Psoriasis

The bacterial diversity in lesional and nonlesional skin of patients with psoriasis (PsO) with or without psoriatic arthritis (PsA) was significantly lower than that of healthy control skin, based on data from 74 individuals.

Previous studies in humans and animals have suggested that microbes play a role in PsO pathogenesis, but microbial analyses of PsA are lacking, wrote Alba Boix-Amorós, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues.

“The passage from PsO to PsA may, in part, be driven by microbial triggers, which deserves further investigation,” they wrote.

In a study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers recruited 23 patients with PsO and 31 with PsA from the dermatology and rheumatology clinics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine/NYU Langone Health in New York. An additional 20 healthy individuals with no history of PsA or PsO were recruited from within NYU to serve as controls. All participants were aged 18 years and older, and more than 75% were White. Males made up 65.4%, 47.8%, and 55.0% of the PsA, PsO, and control groups.

The researchers collected skin swabs from lesional and nonlesional skin of individuals with PsO and PsA and from the upper and lower extremities of the healthy controls. The microbiota analysis included 148 samples that were analyzed using 16S rRNA sequencing.

The microbiome diversity was significantly greater in healthy skin, compared with lesional and nonlesional psoriatic skin (P < .05 for both). Specifically, levels of Cutibacterium and Kocuria were significantly higher in healthy skin than in psoriatic skin (P = .016 and P = .011, respectively), while psoriatic skin showed higher levels of Staphylococcus.

No significant microbiome differences were noted between lesional and nonlesional PsO and PsA samples. The finding that the microbiome of nonlesional psoriatic skin was more similar to lesional psoriatic skin than to healthy skin was unexpected, and suggests the development of microbial dysbiosis in psoriatic skin independent of the presence of lesions, the researchers wrote.

The researchers also found that levels of Corynebacterium in nonlesional PsA samples were significantly elevated, compared with nonlesional PsO samples (P < .05), which suggests a possible role for the microbe as a biomarker for disease progression, the researchers said.

“One important application of these data is the potential development of therapeutic options for the treatment of psoriatic disease and/or the prevention of PsA,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the combination of samples from upper and lower extremities and the exclusion of data from the scalp, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of only 16S rRNA gene sequencing, which presents a less comprehensive view of the microbiome, they said.

However, the results support the role of the skin microbiome in psoriasis pathogenesis, with details on microbiota across the psoriatic disease spectrum, they said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Boix-Amorós had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies including Janssen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, and UCB.

The bacterial diversity in lesional and nonlesional skin of patients with psoriasis (PsO) with or without psoriatic arthritis (PsA) was significantly lower than that of healthy control skin, based on data from 74 individuals.

Previous studies in humans and animals have suggested that microbes play a role in PsO pathogenesis, but microbial analyses of PsA are lacking, wrote Alba Boix-Amorós, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues.

“The passage from PsO to PsA may, in part, be driven by microbial triggers, which deserves further investigation,” they wrote.

In a study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers recruited 23 patients with PsO and 31 with PsA from the dermatology and rheumatology clinics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine/NYU Langone Health in New York. An additional 20 healthy individuals with no history of PsA or PsO were recruited from within NYU to serve as controls. All participants were aged 18 years and older, and more than 75% were White. Males made up 65.4%, 47.8%, and 55.0% of the PsA, PsO, and control groups.

The researchers collected skin swabs from lesional and nonlesional skin of individuals with PsO and PsA and from the upper and lower extremities of the healthy controls. The microbiota analysis included 148 samples that were analyzed using 16S rRNA sequencing.

The microbiome diversity was significantly greater in healthy skin, compared with lesional and nonlesional psoriatic skin (P < .05 for both). Specifically, levels of Cutibacterium and Kocuria were significantly higher in healthy skin than in psoriatic skin (P = .016 and P = .011, respectively), while psoriatic skin showed higher levels of Staphylococcus.

No significant microbiome differences were noted between lesional and nonlesional PsO and PsA samples. The finding that the microbiome of nonlesional psoriatic skin was more similar to lesional psoriatic skin than to healthy skin was unexpected, and suggests the development of microbial dysbiosis in psoriatic skin independent of the presence of lesions, the researchers wrote.

The researchers also found that levels of Corynebacterium in nonlesional PsA samples were significantly elevated, compared with nonlesional PsO samples (P < .05), which suggests a possible role for the microbe as a biomarker for disease progression, the researchers said.

“One important application of these data is the potential development of therapeutic options for the treatment of psoriatic disease and/or the prevention of PsA,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the combination of samples from upper and lower extremities and the exclusion of data from the scalp, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of only 16S rRNA gene sequencing, which presents a less comprehensive view of the microbiome, they said.

However, the results support the role of the skin microbiome in psoriasis pathogenesis, with details on microbiota across the psoriatic disease spectrum, they said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Boix-Amorós had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies including Janssen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, and UCB.

The bacterial diversity in lesional and nonlesional skin of patients with psoriasis (PsO) with or without psoriatic arthritis (PsA) was significantly lower than that of healthy control skin, based on data from 74 individuals.

Previous studies in humans and animals have suggested that microbes play a role in PsO pathogenesis, but microbial analyses of PsA are lacking, wrote Alba Boix-Amorós, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues.

“The passage from PsO to PsA may, in part, be driven by microbial triggers, which deserves further investigation,” they wrote.

In a study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers recruited 23 patients with PsO and 31 with PsA from the dermatology and rheumatology clinics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine/NYU Langone Health in New York. An additional 20 healthy individuals with no history of PsA or PsO were recruited from within NYU to serve as controls. All participants were aged 18 years and older, and more than 75% were White. Males made up 65.4%, 47.8%, and 55.0% of the PsA, PsO, and control groups.

The researchers collected skin swabs from lesional and nonlesional skin of individuals with PsO and PsA and from the upper and lower extremities of the healthy controls. The microbiota analysis included 148 samples that were analyzed using 16S rRNA sequencing.

The microbiome diversity was significantly greater in healthy skin, compared with lesional and nonlesional psoriatic skin (P < .05 for both). Specifically, levels of Cutibacterium and Kocuria were significantly higher in healthy skin than in psoriatic skin (P = .016 and P = .011, respectively), while psoriatic skin showed higher levels of Staphylococcus.

No significant microbiome differences were noted between lesional and nonlesional PsO and PsA samples. The finding that the microbiome of nonlesional psoriatic skin was more similar to lesional psoriatic skin than to healthy skin was unexpected, and suggests the development of microbial dysbiosis in psoriatic skin independent of the presence of lesions, the researchers wrote.

The researchers also found that levels of Corynebacterium in nonlesional PsA samples were significantly elevated, compared with nonlesional PsO samples (P < .05), which suggests a possible role for the microbe as a biomarker for disease progression, the researchers said.

“One important application of these data is the potential development of therapeutic options for the treatment of psoriatic disease and/or the prevention of PsA,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the combination of samples from upper and lower extremities and the exclusion of data from the scalp, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of only 16S rRNA gene sequencing, which presents a less comprehensive view of the microbiome, they said.

However, the results support the role of the skin microbiome in psoriasis pathogenesis, with details on microbiota across the psoriatic disease spectrum, they said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Boix-Amorós had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies including Janssen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, and UCB.

LAS VEGAS – Although the range of oral psoriasis therapies continues to expand, “topical therapy is still the cornerstone of the treatment of psoriasis,” said Linda Stein Gold, MD, in a presentation at Medscape Live’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

However, when using topical treatments, combination therapy is generally more effective than monotherapy for psoriasis, especially for plaque psoriasis, said Dr. Stein Gold, director of clinical research and division head of dermatology at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.

petekarici/Getty Images

Two combination products, calcipotriene/betamethasone (CAL/BDP) and tazarotene/halobetasol lotion, each offer a complimentary mechanism of action that minimizes side effects, with decreased irritation and less atrophy, she said. Calcipotriene/betamethasone (CAL/BDP) is available as a cream or foam, Dr. Stein Gold noted. The cream is engineered for rapid onset, as well as enhanced penetration, she said. CAL/BDP foam also is designed for enhanced penetration, and has been shown to have long-term maintenance efficacy, she said.

The currently available CAL/BDP cream is made using a patented technology known as “PAD,” in which the internal oil of the cream vehicle is stabilized by encapsulation in “a robust aqueous film,” Dr. Stein Gold said, noting that the greater solubility enhances skin penetration. The creation of “a robust oil droplet” addresses the problems associated with the surfactants present in many cream vehicles, namely irritation and impedance of skin penetration of the cream, she said.

In an 8-week study published in 2021, researchers compared CAL/BDP cream with PAD technology to CAL/BDP topical suspension in adults with mild to moderate psoriasis.

Patients randomized to treatment with CAL/BDP cream were significantly more likely to achieve the primary endpoint of Physician Global Assessment (PGA) treatment success than those randomized to the topical solution or vehicle (37.4%, 22.8%, and 3.7%, respectively).
 

Get proactive to maintain results

With topical psoriasis treatment, a proactive strategy helps maintain results over time, Dr. Stein Gold said. As an example, she cited a study published in 2021. In that study, known as PSO-LONG, which evaluated topical CAL/BDP foam, proactive management with the CAL/BDP foam formulation, “reduced the risk of experiencing relapse by 43%,” compared with reactive management (treatment with the vehicle foam), she said. Patients in the proactive-management group experienced an average of 41 more days in remission, compared with those in the reactive management group over a 1-year period.

Dr. Stein Gold also highlighted the value of tazarotene/halobetasol lotion for psoriasis, which she described as having synergistic efficacy,

She shared data presented at the 2021 Maui Dermatology meeting showing treatment success by 8 weeks with halobetasol/tazarotene with significantly reduced mean scores on measures of itching, dryness, and burning/stinging, compared with those on vehicle.

What’s new and approved

Joining the current topical treatment options for psoriasis is tapinarof, a small molecule that works by down-regulating Th17 cytokines, said Dr. Stein Gold. Tapinarof is Food and Drug Administration approved for treating psoriasis and is being studied in clinical trials for atopic dermatitis, she noted.

Dr. Stein Gold reviewed data from the PSOARING program published in the New England Journal of Medicine that served as a foundation for the FDA approval of tapinarof 1% cream. In the PSOARING 1 and 2 studies, patients with PSORIASIS showed significant improvement compared with vehicle over 12 weeks for the primary endpoint of Physicians’ Global Assessment scores of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear). In the two studies, 60.7% and 56.9% of patients randomized to tapinarof met the patient-reported outcome of a minimum 4-point improvement in peak pruritus on the numerical rating scale (NRS) from baseline vs. 43.2% and 29.7% of placebo patients in the two studies, respectively.

In PSOARING 1 and 2, folliculitis (mostly mild or moderate), contact dermatitis, headache, pruritus, and dermatitis were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events, occurring in 1% or more of patients. Adverse event profiles for tapinarof are similar to those seen in previous studies, and a long-term extension showed a consistent safety profile, Dr. Stein Gold said.

Another recently approved topical treatment for psoriasis, a cream formulation of roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitor, has shown efficacy for treating plaque psoriasis, she said.

Patients with psoriasis in the DERMIS 1 and DERMIS 2 phase 3 studies randomized to 0.3% roflumilast cream showed significant improvement compared with those randomized to vehicle in terms of Investigator Global Assessment scores of clear or almost clear with an improvement of at least 2 grades from baseline.

Roflumilast foam also has shown success in improving scalp and body psoriasis, but this vehicle and indication has not yet been approved, Dr. Stein Gold said.

Dr. Stein Gold disclosed serving as a consultant or adviser for companies including AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, EPI Health, Galderma, Janssen, Incyte, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi; UCB, and serving as a speaker or member of speakers’ bureau for Amgen, AbbVie, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Sun Research. She also disclosed receiving funding from AbbVie Amgen, Arcutis, Dermata, Dermavant, Galderma, Incyte, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and UCB.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

LAS VEGAS – Although the range of oral psoriasis therapies continues to expand, “topical therapy is still the cornerstone of the treatment of psoriasis,” said Linda Stein Gold, MD, in a presentation at Medscape Live’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

However, when using topical treatments, combination therapy is generally more effective than monotherapy for psoriasis, especially for plaque psoriasis, said Dr. Stein Gold, director of clinical research and division head of dermatology at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.

petekarici/Getty Images

Two combination products, calcipotriene/betamethasone (CAL/BDP) and tazarotene/halobetasol lotion, each offer a complimentary mechanism of action that minimizes side effects, with decreased irritation and less atrophy, she said. Calcipotriene/betamethasone (CAL/BDP) is available as a cream or foam, Dr. Stein Gold noted. The cream is engineered for rapid onset, as well as enhanced penetration, she said. CAL/BDP foam also is designed for enhanced penetration, and has been shown to have long-term maintenance efficacy, she said.

The currently available CAL/BDP cream is made using a patented technology known as “PAD,” in which the internal oil of the cream vehicle is stabilized by encapsulation in “a robust aqueous film,” Dr. Stein Gold said, noting that the greater solubility enhances skin penetration. The creation of “a robust oil droplet” addresses the problems associated with the surfactants present in many cream vehicles, namely irritation and impedance of skin penetration of the cream, she said.

In an 8-week study published in 2021, researchers compared CAL/BDP cream with PAD technology to CAL/BDP topical suspension in adults with mild to moderate psoriasis.

Patients randomized to treatment with CAL/BDP cream were significantly more likely to achieve the primary endpoint of Physician Global Assessment (PGA) treatment success than those randomized to the topical solution or vehicle (37.4%, 22.8%, and 3.7%, respectively).
 

Get proactive to maintain results

With topical psoriasis treatment, a proactive strategy helps maintain results over time, Dr. Stein Gold said. As an example, she cited a study published in 2021. In that study, known as PSO-LONG, which evaluated topical CAL/BDP foam, proactive management with the CAL/BDP foam formulation, “reduced the risk of experiencing relapse by 43%,” compared with reactive management (treatment with the vehicle foam), she said. Patients in the proactive-management group experienced an average of 41 more days in remission, compared with those in the reactive management group over a 1-year period.

Dr. Stein Gold also highlighted the value of tazarotene/halobetasol lotion for psoriasis, which she described as having synergistic efficacy,

She shared data presented at the 2021 Maui Dermatology meeting showing treatment success by 8 weeks with halobetasol/tazarotene with significantly reduced mean scores on measures of itching, dryness, and burning/stinging, compared with those on vehicle.

What’s new and approved

Joining the current topical treatment options for psoriasis is tapinarof, a small molecule that works by down-regulating Th17 cytokines, said Dr. Stein Gold. Tapinarof is Food and Drug Administration approved for treating psoriasis and is being studied in clinical trials for atopic dermatitis, she noted.

Dr. Stein Gold reviewed data from the PSOARING program published in the New England Journal of Medicine that served as a foundation for the FDA approval of tapinarof 1% cream. In the PSOARING 1 and 2 studies, patients with PSORIASIS showed significant improvement compared with vehicle over 12 weeks for the primary endpoint of Physicians’ Global Assessment scores of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear). In the two studies, 60.7% and 56.9% of patients randomized to tapinarof met the patient-reported outcome of a minimum 4-point improvement in peak pruritus on the numerical rating scale (NRS) from baseline vs. 43.2% and 29.7% of placebo patients in the two studies, respectively.

In PSOARING 1 and 2, folliculitis (mostly mild or moderate), contact dermatitis, headache, pruritus, and dermatitis were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events, occurring in 1% or more of patients. Adverse event profiles for tapinarof are similar to those seen in previous studies, and a long-term extension showed a consistent safety profile, Dr. Stein Gold said.

Another recently approved topical treatment for psoriasis, a cream formulation of roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitor, has shown efficacy for treating plaque psoriasis, she said.

Patients with psoriasis in the DERMIS 1 and DERMIS 2 phase 3 studies randomized to 0.3% roflumilast cream showed significant improvement compared with those randomized to vehicle in terms of Investigator Global Assessment scores of clear or almost clear with an improvement of at least 2 grades from baseline.

Roflumilast foam also has shown success in improving scalp and body psoriasis, but this vehicle and indication has not yet been approved, Dr. Stein Gold said.

