” said Sameer Awsare, MD, an associate executive director for The Permanente Medical Group in Campbell, Calif. Patients should know that a biosimilar will be as clinically efficacious as the medicine they’ve been on, with the same safety profiles, said Dr. Awsare, who works with Kaiser Permanente’s pharmacy partners on biosimilars.
 

Insurance often drives the conversation

The global anti-inflammatory biologics market is anticipated to reach $150 billion by 2027, according to a recent CVS report. As of March 2023, the Food and Drug Administration had approved 40 biosimilars to 11 different reference products. There are 28 on the U.S. market and 100 more in development. Projected to save more than $180 billion over the next 5 years, they are anticipated to expand choice and drive competition.

Rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists are frequent prescribers, although their choices for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab [Remicade] originator and adalimumab [Humira] originator) and anti-CD20 agents, such as rituximab (Rituxan) originator.

Benefit design or formulary usually dictates what medicine a patient receives. “Because of significantly higher out-of-pocket cost or formulary positioning, patients may end up with a generic or a biosimilar instead of a brand-name medicine or branded biologic,” said Robert Popovian, PharmD, MS, chief science policy officer of the Global Healthy Living Foundation.

Insurers rarely offer both Remicade and biosimilar infliximab, allowing the doctor to choose, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, who prescribes infliximab biosimilars. Most often, the payer will choose the lower-cost biosimilar. “I am fine with the biosimilar, either as a new start or a switch from the reference product.”

However, the patient might feel differently. They can form an attachment to the reference medication if it has prevented severe illness. “They do not want to change, as they feel they are going on a ‘new’ medication that will not work as well,” Dr. Regueiro said.

This is where the education comes in: to reassure patients that a biosimilar will work just as well as the reference product. “For patients who have done well for years on a biologic, more time needs to be spent reassuring them and answering questions,” compared with a patient just starting on a biosimilar, he advised.

But not all physicians are quick to prescribe biosimilars.

Julie Miller Photography

Especially with psoriasis, which has so many strong options for reference drugs, a switch may be hard to justify, said dermatologist Stephanie K. Fabbro, MD, assistant professor at Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown. “If I have a preference, I would rather switch a patient to a drug from a different class without a biosimilar option to reduce the possibility of pushback.”

Dr. Fabbro, part of the core faculty in the Riverside Methodist Hospital Dermatology Residency Program in Columbus, will share data from clinical trials and postmarket surveillance with patients to support her decision.
 

Conversations about cost

Patients may also push back if they don’t save money when switching to a biosimilar. “This dilemma raises the question of who is profiting when a biosimilar is dispensed,” Dr. Popovian said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that take additional concessions from biopharmaceutical manufacturers in the form of rebates and fees will often pocket this money as profit instead of passing savings back to the patient to help reduce their out-of-pocket requirement, he added.

If an originator biologic and a biosimilar are available, “as a pharmacist, I will choose the medicine that will incur the lowest out-of-pocket cost for the patient,” Dr. Popovian said.

Discussing cost – and who dictates which biosimilar is on the formulary – is an important conversation to have with patients, said Vivek Kaul, MD, Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

Providing equivalent clinical efficacy while saving costs is the economic reality of biosimilars, Dr. Kaul said. Third-party payers regularly evaluate how to provide the same quality of care while saving money. Physicians and patients alike “must be mindful that as time goes on, if the science on biosimilars stays robust, if the adoption is more widespread and the cost-saving proposition turns out to be true, more formularies will be attracted to replacing the reference product with the biosimilar counterpart.”

Providers and patients can weigh the options if a formulary suddenly switches to a biosimilar, Dr. Kaul continued. “You can accept the novel product on the formulary or may have to face out-of-pocket expenses as a patient.” If providers and patients have concerns about the biosimilar, they can always appeal if there’s solid scientific evidence that supports reverting back to the reference product.

“If you think the biosimilar is equally efficacious, comes at a lower cost, and is right for the patient, then the providers should tell the patient that,” he added.

Some studies have questioned whether the biosimilars will save money, compared with the reference drug, Dr. Fabbro noted. Medicare, for example, may pay only for a certain percentage of an approved biosimilar, saddling the patient with a monthly copay costing thousands of dollars. “It is unclear whether biosimilar manufacturers will have the same level of patient support programs as the reference drug companies.”

