Atopic Dermatitis

With degrees in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nikhila Schroeder, MD, MEng, brings a problem-solving mindset to medicine.

Being a doctor means having to “figure out all aspects of [a patient’s] situation and do my best to come up with an answer,” said Dr. Schroeder, who founded Allergenuity Health, a solo allergy practice in Huntersville, N.C., with her husband James, who serves as practice executive. It’s “being a medical detective for your patient.”

Yet, during her training, Dr. Schroeder found that market-driven health care makes it hard to practice medicine with a patient’s best interest foremost. Procedures for diagnosing and treating disease cater to insurance companies’ reimbursement policies. “You wind up having to tailor your care to whatever insurance will cover,” she said.

Insurers, in turn, look for evidence from large, peer-reviewed studies to prove that a treatment works. Many physicians hesitate to offer therapies that aren’t covered by insurance, for both liability and financial reasons. So treatment tends to be limited to those options that were rigorously vetted in long, costly, multisite trials that are difficult to conduct without a corporate sponsor.

This is why there is still only one licensed treatment for people with food allergies – a set of standardized peanut powder capsules (Palforzia) that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in early 2020 for peanut-allergic children aged 4-17 years. A small but growing number of allergists offer unapproved oral immunotherapy (OIT) using commercial food products to treat allergies to peanuts and other foods.

Even fewer allergists treat food allergy patients with another immune-modifying treatment, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), which delivers allergens through liquid drops held for several minutes under the tongue. Since 2018, Allergenuity Health, which offers SLIT to treat food and environmental allergies, has provided care to more than 400 patients. More than a third have come from out of state.

The clinic uses a direct-care approach. Rather than taking insurance, the clinic offers a monthly billing program that includes tests, SLIT bottles, and access to Dr. Schroeder via phone, email, or text. “I’m only contracted with the patient, and my only focus is the patient,” Dr. Schroeder said in an interview.
 

Unforgettable day

Allergy was not on Dr. Schroeder’s radar in medical school. She wanted to be a surgeon. But she loved working with children, so she did a pediatrics residency at the University of Virginia Children’s Hospital in Charlottesville. There Dr. Schroeder started seeing kids with eczema and allergies. While covering a friend’s clinic shift in 2010, she was thrust into an emergency. A family who didn’t speak English had just brought in their screaming 6-month-old baby, red and puffy with hives. “We didn’t know what was going on with this child,” Dr. Schroeder said. “Somehow I was elected to go in there.”

All of a sudden, things got quiet. Yet the baby was still screaming, mouth wide open. Dr. Schroeder had learned about anaphylaxis but had never witnessed it – until that day. The baby›s airways swelled so much that the crying became hoarse and soft. After working with a nurse to administer epinephrine, Dr. Schroeder saw something equally unforgettable: The baby’s heart rate soared, but within minutes the hives and swelling subsided and smiles returned. “It was incredible how quickly things changed,” Dr. Schroeder said. The baby had a reaction to rice, an uncommon allergen.

Dr. Schroeder stayed at UVA 2 more years to complete an allergy and immunology fellowship. She learned to diagnose food allergies but became frustrated having to tell patients they had little recourse but to avoid the food and to check in every year or 2. “I was, like, aren’t we specialists? Shouldn’t we have a little more expertise and maybe see if there are ways we could change this?” Dr. Schroeder said.

During those years, allergy shots were the only form of immunotherapy being taught to fellows. At clinic, Dr. Schroeder served as backup to the nurses when someone reacted to shots. She was troubled that some patients needed epinephrine to stop asthma attacks caused by injections they had received as treatment. The idea of injecting substances under the skin seemed akin to vaccination – where “you want to aggravate the immune system, you want it to get revved up, you want to build it up to fight,” she said. “But that’s not what you want for allergy. You want to tone it down. It didn’t really, to be honest, make a lot of sense to me.”

Dr. Schroeder started digging and asking questions. How does the immune system decide what is safe? Which cells and molecules communicate these decisions? She thought about babies and how they “learn” by putting stuff into their mouths. “If we don’t tolerate most of what we take in there, we wouldn’t survive,” Dr. Schroeder said. “It makes a lot of sense that a lot of tolerance begins with cells of the mouth.”

Dr. Schroeder discussed these concepts with her attendings. “They were all, like, no, there’s really no good evidence for that,” she said. But at some point, someone mentioned sublingual immunotherapy, and Schroeder came across Allergy Associates of La Crosse (Wis.).

The clinic’s late founder, David Morris, MD, learned about SLIT in the 1960s as an alternative option for farmers who suffered terrible side effects from injection immunotherapy they received to treat their mold allergies. Dr. Morris attended conferences, learned more about sublingual techniques – at times seeking advice from European allergists who offered SLIT – and became board certified in allergy before opening the La Crosse clinic in 1970. According to the clinic, more than 200,000 patients with environmental and food allergies have been treated with its SLIT protocol.

Dr. Schroeder was shocked to discover that this clinic had existed for 40 years, yet “I, as an allergist, had heard nothing about them,” she said.

Toward the end of her fellowship, OIT was becoming more well known. But she felt its risks were often downplayed. After years of talking with food allergy patients, Schroeder realized that most didn’t actually care about eating peanut butter sandwiches or sesame or walnuts. “Often I would hear, through tears: ‘I just want my child to be able to sit with their friends at lunch, to not be put at this other table, to not feel so isolated,’ ” she said. What mattered most to many families was gaining enough protection to not feel anxious about participating in social activities involving food.

Dr. Schroeder had a growing sense that SLIT – given its ease, safety, and sensible route of allergen delivery – seemed more useful. She wanted to learn more.

Her mentors urged her to stay in academia instead. “They were, like, you have a good academic reputation. You’re a solid thinker. You’re great at what you do. Do the traditional stuff,” Dr. Schroeder said.

Despite these admonitions, Dr. Schroeder left academia and took a job at La Crosse after completing her allergy fellowship. Determined to see whether SLIT could be effective, “I decided in the end, you know what, I have to go do this,” she said. “I need to know, and the only way I’m going to know is to do it, because no one was giving me good information.”

Before treating anyone with SLIT, Dr. Schroeder tried it herself – as a La Crosse patient. Growing up with severe eczema, eye swelling, and chronic nasal congestion leading to sinus infections, “I myself was a severely allergic person,” she said. Within several months, Dr. Schroeder saw dramatic improvement in her symptoms – “a night and day difference.” She experienced some mouth tingling, one of SLIT’s most common side effects, but found it “very tolerable, very mild.”

Allergenuity Health doesn’t aim to promote SLIT as the best treatment, said Dr. Schroeder, who has helped some families use avoidance or OIT as a better option. “An initial evaluation is always about proper diagnosis and education about all the treatment options available. Really, the point is education – be a detective for them and figure out what’s going on, be honest about what we know and what we don’t know, and give them the tools to figure out how to proceed.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This is part two of a three-part series. Part one is here. Part three is here.

With degrees in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nikhila Schroeder, MD, MEng, brings a problem-solving mindset to medicine.

Being a doctor means having to “figure out all aspects of [a patient’s] situation and do my best to come up with an answer,” said Dr. Schroeder, who founded Allergenuity Health, a solo allergy practice in Huntersville, N.C., with her husband James, who serves as practice executive. It’s “being a medical detective for your patient.”

Yet, during her training, Dr. Schroeder found that market-driven health care makes it hard to practice medicine with a patient’s best interest foremost. Procedures for diagnosing and treating disease cater to insurance companies’ reimbursement policies. “You wind up having to tailor your care to whatever insurance will cover,” she said.

Insurers, in turn, look for evidence from large, peer-reviewed studies to prove that a treatment works. Many physicians hesitate to offer therapies that aren’t covered by insurance, for both liability and financial reasons. So treatment tends to be limited to those options that were rigorously vetted in long, costly, multisite trials that are difficult to conduct without a corporate sponsor.

This is why there is still only one licensed treatment for people with food allergies – a set of standardized peanut powder capsules (Palforzia) that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in early 2020 for peanut-allergic children aged 4-17 years. A small but growing number of allergists offer unapproved oral immunotherapy (OIT) using commercial food products to treat allergies to peanuts and other foods.

Even fewer allergists treat food allergy patients with another immune-modifying treatment, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), which delivers allergens through liquid drops held for several minutes under the tongue. Since 2018, Allergenuity Health, which offers SLIT to treat food and environmental allergies, has provided care to more than 400 patients. More than a third have come from out of state.

The clinic uses a direct-care approach. Rather than taking insurance, the clinic offers a monthly billing program that includes tests, SLIT bottles, and access to Dr. Schroeder via phone, email, or text. “I’m only contracted with the patient, and my only focus is the patient,” Dr. Schroeder said in an interview.
 

Unforgettable day

Allergy was not on Dr. Schroeder’s radar in medical school. She wanted to be a surgeon. But she loved working with children, so she did a pediatrics residency at the University of Virginia Children’s Hospital in Charlottesville. There Dr. Schroeder started seeing kids with eczema and allergies. While covering a friend’s clinic shift in 2010, she was thrust into an emergency. A family who didn’t speak English had just brought in their screaming 6-month-old baby, red and puffy with hives. “We didn’t know what was going on with this child,” Dr. Schroeder said. “Somehow I was elected to go in there.”

All of a sudden, things got quiet. Yet the baby was still screaming, mouth wide open. Dr. Schroeder had learned about anaphylaxis but had never witnessed it – until that day. The baby›s airways swelled so much that the crying became hoarse and soft. After working with a nurse to administer epinephrine, Dr. Schroeder saw something equally unforgettable: The baby’s heart rate soared, but within minutes the hives and swelling subsided and smiles returned. “It was incredible how quickly things changed,” Dr. Schroeder said. The baby had a reaction to rice, an uncommon allergen.

Dr. Schroeder stayed at UVA 2 more years to complete an allergy and immunology fellowship. She learned to diagnose food allergies but became frustrated having to tell patients they had little recourse but to avoid the food and to check in every year or 2. “I was, like, aren’t we specialists? Shouldn’t we have a little more expertise and maybe see if there are ways we could change this?” Dr. Schroeder said.