Dr. Stein Gold disclosed serving as a consultant or adviser for companies including AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, EPI Health, Galderma, Janssen, Incyte, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi; UCB, and serving as a speaker or member of speakers’ bureau for Amgen, AbbVie, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Sun Research. She also disclosed receiving funding from AbbVie Amgen, Arcutis, Dermata, Dermavant, Galderma, Incyte, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and UCB.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

LAS VEGAS – Although the range of oral psoriasis therapies continues to expand, “topical therapy is still the cornerstone of the treatment of psoriasis,” said Linda Stein Gold, MD, in a presentation at Medscape Live’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

However, when using topical treatments, combination therapy is generally more effective than monotherapy for psoriasis, especially for plaque psoriasis, said Dr. Stein Gold, director of clinical research and division head of dermatology at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.

petekarici/Getty Images

Two combination products, calcipotriene/betamethasone (CAL/BDP) and tazarotene/halobetasol lotion, each offer a complimentary mechanism of action that minimizes side effects, with decreased irritation and less atrophy, she said. Calcipotriene/betamethasone (CAL/BDP) is available as a cream or foam, Dr. Stein Gold noted. The cream is engineered for rapid onset, as well as enhanced penetration, she said. CAL/BDP foam also is designed for enhanced penetration, and has been shown to have long-term maintenance efficacy, she said.

The currently available CAL/BDP cream is made using a patented technology known as “PAD,” in which the internal oil of the cream vehicle is stabilized by encapsulation in “a robust aqueous film,” Dr. Stein Gold said, noting that the greater solubility enhances skin penetration. The creation of “a robust oil droplet” addresses the problems associated with the surfactants present in many cream vehicles, namely irritation and impedance of skin penetration of the cream, she said.

In an 8-week study published in 2021, researchers compared CAL/BDP cream with PAD technology to CAL/BDP topical suspension in adults with mild to moderate psoriasis.

Patients randomized to treatment with CAL/BDP cream were significantly more likely to achieve the primary endpoint of Physician Global Assessment (PGA) treatment success than those randomized to the topical solution or vehicle (37.4%, 22.8%, and 3.7%, respectively).
 

Get proactive to maintain results

With topical psoriasis treatment, a proactive strategy helps maintain results over time, Dr. Stein Gold said. As an example, she cited a study published in 2021. In that study, known as PSO-LONG, which evaluated topical CAL/BDP foam, proactive management with the CAL/BDP foam formulation, “reduced the risk of experiencing relapse by 43%,” compared with reactive management (treatment with the vehicle foam), she said. Patients in the proactive-management group experienced an average of 41 more days in remission, compared with those in the reactive management group over a 1-year period.

Dr. Stein Gold also highlighted the value of tazarotene/halobetasol lotion for psoriasis, which she described as having synergistic efficacy,

She shared data presented at the 2021 Maui Dermatology meeting showing treatment success by 8 weeks with halobetasol/tazarotene with significantly reduced mean scores on measures of itching, dryness, and burning/stinging, compared with those on vehicle.

What’s new and approved

Joining the current topical treatment options for psoriasis is tapinarof, a small molecule that works by down-regulating Th17 cytokines, said Dr. Stein Gold. Tapinarof is Food and Drug Administration approved for treating psoriasis and is being studied in clinical trials for atopic dermatitis, she noted.

Dr. Stein Gold reviewed data from the PSOARING program published in the New England Journal of Medicine that served as a foundation for the FDA approval of tapinarof 1% cream. In the PSOARING 1 and 2 studies, patients with PSORIASIS showed significant improvement compared with vehicle over 12 weeks for the primary endpoint of Physicians’ Global Assessment scores of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear). In the two studies, 60.7% and 56.9% of patients randomized to tapinarof met the patient-reported outcome of a minimum 4-point improvement in peak pruritus on the numerical rating scale (NRS) from baseline vs. 43.2% and 29.7% of placebo patients in the two studies, respectively.

In PSOARING 1 and 2, folliculitis (mostly mild or moderate), contact dermatitis, headache, pruritus, and dermatitis were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events, occurring in 1% or more of patients. Adverse event profiles for tapinarof are similar to those seen in previous studies, and a long-term extension showed a consistent safety profile, Dr. Stein Gold said.

Another recently approved topical treatment for psoriasis, a cream formulation of roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitor, has shown efficacy for treating plaque psoriasis, she said.

Patients with psoriasis in the DERMIS 1 and DERMIS 2 phase 3 studies randomized to 0.3% roflumilast cream showed significant improvement compared with those randomized to vehicle in terms of Investigator Global Assessment scores of clear or almost clear with an improvement of at least 2 grades from baseline.

Roflumilast foam also has shown success in improving scalp and body psoriasis, but this vehicle and indication has not yet been approved, Dr. Stein Gold said.

Dr. Stein Gold disclosed serving as a consultant or adviser for companies including AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, EPI Health, Galderma, Janssen, Incyte, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi; UCB, and serving as a speaker or member of speakers’ bureau for Amgen, AbbVie, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Sun Research. She also disclosed receiving funding from AbbVie Amgen, Arcutis, Dermata, Dermavant, Galderma, Incyte, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and UCB.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

Phototherapy—particularly UVB phototherapy, which utilizes UVB rays of specific wavelengths within the UV spectrum—is indicated for a wide variety of dermatoses. In-office and at-home UVB treatments commonly are used, as are salon tanning and sunbathing. When selecting a form of phototherapy, patients are likely to consider safety, cost, effectiveness, insurance issues, and convenience. Research on patient preferences; the reasons for these preferences; and which options patients perceive to be the safest, most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient is lacking. We aimed to assess the forms of phototherapy that patients would most consider using; the factors influencing patient preferences; and the forms patients perceived as the safest and most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient.

Methods

Study Participants—We recruited 500 Amazon Mechanical Turk users who were 18 years or older to complete our REDCap-generated survey. The study was approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board (Winston-Salem, North Carolina).

Evaluation—Participants were asked, “If you were diagnosed with a skin disease that benefited from UV therapy, which of the following forms of UV therapy would you consider choosing?” Participants were instructed to choose all of the forms they would consider using. Available options included in-office UV, at-home UV, home tanning, salon tanning, sunbathing, and other. Participants were asked to select which factors—from safety, cost, effectiveness, issues with insurance, convenience, and other—influenced their decision-making; which form of phototherapy they would most consider along with the factors that influenced their preference for this specific form of phototherapy; and which options they considered to be safest and most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient. Participants were asked to provide basic sociodemographic information, level of education, income, insurance status (private, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, and uninsured), and distance from the nearest dermatologist.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive and inferential statistics (χ² test) were used to analyze the data with a significance set at P<.05.

Results

Five hundred participants completed the survey (Table 1).

Factors Influencing Patient Preferences—When asked to select all forms of phototherapy they would consider, 186 (37.2%) participants selected in-office UVB, 263 (52.6%) selected at-home UV, 141 (28.2%) selected home tanning, 117 (23.4%) selected salon tanning, 191 (38.2%) selected sunbathing, and 3 (0.6%) selected other. Participants who selected in-office UVB as an option were more likely to also select salon tanning (P<.012). No other relationship was found between the UVB options and the tanning options. When asked which factors influenced their phototherapy preferences, 295 (59%) selected convenience, 266 (53.2%) selected effectiveness, 220 (44%) selected safety, 218 (43.6%) selected cost, 72 (14.4%) selected issues with insurance, and 4 (0.8%) selected other. Forms of Phototherapy Patients Consider Using—When asked which form of phototherapy they would most consider using, 179 (35.8%) participants selected at-home UVB, 108 (21.6%) selected sunbathing, 92 (18.4%) selected in-office UVB, 62 (12.4%) selected home-tanning, 57 (11.4%) selected salon tanning, 1 (0.2%) selected other, and 1 participant provided no response (P<.001).

Reasons for Using Phototherapy—Of the 179 who selected at-home UVB, 125 (70%) cited convenience as a reason. Of the 108 who selected salon tanning as their top choice, 62 (57%) cited cost as a reason. Convenience (P<.001), cost (P<.001), and safety (P=.023) were related to top preference. Issues with insurance did not have a statistically significant relationship with the top preference. However, participant insurance type was related to top phototherapy preference (P=.021), with privately insured patients more likely to select in-office UVB, whereas those with Medicaid and Medicare were more likely to select home or salon tanning. Efficacy was not related to top preference. Furthermore, age, gender, education, income, and distance from nearest dermatologist were not related to top preference.

In-office UVB was perceived to be safest (P<.001) and most efficacious (P<.001). Meanwhile, at-home UVB was selected as most convenient (P<.001). Lastly, sunbathing was determined to be most cost-effective (P<.001)(Table 2). Cost-effectiveness had a relationship (P<.001) with the participant’s insurance, as those with private insurance were more likely to select at-home UVB, whereas those with Medicare or Medicaid were more likely to select the tanning options. Additionally, of the54 uninsured participants in the survey, 29 selected sunbathing as the most cost-effective option.

Comment

Phototherapy Treatment—UVB phototherapy at a wavelength of 290 to 320 nm (311–313 nm for narrowband UVB) is used to treat various dermatoses, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. UVB alters skin cytokines, induces apoptosis, promotes immunosuppression, causes DNA damage, and decreases the proliferation of dendritic cells and other cells of the innate immune system.¹ In-office and at-home UV therapies make use of UVB wavelengths for treatment, while tanning and sunbathing contain not only UVB but also potentially harmful UVA rays. The wavelengths for indoor tanning devices include UVB at 280 to 315 nm and UVA at 315 to 400 nm, which are similar to those of the sun but with a different ratio of UVB to UVA and more intense total UV.² When in-office and at-home UVB options are not available, various forms of tanning such as salon tanning and sunbathing may be alternatives that are widely used.³ One of the main reasons patients consider alternative phototherapy options is cost, as 1 in-office UVB treatment may cost $140, but a month of unlimited tanning may cost $30 or perhaps nothing if a patient has a gym membership with access to a tanning bed. Lack of insurance benefits covering phototherapy can exacerbate cost burden.⁴ However, tanning beds are associated with an increased risk for melanoma and nonmelanoma cancers.^5,6 Additionally, all forms of phototherapy are associated with photoaging, but it is more intense with tanning and heliotherapy because of the presence of UVA, which penetrates deeper into the dermis.⁷ Meanwhile, for those who choose UVB therapy, deciding between an in-office and at-home UVB treatment could be a matter of convenience, as patients must consider long trips to the physician’s office; insurance status, as some insurances may not cover at-home UVB; or efficacy, which might be influenced by the presence of a physician or other medical staff. In many cases, patients may not be informed that at-home UVB is an option.

Patient Preferences—At-home UVB therapy was the most popular option in our study population, with most participants (52.6%) considering using it, and 35.9% choosing it as their top choice over all other phototherapy options. Safety, cost, and convenience were all found to be related to the option participants would most consider using. Prior analysis between at-home UVB and in-office UVB for the treatment of psoriasis determined that at-home UVB is as safe and cost-effective as in-office UVB without the inconvenience of the patient having to take time out of the week to visit the physician’s office,^8,9 making at-home UVB an option dermatologists may strongly consider for patients who value safety, cost, and convenience. Oddly, efficacy was not related to the top preference, despite being the second highest–cited factor (53.2%) for which forms of phototherapy participants would consider using. For insurance coverage, those with Medicaid and Medicare selected the cheaper tanning options with higher-than-expected frequencies. Although problems with insurance were not related to the top preference, insurance status was related, suggesting that preferences are tied to cost. Of note, while the number of dermatologists that accept Medicare has increased in the last few years, there still remains an uneven distribution of phototherapy clinics. As of 2015, there were 19 million individuals who qualified for Medicare without a clinic within driving distance.¹⁰ This problem likely also exists for many Medicaid patients who may not qualify for at-home UVB. In this scenario, tanning or heliotherapy may be effective alternatives.

In-Office vs At-Home Options—Although in-office UVB was the option considered safest (26.2%) and most efficacious (26.8%), it was followed closely by at-home UVB in both categories (safest, 23.8%; most efficacious, 24.2%). Meanwhile, at-home UVB (40.2%) was chosen as the most convenient. Some patients consider tanning options over in-office UVB because of the inconvenience of traveling to an appointment.¹¹ Therefore, at-home tanning may be a convenient alternative for these patients.

Considerations—Although our study was limited to an adult population, issues with convenience exist for the pediatric population as well, as children may need to miss multiple days of school each week to be treated in the office. For these pediatric patients, an at-home unit is preferable; however; issues with insurance coverage remain a challenge.¹² Increasing insurance coverage of at-home units for the pediatric population therefore would be most prudent. However, when other options have been exhausted, including in-office UVB, tanning and sunbathing may be viable alternatives because of cost and convenience. In our study, sunbathing (33.2%) was considered the most cost-effective, likely because it does not require expensive equipment or a visit to a salon or physician’s office. Sunbathing has been effective in treating some dermatologic conditions, such as atopic dermatitis.¹³ However, it may only be effective during certain months and at different latitudes—conditions that make UVB sun rays more accessible—particularly when treating psoriasis.¹⁴ Furthermore, sunbathing may not be as cost-effective in patients with average-severity psoriasis compared with conventional psoriasis therapy because of the costs of travel to areas with sufficient UVB rays for treatment.¹⁵ Additionally, insurance status was related to which option was selected as the most cost-effective, as 29 (53.7%) of 54 uninsured participants chose sunbathing as the most cost-effective option, while only 92 (34.2%) of 269 privately insured patients selected sunbathing. Therefore, insurance status may be a factor for dermatologists to consider if a patient prefers a treatment that is cost-effective. Overall, dermatologists could perhaps consider guiding patients and optimizing their treatment plans based on the factors most important to the patients while understanding that costs and insurance status may ultimately determine the treatment option.

Limitations—Survey participants were recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk, which could create sampling bias. Furthermore, these participants were representative of the general public and not exclusively patients on phototherapy, therefore representing the opinions of the general public and not those who may require phototherapy. Furthermore, given the nature of the survey, the study was limited to the adult population.

Phototherapy—particularly UVB phototherapy, which utilizes UVB rays of specific wavelengths within the UV spectrum—is indicated for a wide variety of dermatoses. In-office and at-home UVB treatments commonly are used, as are salon tanning and sunbathing. When selecting a form of phototherapy, patients are likely to consider safety, cost, effectiveness, insurance issues, and convenience. Research on patient preferences; the reasons for these preferences; and which options patients perceive to be the safest, most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient is lacking. We aimed to assess the forms of phototherapy that patients would most consider using; the factors influencing patient preferences; and the forms patients perceived as the safest and most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient.

Methods

Study Participants—We recruited 500 Amazon Mechanical Turk users who were 18 years or older to complete our REDCap-generated survey. The study was approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board (Winston-Salem, North Carolina).

Evaluation—Participants were asked, “If you were diagnosed with a skin disease that benefited from UV therapy, which of the following forms of UV therapy would you consider choosing?” Participants were instructed to choose all of the forms they would consider using. Available options included in-office UV, at-home UV, home tanning, salon tanning, sunbathing, and other. Participants were asked to select which factors—from safety, cost, effectiveness, issues with insurance, convenience, and other—influenced their decision-making; which form of phototherapy they would most consider along with the factors that influenced their preference for this specific form of phototherapy; and which options they considered to be safest and most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient. Participants were asked to provide basic sociodemographic information, level of education, income, insurance status (private, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, and uninsured), and distance from the nearest dermatologist.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive and inferential statistics (χ² test) were used to analyze the data with a significance set at P<.05.

Results

Five hundred participants completed the survey (Table 1).

Factors Influencing Patient Preferences—When asked to select all forms of phototherapy they would consider, 186 (37.2%) participants selected in-office UVB, 263 (52.6%) selected at-home UV, 141 (28.2%) selected home tanning, 117 (23.4%) selected salon tanning, 191 (38.2%) selected sunbathing, and 3 (0.6%) selected other. Participants who selected in-office UVB as an option were more likely to also select salon tanning (P<.012). No other relationship was found between the UVB options and the tanning options. When asked which factors influenced their phototherapy preferences, 295 (59%) selected convenience, 266 (53.2%) selected effectiveness, 220 (44%) selected safety, 218 (43.6%) selected cost, 72 (14.4%) selected issues with insurance, and 4 (0.8%) selected other. Forms of Phototherapy Patients Consider Using—When asked which form of phototherapy they would most consider using, 179 (35.8%) participants selected at-home UVB, 108 (21.6%) selected sunbathing, 92 (18.4%) selected in-office UVB, 62 (12.4%) selected home-tanning, 57 (11.4%) selected salon tanning, 1 (0.2%) selected other, and 1 participant provided no response (P<.001).