For that reason, physicians should also inform patients about the robust patient assistance and copay assistance programs many reference drug manufacturers offer, she said.

Biosimilars 101: Familiarizing patients

Safety and ease of use are other common concerns about biosimilars. Patients may ask if the application is different, or why it’s advantageous to switch to a biosimilar, Dr. Awsare said.

Sometimes the syringe or injector for a biosimilar might look different from that of the originator drug, he said.

Anecdotally, Dr. Fabbro has heard stories of patients having injection reactions that they did not experience with the reference drug or having a disease flare-up after starting a biosimilar. 

rubberball/Getty Images

As is the case with reference products, in their conversations with patients, clinicians should address the adverse event profile of biosimilars, offering data points from published studies and clinical guidelines that support the use of these products. “There should be an emphasis on patient education around efficacy and any side effects, and how the profile of the reference product compares with a proposed biosimilar,” Dr. Kaul suggested.

When Dr. Snow discusses biosimilars and generics, “I make sure to share this in an understandable way based on the patient’s scientific background, or lack thereof,” he said. If there is enough time, he also discusses how European- and U.S.-sourced biologics are slightly different.

Pharmacists should tell patients to expect the same clinical outcomes from a biosimilar, Dr. Popovian said. However, if they have any reduction in efficacy or potential safety concerns, they should communicate with their physician or pharmacist immediately.

In Dr. Regueiro’s practice, a pharmacist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease often has a one-on-one meeting with patients to educate and answer questions. “Additionally, we provide them the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation web link on biosimilars,” said Dr. Regueiro.
 

A village approach to education

When biosimilars first came out, there were no formal education materials, Dr. Awsare said. Kaiser Permanente decided to create its own educational materials, not just for patients but also to help educate its primary care doctors; the rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists using the biosimilars; the nurses infusing patients; and the pharmacists preparing the biosimilars.

The health system also has a different approach to choosing medication. Instead of having an insurance company or PBM decide what’s in the formulary, clinicians work with the pharmacists at Kaiser to look at clinical evidence and decide which biosimilar to use. Most of its plans also provide lower copays to patients when they use the biosimilar. 

This was the approach for Humira biosimilars, Dr. Awsare said. Eight will be on the market in 2023. “Our rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists looked at the data from Europe, looked at some real-world evidence, and then said: ‘We think this one’s going to be the best one for our patients.’ ”

Having clinicians choose the biosimilar instead of a health plan makes it a lot easier to have conversations with patients, he said. “Once we’ve moved that market share to that particular biosimilar, we give our physicians the time to have those discussions.”

Clinical pharmacists also provide educational support, offering guidance on issues such as side effects, as patients transition to the biosimilar. “We like to use the word ‘transition’ because it’s essentially the same biologic. So, you’re not actually switching,” Dr. Awsare said.

No consensus on interchangeability

Whether the conversation on interchangeability will affect patient conversations with physicians depends on who you ask.

If a biosimilar has an interchangeability designation, it means that the pharmacist can substitute it without the intervention of the clinician who prescribed the reference product. It does not relate to the quality, safety, or effectiveness of biosimilars or interchangeable biosimilar products, Dr. Popovian said.

The United States is the only country that has this designation. Even though it’s not identical to the originator drug, a biosimilar has the same clinical efficacy and safety profile. “So clinically, interchangeability is meaningless,” Dr. Awsare said.

In its report on biosimilars in the autoimmune category, CVS acknowledged that interchangeability was important but would not be a significant factor in driving adoption of biosimilars. However, in a Cardinal Health survey of 72 gastroenterologists, 38% cited the interchangeability of biosimilars as a top concern for adalimumab biosimilars, along with transitioning patients from Humira to a biosimilar (44%).

“Patient education regarding biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability appears paramount to the acceptance of these products, particularly for patients who are switched from a reference product,” Dr. Kaul noted in the Cardinal Health report.

Wherever supported by data, Dr. Kaul recommends incorporating biosimilar use and interchangeability into best practice guidelines going forward. “That will go a long way in disseminating the latest information on this topic and position this paradigm for increased adoption among providers.”