During those years, allergy shots were the only form of immunotherapy being taught to fellows. At clinic, Dr. Schroeder served as backup to the nurses when someone reacted to shots. She was troubled that some patients needed epinephrine to stop asthma attacks caused by injections they had received as treatment. The idea of injecting substances under the skin seemed akin to vaccination – where “you want to aggravate the immune system, you want it to get revved up, you want to build it up to fight,” she said. “But that’s not what you want for allergy. You want to tone it down. It didn’t really, to be honest, make a lot of sense to me.”

Dr. Schroeder started digging and asking questions. How does the immune system decide what is safe? Which cells and molecules communicate these decisions? She thought about babies and how they “learn” by putting stuff into their mouths. “If we don’t tolerate most of what we take in there, we wouldn’t survive,” Dr. Schroeder said. “It makes a lot of sense that a lot of tolerance begins with cells of the mouth.”

Dr. Schroeder discussed these concepts with her attendings. “They were all, like, no, there’s really no good evidence for that,” she said. But at some point, someone mentioned sublingual immunotherapy, and Schroeder came across Allergy Associates of La Crosse (Wis.).

The clinic’s late founder, David Morris, MD, learned about SLIT in the 1960s as an alternative option for farmers who suffered terrible side effects from injection immunotherapy they received to treat their mold allergies. Dr. Morris attended conferences, learned more about sublingual techniques – at times seeking advice from European allergists who offered SLIT – and became board certified in allergy before opening the La Crosse clinic in 1970. According to the clinic, more than 200,000 patients with environmental and food allergies have been treated with its SLIT protocol.

Dr. Schroeder was shocked to discover that this clinic had existed for 40 years, yet “I, as an allergist, had heard nothing about them,” she said.

Toward the end of her fellowship, OIT was becoming more well known. But she felt its risks were often downplayed. After years of talking with food allergy patients, Schroeder realized that most didn’t actually care about eating peanut butter sandwiches or sesame or walnuts. “Often I would hear, through tears: ‘I just want my child to be able to sit with their friends at lunch, to not be put at this other table, to not feel so isolated,’ ” she said. What mattered most to many families was gaining enough protection to not feel anxious about participating in social activities involving food.

Dr. Schroeder had a growing sense that SLIT – given its ease, safety, and sensible route of allergen delivery – seemed more useful. She wanted to learn more.

Her mentors urged her to stay in academia instead. “They were, like, you have a good academic reputation. You’re a solid thinker. You’re great at what you do. Do the traditional stuff,” Dr. Schroeder said.

Despite these admonitions, Dr. Schroeder left academia and took a job at La Crosse after completing her allergy fellowship. Determined to see whether SLIT could be effective, “I decided in the end, you know what, I have to go do this,” she said. “I need to know, and the only way I’m going to know is to do it, because no one was giving me good information.”

Before treating anyone with SLIT, Dr. Schroeder tried it herself – as a La Crosse patient. Growing up with severe eczema, eye swelling, and chronic nasal congestion leading to sinus infections, “I myself was a severely allergic person,” she said. Within several months, Dr. Schroeder saw dramatic improvement in her symptoms – “a night and day difference.” She experienced some mouth tingling, one of SLIT’s most common side effects, but found it “very tolerable, very mild.”

Allergenuity Health doesn’t aim to promote SLIT as the best treatment, said Dr. Schroeder, who has helped some families use avoidance or OIT as a better option. “An initial evaluation is always about proper diagnosis and education about all the treatment options available. Really, the point is education – be a detective for them and figure out what’s going on, be honest about what we know and what we don’t know, and give them the tools to figure out how to proceed.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This is part two of a three-part series. Part one is here. Part three is here.

With degrees in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nikhila Schroeder, MD, MEng, brings a problem-solving mindset to medicine.

Being a doctor means having to “figure out all aspects of [a patient’s] situation and do my best to come up with an answer,” said Dr. Schroeder, who founded Allergenuity Health, a solo allergy practice in Huntersville, N.C., with her husband James, who serves as practice executive. It’s “being a medical detective for your patient.”

Yet, during her training, Dr. Schroeder found that market-driven health care makes it hard to practice medicine with a patient’s best interest foremost. Procedures for diagnosing and treating disease cater to insurance companies’ reimbursement policies. “You wind up having to tailor your care to whatever insurance will cover,” she said.

Insurers, in turn, look for evidence from large, peer-reviewed studies to prove that a treatment works. Many physicians hesitate to offer therapies that aren’t covered by insurance, for both liability and financial reasons. So treatment tends to be limited to those options that were rigorously vetted in long, costly, multisite trials that are difficult to conduct without a corporate sponsor.

This is why there is still only one licensed treatment for people with food allergies – a set of standardized peanut powder capsules (Palforzia) that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in early 2020 for peanut-allergic children aged 4-17 years. A small but growing number of allergists offer unapproved oral immunotherapy (OIT) using commercial food products to treat allergies to peanuts and other foods.

Even fewer allergists treat food allergy patients with another immune-modifying treatment, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), which delivers allergens through liquid drops held for several minutes under the tongue. Since 2018, Allergenuity Health, which offers SLIT to treat food and environmental allergies, has provided care to more than 400 patients. More than a third have come from out of state.

The clinic uses a direct-care approach. Rather than taking insurance, the clinic offers a monthly billing program that includes tests, SLIT bottles, and access to Dr. Schroeder via phone, email, or text. “I’m only contracted with the patient, and my only focus is the patient,” Dr. Schroeder said in an interview.
 

Unforgettable day

Allergy was not on Dr. Schroeder’s radar in medical school. She wanted to be a surgeon. But she loved working with children, so she did a pediatrics residency at the University of Virginia Children’s Hospital in Charlottesville. There Dr. Schroeder started seeing kids with eczema and allergies. While covering a friend’s clinic shift in 2010, she was thrust into an emergency. A family who didn’t speak English had just brought in their screaming 6-month-old baby, red and puffy with hives. “We didn’t know what was going on with this child,” Dr. Schroeder said. “Somehow I was elected to go in there.”

All of a sudden, things got quiet. Yet the baby was still screaming, mouth wide open. Dr. Schroeder had learned about anaphylaxis but had never witnessed it – until that day. The baby›s airways swelled so much that the crying became hoarse and soft. After working with a nurse to administer epinephrine, Dr. Schroeder saw something equally unforgettable: The baby’s heart rate soared, but within minutes the hives and swelling subsided and smiles returned. “It was incredible how quickly things changed,” Dr. Schroeder said. The baby had a reaction to rice, an uncommon allergen.

Dr. Schroeder stayed at UVA 2 more years to complete an allergy and immunology fellowship. She learned to diagnose food allergies but became frustrated having to tell patients they had little recourse but to avoid the food and to check in every year or 2. “I was, like, aren’t we specialists? Shouldn’t we have a little more expertise and maybe see if there are ways we could change this?” Dr. Schroeder said.

During those years, allergy shots were the only form of immunotherapy being taught to fellows. At clinic, Dr. Schroeder served as backup to the nurses when someone reacted to shots. She was troubled that some patients needed epinephrine to stop asthma attacks caused by injections they had received as treatment. The idea of injecting substances under the skin seemed akin to vaccination – where “you want to aggravate the immune system, you want it to get revved up, you want to build it up to fight,” she said. “But that’s not what you want for allergy. You want to tone it down. It didn’t really, to be honest, make a lot of sense to me.”

Dr. Schroeder started digging and asking questions. How does the immune system decide what is safe? Which cells and molecules communicate these decisions? She thought about babies and how they “learn” by putting stuff into their mouths. “If we don’t tolerate most of what we take in there, we wouldn’t survive,” Dr. Schroeder said. “It makes a lot of sense that a lot of tolerance begins with cells of the mouth.”

Dr. Schroeder discussed these concepts with her attendings. “They were all, like, no, there’s really no good evidence for that,” she said. But at some point, someone mentioned sublingual immunotherapy, and Schroeder came across Allergy Associates of La Crosse (Wis.).

The clinic’s late founder, David Morris, MD, learned about SLIT in the 1960s as an alternative option for farmers who suffered terrible side effects from injection immunotherapy they received to treat their mold allergies. Dr. Morris attended conferences, learned more about sublingual techniques – at times seeking advice from European allergists who offered SLIT – and became board certified in allergy before opening the La Crosse clinic in 1970. According to the clinic, more than 200,000 patients with environmental and food allergies have been treated with its SLIT protocol.

Dr. Schroeder was shocked to discover that this clinic had existed for 40 years, yet “I, as an allergist, had heard nothing about them,” she said.

Toward the end of her fellowship, OIT was becoming more well known. But she felt its risks were often downplayed. After years of talking with food allergy patients, Schroeder realized that most didn’t actually care about eating peanut butter sandwiches or sesame or walnuts. “Often I would hear, through tears: ‘I just want my child to be able to sit with their friends at lunch, to not be put at this other table, to not feel so isolated,’ ” she said. What mattered most to many families was gaining enough protection to not feel anxious about participating in social activities involving food.

Dr. Schroeder had a growing sense that SLIT – given its ease, safety, and sensible route of allergen delivery – seemed more useful. She wanted to learn more.

Her mentors urged her to stay in academia instead. “They were, like, you have a good academic reputation. You’re a solid thinker. You’re great at what you do. Do the traditional stuff,” Dr. Schroeder said.

Despite these admonitions, Dr. Schroeder left academia and took a job at La Crosse after completing her allergy fellowship. Determined to see whether SLIT could be effective, “I decided in the end, you know what, I have to go do this,” she said. “I need to know, and the only way I’m going to know is to do it, because no one was giving me good information.”

Before treating anyone with SLIT, Dr. Schroeder tried it herself – as a La Crosse patient. Growing up with severe eczema, eye swelling, and chronic nasal congestion leading to sinus infections, “I myself was a severely allergic person,” she said. Within several months, Dr. Schroeder saw dramatic improvement in her symptoms – “a night and day difference.” She experienced some mouth tingling, one of SLIT’s most common side effects, but found it “very tolerable, very mild.”