Reasons for Using Phototherapy—Of the 179 who selected at-home UVB, 125 (70%) cited convenience as a reason. Of the 108 who selected salon tanning as their top choice, 62 (57%) cited cost as a reason. Convenience (P<.001), cost (P<.001), and safety (P=.023) were related to top preference. Issues with insurance did not have a statistically significant relationship with the top preference. However, participant insurance type was related to top phototherapy preference (P=.021), with privately insured patients more likely to select in-office UVB, whereas those with Medicaid and Medicare were more likely to select home or salon tanning. Efficacy was not related to top preference. Furthermore, age, gender, education, income, and distance from nearest dermatologist were not related to top preference.

In-office UVB was perceived to be safest (P<.001) and most efficacious (P<.001). Meanwhile, at-home UVB was selected as most convenient (P<.001). Lastly, sunbathing was determined to be most cost-effective (P<.001)(Table 2). Cost-effectiveness had a relationship (P<.001) with the participant’s insurance, as those with private insurance were more likely to select at-home UVB, whereas those with Medicare or Medicaid were more likely to select the tanning options. Additionally, of the54 uninsured participants in the survey, 29 selected sunbathing as the most cost-effective option.

Comment

Phototherapy Treatment—UVB phototherapy at a wavelength of 290 to 320 nm (311–313 nm for narrowband UVB) is used to treat various dermatoses, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. UVB alters skin cytokines, induces apoptosis, promotes immunosuppression, causes DNA damage, and decreases the proliferation of dendritic cells and other cells of the innate immune system.¹ In-office and at-home UV therapies make use of UVB wavelengths for treatment, while tanning and sunbathing contain not only UVB but also potentially harmful UVA rays. The wavelengths for indoor tanning devices include UVB at 280 to 315 nm and UVA at 315 to 400 nm, which are similar to those of the sun but with a different ratio of UVB to UVA and more intense total UV.² When in-office and at-home UVB options are not available, various forms of tanning such as salon tanning and sunbathing may be alternatives that are widely used.³ One of the main reasons patients consider alternative phototherapy options is cost, as 1 in-office UVB treatment may cost $140, but a month of unlimited tanning may cost $30 or perhaps nothing if a patient has a gym membership with access to a tanning bed. Lack of insurance benefits covering phototherapy can exacerbate cost burden.⁴ However, tanning beds are associated with an increased risk for melanoma and nonmelanoma cancers.^5,6 Additionally, all forms of phototherapy are associated with photoaging, but it is more intense with tanning and heliotherapy because of the presence of UVA, which penetrates deeper into the dermis.⁷ Meanwhile, for those who choose UVB therapy, deciding between an in-office and at-home UVB treatment could be a matter of convenience, as patients must consider long trips to the physician’s office; insurance status, as some insurances may not cover at-home UVB; or efficacy, which might be influenced by the presence of a physician or other medical staff. In many cases, patients may not be informed that at-home UVB is an option.

Patient Preferences—At-home UVB therapy was the most popular option in our study population, with most participants (52.6%) considering using it, and 35.9% choosing it as their top choice over all other phototherapy options. Safety, cost, and convenience were all found to be related to the option participants would most consider using. Prior analysis between at-home UVB and in-office UVB for the treatment of psoriasis determined that at-home UVB is as safe and cost-effective as in-office UVB without the inconvenience of the patient having to take time out of the week to visit the physician’s office,^8,9 making at-home UVB an option dermatologists may strongly consider for patients who value safety, cost, and convenience. Oddly, efficacy was not related to the top preference, despite being the second highest–cited factor (53.2%) for which forms of phototherapy participants would consider using. For insurance coverage, those with Medicaid and Medicare selected the cheaper tanning options with higher-than-expected frequencies. Although problems with insurance were not related to the top preference, insurance status was related, suggesting that preferences are tied to cost. Of note, while the number of dermatologists that accept Medicare has increased in the last few years, there still remains an uneven distribution of phototherapy clinics. As of 2015, there were 19 million individuals who qualified for Medicare without a clinic within driving distance.¹⁰ This problem likely also exists for many Medicaid patients who may not qualify for at-home UVB. In this scenario, tanning or heliotherapy may be effective alternatives.

In-Office vs At-Home Options—Although in-office UVB was the option considered safest (26.2%) and most efficacious (26.8%), it was followed closely by at-home UVB in both categories (safest, 23.8%; most efficacious, 24.2%). Meanwhile, at-home UVB (40.2%) was chosen as the most convenient. Some patients consider tanning options over in-office UVB because of the inconvenience of traveling to an appointment.¹¹ Therefore, at-home tanning may be a convenient alternative for these patients.

Considerations—Although our study was limited to an adult population, issues with convenience exist for the pediatric population as well, as children may need to miss multiple days of school each week to be treated in the office. For these pediatric patients, an at-home unit is preferable; however; issues with insurance coverage remain a challenge.¹² Increasing insurance coverage of at-home units for the pediatric population therefore would be most prudent. However, when other options have been exhausted, including in-office UVB, tanning and sunbathing may be viable alternatives because of cost and convenience. In our study, sunbathing (33.2%) was considered the most cost-effective, likely because it does not require expensive equipment or a visit to a salon or physician’s office. Sunbathing has been effective in treating some dermatologic conditions, such as atopic dermatitis.¹³ However, it may only be effective during certain months and at different latitudes—conditions that make UVB sun rays more accessible—particularly when treating psoriasis.¹⁴ Furthermore, sunbathing may not be as cost-effective in patients with average-severity psoriasis compared with conventional psoriasis therapy because of the costs of travel to areas with sufficient UVB rays for treatment.¹⁵ Additionally, insurance status was related to which option was selected as the most cost-effective, as 29 (53.7%) of 54 uninsured participants chose sunbathing as the most cost-effective option, while only 92 (34.2%) of 269 privately insured patients selected sunbathing. Therefore, insurance status may be a factor for dermatologists to consider if a patient prefers a treatment that is cost-effective. Overall, dermatologists could perhaps consider guiding patients and optimizing their treatment plans based on the factors most important to the patients while understanding that costs and insurance status may ultimately determine the treatment option.

Limitations—Survey participants were recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk, which could create sampling bias. Furthermore, these participants were representative of the general public and not exclusively patients on phototherapy, therefore representing the opinions of the general public and not those who may require phototherapy. Furthermore, given the nature of the survey, the study was limited to the adult population.

Phototherapy—particularly UVB phototherapy, which utilizes UVB rays of specific wavelengths within the UV spectrum—is indicated for a wide variety of dermatoses. In-office and at-home UVB treatments commonly are used, as are salon tanning and sunbathing. When selecting a form of phototherapy, patients are likely to consider safety, cost, effectiveness, insurance issues, and convenience. Research on patient preferences; the reasons for these preferences; and which options patients perceive to be the safest, most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient is lacking. We aimed to assess the forms of phototherapy that patients would most consider using; the factors influencing patient preferences; and the forms patients perceived as the safest and most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient.

Methods

Study Participants—We recruited 500 Amazon Mechanical Turk users who were 18 years or older to complete our REDCap-generated survey. The study was approved by the Wake Forest University institutional review board (Winston-Salem, North Carolina).

Evaluation—Participants were asked, “If you were diagnosed with a skin disease that benefited from UV therapy, which of the following forms of UV therapy would you consider choosing?” Participants were instructed to choose all of the forms they would consider using. Available options included in-office UV, at-home UV, home tanning, salon tanning, sunbathing, and other. Participants were asked to select which factors—from safety, cost, effectiveness, issues with insurance, convenience, and other—influenced their decision-making; which form of phototherapy they would most consider along with the factors that influenced their preference for this specific form of phototherapy; and which options they considered to be safest and most cost-effective, efficacious, and convenient. Participants were asked to provide basic sociodemographic information, level of education, income, insurance status (private, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, and uninsured), and distance from the nearest dermatologist.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive and inferential statistics (χ² test) were used to analyze the data with a significance set at P<.05.

Results

Five hundred participants completed the survey (Table 1).

Factors Influencing Patient Preferences—When asked to select all forms of phototherapy they would consider, 186 (37.2%) participants selected in-office UVB, 263 (52.6%) selected at-home UV, 141 (28.2%) selected home tanning, 117 (23.4%) selected salon tanning, 191 (38.2%) selected sunbathing, and 3 (0.6%) selected other. Participants who selected in-office UVB as an option were more likely to also select salon tanning (P<.012). No other relationship was found between the UVB options and the tanning options. When asked which factors influenced their phototherapy preferences, 295 (59%) selected convenience, 266 (53.2%) selected effectiveness, 220 (44%) selected safety, 218 (43.6%) selected cost, 72 (14.4%) selected issues with insurance, and 4 (0.8%) selected other. Forms of Phototherapy Patients Consider Using—When asked which form of phototherapy they would most consider using, 179 (35.8%) participants selected at-home UVB, 108 (21.6%) selected sunbathing, 92 (18.4%) selected in-office UVB, 62 (12.4%) selected home-tanning, 57 (11.4%) selected salon tanning, 1 (0.2%) selected other, and 1 participant provided no response (P<.001).

Reasons for Using Phototherapy—Of the 179 who selected at-home UVB, 125 (70%) cited convenience as a reason. Of the 108 who selected salon tanning as their top choice, 62 (57%) cited cost as a reason. Convenience (P<.001), cost (P<.001), and safety (P=.023) were related to top preference. Issues with insurance did not have a statistically significant relationship with the top preference. However, participant insurance type was related to top phototherapy preference (P=.021), with privately insured patients more likely to select in-office UVB, whereas those with Medicaid and Medicare were more likely to select home or salon tanning. Efficacy was not related to top preference. Furthermore, age, gender, education, income, and distance from nearest dermatologist were not related to top preference.

In-office UVB was perceived to be safest (P<.001) and most efficacious (P<.001). Meanwhile, at-home UVB was selected as most convenient (P<.001). Lastly, sunbathing was determined to be most cost-effective (P<.001)(Table 2). Cost-effectiveness had a relationship (P<.001) with the participant’s insurance, as those with private insurance were more likely to select at-home UVB, whereas those with Medicare or Medicaid were more likely to select the tanning options. Additionally, of the54 uninsured participants in the survey, 29 selected sunbathing as the most cost-effective option.

Comment

Phototherapy Treatment—UVB phototherapy at a wavelength of 290 to 320 nm (311–313 nm for narrowband UVB) is used to treat various dermatoses, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. UVB alters skin cytokines, induces apoptosis, promotes immunosuppression, causes DNA damage, and decreases the proliferation of dendritic cells and other cells of the innate immune system.¹ In-office and at-home UV therapies make use of UVB wavelengths for treatment, while tanning and sunbathing contain not only UVB but also potentially harmful UVA rays. The wavelengths for indoor tanning devices include UVB at 280 to 315 nm and UVA at 315 to 400 nm, which are similar to those of the sun but with a different ratio of UVB to UVA and more intense total UV.² When in-office and at-home UVB options are not available, various forms of tanning such as salon tanning and sunbathing may be alternatives that are widely used.³ One of the main reasons patients consider alternative phototherapy options is cost, as 1 in-office UVB treatment may cost $140, but a month of unlimited tanning may cost $30 or perhaps nothing if a patient has a gym membership with access to a tanning bed. Lack of insurance benefits covering phototherapy can exacerbate cost burden.⁴ However, tanning beds are associated with an increased risk for melanoma and nonmelanoma cancers.^5,6 Additionally, all forms of phototherapy are associated with photoaging, but it is more intense with tanning and heliotherapy because of the presence of UVA, which penetrates deeper into the dermis.⁷ Meanwhile, for those who choose UVB therapy, deciding between an in-office and at-home UVB treatment could be a matter of convenience, as patients must consider long trips to the physician’s office; insurance status, as some insurances may not cover at-home UVB; or efficacy, which might be influenced by the presence of a physician or other medical staff. In many cases, patients may not be informed that at-home UVB is an option.

Patient Preferences—At-home UVB therapy was the most popular option in our study population, with most participants (52.6%) considering using it, and 35.9% choosing it as their top choice over all other phototherapy options. Safety, cost, and convenience were all found to be related to the option participants would most consider using. Prior analysis between at-home UVB and in-office UVB for the treatment of psoriasis determined that at-home UVB is as safe and cost-effective as in-office UVB without the inconvenience of the patient having to take time out of the week to visit the physician’s office,^8,9 making at-home UVB an option dermatologists may strongly consider for patients who value safety, cost, and convenience. Oddly, efficacy was not related to the top preference, despite being the second highest–cited factor (53.2%) for which forms of phototherapy participants would consider using. For insurance coverage, those with Medicaid and Medicare selected the cheaper tanning options with higher-than-expected frequencies. Although problems with insurance were not related to the top preference, insurance status was related, suggesting that preferences are tied to cost. Of note, while the number of dermatologists that accept Medicare has increased in the last few years, there still remains an uneven distribution of phototherapy clinics. As of 2015, there were 19 million individuals who qualified for Medicare without a clinic within driving distance.¹⁰ This problem likely also exists for many Medicaid patients who may not qualify for at-home UVB. In this scenario, tanning or heliotherapy may be effective alternatives.

In-Office vs At-Home Options—Although in-office UVB was the option considered safest (26.2%) and most efficacious (26.8%), it was followed closely by at-home UVB in both categories (safest, 23.8%; most efficacious, 24.2%). Meanwhile, at-home UVB (40.2%) was chosen as the most convenient. Some patients consider tanning options over in-office UVB because of the inconvenience of traveling to an appointment.¹¹ Therefore, at-home tanning may be a convenient alternative for these patients.

Considerations—Although our study was limited to an adult population, issues with convenience exist for the pediatric population as well, as children may need to miss multiple days of school each week to be treated in the office. For these pediatric patients, an at-home unit is preferable; however; issues with insurance coverage remain a challenge.¹² Increasing insurance coverage of at-home units for the pediatric population therefore would be most prudent. However, when other options have been exhausted, including in-office UVB, tanning and sunbathing may be viable alternatives because of cost and convenience. In our study, sunbathing (33.2%) was considered the most cost-effective, likely because it does not require expensive equipment or a visit to a salon or physician’s office. Sunbathing has been effective in treating some dermatologic conditions, such as atopic dermatitis.¹³ However, it may only be effective during certain months and at different latitudes—conditions that make UVB sun rays more accessible—particularly when treating psoriasis.¹⁴ Furthermore, sunbathing may not be as cost-effective in patients with average-severity psoriasis compared with conventional psoriasis therapy because of the costs of travel to areas with sufficient UVB rays for treatment.¹⁵ Additionally, insurance status was related to which option was selected as the most cost-effective, as 29 (53.7%) of 54 uninsured participants chose sunbathing as the most cost-effective option, while only 92 (34.2%) of 269 privately insured patients selected sunbathing. Therefore, insurance status may be a factor for dermatologists to consider if a patient prefers a treatment that is cost-effective. Overall, dermatologists could perhaps consider guiding patients and optimizing their treatment plans based on the factors most important to the patients while understanding that costs and insurance status may ultimately determine the treatment option.

Limitations—Survey participants were recruited on Amazon Mechanical Turk, which could create sampling bias. Furthermore, these participants were representative of the general public and not exclusively patients on phototherapy, therefore representing the opinions of the general public and not those who may require phototherapy. Furthermore, given the nature of the survey, the study was limited to the adult population.

Roflumilast cream 0.3% is under review by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in children as young as 2 years, according to a press release from the manufacturer.

The company, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, announced the submission of a supplemental new drug application for approval of roflumilast cream (Zoryve), a topical phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitor, to treat psoriasis in children aged 2-11 years. If approved, this would be the first such product for young children with plaque psoriasis, according to the press release. In July 2022, the FDA approved roflumilast cream 0.3% for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in people 12 years of age and older, including in intertriginous areas, based on data from the phase 3 DERMIS-1 and DERMIS-2 trials.

The new submission is supported by data from two 4-week Maximal Usage Systemic Exposure (MUSE) studies in children ages 2-11 years with plaque psoriasis. In these phase 2, open-label studies, one study of children aged 2-5 years and another study of children aged 6-11 years, participants were treated with roflumilast cream 0.3% once daily for 4 weeks. The MUSE studies are also intended to fulfill postmarketing requirements for roflumilast, according to the company. The MUSE results were consistent with those from DERMIS-1 and DERMIS-2, according to the company press release. In DERMIS-1 and DERMIS-2, significantly more patients randomized to roflumilast met criteria for Investigators Global Success (IGA) scores after 8 weeks of daily treatment compared with placebo patients, and significantly more achieved a 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores compared with those on placebo.

Common adverse events associated with roflumilast include diarrhea, headache, insomnia, nausea, application site pain, upper respiratory tract infection, and urinary tract infection. None of these have been reported in more than 3% of patients, the press release noted.