Some physicians like Dr. Snow aren’t that concerned with interchangeability. This hasn’t affected conversations with patients, he said. Multiple studies demonstrating the lack of antibody formation with multiple switches from different biosimilar drugs has eased his concern about multiple switches causing problems.

“Initially, there was a gap in demonstrating the long-term effect of multiple switches on antibody production and drug effectiveness. That gap has started to close as more data from Europe’s experience with biosimilars becomes available,” Dr. Snow said.
 

Resources for physicians, patients

The federal government has taken steps to advance biosimilars education and adoption. In 2021, President Biden signed the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act into law, which directs the FDA to develop or improve continuing education programs that address prescribing of biosimilars and biological products.

The FDA provides educational materials on its website, including a comprehensive curriculum toolkit. The Accreditation Council for Medical Affairs has also created an online 40-hour curriculum for health care professionals called the Board-Certified Biologics and Biosimilars Specialist Program.

Dr. Fabbro recommended patients use the FDA page Biosimilar Basics for Patients to educate themselves on biosimilars. The Global Healthy Living Foundation’s podcast, Breaking Down Biosimilars, is another free resource for patients.

“While much has changed, the continued need for multistakeholder education, awareness, and dedicated research remains even more important as we expand into newer therapeutic areas and classes,” wrote the authors of the Cardinal Health report.

Help patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at gastro.org/biosimilars.

Dr. Regueiro is on advisory boards and consults for AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Organon, Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, Celgene, TARGET PharmaSolutions, Trellis, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fabbro is a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences, on the speakers bureau for Valchlor, and on the advisory boards of Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Popovian, Dr. Snow, Dr. Awsare, and Dr. Kaul had no disclosures.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a citrate-free, 100 mg/mL formulation of the biosimilar adalimumab-adaz (Hyrimoz), according to a statement from manufacturer Sandoz.

Hyrimoz, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker that is biosimilar to its reference product Humira, was approved by the FDA in 2018 at a concentration of 50 mg/mL for rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis. The high-concentration formula is indicated for these same conditions.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Sandoz said that it intends to launch the citrate-free formulation in the United States on July 1. It will be one of up to nine other adalimumab biosimilars that are expected to launch in July. On January 31, Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) became the first adalimumab biosimilar to launch in the United States.

The current label for Hyrimoz contains a black box warning emphasizing certain risks, notably the increased risk for serious infections, such as tuberculosis or sepsis, and an increased risk of malignancy, particularly lymphomas.

Adverse effects associated with Hyrimoz with an incidence greater than 10% include upper respiratory infections and sinusitis, injection-site reactions, headache, and rash.

The approval for the high-concentration formulation was based on data from a phase 1 pharmacokinetics bridging study that compared Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and citrate-free Hyrimoz 100 mg/mL.

“This study met all of the primary objectives, demonstrating comparable pharmacokinetics and showing similar safety and immunogenicity of the Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and Hyrimoz [100 mg/mL],” according to Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The approval for Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL in 2018 was based on preclinical and clinical research comparing Hyrimoz and Humira. In a phase 3 trial published in the British Journal of Dermatology, which included adults with clinically stable but active moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis, Hyrimoz and Humira showed a similar percentage of patients met the primary endpoint of a 75% reduction or more in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) score at 16 weeks, compared with baseline (66.8% and 65%, respectively).

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a citrate-free, 100 mg/mL formulation of the biosimilar adalimumab-adaz (Hyrimoz), according to a statement from manufacturer Sandoz.

Hyrimoz, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker that is biosimilar to its reference product Humira, was approved by the FDA in 2018 at a concentration of 50 mg/mL for rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis. The high-concentration formula is indicated for these same conditions.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Sandoz said that it intends to launch the citrate-free formulation in the United States on July 1. It will be one of up to nine other adalimumab biosimilars that are expected to launch in July. On January 31, Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) became the first adalimumab biosimilar to launch in the United States.

The current label for Hyrimoz contains a black box warning emphasizing certain risks, notably the increased risk for serious infections, such as tuberculosis or sepsis, and an increased risk of malignancy, particularly lymphomas.

Adverse effects associated with Hyrimoz with an incidence greater than 10% include upper respiratory infections and sinusitis, injection-site reactions, headache, and rash.