Allergenuity Health doesn’t aim to promote SLIT as the best treatment, said Dr. Schroeder, who has helped some families use avoidance or OIT as a better option. “An initial evaluation is always about proper diagnosis and education about all the treatment options available. Really, the point is education – be a detective for them and figure out what’s going on, be honest about what we know and what we don’t know, and give them the tools to figure out how to proceed.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This is part two of a three-part series. Part one is here. Part three is here.

For the 32 million people in the United States with food allergies, those who seek relief beyond constant vigilance and EpiPens face a confusing treatment landscape. In January 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved an oral immunotherapy product (Palforzia) for peanut-allergic children. Yet the product’s ill-timed release during a pandemic and its black-box warning about the risk for anaphylaxis has slowed uptake.

A small number of allergists offer home-grown oral immunotherapy (OIT), which builds protection by exposing patients to increasing daily doses of commercial food products over months. However, as with Palforzia, allergic reactions are common during treatment, and the hard-earned protection can fade if not maintained with regular dosing.

An alternate approach, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), delivers food proteins through liquid drops held in the mouth – a site rich in tolerance-inducing immune cells. In a 2019 study of peanut-allergic children aged 1-11 years, SLIT offered a level of protection on par with Palforzia while causing considerably fewer adverse events. And at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, researchers reported that SLIT produced stronger, more durable benefits in toddlers aged 1-4.

Sublingual immunotherapy is “a bunch of drops you put under your tongue, you hold it for a couple minutes, and then you’re done for the day,” said Edwin Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who led the two recent studies. For protecting against accidental ingestions, SLIT “is pushing pretty close to what OIT is able to provide but seemingly with a superior ease of administration and safety profile.”

Many parents don’t necessarily want their allergic kids to be able to eat a peanut butter sandwich – but do want them to be able to safely sit at the same lunch table and attend birthday parties with other kids. SLIT achieves this level of protection about as well as OIT, with fewer side effects.

Still, because of concerns about the treatment’s cost, unclear dosing regimens, and lack of FDA approval, very few U.S. allergists – likely less than 5% – offer sublingual immunotherapy to treat food allergies, making SLIT even less available than OIT.
 

Concerns about SLIT

One possible reason: Success is slower and less visible for SLIT. When patients undergo OIT, they build up to dosing with the actual food. “To a family who has a concern about their kid reacting, they can see them eating chunks of peanut in our office. That is really encouraging,” said Douglas Mack, MD, FRCPC, an allergist with Halton Pediatric Allergy and assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

On the other hand, ingestion isn’t the focus for SLIT, so progress is harder to measure using metrics in published trials. After holding SLIT drops under the tongue, some patients spit them out. If they swallow the dose, it’s a vanishingly small amount. Immune changes that reflect increasing tolerance, such as a decrease in IgE antibodies, tend to be more gradual with SLIT than with OIT. And because SLIT is only offered in private clinics, such tests are not conducted as regularly as they would be for published trials.

But there may be a bigger factor: Some think earlier trials comparing the two immunotherapy regimens gave SLIT a bad rap. For example, in studies of milk- and peanut-allergic children conducted in 2011 and 2014, investigators concluded that SLIT was safer and that OIT appeared to be more effective. However, those trials compared SLIT with OIT using a much higher dose (2,000 mg) than is used in the licensed product (300 mg).

Over the years, endpoints for food allergy treatment trials have shifted from enabling patients to eat a full serving of their allergen to merely raising their threshold to guard against accidental exposures. So in those earlier articles, “we would probably write the discussion section differently now,” said Corinne Keet, MD, PhD, first author on the 2011 milk study and an associate professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Indeed, “when you compare [SLIT] to Palforzia or other studies of low-dose OIT (300 mg/d), they look equal in terms of their efficacy,” said senior author Robert Wood, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of pediatric allergy and immunology at Johns Hopkins. Yet, “I’m afraid we had a major [negative] impact on pharma’s interest in pursuing SLIT.”

Without corporate funding, it’s nearly impossible to conduct the large, multisite trials required for FDA approval of a treatment. And without approved products, many allergists are reluctant to offer the therapy, Dr. Wood said. It “makes your life a lot more complicated to be dabbling in things that are not approved,” he noted.

But at least one company is giving it a go. Applying the SLIT principle of delivering food allergens to tolerance-promoting immune cells in the mouth, New York–based Intrommune Therapeutics recently started enrolling peanut-allergic adults for a phase 1 trial of its experimental toothpaste.

Interest in food-allergy SLIT seems to be growing. “I definitely think that it could be an option for the future,” said Jaclyn Bjelac, MD, associate director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at the Cleveland Clinic. “Up until a few months ago, it really wasn’t on our radar.”

On conversations with Dr. Kim, philanthropists and drug developers said they found the recent data on SLIT promising, yet pointed out that food SLIT protocols and products are already in the public domain – they are described in published research using allergen extracts that are on the market. They “can’t see a commercial path forward,” Dr. Kim said in an interview. “And that’s kind of where many of my conversations end.”

Although there are no licensed SLIT products for food allergies, between 2014 and 2017, the FDA approved four sublingual immunotherapy tablets to treat environmental allergies – Stallergenes-Greer’s Oralair and ALK’s Grastek for grass pollens, ALK’s Odactra for dust mites, and ALK’s Ragwitek for short ragweed.

SLIT tablets work as well as allergy shots (subcutaneous immunotherapy) for controlling environmental allergy symptoms, they have a better safety profile, according to AAAAI guidelines, and they can be self-administered at home, which has made them a popular option globally. “Our European colleagues have used sublingual immunotherapy much more frequently than, for example, in the U.S.,” said Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Use of SLIT is also increasing in the United States, especially as FDA-approved products become available. In a 2019 survey, the percentage of U.S. allergists who said they were offering sublingual treatment for environmental allergies increased from 5.9% in 2007 to 73.5% in 2019. However, only 11.2% reported extensive SLIT use; the remainder reported some (50.5%) or little (38.3%) use.

As noted above, considerably fewer U.S. allergists use SLIT to treat food allergies. Similarly, a 2021 survey of allergists in Canada found that only 7% offered food sublingual immunotherapy; more than half reported offering OIT.

One practice, Allergy Associates of La Crosse (Wis.), has offered SLIT drops for food and environmental allergies for decades. Since the clinic opened in 1970, more than 200,000 people have been treated with its protocol. Every patient receives customized sublingual drops – “exactly what they’re allergic to, exactly how allergic they are, and then we build from there,” said Jeff Kessler, MBA, FACHE, practice executive at Allergy Associates of La Crosse. “Quite frankly, it’s the way immunotherapy should be done.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This is part one of a three-part series. Part two is here. Part three is here.

For the 32 million people in the United States with food allergies, those who seek relief beyond constant vigilance and EpiPens face a confusing treatment landscape. In January 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved an oral immunotherapy product (Palforzia) for peanut-allergic children. Yet the product’s ill-timed release during a pandemic and its black-box warning about the risk for anaphylaxis has slowed uptake.

A small number of allergists offer home-grown oral immunotherapy (OIT), which builds protection by exposing patients to increasing daily doses of commercial food products over months. However, as with Palforzia, allergic reactions are common during treatment, and the hard-earned protection can fade if not maintained with regular dosing.

An alternate approach, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), delivers food proteins through liquid drops held in the mouth – a site rich in tolerance-inducing immune cells. In a 2019 study of peanut-allergic children aged 1-11 years, SLIT offered a level of protection on par with Palforzia while causing considerably fewer adverse events. And at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, researchers reported that SLIT produced stronger, more durable benefits in toddlers aged 1-4.

Sublingual immunotherapy is “a bunch of drops you put under your tongue, you hold it for a couple minutes, and then you’re done for the day,” said Edwin Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who led the two recent studies. For protecting against accidental ingestions, SLIT “is pushing pretty close to what OIT is able to provide but seemingly with a superior ease of administration and safety profile.”

Many parents don’t necessarily want their allergic kids to be able to eat a peanut butter sandwich – but do want them to be able to safely sit at the same lunch table and attend birthday parties with other kids. SLIT achieves this level of protection about as well as OIT, with fewer side effects.

Still, because of concerns about the treatment’s cost, unclear dosing regimens, and lack of FDA approval, very few U.S. allergists – likely less than 5% – offer sublingual immunotherapy to treat food allergies, making SLIT even less available than OIT.
 

Concerns about SLIT

One possible reason: Success is slower and less visible for SLIT. When patients undergo OIT, they build up to dosing with the actual food. “To a family who has a concern about their kid reacting, they can see them eating chunks of peanut in our office. That is really encouraging,” said Douglas Mack, MD, FRCPC, an allergist with Halton Pediatric Allergy and assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

On the other hand, ingestion isn’t the focus for SLIT, so progress is harder to measure using metrics in published trials. After holding SLIT drops under the tongue, some patients spit them out. If they swallow the dose, it’s a vanishingly small amount. Immune changes that reflect increasing tolerance, such as a decrease in IgE antibodies, tend to be more gradual with SLIT than with OIT. And because SLIT is only offered in private clinics, such tests are not conducted as regularly as they would be for published trials.

But there may be a bigger factor: Some think earlier trials comparing the two immunotherapy regimens gave SLIT a bad rap. For example, in studies of milk- and peanut-allergic children conducted in 2011 and 2014, investigators concluded that SLIT was safer and that OIT appeared to be more effective. However, those trials compared SLIT with OIT using a much higher dose (2,000 mg) than is used in the licensed product (300 mg).

Over the years, endpoints for food allergy treatment trials have shifted from enabling patients to eat a full serving of their allergen to merely raising their threshold to guard against accidental exposures. So in those earlier articles, “we would probably write the discussion section differently now,” said Corinne Keet, MD, PhD, first author on the 2011 milk study and an associate professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Indeed, “when you compare [SLIT] to Palforzia or other studies of low-dose OIT (300 mg/d), they look equal in terms of their efficacy,” said senior author Robert Wood, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of pediatric allergy and immunology at Johns Hopkins. Yet, “I’m afraid we had a major [negative] impact on pharma’s interest in pursuing SLIT.”