Roflumilast cream 0.3% is under review by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in children as young as 2 years, according to a press release from the manufacturer.

The company, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, announced the submission of a supplemental new drug application for approval of roflumilast cream (Zoryve), a topical phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitor, to treat psoriasis in children aged 2-11 years. If approved, this would be the first such product for young children with plaque psoriasis, according to the press release. In July 2022, the FDA approved roflumilast cream 0.3% for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in people 12 years of age and older, including in intertriginous areas, based on data from the phase 3 DERMIS-1 and DERMIS-2 trials.

The new submission is supported by data from two 4-week Maximal Usage Systemic Exposure (MUSE) studies in children ages 2-11 years with plaque psoriasis. In these phase 2, open-label studies, one study of children aged 2-5 years and another study of children aged 6-11 years, participants were treated with roflumilast cream 0.3% once daily for 4 weeks. The MUSE studies are also intended to fulfill postmarketing requirements for roflumilast, according to the company. The MUSE results were consistent with those from DERMIS-1 and DERMIS-2, according to the company press release. In DERMIS-1 and DERMIS-2, significantly more patients randomized to roflumilast met criteria for Investigators Global Success (IGA) scores after 8 weeks of daily treatment compared with placebo patients, and significantly more achieved a 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores compared with those on placebo.

Common adverse events associated with roflumilast include diarrhea, headache, insomnia, nausea, application site pain, upper respiratory tract infection, and urinary tract infection. None of these have been reported in more than 3% of patients, the press release noted.

Roflumilast cream 0.3% is under review by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in children as young as 2 years, according to a press release from the manufacturer.

The company, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, announced the submission of a supplemental new drug application for approval of roflumilast cream (Zoryve), a topical phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitor, to treat psoriasis in children aged 2-11 years. If approved, this would be the first such product for young children with plaque psoriasis, according to the press release. In July 2022, the FDA approved roflumilast cream 0.3% for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in people 12 years of age and older, including in intertriginous areas, based on data from the phase 3 DERMIS-1 and DERMIS-2 trials.

The new submission is supported by data from two 4-week Maximal Usage Systemic Exposure (MUSE) studies in children ages 2-11 years with plaque psoriasis. In these phase 2, open-label studies, one study of children aged 2-5 years and another study of children aged 6-11 years, participants were treated with roflumilast cream 0.3% once daily for 4 weeks. The MUSE studies are also intended to fulfill postmarketing requirements for roflumilast, according to the company. The MUSE results were consistent with those from DERMIS-1 and DERMIS-2, according to the company press release. In DERMIS-1 and DERMIS-2, significantly more patients randomized to roflumilast met criteria for Investigators Global Success (IGA) scores after 8 weeks of daily treatment compared with placebo patients, and significantly more achieved a 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores compared with those on placebo.

Common adverse events associated with roflumilast include diarrhea, headache, insomnia, nausea, application site pain, upper respiratory tract infection, and urinary tract infection. None of these have been reported in more than 3% of patients, the press release noted.

A biosimilar drug to the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab, marketed as Idacio (adalimumab-aacf), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the United States, according to a press release from manufacturer Fresenius Kabi.

Idacio is a citrate-free, low-concentration formulation of adalimumab and is now approved for use for all but three of the indications that currently apply to the reference adalimumab product (Humira): rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis in adults, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease in adults and children aged 6 years or older, ulcerative colitis in adults, and plaque psoriasis in adults. It does not apply to Humira’s indications for hidradenitis suppurativa, uveitis, or ulcerative colitis in pediatric patients aged 5 years and older.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Idacio is the eighth adalimumab biosimilar to be approved in the United States. Its approval was based on evidence of a similar profile of pharmacokinetics, safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity to Humira.

Idacio was first launched in 2019 and has been marketed in more than 37 countries worldwide, according to Fresenius Kabi. The U.S. launch is scheduled for July, and Idacio will be available as a self-administered prefilled syringe or prefilled pen.

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

A biosimilar drug to the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab, marketed as Idacio (adalimumab-aacf), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the United States, according to a press release from manufacturer Fresenius Kabi.

Idacio is a citrate-free, low-concentration formulation of adalimumab and is now approved for use for all but three of the indications that currently apply to the reference adalimumab product (Humira): rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis in adults, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease in adults and children aged 6 years or older, ulcerative colitis in adults, and plaque psoriasis in adults. It does not apply to Humira’s indications for hidradenitis suppurativa, uveitis, or ulcerative colitis in pediatric patients aged 5 years and older.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Idacio is the eighth adalimumab biosimilar to be approved in the United States. Its approval was based on evidence of a similar profile of pharmacokinetics, safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity to Humira.

Idacio was first launched in 2019 and has been marketed in more than 37 countries worldwide, according to Fresenius Kabi. The U.S. launch is scheduled for July, and Idacio will be available as a self-administered prefilled syringe or prefilled pen.

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

A biosimilar drug to the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab, marketed as Idacio (adalimumab-aacf), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the United States, according to a press release from manufacturer Fresenius Kabi.

Idacio is a citrate-free, low-concentration formulation of adalimumab and is now approved for use for all but three of the indications that currently apply to the reference adalimumab product (Humira): rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis in adults, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease in adults and children aged 6 years or older, ulcerative colitis in adults, and plaque psoriasis in adults. It does not apply to Humira’s indications for hidradenitis suppurativa, uveitis, or ulcerative colitis in pediatric patients aged 5 years and older.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Idacio is the eighth adalimumab biosimilar to be approved in the United States. Its approval was based on evidence of a similar profile of pharmacokinetics, safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity to Humira.

Idacio was first launched in 2019 and has been marketed in more than 37 countries worldwide, according to Fresenius Kabi. The U.S. launch is scheduled for July, and Idacio will be available as a self-administered prefilled syringe or prefilled pen.

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

LAS VEGAS – Disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of skin of color can stem from incorrect diagnoses and lack of knowledge on the part of clinicians, and also from knowledge gaps on the part of other health care providers and patients, Susan C. Taylor, MD, said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

Additionally, some disparities occur because of gaps in access to health care, said Dr. Taylor, vice chair, diversity, equity and inclusion, in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who moderated an expert panel discussion of treatment tips for several common dermatologic conditions in skin of color patients.

Atopic dermatitis angles

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the fourth most common dermatologic complaint in Black patients, based on data from the United States National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Also, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey show that Black children are nearly twice as likely as White children to develop AD after controlling for socioeconomic factors, Dr. Taylor said.

When Black patients present with AD, “you may not see the erythema,” said Valerie D. Callender, MD, of Howard University, Washington, who presented on AD. Instead, “you may see more follicular and papular presentations.” Erythema and erythroderma can present as shades of violet, gray, or dark brown in patients with rich skin tones, added Dr. Callender, who practices in Glenn Dale, Md.

Consequently, disease severity can be misinterpreted, she said, noting that data suggest that scoring systems such as the Eczema Area and Severity Index and Scoring Atopic Dermatitis underestimate AD severity in dark skin.

As for treatment, skin of color patients with AD are often as bothered by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) as by active lesions, so treatment should take these concerns into account, Dr. Callender said. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of AD treatments in diverse populations are limited by lack of representation of racial groups in clinical trials and lack of subset analyses by race.
 

Acne awareness

An important consideration of acne in skin of color patients is that the acne “might not be red, it might just be darker,” said Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice-chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology, and professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. A study published in JAMA Dermatology of nearly 30,000 patients with acne from 2007 to 2017 found that non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely than non-Hispanic White patients to see a dermatologist for acne, but Black patients received fewer prescriptions for acne medications than White patients.

The study also showed that Black patients who received prescriptions for acne were more likely to receive topical retinoids and topical antibiotics, and less likely to receive oral antibiotics, spironolactone, or isotretinoin, compared with White patients. Similarly, Asian patients were more likely to receive topical antibiotics and less likely to receive oral antibiotics, compared with White patients.

Other panelists shared some of their best practices for acne in patients with skin of color, including treatment with topical retinoids (for inflammation) and spironolactone, and therapies that address both inflammation and pigmentation, such as salicylic acid and azelaic acid. Dr. Callender also advised asking patients about makeup, as they may not know that many types of makeup used to cover acne are in fact comedogenic.
 

Melanoma misconceptions

One of the most common misperceptions about melanoma among skin of color patients is that they don’t think they can get it, Dr. Taylor said. Many health care providers don’t think about melanoma in skin of color patients because of the dramatically lower incidence in this population, but as a result, cases may go undiagnosed, and as studies have shown, the mortality rate from melanoma is higher in Black patients.

Consider the palms, soles, nails, and web spaces as possible melanoma sites, Dr. Taylor added.

Educating skin of color patients about melanoma is important, although the incidence is 20 to 30 times lower than in non-Hispanic Whites, said Nada Elbuluk, MD, the founder and director of the University of Southern California Skin of Color Center and Pigmentary Disorders Clinic, Los Angeles. A 2020 editorial published in Cancer Cytopathology pointed out that 1 in 3 Black men or women with a melanoma diagnosis in the United States dies of the disease, compared with 1 in 7 non-Hispanic White men and 1 in 11 non-Hispanic White women with melanoma.

Don’t skip the total body skin exam in these patients, Dr. Elbuluk emphasized. Many patients will only partially undress, and areas such as toes can be missed.
 

Rosacea review

For patients with skin of color, clinicians need to look for different signs of rosacea than those typically seen in White patients, Dr. Elbuluk said. “The most common presentation of rosacea in skin of color is papulopustular,” and the granulomatous variant.

“These patients will often give you a history of sensitivity to products,” Dr. Elbuluk noted. They may not always have the flushing, but they may report warmth or itching, in addition to product sensitivity.

When considering rosacea in skin of color patients, be sure to have good lighting for close examination, as skin thickening is another subtle sign of rosacea in these patients, she said. Skin thickening “is a very early sign that will present in skin of color with no erythema, so keep that in mind.”

Stinging and burning sensations may be reported by skin of color patients with rosacea. Use patient history to confirm the diagnosis of rosacea, which is often delayed in skin of color patients because of a low index of suspicion, she said.

Psoriasis pointers

Psoriasis in skin of color patients used to be considered rare, “but that is far from true,” Dr. Alexis said. In fact, many cases of psoriasis are undiagnosed or the diagnosis is delayed in these patients.

The panelists noted that current guidelines for psoriasis treatment are based on clinical trials composed mainly of White patients, and do not contain specific recommendations for skin of color patients.

Notably, the morphology, location, and color of psoriasis lesions may be different for patients with darker skin, such as thicker plaques and more scaling over larger areas, they said. Also, skin of color patients may experience long-lasting dyspigmentation from psoriasis lesions that have resolved.

When developing a strategy for psoriasis in skin of color patients, consider not only disease severity, but also comorbidities and medications, response (if any) to prior therapies, patient preferences, and quality of life, the panelists said.

Dr. Callender, Dr. Elbuluk, Dr. Taylor, and Dr. Alexis reported conflicts of interest from numerous sources in industry. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – Disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of skin of color can stem from incorrect diagnoses and lack of knowledge on the part of clinicians, and also from knowledge gaps on the part of other health care providers and patients, Susan C. Taylor, MD, said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

Additionally, some disparities occur because of gaps in access to health care, said Dr. Taylor, vice chair, diversity, equity and inclusion, in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who moderated an expert panel discussion of treatment tips for several common dermatologic conditions in skin of color patients.

Atopic dermatitis angles

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the fourth most common dermatologic complaint in Black patients, based on data from the United States National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Also, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey show that Black children are nearly twice as likely as White children to develop AD after controlling for socioeconomic factors, Dr. Taylor said.

When Black patients present with AD, “you may not see the erythema,” said Valerie D. Callender, MD, of Howard University, Washington, who presented on AD. Instead, “you may see more follicular and papular presentations.” Erythema and erythroderma can present as shades of violet, gray, or dark brown in patients with rich skin tones, added Dr. Callender, who practices in Glenn Dale, Md.

Consequently, disease severity can be misinterpreted, she said, noting that data suggest that scoring systems such as the Eczema Area and Severity Index and Scoring Atopic Dermatitis underestimate AD severity in dark skin.

As for treatment, skin of color patients with AD are often as bothered by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) as by active lesions, so treatment should take these concerns into account, Dr. Callender said. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of AD treatments in diverse populations are limited by lack of representation of racial groups in clinical trials and lack of subset analyses by race.
 

Acne awareness

An important consideration of acne in skin of color patients is that the acne “might not be red, it might just be darker,” said Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice-chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology, and professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. A study published in JAMA Dermatology of nearly 30,000 patients with acne from 2007 to 2017 found that non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely than non-Hispanic White patients to see a dermatologist for acne, but Black patients received fewer prescriptions for acne medications than White patients.

The study also showed that Black patients who received prescriptions for acne were more likely to receive topical retinoids and topical antibiotics, and less likely to receive oral antibiotics, spironolactone, or isotretinoin, compared with White patients. Similarly, Asian patients were more likely to receive topical antibiotics and less likely to receive oral antibiotics, compared with White patients.

Other panelists shared some of their best practices for acne in patients with skin of color, including treatment with topical retinoids (for inflammation) and spironolactone, and therapies that address both inflammation and pigmentation, such as salicylic acid and azelaic acid. Dr. Callender also advised asking patients about makeup, as they may not know that many types of makeup used to cover acne are in fact comedogenic.
 

Melanoma misconceptions

One of the most common misperceptions about melanoma among skin of color patients is that they don’t think they can get it, Dr. Taylor said. Many health care providers don’t think about melanoma in skin of color patients because of the dramatically lower incidence in this population, but as a result, cases may go undiagnosed, and as studies have shown, the mortality rate from melanoma is higher in Black patients.

Consider the palms, soles, nails, and web spaces as possible melanoma sites, Dr. Taylor added.

Educating skin of color patients about melanoma is important, although the incidence is 20 to 30 times lower than in non-Hispanic Whites, said Nada Elbuluk, MD, the founder and director of the University of Southern California Skin of Color Center and Pigmentary Disorders Clinic, Los Angeles. A 2020 editorial published in Cancer Cytopathology pointed out that 1 in 3 Black men or women with a melanoma diagnosis in the United States dies of the disease, compared with 1 in 7 non-Hispanic White men and 1 in 11 non-Hispanic White women with melanoma.

Don’t skip the total body skin exam in these patients, Dr. Elbuluk emphasized. Many patients will only partially undress, and areas such as toes can be missed.
 

Rosacea review

For patients with skin of color, clinicians need to look for different signs of rosacea than those typically seen in White patients, Dr. Elbuluk said. “The most common presentation of rosacea in skin of color is papulopustular,” and the granulomatous variant.

“These patients will often give you a history of sensitivity to products,” Dr. Elbuluk noted. They may not always have the flushing, but they may report warmth or itching, in addition to product sensitivity.

When considering rosacea in skin of color patients, be sure to have good lighting for close examination, as skin thickening is another subtle sign of rosacea in these patients, she said. Skin thickening “is a very early sign that will present in skin of color with no erythema, so keep that in mind.”

Stinging and burning sensations may be reported by skin of color patients with rosacea. Use patient history to confirm the diagnosis of rosacea, which is often delayed in skin of color patients because of a low index of suspicion, she said.

Psoriasis pointers

Psoriasis in skin of color patients used to be considered rare, “but that is far from true,” Dr. Alexis said. In fact, many cases of psoriasis are undiagnosed or the diagnosis is delayed in these patients.

The panelists noted that current guidelines for psoriasis treatment are based on clinical trials composed mainly of White patients, and do not contain specific recommendations for skin of color patients.

Notably, the morphology, location, and color of psoriasis lesions may be different for patients with darker skin, such as thicker plaques and more scaling over larger areas, they said. Also, skin of color patients may experience long-lasting dyspigmentation from psoriasis lesions that have resolved.

When developing a strategy for psoriasis in skin of color patients, consider not only disease severity, but also comorbidities and medications, response (if any) to prior therapies, patient preferences, and quality of life, the panelists said.

Dr. Callender, Dr. Elbuluk, Dr. Taylor, and Dr. Alexis reported conflicts of interest from numerous sources in industry. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – Disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of skin of color can stem from incorrect diagnoses and lack of knowledge on the part of clinicians, and also from knowledge gaps on the part of other health care providers and patients, Susan C. Taylor, MD, said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

Additionally, some disparities occur because of gaps in access to health care, said Dr. Taylor, vice chair, diversity, equity and inclusion, in the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who moderated an expert panel discussion of treatment tips for several common dermatologic conditions in skin of color patients.