The approval for the high-concentration formulation was based on data from a phase 1 pharmacokinetics bridging study that compared Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and citrate-free Hyrimoz 100 mg/mL.

“This study met all of the primary objectives, demonstrating comparable pharmacokinetics and showing similar safety and immunogenicity of the Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and Hyrimoz [100 mg/mL],” according to Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The approval for Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL in 2018 was based on preclinical and clinical research comparing Hyrimoz and Humira. In a phase 3 trial published in the British Journal of Dermatology, which included adults with clinically stable but active moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis, Hyrimoz and Humira showed a similar percentage of patients met the primary endpoint of a 75% reduction or more in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) score at 16 weeks, compared with baseline (66.8% and 65%, respectively).

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a citrate-free, 100 mg/mL formulation of the biosimilar adalimumab-adaz (Hyrimoz), according to a statement from manufacturer Sandoz.

Hyrimoz, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker that is biosimilar to its reference product Humira, was approved by the FDA in 2018 at a concentration of 50 mg/mL for rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis. The high-concentration formula is indicated for these same conditions.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Sandoz said that it intends to launch the citrate-free formulation in the United States on July 1. It will be one of up to nine other adalimumab biosimilars that are expected to launch in July. On January 31, Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) became the first adalimumab biosimilar to launch in the United States.

The current label for Hyrimoz contains a black box warning emphasizing certain risks, notably the increased risk for serious infections, such as tuberculosis or sepsis, and an increased risk of malignancy, particularly lymphomas.

Adverse effects associated with Hyrimoz with an incidence greater than 10% include upper respiratory infections and sinusitis, injection-site reactions, headache, and rash.

The approval for the high-concentration formulation was based on data from a phase 1 pharmacokinetics bridging study that compared Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and citrate-free Hyrimoz 100 mg/mL.

“This study met all of the primary objectives, demonstrating comparable pharmacokinetics and showing similar safety and immunogenicity of the Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL and Hyrimoz [100 mg/mL],” according to Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The approval for Hyrimoz 50 mg/mL in 2018 was based on preclinical and clinical research comparing Hyrimoz and Humira. In a phase 3 trial published in the British Journal of Dermatology, which included adults with clinically stable but active moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis, Hyrimoz and Humira showed a similar percentage of patients met the primary endpoint of a 75% reduction or more in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) score at 16 weeks, compared with baseline (66.8% and 65%, respectively).

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

NEW ORLEANS – For the treatment of plaque psoriasis, a novel oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor achieved high rates of response, compared with placebo, according to results of a phase 2 clinical trial presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The phase 2b data, which are prompting a phase 3 trial, suggest that the drug, called orismilast, “is a potential new addition to the psoriasis armamentarium,” reported Lars E. French, MD, professor and chair, department of dermatology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Germany).

Ted Bowsworth/MDedge News

At the same session, findings from another study supported off-label use of oral roflumilast (Daliresp and generic), a PDE4 inhibitor approved for severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The only PDE4 inhibitors with an indication for psoriasis are roflumilast, approved as a cream (Zoryve), and apremilast (Otezla), approved as an oral therapy.
 

Phase 2 study of orismilast

In the orismilast trial, Dr. French attributed the efficacy observed  to the potency of orismilast on the B and D subtypes of PDE4 associated with inflammation. One clue is that these specific subtypes are overly expressed in the skin of patients with either psoriasis or atopic dermatitis.

“When compared to apremilast, orismilast is at least two to fivefold more potent on all PDE4 isoforms and up to 39 times more potent on some of the PDE4 B and D isoforms,” said Dr. French, referring to preclinical findings in human whole blood and blood cells and in a mouse model of chronic inflammation.

The efficacy of orismilast in an immediate-release oral formulation was previously demonstrated in a recently published phase 2a trial, but the newest study tested a modified-release formulation of orismilast to test its potential to improve tolerability.

In the study, 202 adult patients with moderate to severe psoriasis (Psoriasis Area Severity Index [PASI] score ≥ 12) were randomly assigned to one of three doses of orismilast or to placebo. Each of the three doses – 20 mg, 30 mg, or 40 mg – were administered twice daily. The primary endpoint was change in PASI score at 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included PASI 75 responses (signifying 75% clearance) and safety.