Without corporate funding, it’s nearly impossible to conduct the large, multisite trials required for FDA approval of a treatment. And without approved products, many allergists are reluctant to offer the therapy, Dr. Wood said. It “makes your life a lot more complicated to be dabbling in things that are not approved,” he noted.

But at least one company is giving it a go. Applying the SLIT principle of delivering food allergens to tolerance-promoting immune cells in the mouth, New York–based Intrommune Therapeutics recently started enrolling peanut-allergic adults for a phase 1 trial of its experimental toothpaste.

Interest in food-allergy SLIT seems to be growing. “I definitely think that it could be an option for the future,” said Jaclyn Bjelac, MD, associate director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at the Cleveland Clinic. “Up until a few months ago, it really wasn’t on our radar.”

On conversations with Dr. Kim, philanthropists and drug developers said they found the recent data on SLIT promising, yet pointed out that food SLIT protocols and products are already in the public domain – they are described in published research using allergen extracts that are on the market. They “can’t see a commercial path forward,” Dr. Kim said in an interview. “And that’s kind of where many of my conversations end.”

Although there are no licensed SLIT products for food allergies, between 2014 and 2017, the FDA approved four sublingual immunotherapy tablets to treat environmental allergies – Stallergenes-Greer’s Oralair and ALK’s Grastek for grass pollens, ALK’s Odactra for dust mites, and ALK’s Ragwitek for short ragweed.

SLIT tablets work as well as allergy shots (subcutaneous immunotherapy) for controlling environmental allergy symptoms, they have a better safety profile, according to AAAAI guidelines, and they can be self-administered at home, which has made them a popular option globally. “Our European colleagues have used sublingual immunotherapy much more frequently than, for example, in the U.S.,” said Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Use of SLIT is also increasing in the United States, especially as FDA-approved products become available. In a 2019 survey, the percentage of U.S. allergists who said they were offering sublingual treatment for environmental allergies increased from 5.9% in 2007 to 73.5% in 2019. However, only 11.2% reported extensive SLIT use; the remainder reported some (50.5%) or little (38.3%) use.

As noted above, considerably fewer U.S. allergists use SLIT to treat food allergies. Similarly, a 2021 survey of allergists in Canada found that only 7% offered food sublingual immunotherapy; more than half reported offering OIT.

One practice, Allergy Associates of La Crosse (Wis.), has offered SLIT drops for food and environmental allergies for decades. Since the clinic opened in 1970, more than 200,000 people have been treated with its protocol. Every patient receives customized sublingual drops – “exactly what they’re allergic to, exactly how allergic they are, and then we build from there,” said Jeff Kessler, MBA, FACHE, practice executive at Allergy Associates of La Crosse. “Quite frankly, it’s the way immunotherapy should be done.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This is part one of a three-part series. Part two is here. Part three is here.

For the 32 million people in the United States with food allergies, those who seek relief beyond constant vigilance and EpiPens face a confusing treatment landscape. In January 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved an oral immunotherapy product (Palforzia) for peanut-allergic children. Yet the product’s ill-timed release during a pandemic and its black-box warning about the risk for anaphylaxis has slowed uptake.

A small number of allergists offer home-grown oral immunotherapy (OIT), which builds protection by exposing patients to increasing daily doses of commercial food products over months. However, as with Palforzia, allergic reactions are common during treatment, and the hard-earned protection can fade if not maintained with regular dosing.

An alternate approach, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), delivers food proteins through liquid drops held in the mouth – a site rich in tolerance-inducing immune cells. In a 2019 study of peanut-allergic children aged 1-11 years, SLIT offered a level of protection on par with Palforzia while causing considerably fewer adverse events. And at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, researchers reported that SLIT produced stronger, more durable benefits in toddlers aged 1-4.

Sublingual immunotherapy is “a bunch of drops you put under your tongue, you hold it for a couple minutes, and then you’re done for the day,” said Edwin Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who led the two recent studies. For protecting against accidental ingestions, SLIT “is pushing pretty close to what OIT is able to provide but seemingly with a superior ease of administration and safety profile.”

Many parents don’t necessarily want their allergic kids to be able to eat a peanut butter sandwich – but do want them to be able to safely sit at the same lunch table and attend birthday parties with other kids. SLIT achieves this level of protection about as well as OIT, with fewer side effects.

Still, because of concerns about the treatment’s cost, unclear dosing regimens, and lack of FDA approval, very few U.S. allergists – likely less than 5% – offer sublingual immunotherapy to treat food allergies, making SLIT even less available than OIT.
 

Concerns about SLIT

One possible reason: Success is slower and less visible for SLIT. When patients undergo OIT, they build up to dosing with the actual food. “To a family who has a concern about their kid reacting, they can see them eating chunks of peanut in our office. That is really encouraging,” said Douglas Mack, MD, FRCPC, an allergist with Halton Pediatric Allergy and assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

On the other hand, ingestion isn’t the focus for SLIT, so progress is harder to measure using metrics in published trials. After holding SLIT drops under the tongue, some patients spit them out. If they swallow the dose, it’s a vanishingly small amount. Immune changes that reflect increasing tolerance, such as a decrease in IgE antibodies, tend to be more gradual with SLIT than with OIT. And because SLIT is only offered in private clinics, such tests are not conducted as regularly as they would be for published trials.

But there may be a bigger factor: Some think earlier trials comparing the two immunotherapy regimens gave SLIT a bad rap. For example, in studies of milk- and peanut-allergic children conducted in 2011 and 2014, investigators concluded that SLIT was safer and that OIT appeared to be more effective. However, those trials compared SLIT with OIT using a much higher dose (2,000 mg) than is used in the licensed product (300 mg).

Over the years, endpoints for food allergy treatment trials have shifted from enabling patients to eat a full serving of their allergen to merely raising their threshold to guard against accidental exposures. So in those earlier articles, “we would probably write the discussion section differently now,” said Corinne Keet, MD, PhD, first author on the 2011 milk study and an associate professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Indeed, “when you compare [SLIT] to Palforzia or other studies of low-dose OIT (300 mg/d), they look equal in terms of their efficacy,” said senior author Robert Wood, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of pediatric allergy and immunology at Johns Hopkins. Yet, “I’m afraid we had a major [negative] impact on pharma’s interest in pursuing SLIT.”

Without corporate funding, it’s nearly impossible to conduct the large, multisite trials required for FDA approval of a treatment. And without approved products, many allergists are reluctant to offer the therapy, Dr. Wood said. It “makes your life a lot more complicated to be dabbling in things that are not approved,” he noted.

But at least one company is giving it a go. Applying the SLIT principle of delivering food allergens to tolerance-promoting immune cells in the mouth, New York–based Intrommune Therapeutics recently started enrolling peanut-allergic adults for a phase 1 trial of its experimental toothpaste.

Interest in food-allergy SLIT seems to be growing. “I definitely think that it could be an option for the future,” said Jaclyn Bjelac, MD, associate director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at the Cleveland Clinic. “Up until a few months ago, it really wasn’t on our radar.”

On conversations with Dr. Kim, philanthropists and drug developers said they found the recent data on SLIT promising, yet pointed out that food SLIT protocols and products are already in the public domain – they are described in published research using allergen extracts that are on the market. They “can’t see a commercial path forward,” Dr. Kim said in an interview. “And that’s kind of where many of my conversations end.”

Although there are no licensed SLIT products for food allergies, between 2014 and 2017, the FDA approved four sublingual immunotherapy tablets to treat environmental allergies – Stallergenes-Greer’s Oralair and ALK’s Grastek for grass pollens, ALK’s Odactra for dust mites, and ALK’s Ragwitek for short ragweed.

SLIT tablets work as well as allergy shots (subcutaneous immunotherapy) for controlling environmental allergy symptoms, they have a better safety profile, according to AAAAI guidelines, and they can be self-administered at home, which has made them a popular option globally. “Our European colleagues have used sublingual immunotherapy much more frequently than, for example, in the U.S.,” said Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Use of SLIT is also increasing in the United States, especially as FDA-approved products become available. In a 2019 survey, the percentage of U.S. allergists who said they were offering sublingual treatment for environmental allergies increased from 5.9% in 2007 to 73.5% in 2019. However, only 11.2% reported extensive SLIT use; the remainder reported some (50.5%) or little (38.3%) use.

As noted above, considerably fewer U.S. allergists use SLIT to treat food allergies. Similarly, a 2021 survey of allergists in Canada found that only 7% offered food sublingual immunotherapy; more than half reported offering OIT.

One practice, Allergy Associates of La Crosse (Wis.), has offered SLIT drops for food and environmental allergies for decades. Since the clinic opened in 1970, more than 200,000 people have been treated with its protocol. Every patient receives customized sublingual drops – “exactly what they’re allergic to, exactly how allergic they are, and then we build from there,” said Jeff Kessler, MBA, FACHE, practice executive at Allergy Associates of La Crosse. “Quite frankly, it’s the way immunotherapy should be done.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This is part one of a three-part series. Part two is here. Part three is here.

Violin and viola players can pay a price for the music they create: Many suffer from skin irritation and inflammation where the instruments touch their necks and upper bodies. Now, a new literature review offers insight into this common condition, known as “fiddler’s neck.”

Hill Street Studios/Stone/Getty Images

“These skin conditions are disfiguring, and they also carry so much psychological burden. Not only are these patients under constant pressure to perform at their maximum at all times, it really is troublesome when there is a barrier between you and performing art that you absolutely love,” lead author Henry Lim, an osteopathic medical student at the University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth, said in an interview.

The results of the literature review were presented in a poster at the Inaugural Symposium for Inflammatory Skin Disease.

Mr. Lim, who has a special interest in skin, said his own musical experience inspired the research. “Throughout my experience as a violinist, I faced many dermatologic issues because of my violin, and it affected my performance,” he said. “As time went on, I recognized that many other stringed instrumentalists were dealing with similar issues but chose to live with it because it came with the territory.”

One physician told Mr. Lim that he needed to quit in order to permanently treat his skin problems. He didn’t accept this answer and instead launched the literature review with colleagues Marshall Hall, MPH, also an osteopathic medical student with an interest in dermatology, and Sajid Surve, DO, codirector of the UNT Texas Center for Performing Arts Health.