Atopic dermatitis angles

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the fourth most common dermatologic complaint in Black patients, based on data from the United States National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Also, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey show that Black children are nearly twice as likely as White children to develop AD after controlling for socioeconomic factors, Dr. Taylor said.

When Black patients present with AD, “you may not see the erythema,” said Valerie D. Callender, MD, of Howard University, Washington, who presented on AD. Instead, “you may see more follicular and papular presentations.” Erythema and erythroderma can present as shades of violet, gray, or dark brown in patients with rich skin tones, added Dr. Callender, who practices in Glenn Dale, Md.

Consequently, disease severity can be misinterpreted, she said, noting that data suggest that scoring systems such as the Eczema Area and Severity Index and Scoring Atopic Dermatitis underestimate AD severity in dark skin.

As for treatment, skin of color patients with AD are often as bothered by postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) as by active lesions, so treatment should take these concerns into account, Dr. Callender said. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of AD treatments in diverse populations are limited by lack of representation of racial groups in clinical trials and lack of subset analyses by race.
 

Acne awareness

An important consideration of acne in skin of color patients is that the acne “might not be red, it might just be darker,” said Andrew F. Alexis, MD, vice-chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology, and professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. A study published in JAMA Dermatology of nearly 30,000 patients with acne from 2007 to 2017 found that non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely than non-Hispanic White patients to see a dermatologist for acne, but Black patients received fewer prescriptions for acne medications than White patients.

The study also showed that Black patients who received prescriptions for acne were more likely to receive topical retinoids and topical antibiotics, and less likely to receive oral antibiotics, spironolactone, or isotretinoin, compared with White patients. Similarly, Asian patients were more likely to receive topical antibiotics and less likely to receive oral antibiotics, compared with White patients.

Other panelists shared some of their best practices for acne in patients with skin of color, including treatment with topical retinoids (for inflammation) and spironolactone, and therapies that address both inflammation and pigmentation, such as salicylic acid and azelaic acid. Dr. Callender also advised asking patients about makeup, as they may not know that many types of makeup used to cover acne are in fact comedogenic.
 

Melanoma misconceptions

One of the most common misperceptions about melanoma among skin of color patients is that they don’t think they can get it, Dr. Taylor said. Many health care providers don’t think about melanoma in skin of color patients because of the dramatically lower incidence in this population, but as a result, cases may go undiagnosed, and as studies have shown, the mortality rate from melanoma is higher in Black patients.

Consider the palms, soles, nails, and web spaces as possible melanoma sites, Dr. Taylor added.

Educating skin of color patients about melanoma is important, although the incidence is 20 to 30 times lower than in non-Hispanic Whites, said Nada Elbuluk, MD, the founder and director of the University of Southern California Skin of Color Center and Pigmentary Disorders Clinic, Los Angeles. A 2020 editorial published in Cancer Cytopathology pointed out that 1 in 3 Black men or women with a melanoma diagnosis in the United States dies of the disease, compared with 1 in 7 non-Hispanic White men and 1 in 11 non-Hispanic White women with melanoma.

Don’t skip the total body skin exam in these patients, Dr. Elbuluk emphasized. Many patients will only partially undress, and areas such as toes can be missed.
 

Rosacea review

For patients with skin of color, clinicians need to look for different signs of rosacea than those typically seen in White patients, Dr. Elbuluk said. “The most common presentation of rosacea in skin of color is papulopustular,” and the granulomatous variant.

“These patients will often give you a history of sensitivity to products,” Dr. Elbuluk noted. They may not always have the flushing, but they may report warmth or itching, in addition to product sensitivity.

When considering rosacea in skin of color patients, be sure to have good lighting for close examination, as skin thickening is another subtle sign of rosacea in these patients, she said. Skin thickening “is a very early sign that will present in skin of color with no erythema, so keep that in mind.”

Stinging and burning sensations may be reported by skin of color patients with rosacea. Use patient history to confirm the diagnosis of rosacea, which is often delayed in skin of color patients because of a low index of suspicion, she said.

Psoriasis pointers

Psoriasis in skin of color patients used to be considered rare, “but that is far from true,” Dr. Alexis said. In fact, many cases of psoriasis are undiagnosed or the diagnosis is delayed in these patients.

The panelists noted that current guidelines for psoriasis treatment are based on clinical trials composed mainly of White patients, and do not contain specific recommendations for skin of color patients.

Notably, the morphology, location, and color of psoriasis lesions may be different for patients with darker skin, such as thicker plaques and more scaling over larger areas, they said. Also, skin of color patients may experience long-lasting dyspigmentation from psoriasis lesions that have resolved.

When developing a strategy for psoriasis in skin of color patients, consider not only disease severity, but also comorbidities and medications, response (if any) to prior therapies, patient preferences, and quality of life, the panelists said.

Dr. Callender, Dr. Elbuluk, Dr. Taylor, and Dr. Alexis reported conflicts of interest from numerous sources in industry. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Competition between five biologic drugs and their skinny-label biosimilars saved Medicare an estimated $1.5 billion during 2015-2020. But these savings accruing to Medicare and the availability of those and other biosimilars through skinny labeling is under threat from recent court rulings, according to a research letter published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The authors highlighted the need for such savings by noting that, while biologics comprise less than 5% of prescription drug use, their price tag amounts to about 40% of U.S. drug spending, Biologic manufacturers often delay the availability of biosimilars for additional years beyond the original patent expiration through further patents for supplemental indications. To provide a counterbalance, federal law allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve “skinny-label” generics and biosimilars that carve out patent-protected indications or regulatory exclusivities. But once a generic drug reaches the market through this process with a skinny label, it may often be substituted for indications that go beyond the ones listed on the skinny label. In fact, some state laws mandate that pharmacists substitute interchangeable generics for brand-name drugs, helping to decrease drug prices. In response to legal threats to the skinny-label pathway, Alexander C. Egilman and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, assessed the frequency of approval and marketing of skinny-label biosimilars from 2015 to 2021 and the resultant savings to Medicare.

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The authors estimated annual Part B (clinician-administered) savings from skinny-label biosimilars through 2020 by comparing actual biologic and skinny-label biosimilar spending with estimated biologic spending without competition using the Medicare Dashboard. They assumed that the unit price of the biologic would increase at its 5-year compound annual growth rate prior to competition.

In that period, the FDA approved 33 biosimilars linked to 11 biologics. Among them, 22 (66.7%) had a skinny label. Of 21 biosimilars marketed before 2022, 13 (61.9%) were launched with a skinny label. Of the 8 biologics linked to these 21 biosimilars, 5 of the first-to-market biosimilars had skinny labels (bevacizumab, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and rituximab), leading to earlier competition through 2021.

The estimated $1.5 billion in savings to Medicare from these skinny-label biosimilars over the 2015-2020 span represents 4.9% of the $30.2 billion that Medicare spent on the five biologics during this period. The researchers pointed out that once adalimumab (Humira) faces skinny-label biosimilar competition in 2023, savings will likely grow substantially.

In response to the research letter, an editor’s note by JAMA Internal Medicine Editorial Fellow Eric Ward, MD, and JAMA Internal Medicine Editor at Large and Online Editor Robert Steinbrook, MD, stated that, between 2015 and 2019, 24 (43%) of 56 brand-name drugs had competition from skinny-labeled generic formulations after first becoming available as generics.

The editors also referenced a JAMA Viewpoints article from 2021 that reviewed the most recent case challenging the skinny-label pathway in which GlaxoSmithKline sued Teva for its marketing of a skinny-label generic of the brand-name beta-blocker carvedilol (Coreg) that the plaintive claimed “induced physicians to prescribe carvedilol for indications that had been carved out by Teva’s skinny label, thus infringing GlaxoSmithKline’s patents.” A $235 million judgment against Teva was overturned by a district court and then reversed again by a Federal Circuit court that, after receiving criticism, reconsidered the case, and a panel affirmed the judgment against Teva.

“The Federal Circuit panel’s decision has the potential to put generic drugs that fail to adequately carve out indications from the brand name labeling at risk for damages related to infringement,” the authors wrote. Similar claims of infringement are being heard in other courts, they wrote, and they urged careful targeting of skinny-label carveouts, and suggest also that challenges to the arguments used against Teva focus on preservation of First Amendment rights as protection for lawful and accurate speech in drug labels.

“The legal uncertainties are likely to continue, as manufacturers pursue novel and complex strategies to protect the patents and regulatory exclusivities of brand-name drugs and biologics,” Dr. Ward and Dr. Steinbrook wrote, adding that “the path forward is for Congress to enact additional legislation that reaffirms and strengthens the permissibility of skinny labeling.”

The research letter’s corresponding author, Ameet Sarpatwari, PhD, JD, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, and assistant director for the Harvard Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, echoed concerns over the Teva case in an interview. “There has certainly been concern that should the appellate decision stand, there will be a chilling effect. As the lone dissenter in that case noted, ‘no skinny-label generic is safe.’ I think many generic and biosimilar manufacturers are awaiting to see whether the Supreme Court will take the case.”

He added: “I do not believe the likelihood of skinny-label-supportive legislation making it through Congress will be greatly diminished in a divided Congress. Democrats and Republicans alike should seek to promote competition in the marketplace, which is what the skinny-labeling pathway accomplishes.”

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. The research was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

Competition between five biologic drugs and their skinny-label biosimilars saved Medicare an estimated $1.5 billion during 2015-2020. But these savings accruing to Medicare and the availability of those and other biosimilars through skinny labeling is under threat from recent court rulings, according to a research letter published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The authors highlighted the need for such savings by noting that, while biologics comprise less than 5% of prescription drug use, their price tag amounts to about 40% of U.S. drug spending, Biologic manufacturers often delay the availability of biosimilars for additional years beyond the original patent expiration through further patents for supplemental indications. To provide a counterbalance, federal law allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve “skinny-label” generics and biosimilars that carve out patent-protected indications or regulatory exclusivities. But once a generic drug reaches the market through this process with a skinny label, it may often be substituted for indications that go beyond the ones listed on the skinny label. In fact, some state laws mandate that pharmacists substitute interchangeable generics for brand-name drugs, helping to decrease drug prices. In response to legal threats to the skinny-label pathway, Alexander C. Egilman and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, assessed the frequency of approval and marketing of skinny-label biosimilars from 2015 to 2021 and the resultant savings to Medicare.

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The authors estimated annual Part B (clinician-administered) savings from skinny-label biosimilars through 2020 by comparing actual biologic and skinny-label biosimilar spending with estimated biologic spending without competition using the Medicare Dashboard. They assumed that the unit price of the biologic would increase at its 5-year compound annual growth rate prior to competition.

In that period, the FDA approved 33 biosimilars linked to 11 biologics. Among them, 22 (66.7%) had a skinny label. Of 21 biosimilars marketed before 2022, 13 (61.9%) were launched with a skinny label. Of the 8 biologics linked to these 21 biosimilars, 5 of the first-to-market biosimilars had skinny labels (bevacizumab, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and rituximab), leading to earlier competition through 2021.

The estimated $1.5 billion in savings to Medicare from these skinny-label biosimilars over the 2015-2020 span represents 4.9% of the $30.2 billion that Medicare spent on the five biologics during this period. The researchers pointed out that once adalimumab (Humira) faces skinny-label biosimilar competition in 2023, savings will likely grow substantially.

In response to the research letter, an editor’s note by JAMA Internal Medicine Editorial Fellow Eric Ward, MD, and JAMA Internal Medicine Editor at Large and Online Editor Robert Steinbrook, MD, stated that, between 2015 and 2019, 24 (43%) of 56 brand-name drugs had competition from skinny-labeled generic formulations after first becoming available as generics.

The editors also referenced a JAMA Viewpoints article from 2021 that reviewed the most recent case challenging the skinny-label pathway in which GlaxoSmithKline sued Teva for its marketing of a skinny-label generic of the brand-name beta-blocker carvedilol (Coreg) that the plaintive claimed “induced physicians to prescribe carvedilol for indications that had been carved out by Teva’s skinny label, thus infringing GlaxoSmithKline’s patents.” A $235 million judgment against Teva was overturned by a district court and then reversed again by a Federal Circuit court that, after receiving criticism, reconsidered the case, and a panel affirmed the judgment against Teva.

“The Federal Circuit panel’s decision has the potential to put generic drugs that fail to adequately carve out indications from the brand name labeling at risk for damages related to infringement,” the authors wrote. Similar claims of infringement are being heard in other courts, they wrote, and they urged careful targeting of skinny-label carveouts, and suggest also that challenges to the arguments used against Teva focus on preservation of First Amendment rights as protection for lawful and accurate speech in drug labels.

“The legal uncertainties are likely to continue, as manufacturers pursue novel and complex strategies to protect the patents and regulatory exclusivities of brand-name drugs and biologics,” Dr. Ward and Dr. Steinbrook wrote, adding that “the path forward is for Congress to enact additional legislation that reaffirms and strengthens the permissibility of skinny labeling.”

The research letter’s corresponding author, Ameet Sarpatwari, PhD, JD, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, and assistant director for the Harvard Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, echoed concerns over the Teva case in an interview. “There has certainly been concern that should the appellate decision stand, there will be a chilling effect. As the lone dissenter in that case noted, ‘no skinny-label generic is safe.’ I think many generic and biosimilar manufacturers are awaiting to see whether the Supreme Court will take the case.”

He added: “I do not believe the likelihood of skinny-label-supportive legislation making it through Congress will be greatly diminished in a divided Congress. Democrats and Republicans alike should seek to promote competition in the marketplace, which is what the skinny-labeling pathway accomplishes.”

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. The research was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

Competition between five biologic drugs and their skinny-label biosimilars saved Medicare an estimated $1.5 billion during 2015-2020. But these savings accruing to Medicare and the availability of those and other biosimilars through skinny labeling is under threat from recent court rulings, according to a research letter published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The authors highlighted the need for such savings by noting that, while biologics comprise less than 5% of prescription drug use, their price tag amounts to about 40% of U.S. drug spending, Biologic manufacturers often delay the availability of biosimilars for additional years beyond the original patent expiration through further patents for supplemental indications. To provide a counterbalance, federal law allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve “skinny-label” generics and biosimilars that carve out patent-protected indications or regulatory exclusivities. But once a generic drug reaches the market through this process with a skinny label, it may often be substituted for indications that go beyond the ones listed on the skinny label. In fact, some state laws mandate that pharmacists substitute interchangeable generics for brand-name drugs, helping to decrease drug prices. In response to legal threats to the skinny-label pathway, Alexander C. Egilman and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, assessed the frequency of approval and marketing of skinny-label biosimilars from 2015 to 2021 and the resultant savings to Medicare.

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The authors estimated annual Part B (clinician-administered) savings from skinny-label biosimilars through 2020 by comparing actual biologic and skinny-label biosimilar spending with estimated biologic spending without competition using the Medicare Dashboard. They assumed that the unit price of the biologic would increase at its 5-year compound annual growth rate prior to competition.

In that period, the FDA approved 33 biosimilars linked to 11 biologics. Among them, 22 (66.7%) had a skinny label. Of 21 biosimilars marketed before 2022, 13 (61.9%) were launched with a skinny label. Of the 8 biologics linked to these 21 biosimilars, 5 of the first-to-market biosimilars had skinny labels (bevacizumab, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and rituximab), leading to earlier competition through 2021.

The estimated $1.5 billion in savings to Medicare from these skinny-label biosimilars over the 2015-2020 span represents 4.9% of the $30.2 billion that Medicare spent on the five biologics during this period. The researchers pointed out that once adalimumab (Humira) faces skinny-label biosimilar competition in 2023, savings will likely grow substantially.

In response to the research letter, an editor’s note by JAMA Internal Medicine Editorial Fellow Eric Ward, MD, and JAMA Internal Medicine Editor at Large and Online Editor Robert Steinbrook, MD, stated that, between 2015 and 2019, 24 (43%) of 56 brand-name drugs had competition from skinny-labeled generic formulations after first becoming available as generics.

The editors also referenced a JAMA Viewpoints article from 2021 that reviewed the most recent case challenging the skinny-label pathway in which GlaxoSmithKline sued Teva for its marketing of a skinny-label generic of the brand-name beta-blocker carvedilol (Coreg) that the plaintive claimed “induced physicians to prescribe carvedilol for indications that had been carved out by Teva’s skinny label, thus infringing GlaxoSmithKline’s patents.” A $235 million judgment against Teva was overturned by a district court and then reversed again by a Federal Circuit court that, after receiving criticism, reconsidered the case, and a panel affirmed the judgment against Teva.