Relative to placebo, which was associated with a PASI improvement of 17%, all three of the tested orismilast doses were superior in a dose-dependent manner. The rates of response were 53%, 61%, and 64% for the 20-mg, 30-mg, and 40-mg twice-daily doses, respectively.

The PASI improvements were rapid, Dr. French said. At 4 weeks, PASI scores climbed from baseline by nearly 40% for those on all orismilast doses, which was more than double the improvement in the placebo group.

In the intention-to-treat analysis with missing data counted as nonresponders, the proportion of patients reaching PASI-75 scores at 16 weeks were 39%, 49%, 45%, and 17%, in the 20-mg, 30-mg, 40-mg, and placebo groups, respectively. The proportion of patients experiencing complete or near-complete skin clearance defined by a PASI 90 were 24%, 22%, 28%, and 8%, respectively.

The side-effect profile was consistent with other PDE4 inhibitors. The most common adverse events included gastrointestinal complaints, such as diarrhea and nausea, as well as headache and dizziness. But the majority of these events were of low grade, and they were largely confined to the first 4 weeks of treatment, which is a pattern reported with other PDE4 inhibitors in psoriasis and other chronic inflammatory diseases, such as COPD, according to Dr. French.

“There were no discontinuations for a treatment-related adverse event in the arms receiving either the 20-mg or the 30-mg doses,” Dr. French reported. There were only two serious adverse events, and neither were considered by trial investigators to be related to orismilast.

Based on the limited therapeutic gain but greater risk for adverse events on the 40-mg twice-daily dose, “the question is now whether to move forward with the 20-mg or the 30-mg dose,” said Dr. French, who said planning of a phase 3 trial is underway.
 

Phase 2 study of roflumilast

However, this was not the only set of data on an oral PDE4 inhibitor presented as a late-breaker at the AAD meeting. For clinicians looking for a more immediate and less expensive alternative to apremilast, another study indicated that off-label use of oral roflumilast is an option.

In an investigator-initiated, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in Denmark, the rate of response to oral roflumilast at 24 weeks, including the clear or almost clear response, was on the same general order of magnitude as that seen in the orismilast study, reported Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of Copenhagen.

“At 24 weeks, 21.7% had achieved a PASI 90, and 8.7% achieved a PASI 100,” Dr. Egeberg said.

Oral roflumilast has been available for the treatment of COPD for more than 10 years and is now available in a generic formulation. This study was conducted independent of any pharmaceutical company involvement, and the high rate of response and low risk of adverse events suggests that patients can benefit from a PDE4 inhibitor in a very low-cost form.

“Generic oral roflumilast is cheaper than a Starbucks coffee,” Dr. Egeberg said.

In this trial, 46 patients were randomly assigned to placebo or to the COPD-approved roflumilast dose of 500 mcg once daily. The primary endpoint was change in PASI scores from baseline to week 12, which Dr. Egeberg pointed out is a shorter time frame than the 16 weeks more typical of psoriasis treatment studies.

At week 12, the median improvement in PASI was 34.8% in the roflumilast group versus 0% in the placebo group. Patients were then followed for an additional 12 weeks, but those randomized to placebo were switched to the active treatment. By week 24, the switch patients had largely caught up to those initiated on roflumilast for median PASI improvement (39.1% vs. 43.5%).

Similar to orismilast, roflumilast “was generally well tolerated,” Dr. Egeberg said. The adverse events were consistent with those associated with PDE4 inhibitors in previous trials, whether in psoriasis or COPD. There was only one serious adverse event, and it was not considered treatment related. Discontinuations for adverse events “were very low.”

In a population with a relatively high rate of smoking, Dr. Egeberg further reported, lung function was improved, a remark initially interpreted as a joke by some attending the presentation. However, Dr. Egeberg confirmed that lung function was monitored, and objective improvements were recorded.

By Danish law, the investigators were required to inform the manufacturers of roflumilast. Despite the results of this study, he is not aware of any plans to seek an indication for roflumilast in psoriasis, but he noted that the drug is readily available at a low price.

For those willing to offer this therapy off label, “you can start using it tomorrow if you’d like,” he said.