Mr. Lim and colleagues evaluated 23 articles, which included case studies and literature reviews, about dermatitis in violinists, violists, cellists, bassists, guitarists and harpists. “Stringed instrumentalists are the highest at-risk population compared to performers who play other types of instruments,” Mr. Lim said.

The poster he presented at the meeting largely focuses on fiddler’s neck, which he defined as “simply dermatitis related to friction and allergic irritation from playing violin or viola.” Many people, he noted, are allergic to nickel, and the bracket that secures the violin’s chin rest “most often contains nickel. Even a very small concentration of nickel can cause massive reactions, and we found that the C string of a viola – the thickest, lowest-sounding string – contains a nickel concentration of up to 37%.”

Gold-coated strings are an alternative option, he said, but they’re more expensive.

Stringed instrumentalists may also be allergic to rosin applied to “bow hairs,” which is the hair – typically from horses – that is used to string bows, also described in the poster. “We found that there is an overall common allergy to the main ingredient called colophony,” Mr. Lim said. The legendary violin maker Antonio Stradivari “was rumored to have used colophony and another irritating ingredient called propolis in the wood varnish of his instruments. Because he was such a great influence on the art of violin crafting, his technique is still used in the modern era, which may be another contributing factor to the allergic reactions seen in stringed instrumentalists.”

(In the poster, the authors refer to one of the articles in the review, which described a violin maker allergic to colophony and propolis, who was treated with cetirizine, mild corticosteroids, and avoidance.)

What should dermatologists know about skin conditions in these musicians? Mr. Hall, one of the coauthors of the report, suggested they invite the patients to play their instruments during a visit. “The musicians may not understand that they are doing certain things with their movements, but looking from a clinical lens, we are able to see how their biomechanics and posture [are] contributing to their dermatitis,” he said.

Dr. Surve, the other coauthor, also suggested speaking to the patient’s teacher, coach, or mentor. “Keeping that person in the loop regarding what you are seeing and recommending will go a long way towards helping your patient,” he said. “If the teacher doesn’t understand or agree with what you’re trying to accomplish, they may try to undermine your plan of care. But if they are on board, they become a valuable tool for facilitating and reinforcing it.”

As for treatments, avoidance of the instruments is the most effective, but is simply not feasible for many musicians. “Certain interventions like creating a barrier between the musician and the instrument can reduce the risk of contact dermatitis without compromising the quality [of playing] as much,” Mr. Hall said. The poster reported that a handkerchief was used for this purpose in one case attributed to nickel sulfate in a 16-year-old .

Purchasing more expensive instrument materials to prevent reactions is another option, he said, and players can also purchase stands. But musicians may be resistant to any treatment that changes how the instruments sound or forces them to adjust the way they do things, he cautioned.

No funding for the study or author disclosures were reported.

Violin and viola players can pay a price for the music they create: Many suffer from skin irritation and inflammation where the instruments touch their necks and upper bodies. Now, a new literature review offers insight into this common condition, known as “fiddler’s neck.”

Hill Street Studios/Stone/Getty Images

“These skin conditions are disfiguring, and they also carry so much psychological burden. Not only are these patients under constant pressure to perform at their maximum at all times, it really is troublesome when there is a barrier between you and performing art that you absolutely love,” lead author Henry Lim, an osteopathic medical student at the University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth, said in an interview.

The results of the literature review were presented in a poster at the Inaugural Symposium for Inflammatory Skin Disease.

Mr. Lim, who has a special interest in skin, said his own musical experience inspired the research. “Throughout my experience as a violinist, I faced many dermatologic issues because of my violin, and it affected my performance,” he said. “As time went on, I recognized that many other stringed instrumentalists were dealing with similar issues but chose to live with it because it came with the territory.”

One physician told Mr. Lim that he needed to quit in order to permanently treat his skin problems. He didn’t accept this answer and instead launched the literature review with colleagues Marshall Hall, MPH, also an osteopathic medical student with an interest in dermatology, and Sajid Surve, DO, codirector of the UNT Texas Center for Performing Arts Health.

Mr. Lim and colleagues evaluated 23 articles, which included case studies and literature reviews, about dermatitis in violinists, violists, cellists, bassists, guitarists and harpists. “Stringed instrumentalists are the highest at-risk population compared to performers who play other types of instruments,” Mr. Lim said.

The poster he presented at the meeting largely focuses on fiddler’s neck, which he defined as “simply dermatitis related to friction and allergic irritation from playing violin or viola.” Many people, he noted, are allergic to nickel, and the bracket that secures the violin’s chin rest “most often contains nickel. Even a very small concentration of nickel can cause massive reactions, and we found that the C string of a viola – the thickest, lowest-sounding string – contains a nickel concentration of up to 37%.”

Gold-coated strings are an alternative option, he said, but they’re more expensive.

Stringed instrumentalists may also be allergic to rosin applied to “bow hairs,” which is the hair – typically from horses – that is used to string bows, also described in the poster. “We found that there is an overall common allergy to the main ingredient called colophony,” Mr. Lim said. The legendary violin maker Antonio Stradivari “was rumored to have used colophony and another irritating ingredient called propolis in the wood varnish of his instruments. Because he was such a great influence on the art of violin crafting, his technique is still used in the modern era, which may be another contributing factor to the allergic reactions seen in stringed instrumentalists.”

(In the poster, the authors refer to one of the articles in the review, which described a violin maker allergic to colophony and propolis, who was treated with cetirizine, mild corticosteroids, and avoidance.)

What should dermatologists know about skin conditions in these musicians? Mr. Hall, one of the coauthors of the report, suggested they invite the patients to play their instruments during a visit. “The musicians may not understand that they are doing certain things with their movements, but looking from a clinical lens, we are able to see how their biomechanics and posture [are] contributing to their dermatitis,” he said.

Dr. Surve, the other coauthor, also suggested speaking to the patient’s teacher, coach, or mentor. “Keeping that person in the loop regarding what you are seeing and recommending will go a long way towards helping your patient,” he said. “If the teacher doesn’t understand or agree with what you’re trying to accomplish, they may try to undermine your plan of care. But if they are on board, they become a valuable tool for facilitating and reinforcing it.”

As for treatments, avoidance of the instruments is the most effective, but is simply not feasible for many musicians. “Certain interventions like creating a barrier between the musician and the instrument can reduce the risk of contact dermatitis without compromising the quality [of playing] as much,” Mr. Hall said. The poster reported that a handkerchief was used for this purpose in one case attributed to nickel sulfate in a 16-year-old .

Purchasing more expensive instrument materials to prevent reactions is another option, he said, and players can also purchase stands. But musicians may be resistant to any treatment that changes how the instruments sound or forces them to adjust the way they do things, he cautioned.

No funding for the study or author disclosures were reported.

Violin and viola players can pay a price for the music they create: Many suffer from skin irritation and inflammation where the instruments touch their necks and upper bodies. Now, a new literature review offers insight into this common condition, known as “fiddler’s neck.”

Hill Street Studios/Stone/Getty Images

“These skin conditions are disfiguring, and they also carry so much psychological burden. Not only are these patients under constant pressure to perform at their maximum at all times, it really is troublesome when there is a barrier between you and performing art that you absolutely love,” lead author Henry Lim, an osteopathic medical student at the University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth, said in an interview.

The results of the literature review were presented in a poster at the Inaugural Symposium for Inflammatory Skin Disease.

Mr. Lim, who has a special interest in skin, said his own musical experience inspired the research. “Throughout my experience as a violinist, I faced many dermatologic issues because of my violin, and it affected my performance,” he said. “As time went on, I recognized that many other stringed instrumentalists were dealing with similar issues but chose to live with it because it came with the territory.”

One physician told Mr. Lim that he needed to quit in order to permanently treat his skin problems. He didn’t accept this answer and instead launched the literature review with colleagues Marshall Hall, MPH, also an osteopathic medical student with an interest in dermatology, and Sajid Surve, DO, codirector of the UNT Texas Center for Performing Arts Health.

Mr. Lim and colleagues evaluated 23 articles, which included case studies and literature reviews, about dermatitis in violinists, violists, cellists, bassists, guitarists and harpists. “Stringed instrumentalists are the highest at-risk population compared to performers who play other types of instruments,” Mr. Lim said.

The poster he presented at the meeting largely focuses on fiddler’s neck, which he defined as “simply dermatitis related to friction and allergic irritation from playing violin or viola.” Many people, he noted, are allergic to nickel, and the bracket that secures the violin’s chin rest “most often contains nickel. Even a very small concentration of nickel can cause massive reactions, and we found that the C string of a viola – the thickest, lowest-sounding string – contains a nickel concentration of up to 37%.”

Gold-coated strings are an alternative option, he said, but they’re more expensive.

Stringed instrumentalists may also be allergic to rosin applied to “bow hairs,” which is the hair – typically from horses – that is used to string bows, also described in the poster. “We found that there is an overall common allergy to the main ingredient called colophony,” Mr. Lim said. The legendary violin maker Antonio Stradivari “was rumored to have used colophony and another irritating ingredient called propolis in the wood varnish of his instruments. Because he was such a great influence on the art of violin crafting, his technique is still used in the modern era, which may be another contributing factor to the allergic reactions seen in stringed instrumentalists.”

(In the poster, the authors refer to one of the articles in the review, which described a violin maker allergic to colophony and propolis, who was treated with cetirizine, mild corticosteroids, and avoidance.)

What should dermatologists know about skin conditions in these musicians? Mr. Hall, one of the coauthors of the report, suggested they invite the patients to play their instruments during a visit. “The musicians may not understand that they are doing certain things with their movements, but looking from a clinical lens, we are able to see how their biomechanics and posture [are] contributing to their dermatitis,” he said.

Dr. Surve, the other coauthor, also suggested speaking to the patient’s teacher, coach, or mentor. “Keeping that person in the loop regarding what you are seeing and recommending will go a long way towards helping your patient,” he said. “If the teacher doesn’t understand or agree with what you’re trying to accomplish, they may try to undermine your plan of care. But if they are on board, they become a valuable tool for facilitating and reinforcing it.”