“The Federal Circuit panel’s decision has the potential to put generic drugs that fail to adequately carve out indications from the brand name labeling at risk for damages related to infringement,” the authors wrote. Similar claims of infringement are being heard in other courts, they wrote, and they urged careful targeting of skinny-label carveouts, and suggest also that challenges to the arguments used against Teva focus on preservation of First Amendment rights as protection for lawful and accurate speech in drug labels.

“The legal uncertainties are likely to continue, as manufacturers pursue novel and complex strategies to protect the patents and regulatory exclusivities of brand-name drugs and biologics,” Dr. Ward and Dr. Steinbrook wrote, adding that “the path forward is for Congress to enact additional legislation that reaffirms and strengthens the permissibility of skinny labeling.”

The research letter’s corresponding author, Ameet Sarpatwari, PhD, JD, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, and assistant director for the Harvard Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, echoed concerns over the Teva case in an interview. “There has certainly been concern that should the appellate decision stand, there will be a chilling effect. As the lone dissenter in that case noted, ‘no skinny-label generic is safe.’ I think many generic and biosimilar manufacturers are awaiting to see whether the Supreme Court will take the case.”

He added: “I do not believe the likelihood of skinny-label-supportive legislation making it through Congress will be greatly diminished in a divided Congress. Democrats and Republicans alike should seek to promote competition in the marketplace, which is what the skinny-labeling pathway accomplishes.”

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest. The research was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

To the Editor:

The Moderna COVID-19 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was authorized for use on December 18, 2020, with the second dose beginning on January 15, 2021.^1-3 Some individuals who received the Moderna vaccine experienced an intense rash known as “COVID arm,” a harmless but bothersome adverse effect that typically appears within a week and is a localized and transient immunogenic response.⁴ COVID arm differs from most vaccine adverse effects. The rash emerges not immediately but 5 to 9 days after the initial dose—on average, 1 week later. Apart from being itchy, the rash does not appear to be harmful and is not a reason to hesitate getting vaccinated.

Dermatologists and allergists have been studying this adverse effect, which has been formally termed delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity. Of potential clinical consequence is that the efficacy of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine may be harmed if postvaccination dermal reactions necessitate systemic corticosteroid therapy. Because this vaccine stimulates an immune response as viral RNA integrates in cells secondary to production of the spike protein of the virus, the skin may be affected secondarily and manifestations of any underlying disease may be aggravated.⁵ We report a patient who developed a psoriasiform dermatitis after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine.

A 65-year-old woman presented to her primary care physician because of the severity of psoriasiform dermatitis that developed 5 days after she received the first dose of the Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The patient had a medical history of Sjögren syndrome. Her medication history was negative, and her family history was negative for autoimmune disease. Physical examination by primary care revealed an erythematous scaly rash with plaques and papules on the neck and back (Figure 1). The patient presented again to primary care 2 days later with swollen, painful, discolored digits (Figure 2) and a stiff, sore neck.

Laboratory results were positive for anti–Sjögren syndrome–related antigens A and B. A complete blood cell count; comprehensive metabolic panel; erythrocyte sedimentation rate; and assays of rheumatoid factor, C-reactive protein, and anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide were within reference range. A biopsy of a lesion on the back showed psoriasiform dermatitis with confluent parakeratosis and scattered necrotic keratinocytes. There was superficial perivascular inflammation with rare eosinophils (Figure 3).

The patient was treated with a course of systemic corticosteroids. The rash resolved in 1 week. She did not receive the second dose due to the rash.

Two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines—Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna—have been granted emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration.⁶ The safety profile of the mRNA-1273 vaccine for the median 2-month follow-up showed no safety concerns.³ Minor localized adverse effects (eg, pain, redness, swelling) have been observed more frequently with the vaccines than with placebo. Systemic symptoms, such as fever, fatigue, headache, and muscle and joint pain, also were seen somewhat more often with the vaccines than with placebo; most such effects occurred 24 to 48 hours after vaccination.^3,6,7 The frequency of unsolicited adverse events and serious adverse events reported during the 28-day period after vaccination generally was similar among participants in the vaccine and placebo groups.³

There are 2 types of reactions to COVID-19 vaccination: immediate and delayed. Immediate reactions usually are due to anaphylaxis, requiring prompt recognition and treatment with epinephrine to stop rapid progression of life-threatening symptoms. Delayed reactions include localized reactions, such as urticaria and benign exanthema; serum sickness and serum sickness–like reactions; fever; and rare skin, organ, and neurologic sequelae.^1,6-8

Cutaneous manifestations, present in 16% to 50% of patients with Sjögren syndrome, are considered one of the most common extraglandular presentations of the syndrome. They are classified as nonvascular (eg, xerosis, angular cheilitis, eyelid dermatitis, annular erythema) and vascular (eg, Raynaud phenomenon, vasculitis).^9-11 Our patient did not have any of those findings. She had not taken any medications before the rash appeared, thereby ruling out a drug reaction.

The differential for our patient included post–urinary tract infection immune-reactive arthritis and rash, which is not typical with Escherichia coli infection but is described with infection with Chlamydia species and Salmonella species. Moreover, post–urinary tract infection immune-reactive arthritis and rash appear mostly on the palms and soles. Systemic lupus erythematosus–like rashes have a different histology and appear on sun-exposed areas; our patient’s rash was found mainly on unexposed areas.¹²

Because our patient received the Moderna vaccine 5 days before the rash appeared and later developed swelling of the digits with morning stiffness, a delayed serum sickness–like reaction secondary to COVID-19 vaccination was possible.^3,6

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna incorporate a lipid-based nanoparticle carrier system that prevents rapid enzymatic degradation of mRNA and facilitates in vivo delivery of mRNA. This lipid-based nanoparticle carrier system is further stabilized by a polyethylene glycol 2000 lipid conjugate that provides a hydrophilic layer, thus prolonging half-life. The presence of lipid polyethylene glycol 2000 in mRNA vaccines has led to concern that this component could be implicated in anaphylaxis.⁶

COVID-19 antigens can give rise to varying clinical manifestations that are directly related to viral tissue damage or are indirectly induced by the antiviral immune response.^13,14 Hyperactivation of the immune system to eradicate COVID-19 may trigger autoimmunity; several immune-mediated disorders have been described in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. Dermal manifestations include cutaneous rash and vasculitis.^13-16 Crucial immunologic steps occur during SARS-CoV-2 infection that may link autoimmunity to COVID-19.^13,14 In preliminary published data on the efficacy of the Moderna vaccine on 45 trial enrollees, 3 did not receive the second dose of vaccination, including 1 who developed urticaria on both legs 5 days after the first dose.¹

Introduction of viral RNA can induce autoimmunity that can be explained by various phenomena, including epitope spreading, molecular mimicry, cryptic antigen, and bystander activation. Remarkably, more than one-third of immunogenic proteins in SARS-CoV-2 have potentially problematic homology to proteins that are key to the human adaptive immune system.⁵

Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 seems to induce organ injury through alternative mechanisms beyond direct viral infection, including immunologic injury. In some situations, hyperactivation of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 RNA can result in autoimmune disease. COVID-19 has been associated with immune-mediated systemic or organ-selective manifestations, some of which fulfill the diagnostic or classification criteria of specific autoimmune diseases. It is unclear whether those medical disorders are the result of transitory postinfectious epiphenomena.⁵

A few studies have shown that patients with rheumatic disease have an incidence and prevalence of COVID-19 that is similar to the general population. A similar pattern has been detected in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality rates, even among patients with an autoimmune disease, such as rheumatoid arthritis and Sjögren syndrome.^5,17 Furthermore, exacerbation of preexisting rheumatic symptoms may be due to hyperactivation of antiviral pathways in a person with an autoimmune disease.^17-19 The findings in our patient suggested a direct role for the vaccine in skin manifestations, rather than for reactivation or development of new systemic autoimmune processes, such as systemic lupus erythematosus.

Exacerbation of psoriasis following COVID-19 vaccination has been described²⁰; however, the case patient did not have a history of psoriasis. The mechanism(s) of such exacerbation remain unclear; COVID-19 vaccine–induced helper T cells (T_H17) may play a role.²¹ Other skin manifestations encountered following COVID-19 vaccination include lichen planus, leukocytoclastic vasculitic rash, erythema multiforme–like rash, and pityriasis rosea–like rash.^22-25 The immune mechanisms of these manifestations remain unclear.

The clinical presentation of delayed vaccination reactions can be attributed to the timing of symptoms and, in this case, the immune-mediated background of a psoriasiform reaction. Although adverse reactions to the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine are rare, more individuals should be studied after vaccination to confirm and better understand this phenomenon.

To the Editor:

The Moderna COVID-19 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was authorized for use on December 18, 2020, with the second dose beginning on January 15, 2021.^1-3 Some individuals who received the Moderna vaccine experienced an intense rash known as “COVID arm,” a harmless but bothersome adverse effect that typically appears within a week and is a localized and transient immunogenic response.⁴ COVID arm differs from most vaccine adverse effects. The rash emerges not immediately but 5 to 9 days after the initial dose—on average, 1 week later. Apart from being itchy, the rash does not appear to be harmful and is not a reason to hesitate getting vaccinated.

Dermatologists and allergists have been studying this adverse effect, which has been formally termed delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity. Of potential clinical consequence is that the efficacy of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine may be harmed if postvaccination dermal reactions necessitate systemic corticosteroid therapy. Because this vaccine stimulates an immune response as viral RNA integrates in cells secondary to production of the spike protein of the virus, the skin may be affected secondarily and manifestations of any underlying disease may be aggravated.⁵ We report a patient who developed a psoriasiform dermatitis after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine.

A 65-year-old woman presented to her primary care physician because of the severity of psoriasiform dermatitis that developed 5 days after she received the first dose of the Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The patient had a medical history of Sjögren syndrome. Her medication history was negative, and her family history was negative for autoimmune disease. Physical examination by primary care revealed an erythematous scaly rash with plaques and papules on the neck and back (Figure 1). The patient presented again to primary care 2 days later with swollen, painful, discolored digits (Figure 2) and a stiff, sore neck.

Laboratory results were positive for anti–Sjögren syndrome–related antigens A and B. A complete blood cell count; comprehensive metabolic panel; erythrocyte sedimentation rate; and assays of rheumatoid factor, C-reactive protein, and anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide were within reference range. A biopsy of a lesion on the back showed psoriasiform dermatitis with confluent parakeratosis and scattered necrotic keratinocytes. There was superficial perivascular inflammation with rare eosinophils (Figure 3).

The patient was treated with a course of systemic corticosteroids. The rash resolved in 1 week. She did not receive the second dose due to the rash.

Two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines—Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna—have been granted emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration.⁶ The safety profile of the mRNA-1273 vaccine for the median 2-month follow-up showed no safety concerns.³ Minor localized adverse effects (eg, pain, redness, swelling) have been observed more frequently with the vaccines than with placebo. Systemic symptoms, such as fever, fatigue, headache, and muscle and joint pain, also were seen somewhat more often with the vaccines than with placebo; most such effects occurred 24 to 48 hours after vaccination.^3,6,7 The frequency of unsolicited adverse events and serious adverse events reported during the 28-day period after vaccination generally was similar among participants in the vaccine and placebo groups.³

There are 2 types of reactions to COVID-19 vaccination: immediate and delayed. Immediate reactions usually are due to anaphylaxis, requiring prompt recognition and treatment with epinephrine to stop rapid progression of life-threatening symptoms. Delayed reactions include localized reactions, such as urticaria and benign exanthema; serum sickness and serum sickness–like reactions; fever; and rare skin, organ, and neurologic sequelae.^1,6-8

Cutaneous manifestations, present in 16% to 50% of patients with Sjögren syndrome, are considered one of the most common extraglandular presentations of the syndrome. They are classified as nonvascular (eg, xerosis, angular cheilitis, eyelid dermatitis, annular erythema) and vascular (eg, Raynaud phenomenon, vasculitis).^9-11 Our patient did not have any of those findings. She had not taken any medications before the rash appeared, thereby ruling out a drug reaction.

The differential for our patient included post–urinary tract infection immune-reactive arthritis and rash, which is not typical with Escherichia coli infection but is described with infection with Chlamydia species and Salmonella species. Moreover, post–urinary tract infection immune-reactive arthritis and rash appear mostly on the palms and soles. Systemic lupus erythematosus–like rashes have a different histology and appear on sun-exposed areas; our patient’s rash was found mainly on unexposed areas.¹²

Because our patient received the Moderna vaccine 5 days before the rash appeared and later developed swelling of the digits with morning stiffness, a delayed serum sickness–like reaction secondary to COVID-19 vaccination was possible.^3,6

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna incorporate a lipid-based nanoparticle carrier system that prevents rapid enzymatic degradation of mRNA and facilitates in vivo delivery of mRNA. This lipid-based nanoparticle carrier system is further stabilized by a polyethylene glycol 2000 lipid conjugate that provides a hydrophilic layer, thus prolonging half-life. The presence of lipid polyethylene glycol 2000 in mRNA vaccines has led to concern that this component could be implicated in anaphylaxis.⁶

COVID-19 antigens can give rise to varying clinical manifestations that are directly related to viral tissue damage or are indirectly induced by the antiviral immune response.^13,14 Hyperactivation of the immune system to eradicate COVID-19 may trigger autoimmunity; several immune-mediated disorders have been described in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. Dermal manifestations include cutaneous rash and vasculitis.^13-16 Crucial immunologic steps occur during SARS-CoV-2 infection that may link autoimmunity to COVID-19.^13,14 In preliminary published data on the efficacy of the Moderna vaccine on 45 trial enrollees, 3 did not receive the second dose of vaccination, including 1 who developed urticaria on both legs 5 days after the first dose.¹

Introduction of viral RNA can induce autoimmunity that can be explained by various phenomena, including epitope spreading, molecular mimicry, cryptic antigen, and bystander activation. Remarkably, more than one-third of immunogenic proteins in SARS-CoV-2 have potentially problematic homology to proteins that are key to the human adaptive immune system.⁵

Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 seems to induce organ injury through alternative mechanisms beyond direct viral infection, including immunologic injury. In some situations, hyperactivation of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 RNA can result in autoimmune disease. COVID-19 has been associated with immune-mediated systemic or organ-selective manifestations, some of which fulfill the diagnostic or classification criteria of specific autoimmune diseases. It is unclear whether those medical disorders are the result of transitory postinfectious epiphenomena.⁵

A few studies have shown that patients with rheumatic disease have an incidence and prevalence of COVID-19 that is similar to the general population. A similar pattern has been detected in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality rates, even among patients with an autoimmune disease, such as rheumatoid arthritis and Sjögren syndrome.^5,17 Furthermore, exacerbation of preexisting rheumatic symptoms may be due to hyperactivation of antiviral pathways in a person with an autoimmune disease.^17-19 The findings in our patient suggested a direct role for the vaccine in skin manifestations, rather than for reactivation or development of new systemic autoimmune processes, such as systemic lupus erythematosus.

Exacerbation of psoriasis following COVID-19 vaccination has been described²⁰; however, the case patient did not have a history of psoriasis. The mechanism(s) of such exacerbation remain unclear; COVID-19 vaccine–induced helper T cells (T_H17) may play a role.²¹ Other skin manifestations encountered following COVID-19 vaccination include lichen planus, leukocytoclastic vasculitic rash, erythema multiforme–like rash, and pityriasis rosea–like rash.^22-25 The immune mechanisms of these manifestations remain unclear.

The clinical presentation of delayed vaccination reactions can be attributed to the timing of symptoms and, in this case, the immune-mediated background of a psoriasiform reaction. Although adverse reactions to the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine are rare, more individuals should be studied after vaccination to confirm and better understand this phenomenon.

To the Editor:

The Moderna COVID-19 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was authorized for use on December 18, 2020, with the second dose beginning on January 15, 2021.^1-3 Some individuals who received the Moderna vaccine experienced an intense rash known as “COVID arm,” a harmless but bothersome adverse effect that typically appears within a week and is a localized and transient immunogenic response.⁴ COVID arm differs from most vaccine adverse effects. The rash emerges not immediately but 5 to 9 days after the initial dose—on average, 1 week later. Apart from being itchy, the rash does not appear to be harmful and is not a reason to hesitate getting vaccinated.