Dr. French reports financial relationships with Almirall, Amgen, Biotest, Galderma, Janssen Cilag, Leo Pharma, Pincell, Regeneron, UCB, and UNION Therapeutics, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Egeberg reports financial relationships with Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, and Pfizer.

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

NEW ORLEANS – For the treatment of plaque psoriasis, a novel oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor achieved high rates of response, compared with placebo, according to results of a phase 2 clinical trial presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The phase 2b data, which are prompting a phase 3 trial, suggest that the drug, called orismilast, “is a potential new addition to the psoriasis armamentarium,” reported Lars E. French, MD, professor and chair, department of dermatology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Germany).

Ted Bowsworth/MDedge News

At the same session, findings from another study supported off-label use of oral roflumilast (Daliresp and generic), a PDE4 inhibitor approved for severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The only PDE4 inhibitors with an indication for psoriasis are roflumilast, approved as a cream (Zoryve), and apremilast (Otezla), approved as an oral therapy.
 

Phase 2 study of orismilast

In the orismilast trial, Dr. French attributed the efficacy observed  to the potency of orismilast on the B and D subtypes of PDE4 associated with inflammation. One clue is that these specific subtypes are overly expressed in the skin of patients with either psoriasis or atopic dermatitis.

“When compared to apremilast, orismilast is at least two to fivefold more potent on all PDE4 isoforms and up to 39 times more potent on some of the PDE4 B and D isoforms,” said Dr. French, referring to preclinical findings in human whole blood and blood cells and in a mouse model of chronic inflammation.

The efficacy of orismilast in an immediate-release oral formulation was previously demonstrated in a recently published phase 2a trial, but the newest study tested a modified-release formulation of orismilast to test its potential to improve tolerability.

In the study, 202 adult patients with moderate to severe psoriasis (Psoriasis Area Severity Index [PASI] score ≥ 12) were randomly assigned to one of three doses of orismilast or to placebo. Each of the three doses – 20 mg, 30 mg, or 40 mg – were administered twice daily. The primary endpoint was change in PASI score at 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included PASI 75 responses (signifying 75% clearance) and safety.

Relative to placebo, which was associated with a PASI improvement of 17%, all three of the tested orismilast doses were superior in a dose-dependent manner. The rates of response were 53%, 61%, and 64% for the 20-mg, 30-mg, and 40-mg twice-daily doses, respectively.

The PASI improvements were rapid, Dr. French said. At 4 weeks, PASI scores climbed from baseline by nearly 40% for those on all orismilast doses, which was more than double the improvement in the placebo group.

In the intention-to-treat analysis with missing data counted as nonresponders, the proportion of patients reaching PASI-75 scores at 16 weeks were 39%, 49%, 45%, and 17%, in the 20-mg, 30-mg, 40-mg, and placebo groups, respectively. The proportion of patients experiencing complete or near-complete skin clearance defined by a PASI 90 were 24%, 22%, 28%, and 8%, respectively.

The side-effect profile was consistent with other PDE4 inhibitors. The most common adverse events included gastrointestinal complaints, such as diarrhea and nausea, as well as headache and dizziness. But the majority of these events were of low grade, and they were largely confined to the first 4 weeks of treatment, which is a pattern reported with other PDE4 inhibitors in psoriasis and other chronic inflammatory diseases, such as COPD, according to Dr. French.

“There were no discontinuations for a treatment-related adverse event in the arms receiving either the 20-mg or the 30-mg doses,” Dr. French reported. There were only two serious adverse events, and neither were considered by trial investigators to be related to orismilast.

Based on the limited therapeutic gain but greater risk for adverse events on the 40-mg twice-daily dose, “the question is now whether to move forward with the 20-mg or the 30-mg dose,” said Dr. French, who said planning of a phase 3 trial is underway.
 

Phase 2 study of roflumilast

However, this was not the only set of data on an oral PDE4 inhibitor presented as a late-breaker at the AAD meeting. For clinicians looking for a more immediate and less expensive alternative to apremilast, another study indicated that off-label use of oral roflumilast is an option.

In an investigator-initiated, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in Denmark, the rate of response to oral roflumilast at 24 weeks, including the clear or almost clear response, was on the same general order of magnitude as that seen in the orismilast study, reported Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of Copenhagen.