As for treatments, avoidance of the instruments is the most effective, but is simply not feasible for many musicians. “Certain interventions like creating a barrier between the musician and the instrument can reduce the risk of contact dermatitis without compromising the quality [of playing] as much,” Mr. Hall said. The poster reported that a handkerchief was used for this purpose in one case attributed to nickel sulfate in a 16-year-old .

Purchasing more expensive instrument materials to prevent reactions is another option, he said, and players can also purchase stands. But musicians may be resistant to any treatment that changes how the instruments sound or forces them to adjust the way they do things, he cautioned.

No funding for the study or author disclosures were reported.

As physicians and patients anticipate the U.S. approval of oral Janus kinase 1/JAK2 inhibitors for atopic dermatitis (AD), how well they will work hinges on a host of factors, largely because of the heterogeneous nature of the disease.

“Atopic dermatitis patients have different complaints,” Jacob P. Thyssen, MD, PhD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “Some of them have repeated infections. Some have psychiatric symptoms. Others have widespread eczema. When you talk about how well they work, it really depends on what aspects of AD, what subgroups of AD, and how well they work with comorbidities of AD.”

Baricitinib, a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor in 2-mg and 4-mg tablets, is available in the European Union, and is under Food and Drug Administration review for AD in the United States. Two JAK1 inhibitors continue to be evaluated in AD clinical trials and are also under FDA review for AD: abrocitinib (100 mg and 200 mg) and upadacitinib (15 mg and 30 mg). None of these agents have been tested in head-to-head trials and only one (abrocitinib) has been compared with the interleukin-4 receptor–alpha antagonist dupilumab, which makes meaningful direct comparisons impossible. (Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved for treating RA in the United States.)

In his informal assessment from clinical trial data of how these three JAK inhibitors compare with the biologic agents dupilumab and tralokinumab, with potency as an indication, Dr. Thyssen, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, observed that abrocitinib and dupilumab “are somewhere in the middle,” tralokinumab and baricitinib are “slightly weaker,” while upadacitinib is “very potent.” (Dupilumab is approved by the FDA for treating AD ages 6 and older, and tralokinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-13, is under FDA review for AD.)

However, he cautioned that making direct comparisons of these drugs is limited by differences in clinical trial designs, trial length, severity of disease at baseline, and demographics. “Placebo effects also differ between trials, and the speed of onset is different between JAK inhibitors and biologic agents. Because of this, efficacy can be difficult to assess over 12-16 weeks. That’s why long-term studies are necessary.”

It’s also tricky to compare safety signals with baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib, “because some of them are JAK1 inhibitors; others are JAK1/JAK2 inhibitors,” he continued. “Even the molecules that inhibit JAK1 are different, so making a comparison between abrocitinib and upadacitinib requires studies that do this is in the best way and over a long period of time.”
 

Safety signals

Common safety signals in this drug class include nasopharyngitis, nausea, and headache. “Many of these are short lasting, meaning that patients will perhaps have a headache for a day or two and then it will be over,” said Dr. Thyssen, who is also a consultant dermatologist at Bispebjerg Hospital in Copenhagen. “This means that even though we see high proportions of safety signals, this is probably not going to limit the use of JAK inhibitors in most of our patients. Then we have an acne signal in higher proportions for abrocitinib and upadacitinib than for baricitinib, so perhaps this is related to the potency.”

There is also an increased risk for infections, including herpes zoster. “Is this a class effect?” he asked. “We see quite a bit for baricitinib, particularly when it’s used for rheumatoid arthritis. We also see it in AD patients, but we don’t know to what degree yet. We need the real-world evidence before we can make any conclusions.” Routine blood monitoring tests are also required in patients taking JAK inhibitors, because of the risk for leukopenia and effects on liver enzymes.

Then there’s the risk of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism. “This is mostly linked to baricitinib use, but is this a class effect or is it specific to baricitinib?” he asked. “We’ll have to wait and see, but I think overall, this is not something I have great fear of because we see that AD patients are young, usually with a normal [body mass index], at least in Europe. But we have to study this closely.”

From a clinical standpoint, JAK1/2 inhibitors work well on every measurable aspect of AD, he said, including eczema severity, itch, skin pain, sleep, and quality of life. “Based on conference abstracts and publications, they seem to work equally well independent of race, BMI, atopy status, age, and whether their AD is extrinsic or intrinsic,” Dr. Thyssen added. “One thing we haven’t learned from the companies is, what patients have the highest likelihood of getting a good treatment response? We don’t have good biomarkers yet, but anything the companies can do to help us identify the patients with the greatest chance of success would be so welcome.”

The best available data suggest that JAK inhibitors benefit AD patients with certain comorbidities, including inflammatory bowel disease (with upadacitinib), RA (with both baricitinib and upadacitinib), and alopecia areata (with baricitinib). “These drugs also have been shown to work well for the psychiatric symptoms of disease,” he said.

“As for patients with type 2 inflammation in the airways such as asthma and rhinitis, dupilumab works, but do the JAK inhibitors work? It’s possible from a mode of action standpoint, but we don’t know.” It also remains unclear how JAK inhibitors will fare in the treatment of chronic hand eczema and ocular surface disease, like allergic conjunctivitis, he said.

Despite the unknowns, Dr. Thyssen emphasized the promise that JAK inhibitors hold for AD patients. “We know they provide good AD control,” he said. “For some, like baricitinib, you may need to instruct the patient to use topical corticosteroids as well, but this does not seem to be necessary for upadacitinib and abrocitinib. You really have a single bullet here that will take away most of the problems for many patients, with very fast onset of action, which is important for our patients.”

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member, and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

As physicians and patients anticipate the U.S. approval of oral Janus kinase 1/JAK2 inhibitors for atopic dermatitis (AD), how well they will work hinges on a host of factors, largely because of the heterogeneous nature of the disease.

“Atopic dermatitis patients have different complaints,” Jacob P. Thyssen, MD, PhD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “Some of them have repeated infections. Some have psychiatric symptoms. Others have widespread eczema. When you talk about how well they work, it really depends on what aspects of AD, what subgroups of AD, and how well they work with comorbidities of AD.”

Baricitinib, a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor in 2-mg and 4-mg tablets, is available in the European Union, and is under Food and Drug Administration review for AD in the United States. Two JAK1 inhibitors continue to be evaluated in AD clinical trials and are also under FDA review for AD: abrocitinib (100 mg and 200 mg) and upadacitinib (15 mg and 30 mg). None of these agents have been tested in head-to-head trials and only one (abrocitinib) has been compared with the interleukin-4 receptor–alpha antagonist dupilumab, which makes meaningful direct comparisons impossible. (Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved for treating RA in the United States.)

In his informal assessment from clinical trial data of how these three JAK inhibitors compare with the biologic agents dupilumab and tralokinumab, with potency as an indication, Dr. Thyssen, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, observed that abrocitinib and dupilumab “are somewhere in the middle,” tralokinumab and baricitinib are “slightly weaker,” while upadacitinib is “very potent.” (Dupilumab is approved by the FDA for treating AD ages 6 and older, and tralokinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-13, is under FDA review for AD.)

However, he cautioned that making direct comparisons of these drugs is limited by differences in clinical trial designs, trial length, severity of disease at baseline, and demographics. “Placebo effects also differ between trials, and the speed of onset is different between JAK inhibitors and biologic agents. Because of this, efficacy can be difficult to assess over 12-16 weeks. That’s why long-term studies are necessary.”

It’s also tricky to compare safety signals with baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib, “because some of them are JAK1 inhibitors; others are JAK1/JAK2 inhibitors,” he continued. “Even the molecules that inhibit JAK1 are different, so making a comparison between abrocitinib and upadacitinib requires studies that do this is in the best way and over a long period of time.”
 

Safety signals

Common safety signals in this drug class include nasopharyngitis, nausea, and headache. “Many of these are short lasting, meaning that patients will perhaps have a headache for a day or two and then it will be over,” said Dr. Thyssen, who is also a consultant dermatologist at Bispebjerg Hospital in Copenhagen. “This means that even though we see high proportions of safety signals, this is probably not going to limit the use of JAK inhibitors in most of our patients. Then we have an acne signal in higher proportions for abrocitinib and upadacitinib than for baricitinib, so perhaps this is related to the potency.”

There is also an increased risk for infections, including herpes zoster. “Is this a class effect?” he asked. “We see quite a bit for baricitinib, particularly when it’s used for rheumatoid arthritis. We also see it in AD patients, but we don’t know to what degree yet. We need the real-world evidence before we can make any conclusions.” Routine blood monitoring tests are also required in patients taking JAK inhibitors, because of the risk for leukopenia and effects on liver enzymes.

Then there’s the risk of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism. “This is mostly linked to baricitinib use, but is this a class effect or is it specific to baricitinib?” he asked. “We’ll have to wait and see, but I think overall, this is not something I have great fear of because we see that AD patients are young, usually with a normal [body mass index], at least in Europe. But we have to study this closely.”

From a clinical standpoint, JAK1/2 inhibitors work well on every measurable aspect of AD, he said, including eczema severity, itch, skin pain, sleep, and quality of life. “Based on conference abstracts and publications, they seem to work equally well independent of race, BMI, atopy status, age, and whether their AD is extrinsic or intrinsic,” Dr. Thyssen added. “One thing we haven’t learned from the companies is, what patients have the highest likelihood of getting a good treatment response? We don’t have good biomarkers yet, but anything the companies can do to help us identify the patients with the greatest chance of success would be so welcome.”

The best available data suggest that JAK inhibitors benefit AD patients with certain comorbidities, including inflammatory bowel disease (with upadacitinib), RA (with both baricitinib and upadacitinib), and alopecia areata (with baricitinib). “These drugs also have been shown to work well for the psychiatric symptoms of disease,” he said.

“As for patients with type 2 inflammation in the airways such as asthma and rhinitis, dupilumab works, but do the JAK inhibitors work? It’s possible from a mode of action standpoint, but we don’t know.” It also remains unclear how JAK inhibitors will fare in the treatment of chronic hand eczema and ocular surface disease, like allergic conjunctivitis, he said.