Dermatologists and allergists have been studying this adverse effect, which has been formally termed delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity. Of potential clinical consequence is that the efficacy of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine may be harmed if postvaccination dermal reactions necessitate systemic corticosteroid therapy. Because this vaccine stimulates an immune response as viral RNA integrates in cells secondary to production of the spike protein of the virus, the skin may be affected secondarily and manifestations of any underlying disease may be aggravated.⁵ We report a patient who developed a psoriasiform dermatitis after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine.

A 65-year-old woman presented to her primary care physician because of the severity of psoriasiform dermatitis that developed 5 days after she received the first dose of the Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The patient had a medical history of Sjögren syndrome. Her medication history was negative, and her family history was negative for autoimmune disease. Physical examination by primary care revealed an erythematous scaly rash with plaques and papules on the neck and back (Figure 1). The patient presented again to primary care 2 days later with swollen, painful, discolored digits (Figure 2) and a stiff, sore neck.

Laboratory results were positive for anti–Sjögren syndrome–related antigens A and B. A complete blood cell count; comprehensive metabolic panel; erythrocyte sedimentation rate; and assays of rheumatoid factor, C-reactive protein, and anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide were within reference range. A biopsy of a lesion on the back showed psoriasiform dermatitis with confluent parakeratosis and scattered necrotic keratinocytes. There was superficial perivascular inflammation with rare eosinophils (Figure 3).

The patient was treated with a course of systemic corticosteroids. The rash resolved in 1 week. She did not receive the second dose due to the rash.

Two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines—Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna—have been granted emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration.⁶ The safety profile of the mRNA-1273 vaccine for the median 2-month follow-up showed no safety concerns.³ Minor localized adverse effects (eg, pain, redness, swelling) have been observed more frequently with the vaccines than with placebo. Systemic symptoms, such as fever, fatigue, headache, and muscle and joint pain, also were seen somewhat more often with the vaccines than with placebo; most such effects occurred 24 to 48 hours after vaccination.^3,6,7 The frequency of unsolicited adverse events and serious adverse events reported during the 28-day period after vaccination generally was similar among participants in the vaccine and placebo groups.³

There are 2 types of reactions to COVID-19 vaccination: immediate and delayed. Immediate reactions usually are due to anaphylaxis, requiring prompt recognition and treatment with epinephrine to stop rapid progression of life-threatening symptoms. Delayed reactions include localized reactions, such as urticaria and benign exanthema; serum sickness and serum sickness–like reactions; fever; and rare skin, organ, and neurologic sequelae.^1,6-8

Cutaneous manifestations, present in 16% to 50% of patients with Sjögren syndrome, are considered one of the most common extraglandular presentations of the syndrome. They are classified as nonvascular (eg, xerosis, angular cheilitis, eyelid dermatitis, annular erythema) and vascular (eg, Raynaud phenomenon, vasculitis).^9-11 Our patient did not have any of those findings. She had not taken any medications before the rash appeared, thereby ruling out a drug reaction.

The differential for our patient included post–urinary tract infection immune-reactive arthritis and rash, which is not typical with Escherichia coli infection but is described with infection with Chlamydia species and Salmonella species. Moreover, post–urinary tract infection immune-reactive arthritis and rash appear mostly on the palms and soles. Systemic lupus erythematosus–like rashes have a different histology and appear on sun-exposed areas; our patient’s rash was found mainly on unexposed areas.¹²

Because our patient received the Moderna vaccine 5 days before the rash appeared and later developed swelling of the digits with morning stiffness, a delayed serum sickness–like reaction secondary to COVID-19 vaccination was possible.^3,6

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna incorporate a lipid-based nanoparticle carrier system that prevents rapid enzymatic degradation of mRNA and facilitates in vivo delivery of mRNA. This lipid-based nanoparticle carrier system is further stabilized by a polyethylene glycol 2000 lipid conjugate that provides a hydrophilic layer, thus prolonging half-life. The presence of lipid polyethylene glycol 2000 in mRNA vaccines has led to concern that this component could be implicated in anaphylaxis.⁶

COVID-19 antigens can give rise to varying clinical manifestations that are directly related to viral tissue damage or are indirectly induced by the antiviral immune response.^13,14 Hyperactivation of the immune system to eradicate COVID-19 may trigger autoimmunity; several immune-mediated disorders have been described in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2. Dermal manifestations include cutaneous rash and vasculitis.^13-16 Crucial immunologic steps occur during SARS-CoV-2 infection that may link autoimmunity to COVID-19.^13,14 In preliminary published data on the efficacy of the Moderna vaccine on 45 trial enrollees, 3 did not receive the second dose of vaccination, including 1 who developed urticaria on both legs 5 days after the first dose.¹

Introduction of viral RNA can induce autoimmunity that can be explained by various phenomena, including epitope spreading, molecular mimicry, cryptic antigen, and bystander activation. Remarkably, more than one-third of immunogenic proteins in SARS-CoV-2 have potentially problematic homology to proteins that are key to the human adaptive immune system.⁵

Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 seems to induce organ injury through alternative mechanisms beyond direct viral infection, including immunologic injury. In some situations, hyperactivation of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 RNA can result in autoimmune disease. COVID-19 has been associated with immune-mediated systemic or organ-selective manifestations, some of which fulfill the diagnostic or classification criteria of specific autoimmune diseases. It is unclear whether those medical disorders are the result of transitory postinfectious epiphenomena.⁵

A few studies have shown that patients with rheumatic disease have an incidence and prevalence of COVID-19 that is similar to the general population. A similar pattern has been detected in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality rates, even among patients with an autoimmune disease, such as rheumatoid arthritis and Sjögren syndrome.^5,17 Furthermore, exacerbation of preexisting rheumatic symptoms may be due to hyperactivation of antiviral pathways in a person with an autoimmune disease.^17-19 The findings in our patient suggested a direct role for the vaccine in skin manifestations, rather than for reactivation or development of new systemic autoimmune processes, such as systemic lupus erythematosus.

Exacerbation of psoriasis following COVID-19 vaccination has been described²⁰; however, the case patient did not have a history of psoriasis. The mechanism(s) of such exacerbation remain unclear; COVID-19 vaccine–induced helper T cells (T_H17) may play a role.²¹ Other skin manifestations encountered following COVID-19 vaccination include lichen planus, leukocytoclastic vasculitic rash, erythema multiforme–like rash, and pityriasis rosea–like rash.^22-25 The immune mechanisms of these manifestations remain unclear.

The clinical presentation of delayed vaccination reactions can be attributed to the timing of symptoms and, in this case, the immune-mediated background of a psoriasiform reaction. Although adverse reactions to the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine are rare, more individuals should be studied after vaccination to confirm and better understand this phenomenon.

LAS VEGAS – With the right regimen, a majority of patients with psoriasis can achieve at least a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 score, Jennifer Soung, MD, said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

The array of treatment options includes mainstay topicals, new nonsteroidals, traditional oral systemics, new oral systemics, biologics, and light therapy, said Dr. Soung, director of clinical research at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Santa Ana, Calif. However, some areas of the body require unique considerations for successful psoriasis treatment, notably the scalp, face, intertriginous areas, palms and soles, and nails, she said.

For these areas, make sure the diagnosis of psoriasis is correct, to avoid wasting time on the wrong course of treatment, Dr. Soung emphasized.

Scalp strategies

The scalp is often the first area of the body affected by psoriasis, and patients with severe scalp psoriasis may have minimal plaques on the body, Dr. Soung said. However, a differential diagnosis should include seborrheic dermatitis, she noted.

For most cases of scalp psoriasis, “start with localized topical treatment,” such as vitamin D and corticosteroid combination therapy, or excimer laser, Dr. Soung advised.

Systemic treatments with demonstrated effectiveness on scalp psoriasis in post hoc analyses of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis include adalimumab, etanercept, ixekizumab, and secukinumab. Studies specifically focused on treatment of scalp psoriasis have shown success with secukinumab and apremilast, she noted.

Roflumilast foam, 0.3%, is in development and is an emerging option for scalp psoriasis. (A cream formulation of roflumilast, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, was approved for treatment of plaque psoriasis in July 2022.) A phase 2b study of roflumilast foam showed that approximately one-third of patients with scalp psoriasis achieved a status of clear based on scalp-investigator global assessment, compared with approximately 3% of those on vehicle, and similar results were seen in a recently completed phase 3 trial for scalp and body psoriasis, she added.
 

Facial psoriasis

Patients with facial psoriasis tend to be younger, and they may have more severe disease overall, Dr. Soung said. Given the sensitivity of facial skin, “it is nice to have a nonsteroidal option,” she noted. Current novel nonsteroidal therapies include a cream formulation of tapinarof, an aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, which was approved earlier this year for plaque psoriasis in adults, and roflumilast cream. Vitamin D and topical calcineurin inhibitors are options as well, she said.

Intertriginous tricks

Intertriginous (inverse) psoriasis is distinct from other areas in that the plaques are usually smooth and well-demarcated, with little or no scaling, Dr. Soung said. Erosions or signs of maceration may be present. The prevalence of inverse psoriasis is approximately 30%, but the prevalence on external genitalia is 80%, she noted. For inverse psoriasis, topical corticosteroids can result in adverse events such as poor wound healing and skin fragility, and some patients resist the idea of a steroid and don’t adhere to the medication, she added. Dr. Soung recommended topical corticosteroids for the short term, and topical calcineurin inhibitors or calcipotriol for the long term.

New topical options for inverse psoriasis include tapinarof and roflumilast, Dr. Soung said. For tapinarof, the phase 3 PSOARING program included assessment of tolerability in sensitive skin areas and found little to no irritation. Similarly, treatment with roflumilast cream was effective and well tolerated by patients with intertriginous plaque psoriasis in the DERMIS-1 and DERMIS-2 studies, she said.
 

Genital psoriasis

Ask patients with psoriasis about genital psoriasis, because they often are too embarrassed to provide that information on their own, said Dr. Soung. In fact, 63% of patients with psoriasis report ever experiencing genital psoriasis, but it often goes undiagnosed and undertreated, which has a significant impact on patient quality of life and sexual health.

A differential diagnosis of genital psoriasis should include dermatitis, tinea or candidiasis, and even squamous cell carcinoma, she noted. Other considerations include fixed drug eruption, lichen nitidus, lichen sclerosus, and scabies.

Dr. Soung’s first line of treatment for genital psoriasis is low-potency topical corticosteroids for 2-4 weeks. If long-term topical therapy is needed, alternatives include calcineurin inhibitors and vitamin D analogs, she said. The new topicals roflumilast and tapinarof are options as well, she said.

For those patients with severe and extensive genital psoriasis, consider systemic therapy, possibly with ixekizumab or secukinumab, she added. Patients with moderate to severe genital psoriasis treated with apremilast have shown improvement at week 16, in an ongoing clinical trial, she noted.

Palmoplantar involvement

For patients with palmar plantar psoriasis, “don’t underestimate the impact on quality of life,” said Dr. Soung. Approximately 12%-16% of patients with psoriasis report palmoplantar involvement, she noted.

Palmoplantar psoriasis can be stubborn, and many patients will need combination therapy with topicals and systemics, she said. “I am very curious about how well our new topical nonsteroidals will work in these areas,” she added.

Dr. Soung starts patients with palmoplantar psoriasis with a “potent to super-potent” twice daily topical corticosteroid, with or without occlusion. Her first-line systemic therapy is acitretin, 10-50 mg daily. However, keep in mind that acitretin is contraindicated in pregnancy, and also may cause side effects including cheilitis, alopecia, and peeling skin, she cautioned.

During the question and answer session, Dr. Soung was asked whether she routinely biopsies patients with palmoplantar psoriasis. “Not always,” was her answer. Instead, she looks for clues elsewhere on the body to confirm the diagnosis.
 

Nail know-how

Approximately 23%-27% of patients with psoriasis experience nail involvement, said Dr. Soung. Nail psoriasis can appear on the nail plate as pitting, onycholysis, or subungual hyperkeratosis, or in the nail bed as splinter hemorrhages or oil spots, she said.

For patients with psoriasis of the nails only, Dr. Soung described the use of high-potency topical corticosteroids, with or without calcipotriol. In her experience, she said that intralesional steroids for nail psoriasis are torturous to patients. For patients who have failed topical therapy or have psoriasis in other areas, with or without psoriatic arthritis, she advised the use of either IL-17 antagonists (secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab) or IL-23 antagonists (risankizumab, guselkumab).

Dr. Soung disclosed serving as a consultant or advisor for Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Dermavant, and Novartis. She also disclosed serving as a speaker or member of the speakers’ bureau for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Celgene, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, as well as research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Castle Biosciences, Dermavant, KoBio, Kyowa Kirin, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

LAS VEGAS – With the right regimen, a majority of patients with psoriasis can achieve at least a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 score, Jennifer Soung, MD, said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

The array of treatment options includes mainstay topicals, new nonsteroidals, traditional oral systemics, new oral systemics, biologics, and light therapy, said Dr. Soung, director of clinical research at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Santa Ana, Calif. However, some areas of the body require unique considerations for successful psoriasis treatment, notably the scalp, face, intertriginous areas, palms and soles, and nails, she said.

For these areas, make sure the diagnosis of psoriasis is correct, to avoid wasting time on the wrong course of treatment, Dr. Soung emphasized.

Scalp strategies

The scalp is often the first area of the body affected by psoriasis, and patients with severe scalp psoriasis may have minimal plaques on the body, Dr. Soung said. However, a differential diagnosis should include seborrheic dermatitis, she noted.

For most cases of scalp psoriasis, “start with localized topical treatment,” such as vitamin D and corticosteroid combination therapy, or excimer laser, Dr. Soung advised.

Systemic treatments with demonstrated effectiveness on scalp psoriasis in post hoc analyses of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis include adalimumab, etanercept, ixekizumab, and secukinumab. Studies specifically focused on treatment of scalp psoriasis have shown success with secukinumab and apremilast, she noted.

Roflumilast foam, 0.3%, is in development and is an emerging option for scalp psoriasis. (A cream formulation of roflumilast, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, was approved for treatment of plaque psoriasis in July 2022.) A phase 2b study of roflumilast foam showed that approximately one-third of patients with scalp psoriasis achieved a status of clear based on scalp-investigator global assessment, compared with approximately 3% of those on vehicle, and similar results were seen in a recently completed phase 3 trial for scalp and body psoriasis, she added.
 

Facial psoriasis

Patients with facial psoriasis tend to be younger, and they may have more severe disease overall, Dr. Soung said. Given the sensitivity of facial skin, “it is nice to have a nonsteroidal option,” she noted. Current novel nonsteroidal therapies include a cream formulation of tapinarof, an aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, which was approved earlier this year for plaque psoriasis in adults, and roflumilast cream. Vitamin D and topical calcineurin inhibitors are options as well, she said.

Intertriginous tricks

Intertriginous (inverse) psoriasis is distinct from other areas in that the plaques are usually smooth and well-demarcated, with little or no scaling, Dr. Soung said. Erosions or signs of maceration may be present. The prevalence of inverse psoriasis is approximately 30%, but the prevalence on external genitalia is 80%, she noted. For inverse psoriasis, topical corticosteroids can result in adverse events such as poor wound healing and skin fragility, and some patients resist the idea of a steroid and don’t adhere to the medication, she added. Dr. Soung recommended topical corticosteroids for the short term, and topical calcineurin inhibitors or calcipotriol for the long term.

New topical options for inverse psoriasis include tapinarof and roflumilast, Dr. Soung said. For tapinarof, the phase 3 PSOARING program included assessment of tolerability in sensitive skin areas and found little to no irritation. Similarly, treatment with roflumilast cream was effective and well tolerated by patients with intertriginous plaque psoriasis in the DERMIS-1 and DERMIS-2 studies, she said.
 

Genital psoriasis

Ask patients with psoriasis about genital psoriasis, because they often are too embarrassed to provide that information on their own, said Dr. Soung. In fact, 63% of patients with psoriasis report ever experiencing genital psoriasis, but it often goes undiagnosed and undertreated, which has a significant impact on patient quality of life and sexual health.

A differential diagnosis of genital psoriasis should include dermatitis, tinea or candidiasis, and even squamous cell carcinoma, she noted. Other considerations include fixed drug eruption, lichen nitidus, lichen sclerosus, and scabies.

Dr. Soung’s first line of treatment for genital psoriasis is low-potency topical corticosteroids for 2-4 weeks. If long-term topical therapy is needed, alternatives include calcineurin inhibitors and vitamin D analogs, she said. The new topicals roflumilast and tapinarof are options as well, she said.

For those patients with severe and extensive genital psoriasis, consider systemic therapy, possibly with ixekizumab or secukinumab, she added. Patients with moderate to severe genital psoriasis treated with apremilast have shown improvement at week 16, in an ongoing clinical trial, she noted.