“At 24 weeks, 21.7% had achieved a PASI 90, and 8.7% achieved a PASI 100,” Dr. Egeberg said.

Oral roflumilast has been available for the treatment of COPD for more than 10 years and is now available in a generic formulation. This study was conducted independent of any pharmaceutical company involvement, and the high rate of response and low risk of adverse events suggests that patients can benefit from a PDE4 inhibitor in a very low-cost form.

“Generic oral roflumilast is cheaper than a Starbucks coffee,” Dr. Egeberg said.

In this trial, 46 patients were randomly assigned to placebo or to the COPD-approved roflumilast dose of 500 mcg once daily. The primary endpoint was change in PASI scores from baseline to week 12, which Dr. Egeberg pointed out is a shorter time frame than the 16 weeks more typical of psoriasis treatment studies.

At week 12, the median improvement in PASI was 34.8% in the roflumilast group versus 0% in the placebo group. Patients were then followed for an additional 12 weeks, but those randomized to placebo were switched to the active treatment. By week 24, the switch patients had largely caught up to those initiated on roflumilast for median PASI improvement (39.1% vs. 43.5%).

Similar to orismilast, roflumilast “was generally well tolerated,” Dr. Egeberg said. The adverse events were consistent with those associated with PDE4 inhibitors in previous trials, whether in psoriasis or COPD. There was only one serious adverse event, and it was not considered treatment related. Discontinuations for adverse events “were very low.”

In a population with a relatively high rate of smoking, Dr. Egeberg further reported, lung function was improved, a remark initially interpreted as a joke by some attending the presentation. However, Dr. Egeberg confirmed that lung function was monitored, and objective improvements were recorded.

By Danish law, the investigators were required to inform the manufacturers of roflumilast. Despite the results of this study, he is not aware of any plans to seek an indication for roflumilast in psoriasis, but he noted that the drug is readily available at a low price.

For those willing to offer this therapy off label, “you can start using it tomorrow if you’d like,” he said.

Dr. French reports financial relationships with Almirall, Amgen, Biotest, Galderma, Janssen Cilag, Leo Pharma, Pincell, Regeneron, UCB, and UNION Therapeutics, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Egeberg reports financial relationships with Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, and Pfizer.

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

NEW ORLEANS – For the treatment of plaque psoriasis, a novel oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor achieved high rates of response, compared with placebo, according to results of a phase 2 clinical trial presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

The phase 2b data, which are prompting a phase 3 trial, suggest that the drug, called orismilast, “is a potential new addition to the psoriasis armamentarium,” reported Lars E. French, MD, professor and chair, department of dermatology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Germany).

Ted Bowsworth/MDedge News

At the same session, findings from another study supported off-label use of oral roflumilast (Daliresp and generic), a PDE4 inhibitor approved for severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The only PDE4 inhibitors with an indication for psoriasis are roflumilast, approved as a cream (Zoryve), and apremilast (Otezla), approved as an oral therapy.
 

Phase 2 study of orismilast

In the orismilast trial, Dr. French attributed the efficacy observed  to the potency of orismilast on the B and D subtypes of PDE4 associated with inflammation. One clue is that these specific subtypes are overly expressed in the skin of patients with either psoriasis or atopic dermatitis.

“When compared to apremilast, orismilast is at least two to fivefold more potent on all PDE4 isoforms and up to 39 times more potent on some of the PDE4 B and D isoforms,” said Dr. French, referring to preclinical findings in human whole blood and blood cells and in a mouse model of chronic inflammation.

The efficacy of orismilast in an immediate-release oral formulation was previously demonstrated in a recently published phase 2a trial, but the newest study tested a modified-release formulation of orismilast to test its potential to improve tolerability.

In the study, 202 adult patients with moderate to severe psoriasis (Psoriasis Area Severity Index [PASI] score ≥ 12) were randomly assigned to one of three doses of orismilast or to placebo. Each of the three doses – 20 mg, 30 mg, or 40 mg – were administered twice daily. The primary endpoint was change in PASI score at 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included PASI 75 responses (signifying 75% clearance) and safety.

Relative to placebo, which was associated with a PASI improvement of 17%, all three of the tested orismilast doses were superior in a dose-dependent manner. The rates of response were 53%, 61%, and 64% for the 20-mg, 30-mg, and 40-mg twice-daily doses, respectively.