Despite the unknowns, Dr. Thyssen emphasized the promise that JAK inhibitors hold for AD patients. “We know they provide good AD control,” he said. “For some, like baricitinib, you may need to instruct the patient to use topical corticosteroids as well, but this does not seem to be necessary for upadacitinib and abrocitinib. You really have a single bullet here that will take away most of the problems for many patients, with very fast onset of action, which is important for our patients.”

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member, and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

As physicians and patients anticipate the U.S. approval of oral Janus kinase 1/JAK2 inhibitors for atopic dermatitis (AD), how well they will work hinges on a host of factors, largely because of the heterogeneous nature of the disease.

“Atopic dermatitis patients have different complaints,” Jacob P. Thyssen, MD, PhD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “Some of them have repeated infections. Some have psychiatric symptoms. Others have widespread eczema. When you talk about how well they work, it really depends on what aspects of AD, what subgroups of AD, and how well they work with comorbidities of AD.”

Baricitinib, a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor in 2-mg and 4-mg tablets, is available in the European Union, and is under Food and Drug Administration review for AD in the United States. Two JAK1 inhibitors continue to be evaluated in AD clinical trials and are also under FDA review for AD: abrocitinib (100 mg and 200 mg) and upadacitinib (15 mg and 30 mg). None of these agents have been tested in head-to-head trials and only one (abrocitinib) has been compared with the interleukin-4 receptor–alpha antagonist dupilumab, which makes meaningful direct comparisons impossible. (Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved for treating RA in the United States.)

In his informal assessment from clinical trial data of how these three JAK inhibitors compare with the biologic agents dupilumab and tralokinumab, with potency as an indication, Dr. Thyssen, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, observed that abrocitinib and dupilumab “are somewhere in the middle,” tralokinumab and baricitinib are “slightly weaker,” while upadacitinib is “very potent.” (Dupilumab is approved by the FDA for treating AD ages 6 and older, and tralokinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to IL-13, is under FDA review for AD.)

However, he cautioned that making direct comparisons of these drugs is limited by differences in clinical trial designs, trial length, severity of disease at baseline, and demographics. “Placebo effects also differ between trials, and the speed of onset is different between JAK inhibitors and biologic agents. Because of this, efficacy can be difficult to assess over 12-16 weeks. That’s why long-term studies are necessary.”

It’s also tricky to compare safety signals with baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib, “because some of them are JAK1 inhibitors; others are JAK1/JAK2 inhibitors,” he continued. “Even the molecules that inhibit JAK1 are different, so making a comparison between abrocitinib and upadacitinib requires studies that do this is in the best way and over a long period of time.”
 

Safety signals

Common safety signals in this drug class include nasopharyngitis, nausea, and headache. “Many of these are short lasting, meaning that patients will perhaps have a headache for a day or two and then it will be over,” said Dr. Thyssen, who is also a consultant dermatologist at Bispebjerg Hospital in Copenhagen. “This means that even though we see high proportions of safety signals, this is probably not going to limit the use of JAK inhibitors in most of our patients. Then we have an acne signal in higher proportions for abrocitinib and upadacitinib than for baricitinib, so perhaps this is related to the potency.”

There is also an increased risk for infections, including herpes zoster. “Is this a class effect?” he asked. “We see quite a bit for baricitinib, particularly when it’s used for rheumatoid arthritis. We also see it in AD patients, but we don’t know to what degree yet. We need the real-world evidence before we can make any conclusions.” Routine blood monitoring tests are also required in patients taking JAK inhibitors, because of the risk for leukopenia and effects on liver enzymes.

Then there’s the risk of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism. “This is mostly linked to baricitinib use, but is this a class effect or is it specific to baricitinib?” he asked. “We’ll have to wait and see, but I think overall, this is not something I have great fear of because we see that AD patients are young, usually with a normal [body mass index], at least in Europe. But we have to study this closely.”

From a clinical standpoint, JAK1/2 inhibitors work well on every measurable aspect of AD, he said, including eczema severity, itch, skin pain, sleep, and quality of life. “Based on conference abstracts and publications, they seem to work equally well independent of race, BMI, atopy status, age, and whether their AD is extrinsic or intrinsic,” Dr. Thyssen added. “One thing we haven’t learned from the companies is, what patients have the highest likelihood of getting a good treatment response? We don’t have good biomarkers yet, but anything the companies can do to help us identify the patients with the greatest chance of success would be so welcome.”

The best available data suggest that JAK inhibitors benefit AD patients with certain comorbidities, including inflammatory bowel disease (with upadacitinib), RA (with both baricitinib and upadacitinib), and alopecia areata (with baricitinib). “These drugs also have been shown to work well for the psychiatric symptoms of disease,” he said.

“As for patients with type 2 inflammation in the airways such as asthma and rhinitis, dupilumab works, but do the JAK inhibitors work? It’s possible from a mode of action standpoint, but we don’t know.” It also remains unclear how JAK inhibitors will fare in the treatment of chronic hand eczema and ocular surface disease, like allergic conjunctivitis, he said.

Despite the unknowns, Dr. Thyssen emphasized the promise that JAK inhibitors hold for AD patients. “We know they provide good AD control,” he said. “For some, like baricitinib, you may need to instruct the patient to use topical corticosteroids as well, but this does not seem to be necessary for upadacitinib and abrocitinib. You really have a single bullet here that will take away most of the problems for many patients, with very fast onset of action, which is important for our patients.”

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member, and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Clinicians who struggle to get dupilumab approved for their patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) are not alone.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This scenario was illustrated in a 2020 retrospective study of 179 adults with AD who were cared for at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which found that 37% did not start dupilumab, mainly due to insurance denial (19%) and high copay (11%).

“We’ve all seen this in our practice,” Amy S. Paller, MD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “We’ve also seen the denials until we get step therapy in there, so if I have a child whom I want to treat with dupilumab for safety reasons, I don’t like being told that I’m going to have to use cyclosporine or methotrexate or a medication that I think may have higher risks and certainly [would] require blood monitoring–yet that’s the state for some patients.”

Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, is approved for treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients ages 6 and older.

When working to obtain insurance approval of dupilumab, Dr. Paller reminded dermatologists to document that the patient has moderate to severe AD “and document the negative effect on quality of life in order to try to help make it easier to get these medications for our patients.”
 

Starting patients on dupilumab

Dr. Paller, the Walter J. Hamlin Chair and Professor of Dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that if patients are on another systemic medication prior to starting dupilumab, she allows a transition period of 1-2 months. “Don’t just stop that drug because it’s ‘not working,’ ” she said. “I usually do a full dose for the first month, and a half dose for the next month before starting dupilumab. Also, don’t stop the use of topical corticosteroids. They can increase treatment response by 10%-20%, even when patients are on dupilumab.”

She recommends a 3- to 4-month trial of dupilumab while monitoring changes in disease severity, itch, and quality of life. “Usually there’s evidence of early improvement by 2 months in those who are going to do well enough to stay on the drug by about 4 months out,” she said. “In my experience, most pediatric patients do very well. In those with an inadequate response, about 50% will do better if you can increase the dose or frequency. Flares can still occur in those who do well. I usually push topicals when that happens.”

If patients respond well after starting dupilumab, Dr. Paller recommends that they continue on the drug for at least a year before considering a taper with the hope of “resetting” the immune system and having sustained improvement off drug. “Some parents and patients don’t want to stop the drug,” but for those who do, she tells them that she does not want to abruptly stop treatment, but to “space out the dosing” instead. “If someone is pretty much clear with the medication and is able to continue with topicals as you dial down, that’s great. But don’t even think about taking them off if somebody’s not clear or virtually clear, particularly if they start to flare with lower frequency.”
 

Data on effectiveness

Real-world data suggest that the effectiveness of dupilumab is similar to the efficacy seen in clinical trials. For example, a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis of 3,303 AD patients on dupilumab found that after 16 weeks of therapy, 60% achieved a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity (EASI75) score, and 27% achieved an EASI90. In a Dutch study of 210 adults treated with dupilumab for 52 weeks, enrolled in a Dutch registry, the mean percent reduction in EASI score was 70% at 16 weeks and 76.6% by 52 weeks.

In addition, there was at least a 4-point improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) score and at least a 4-point improvement in the Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), said Dr. Paller, who was not involved in the study. “These patient-reported improvements were seen very early on,” she noted.

What about drug survival at 1 year? In a retrospective cohort study that drew from insurance databases, 1,963 adults given dupilumab were studied for a mean of 315 days. The rate of persistence was 92% at 6 months and 77% at 12 months. “That means that it’s still effective,” Dr. Paller said.

While that is a short period of time, she compared these results with long-term survival of nonsteroid systemic immunosuppressants such as cyclosporine, referring to a study of adults with AD treated with systemic immunosuppressants, which found “a 32% persistence rate at 12 months in drugs that require more monitoring, so more burden.”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant to and/or an investigator for dupilumab (Dupixent) manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi, AbbVie, Arena, Bausch, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Forte, LEO Pharma, LifeMax, Pfizer, and RAPT Therapeutics.

Clinicians who struggle to get dupilumab approved for their patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) are not alone.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This scenario was illustrated in a 2020 retrospective study of 179 adults with AD who were cared for at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which found that 37% did not start dupilumab, mainly due to insurance denial (19%) and high copay (11%).

“We’ve all seen this in our practice,” Amy S. Paller, MD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “We’ve also seen the denials until we get step therapy in there, so if I have a child whom I want to treat with dupilumab for safety reasons, I don’t like being told that I’m going to have to use cyclosporine or methotrexate or a medication that I think may have higher risks and certainly [would] require blood monitoring–yet that’s the state for some patients.”

Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, is approved for treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients ages 6 and older.

When working to obtain insurance approval of dupilumab, Dr. Paller reminded dermatologists to document that the patient has moderate to severe AD “and document the negative effect on quality of life in order to try to help make it easier to get these medications for our patients.”
 

Starting patients on dupilumab

Dr. Paller, the Walter J. Hamlin Chair and Professor of Dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that if patients are on another systemic medication prior to starting dupilumab, she allows a transition period of 1-2 months. “Don’t just stop that drug because it’s ‘not working,’ ” she said. “I usually do a full dose for the first month, and a half dose for the next month before starting dupilumab. Also, don’t stop the use of topical corticosteroids. They can increase treatment response by 10%-20%, even when patients are on dupilumab.”