Palmoplantar involvement

For patients with palmar plantar psoriasis, “don’t underestimate the impact on quality of life,” said Dr. Soung. Approximately 12%-16% of patients with psoriasis report palmoplantar involvement, she noted.

Palmoplantar psoriasis can be stubborn, and many patients will need combination therapy with topicals and systemics, she said. “I am very curious about how well our new topical nonsteroidals will work in these areas,” she added.

Dr. Soung starts patients with palmoplantar psoriasis with a “potent to super-potent” twice daily topical corticosteroid, with or without occlusion. Her first-line systemic therapy is acitretin, 10-50 mg daily. However, keep in mind that acitretin is contraindicated in pregnancy, and also may cause side effects including cheilitis, alopecia, and peeling skin, she cautioned.

During the question and answer session, Dr. Soung was asked whether she routinely biopsies patients with palmoplantar psoriasis. “Not always,” was her answer. Instead, she looks for clues elsewhere on the body to confirm the diagnosis.
 

Nail know-how

Approximately 23%-27% of patients with psoriasis experience nail involvement, said Dr. Soung. Nail psoriasis can appear on the nail plate as pitting, onycholysis, or subungual hyperkeratosis, or in the nail bed as splinter hemorrhages or oil spots, she said.

For patients with psoriasis of the nails only, Dr. Soung described the use of high-potency topical corticosteroids, with or without calcipotriol. In her experience, she said that intralesional steroids for nail psoriasis are torturous to patients. For patients who have failed topical therapy or have psoriasis in other areas, with or without psoriatic arthritis, she advised the use of either IL-17 antagonists (secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab) or IL-23 antagonists (risankizumab, guselkumab).

Dr. Soung disclosed serving as a consultant or advisor for Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Dermavant, and Novartis. She also disclosed serving as a speaker or member of the speakers’ bureau for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Celgene, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, as well as research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Castle Biosciences, Dermavant, KoBio, Kyowa Kirin, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

LAS VEGAS – With the right regimen, a majority of patients with psoriasis can achieve at least a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 score, Jennifer Soung, MD, said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

The array of treatment options includes mainstay topicals, new nonsteroidals, traditional oral systemics, new oral systemics, biologics, and light therapy, said Dr. Soung, director of clinical research at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Santa Ana, Calif. However, some areas of the body require unique considerations for successful psoriasis treatment, notably the scalp, face, intertriginous areas, palms and soles, and nails, she said.

For these areas, make sure the diagnosis of psoriasis is correct, to avoid wasting time on the wrong course of treatment, Dr. Soung emphasized.

Scalp strategies

The scalp is often the first area of the body affected by psoriasis, and patients with severe scalp psoriasis may have minimal plaques on the body, Dr. Soung said. However, a differential diagnosis should include seborrheic dermatitis, she noted.

For most cases of scalp psoriasis, “start with localized topical treatment,” such as vitamin D and corticosteroid combination therapy, or excimer laser, Dr. Soung advised.

Systemic treatments with demonstrated effectiveness on scalp psoriasis in post hoc analyses of patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis include adalimumab, etanercept, ixekizumab, and secukinumab. Studies specifically focused on treatment of scalp psoriasis have shown success with secukinumab and apremilast, she noted.

Roflumilast foam, 0.3%, is in development and is an emerging option for scalp psoriasis. (A cream formulation of roflumilast, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, was approved for treatment of plaque psoriasis in July 2022.) A phase 2b study of roflumilast foam showed that approximately one-third of patients with scalp psoriasis achieved a status of clear based on scalp-investigator global assessment, compared with approximately 3% of those on vehicle, and similar results were seen in a recently completed phase 3 trial for scalp and body psoriasis, she added.
 

Facial psoriasis

Patients with facial psoriasis tend to be younger, and they may have more severe disease overall, Dr. Soung said. Given the sensitivity of facial skin, “it is nice to have a nonsteroidal option,” she noted. Current novel nonsteroidal therapies include a cream formulation of tapinarof, an aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, which was approved earlier this year for plaque psoriasis in adults, and roflumilast cream. Vitamin D and topical calcineurin inhibitors are options as well, she said.

Intertriginous tricks

Intertriginous (inverse) psoriasis is distinct from other areas in that the plaques are usually smooth and well-demarcated, with little or no scaling, Dr. Soung said. Erosions or signs of maceration may be present. The prevalence of inverse psoriasis is approximately 30%, but the prevalence on external genitalia is 80%, she noted. For inverse psoriasis, topical corticosteroids can result in adverse events such as poor wound healing and skin fragility, and some patients resist the idea of a steroid and don’t adhere to the medication, she added. Dr. Soung recommended topical corticosteroids for the short term, and topical calcineurin inhibitors or calcipotriol for the long term.

New topical options for inverse psoriasis include tapinarof and roflumilast, Dr. Soung said. For tapinarof, the phase 3 PSOARING program included assessment of tolerability in sensitive skin areas and found little to no irritation. Similarly, treatment with roflumilast cream was effective and well tolerated by patients with intertriginous plaque psoriasis in the DERMIS-1 and DERMIS-2 studies, she said.
 

Genital psoriasis

Ask patients with psoriasis about genital psoriasis, because they often are too embarrassed to provide that information on their own, said Dr. Soung. In fact, 63% of patients with psoriasis report ever experiencing genital psoriasis, but it often goes undiagnosed and undertreated, which has a significant impact on patient quality of life and sexual health.

A differential diagnosis of genital psoriasis should include dermatitis, tinea or candidiasis, and even squamous cell carcinoma, she noted. Other considerations include fixed drug eruption, lichen nitidus, lichen sclerosus, and scabies.

Dr. Soung’s first line of treatment for genital psoriasis is low-potency topical corticosteroids for 2-4 weeks. If long-term topical therapy is needed, alternatives include calcineurin inhibitors and vitamin D analogs, she said. The new topicals roflumilast and tapinarof are options as well, she said.

For those patients with severe and extensive genital psoriasis, consider systemic therapy, possibly with ixekizumab or secukinumab, she added. Patients with moderate to severe genital psoriasis treated with apremilast have shown improvement at week 16, in an ongoing clinical trial, she noted.

Palmoplantar involvement

For patients with palmar plantar psoriasis, “don’t underestimate the impact on quality of life,” said Dr. Soung. Approximately 12%-16% of patients with psoriasis report palmoplantar involvement, she noted.

Palmoplantar psoriasis can be stubborn, and many patients will need combination therapy with topicals and systemics, she said. “I am very curious about how well our new topical nonsteroidals will work in these areas,” she added.

Dr. Soung starts patients with palmoplantar psoriasis with a “potent to super-potent” twice daily topical corticosteroid, with or without occlusion. Her first-line systemic therapy is acitretin, 10-50 mg daily. However, keep in mind that acitretin is contraindicated in pregnancy, and also may cause side effects including cheilitis, alopecia, and peeling skin, she cautioned.

During the question and answer session, Dr. Soung was asked whether she routinely biopsies patients with palmoplantar psoriasis. “Not always,” was her answer. Instead, she looks for clues elsewhere on the body to confirm the diagnosis.
 

Nail know-how

Approximately 23%-27% of patients with psoriasis experience nail involvement, said Dr. Soung. Nail psoriasis can appear on the nail plate as pitting, onycholysis, or subungual hyperkeratosis, or in the nail bed as splinter hemorrhages or oil spots, she said.

For patients with psoriasis of the nails only, Dr. Soung described the use of high-potency topical corticosteroids, with or without calcipotriol. In her experience, she said that intralesional steroids for nail psoriasis are torturous to patients. For patients who have failed topical therapy or have psoriasis in other areas, with or without psoriatic arthritis, she advised the use of either IL-17 antagonists (secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab) or IL-23 antagonists (risankizumab, guselkumab).

Dr. Soung disclosed serving as a consultant or advisor for Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Dermavant, and Novartis. She also disclosed serving as a speaker or member of the speakers’ bureau for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Celgene, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi, as well as research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Castle Biosciences, Dermavant, KoBio, Kyowa Kirin, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
 

Vedolizumab (Entyvio) and ustekinumab (Stelara) appear to be equally effective for extraintestinal manifestation (EIM) of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to results of a retrospective study published online in Digestive and Liver Disease.

Between 25% and 40% of patients with IBD experience EIM, which reduces quality of life, according to the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. EIM commonly involves the joints, skin, bones, eyes, kidney, and liver. Anemia is another extraintestinal complication.

Until now, it’s been unclear whether vedolizumab and ustekinumab are equally effective for treating EIM.

Vedolizumab specifically targets the gastrointestinal tract, a potential disadvantage in reducing EIM, while ustekinumab is thought to have a systemic effect, a potential treatment advantage, Moran Livne-Margolin, MD, and colleagues, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel, point out.

To investigate, they included 111 adults with IBD who were treated at the medical center between 2015 and 2021 – 53 with vedolizumab and 58 with ustekinumab. Before starting treatment, all of them had active EIM, most commonly arthralgia (84%).

After 6 weeks of treatment, 66% of patients in both groups had a clinical response to their intestinal disease.

After 14 and 26 weeks of treatment, clinical response rates were 59% and 50%, respectively, with vedolizumab, and 48% and 41%, respectively, with ustekinumab.

Over 52 weeks, both biologics were equally effective against the intestinal disease, with clinical response rates of 42% with vedolizumab and 44% with ustekinumab.

A similar pattern emerged when looking at improvement in EIM.

At week 6, 44% of patients taking vedolizumab and 35% taking ustekinumab had improvement in EIM, with no significant difference between the two biologics (P = .4).

At week 14, rates of improvement in EIM were 43% for vedolizumab and 33% for ustekinumab (P = .39); at 26 weeks, rates were 39% and 33%, respectively (P = .6); and at 52 weeks, rates were 34% and 36% (P = .9).

Researchers also found a significant positive correlation between improvement of the intestinal disease and clinical improvement of EIM at each time point.

Ustekinumab is usually preferred in patients with EIM, Dr. Livne-Margolin and colleagues note. But their findings “may raise some questions whether ustekinumab is, in fact, a better choice in those specific patients.”

Limitations of the study include its retrospective design and small cohort size.

Additionally, vedolizumab is given intravenously in the clinic and mandates patients to have a routine checkup every 1-2 months, whereas ustekinumab can be given at home. As a result, data were missing on some of the patients treated with ustekinumab during the follow-up.

Another limitation is that most of the patients had articular complaints with a small presentation of other EIM.

Also, most of the patients had Crohn’s disease, with only one patient with ulcerative colitis in the ustekinumab group, compared with 12 in the vedolizumab group.

Finally, patients treated with ustekinumab had more experience with anti-TNF treatment, compared with the vedolizumab group, which might have influenced the results with a negative bias toward ustekinumab.

The study had no specific funding. Three authors have disclosed relationships with Janssen, which makes ustekinumab.

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

Vedolizumab (Entyvio) and ustekinumab (Stelara) appear to be equally effective for extraintestinal manifestation (EIM) of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to results of a retrospective study published online in Digestive and Liver Disease.

Between 25% and 40% of patients with IBD experience EIM, which reduces quality of life, according to the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. EIM commonly involves the joints, skin, bones, eyes, kidney, and liver. Anemia is another extraintestinal complication.

Until now, it’s been unclear whether vedolizumab and ustekinumab are equally effective for treating EIM.

Vedolizumab specifically targets the gastrointestinal tract, a potential disadvantage in reducing EIM, while ustekinumab is thought to have a systemic effect, a potential treatment advantage, Moran Livne-Margolin, MD, and colleagues, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel, point out.

To investigate, they included 111 adults with IBD who were treated at the medical center between 2015 and 2021 – 53 with vedolizumab and 58 with ustekinumab. Before starting treatment, all of them had active EIM, most commonly arthralgia (84%).

After 6 weeks of treatment, 66% of patients in both groups had a clinical response to their intestinal disease.

After 14 and 26 weeks of treatment, clinical response rates were 59% and 50%, respectively, with vedolizumab, and 48% and 41%, respectively, with ustekinumab.

Over 52 weeks, both biologics were equally effective against the intestinal disease, with clinical response rates of 42% with vedolizumab and 44% with ustekinumab.

A similar pattern emerged when looking at improvement in EIM.

At week 6, 44% of patients taking vedolizumab and 35% taking ustekinumab had improvement in EIM, with no significant difference between the two biologics (P = .4).

At week 14, rates of improvement in EIM were 43% for vedolizumab and 33% for ustekinumab (P = .39); at 26 weeks, rates were 39% and 33%, respectively (P = .6); and at 52 weeks, rates were 34% and 36% (P = .9).

Researchers also found a significant positive correlation between improvement of the intestinal disease and clinical improvement of EIM at each time point.

Ustekinumab is usually preferred in patients with EIM, Dr. Livne-Margolin and colleagues note. But their findings “may raise some questions whether ustekinumab is, in fact, a better choice in those specific patients.”

Limitations of the study include its retrospective design and small cohort size.

Additionally, vedolizumab is given intravenously in the clinic and mandates patients to have a routine checkup every 1-2 months, whereas ustekinumab can be given at home. As a result, data were missing on some of the patients treated with ustekinumab during the follow-up.

Another limitation is that most of the patients had articular complaints with a small presentation of other EIM.

Also, most of the patients had Crohn’s disease, with only one patient with ulcerative colitis in the ustekinumab group, compared with 12 in the vedolizumab group.

Finally, patients treated with ustekinumab had more experience with anti-TNF treatment, compared with the vedolizumab group, which might have influenced the results with a negative bias toward ustekinumab.

The study had no specific funding. Three authors have disclosed relationships with Janssen, which makes ustekinumab.

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

Vedolizumab (Entyvio) and ustekinumab (Stelara) appear to be equally effective for extraintestinal manifestation (EIM) of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to results of a retrospective study published online in Digestive and Liver Disease.

Between 25% and 40% of patients with IBD experience EIM, which reduces quality of life, according to the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. EIM commonly involves the joints, skin, bones, eyes, kidney, and liver. Anemia is another extraintestinal complication.

Until now, it’s been unclear whether vedolizumab and ustekinumab are equally effective for treating EIM.

Vedolizumab specifically targets the gastrointestinal tract, a potential disadvantage in reducing EIM, while ustekinumab is thought to have a systemic effect, a potential treatment advantage, Moran Livne-Margolin, MD, and colleagues, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel, point out.

To investigate, they included 111 adults with IBD who were treated at the medical center between 2015 and 2021 – 53 with vedolizumab and 58 with ustekinumab. Before starting treatment, all of them had active EIM, most commonly arthralgia (84%).

After 6 weeks of treatment, 66% of patients in both groups had a clinical response to their intestinal disease.

After 14 and 26 weeks of treatment, clinical response rates were 59% and 50%, respectively, with vedolizumab, and 48% and 41%, respectively, with ustekinumab.

Over 52 weeks, both biologics were equally effective against the intestinal disease, with clinical response rates of 42% with vedolizumab and 44% with ustekinumab.

A similar pattern emerged when looking at improvement in EIM.

At week 6, 44% of patients taking vedolizumab and 35% taking ustekinumab had improvement in EIM, with no significant difference between the two biologics (P = .4).

At week 14, rates of improvement in EIM were 43% for vedolizumab and 33% for ustekinumab (P = .39); at 26 weeks, rates were 39% and 33%, respectively (P = .6); and at 52 weeks, rates were 34% and 36% (P = .9).

Researchers also found a significant positive correlation between improvement of the intestinal disease and clinical improvement of EIM at each time point.

Ustekinumab is usually preferred in patients with EIM, Dr. Livne-Margolin and colleagues note. But their findings “may raise some questions whether ustekinumab is, in fact, a better choice in those specific patients.”

Limitations of the study include its retrospective design and small cohort size.

Additionally, vedolizumab is given intravenously in the clinic and mandates patients to have a routine checkup every 1-2 months, whereas ustekinumab can be given at home. As a result, data were missing on some of the patients treated with ustekinumab during the follow-up.

Another limitation is that most of the patients had articular complaints with a small presentation of other EIM.

Also, most of the patients had Crohn’s disease, with only one patient with ulcerative colitis in the ustekinumab group, compared with 12 in the vedolizumab group.

Finally, patients treated with ustekinumab had more experience with anti-TNF treatment, compared with the vedolizumab group, which might have influenced the results with a negative bias toward ustekinumab.

The study had no specific funding. Three authors have disclosed relationships with Janssen, which makes ustekinumab.

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