The PASI improvements were rapid, Dr. French said. At 4 weeks, PASI scores climbed from baseline by nearly 40% for those on all orismilast doses, which was more than double the improvement in the placebo group.

In the intention-to-treat analysis with missing data counted as nonresponders, the proportion of patients reaching PASI-75 scores at 16 weeks were 39%, 49%, 45%, and 17%, in the 20-mg, 30-mg, 40-mg, and placebo groups, respectively. The proportion of patients experiencing complete or near-complete skin clearance defined by a PASI 90 were 24%, 22%, 28%, and 8%, respectively.

The side-effect profile was consistent with other PDE4 inhibitors. The most common adverse events included gastrointestinal complaints, such as diarrhea and nausea, as well as headache and dizziness. But the majority of these events were of low grade, and they were largely confined to the first 4 weeks of treatment, which is a pattern reported with other PDE4 inhibitors in psoriasis and other chronic inflammatory diseases, such as COPD, according to Dr. French.

“There were no discontinuations for a treatment-related adverse event in the arms receiving either the 20-mg or the 30-mg doses,” Dr. French reported. There were only two serious adverse events, and neither were considered by trial investigators to be related to orismilast.

Based on the limited therapeutic gain but greater risk for adverse events on the 40-mg twice-daily dose, “the question is now whether to move forward with the 20-mg or the 30-mg dose,” said Dr. French, who said planning of a phase 3 trial is underway.
 

Phase 2 study of roflumilast

However, this was not the only set of data on an oral PDE4 inhibitor presented as a late-breaker at the AAD meeting. For clinicians looking for a more immediate and less expensive alternative to apremilast, another study indicated that off-label use of oral roflumilast is an option.

In an investigator-initiated, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in Denmark, the rate of response to oral roflumilast at 24 weeks, including the clear or almost clear response, was on the same general order of magnitude as that seen in the orismilast study, reported Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of Copenhagen.

“At 24 weeks, 21.7% had achieved a PASI 90, and 8.7% achieved a PASI 100,” Dr. Egeberg said.

Oral roflumilast has been available for the treatment of COPD for more than 10 years and is now available in a generic formulation. This study was conducted independent of any pharmaceutical company involvement, and the high rate of response and low risk of adverse events suggests that patients can benefit from a PDE4 inhibitor in a very low-cost form.

“Generic oral roflumilast is cheaper than a Starbucks coffee,” Dr. Egeberg said.

In this trial, 46 patients were randomly assigned to placebo or to the COPD-approved roflumilast dose of 500 mcg once daily. The primary endpoint was change in PASI scores from baseline to week 12, which Dr. Egeberg pointed out is a shorter time frame than the 16 weeks more typical of psoriasis treatment studies.

At week 12, the median improvement in PASI was 34.8% in the roflumilast group versus 0% in the placebo group. Patients were then followed for an additional 12 weeks, but those randomized to placebo were switched to the active treatment. By week 24, the switch patients had largely caught up to those initiated on roflumilast for median PASI improvement (39.1% vs. 43.5%).

Similar to orismilast, roflumilast “was generally well tolerated,” Dr. Egeberg said. The adverse events were consistent with those associated with PDE4 inhibitors in previous trials, whether in psoriasis or COPD. There was only one serious adverse event, and it was not considered treatment related. Discontinuations for adverse events “were very low.”

In a population with a relatively high rate of smoking, Dr. Egeberg further reported, lung function was improved, a remark initially interpreted as a joke by some attending the presentation. However, Dr. Egeberg confirmed that lung function was monitored, and objective improvements were recorded.

By Danish law, the investigators were required to inform the manufacturers of roflumilast. Despite the results of this study, he is not aware of any plans to seek an indication for roflumilast in psoriasis, but he noted that the drug is readily available at a low price.

For those willing to offer this therapy off label, “you can start using it tomorrow if you’d like,” he said.

Dr. French reports financial relationships with Almirall, Amgen, Biotest, Galderma, Janssen Cilag, Leo Pharma, Pincell, Regeneron, UCB, and UNION Therapeutics, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Egeberg reports financial relationships with Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, and Pfizer.

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