She recommends a 3- to 4-month trial of dupilumab while monitoring changes in disease severity, itch, and quality of life. “Usually there’s evidence of early improvement by 2 months in those who are going to do well enough to stay on the drug by about 4 months out,” she said. “In my experience, most pediatric patients do very well. In those with an inadequate response, about 50% will do better if you can increase the dose or frequency. Flares can still occur in those who do well. I usually push topicals when that happens.”

If patients respond well after starting dupilumab, Dr. Paller recommends that they continue on the drug for at least a year before considering a taper with the hope of “resetting” the immune system and having sustained improvement off drug. “Some parents and patients don’t want to stop the drug,” but for those who do, she tells them that she does not want to abruptly stop treatment, but to “space out the dosing” instead. “If someone is pretty much clear with the medication and is able to continue with topicals as you dial down, that’s great. But don’t even think about taking them off if somebody’s not clear or virtually clear, particularly if they start to flare with lower frequency.”
 

Data on effectiveness

Real-world data suggest that the effectiveness of dupilumab is similar to the efficacy seen in clinical trials. For example, a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis of 3,303 AD patients on dupilumab found that after 16 weeks of therapy, 60% achieved a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity (EASI75) score, and 27% achieved an EASI90. In a Dutch study of 210 adults treated with dupilumab for 52 weeks, enrolled in a Dutch registry, the mean percent reduction in EASI score was 70% at 16 weeks and 76.6% by 52 weeks.

In addition, there was at least a 4-point improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) score and at least a 4-point improvement in the Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), said Dr. Paller, who was not involved in the study. “These patient-reported improvements were seen very early on,” she noted.

What about drug survival at 1 year? In a retrospective cohort study that drew from insurance databases, 1,963 adults given dupilumab were studied for a mean of 315 days. The rate of persistence was 92% at 6 months and 77% at 12 months. “That means that it’s still effective,” Dr. Paller said.

While that is a short period of time, she compared these results with long-term survival of nonsteroid systemic immunosuppressants such as cyclosporine, referring to a study of adults with AD treated with systemic immunosuppressants, which found “a 32% persistence rate at 12 months in drugs that require more monitoring, so more burden.”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant to and/or an investigator for dupilumab (Dupixent) manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi, AbbVie, Arena, Bausch, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Forte, LEO Pharma, LifeMax, Pfizer, and RAPT Therapeutics.

Clinicians who struggle to get dupilumab approved for their patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) are not alone.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This scenario was illustrated in a 2020 retrospective study of 179 adults with AD who were cared for at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which found that 37% did not start dupilumab, mainly due to insurance denial (19%) and high copay (11%).

“We’ve all seen this in our practice,” Amy S. Paller, MD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “We’ve also seen the denials until we get step therapy in there, so if I have a child whom I want to treat with dupilumab for safety reasons, I don’t like being told that I’m going to have to use cyclosporine or methotrexate or a medication that I think may have higher risks and certainly [would] require blood monitoring–yet that’s the state for some patients.”

Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, is approved for treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients ages 6 and older.

When working to obtain insurance approval of dupilumab, Dr. Paller reminded dermatologists to document that the patient has moderate to severe AD “and document the negative effect on quality of life in order to try to help make it easier to get these medications for our patients.”
 

Starting patients on dupilumab

Dr. Paller, the Walter J. Hamlin Chair and Professor of Dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that if patients are on another systemic medication prior to starting dupilumab, she allows a transition period of 1-2 months. “Don’t just stop that drug because it’s ‘not working,’ ” she said. “I usually do a full dose for the first month, and a half dose for the next month before starting dupilumab. Also, don’t stop the use of topical corticosteroids. They can increase treatment response by 10%-20%, even when patients are on dupilumab.”

She recommends a 3- to 4-month trial of dupilumab while monitoring changes in disease severity, itch, and quality of life. “Usually there’s evidence of early improvement by 2 months in those who are going to do well enough to stay on the drug by about 4 months out,” she said. “In my experience, most pediatric patients do very well. In those with an inadequate response, about 50% will do better if you can increase the dose or frequency. Flares can still occur in those who do well. I usually push topicals when that happens.”

If patients respond well after starting dupilumab, Dr. Paller recommends that they continue on the drug for at least a year before considering a taper with the hope of “resetting” the immune system and having sustained improvement off drug. “Some parents and patients don’t want to stop the drug,” but for those who do, she tells them that she does not want to abruptly stop treatment, but to “space out the dosing” instead. “If someone is pretty much clear with the medication and is able to continue with topicals as you dial down, that’s great. But don’t even think about taking them off if somebody’s not clear or virtually clear, particularly if they start to flare with lower frequency.”
 

Data on effectiveness

Real-world data suggest that the effectiveness of dupilumab is similar to the efficacy seen in clinical trials. For example, a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis of 3,303 AD patients on dupilumab found that after 16 weeks of therapy, 60% achieved a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity (EASI75) score, and 27% achieved an EASI90. In a Dutch study of 210 adults treated with dupilumab for 52 weeks, enrolled in a Dutch registry, the mean percent reduction in EASI score was 70% at 16 weeks and 76.6% by 52 weeks.

In addition, there was at least a 4-point improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) score and at least a 4-point improvement in the Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), said Dr. Paller, who was not involved in the study. “These patient-reported improvements were seen very early on,” she noted.

What about drug survival at 1 year? In a retrospective cohort study that drew from insurance databases, 1,963 adults given dupilumab were studied for a mean of 315 days. The rate of persistence was 92% at 6 months and 77% at 12 months. “That means that it’s still effective,” Dr. Paller said.

While that is a short period of time, she compared these results with long-term survival of nonsteroid systemic immunosuppressants such as cyclosporine, referring to a study of adults with AD treated with systemic immunosuppressants, which found “a 32% persistence rate at 12 months in drugs that require more monitoring, so more burden.”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant to and/or an investigator for dupilumab (Dupixent) manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi, AbbVie, Arena, Bausch, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Forte, LEO Pharma, LifeMax, Pfizer, and RAPT Therapeutics.

Malignancy rates were low in patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis who were treated with secukinumab, for up to 5 years, based on data from a safety analysis that included 49 clinical trials.

Secukinumab (Cosentyx), an interleukin-17A antagonist, is approved for several conditions: moderate to severe psoriasis in children and adults, PsA, ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis.

Although secukinumab has demonstrated safety and tolerability, data on long-term malignancy rates are limited, wrote Mark Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and coauthors.

In a study published in the British Journal of Dermatology, they analyzed the combined safety data from clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance. The study population included 10,685 patients with psoriasis, 2,523 patients with PsA, and 1,311 patients with ankylosing spondylitis who received at least one approved dose of secukinumab (300 mg or 150 mg). The maximum follow-up was 5 years. The exposure-adjusted incidence rate was defined as the incidence rates per 100 patient treatment-years (PTY). The cumulative exposure for patients with psoriasis, PsA, and AS was 16,482, 4,944, and 2,668 PTY, respectively, with average follow-up times of 1.54, 1.96, and 2.03 years, respectively.

The observed and the expected number of malignancies were comparable, with a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) for malignancy of 0.99 across all treatment indications, the researchers said. In further analysis of malignancy by indication, the SIR was 0.87, 1.16, and 1.61 for psoriasis, PsA, and AS, respectively.

Data from postmarketing surveillance showed similar results: The estimated crude cumulative incidence reporting rate per 100 PTY was 0.27 for malignancy across all indications. The cumulative exposure was 285,811 PTY.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the post hoc design, differences in clinical trial methodologies, and lack of controlling for confounding variables, such as smoking status and previous exposure to systemic and biologic treatments, the researchers noted. In addition, the analysis did not include postexposure follow-up data, or data on patients who discontinued clinical trials, they said.

Overall, the analysis is the largest to date and supports the low risk of malignancy in patients with psoriasis, PsA, and AS treated with secukinumab, the researchers noted.

However, “while this assessment provides a broader understanding of the safety of secukinumab and supports its long-term use in these chronic systemic inflammatory conditions, registry data are further warranted to fully understand the real-world effect of biologics on malignancy risk,” they concluded.

“Secukinumab is a relatively newer biologic, approved in 2015, and there is currently a lack of longer-term data on the incidence of malignancy in secukinumab-treated patients, so it’s important to look at the data we have so far on this topic so we can better understand the long-term risks and counsel our psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients,” Flavia Fedeles, MD, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

Dr. Fedeles, who was not involved with the study, said that she was not surprised by the study results. “Data reported in the past from phase 3 clinical trials of secukinumab compared with placebo did not show an increase in risk of malignancy, though at that time no long-term safety data or data from patients with history of malignancy was available,” she said. “This study is reassuring in that there wasn’t a signal of increased malignancy events up to 5 years of secukinumab treatment,” said Dr. Fedeles.

Malignancy rates were low in patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis who were treated with secukinumab, for up to 5 years, based on data from a safety analysis that included 49 clinical trials.

Secukinumab (Cosentyx), an interleukin-17A antagonist, is approved for several conditions: moderate to severe psoriasis in children and adults, PsA, ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis.

Although secukinumab has demonstrated safety and tolerability, data on long-term malignancy rates are limited, wrote Mark Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and coauthors.

In a study published in the British Journal of Dermatology, they analyzed the combined safety data from clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance. The study population included 10,685 patients with psoriasis, 2,523 patients with PsA, and 1,311 patients with ankylosing spondylitis who received at least one approved dose of secukinumab (300 mg or 150 mg). The maximum follow-up was 5 years. The exposure-adjusted incidence rate was defined as the incidence rates per 100 patient treatment-years (PTY). The cumulative exposure for patients with psoriasis, PsA, and AS was 16,482, 4,944, and 2,668 PTY, respectively, with average follow-up times of 1.54, 1.96, and 2.03 years, respectively.

The observed and the expected number of malignancies were comparable, with a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) for malignancy of 0.99 across all treatment indications, the researchers said. In further analysis of malignancy by indication, the SIR was 0.87, 1.16, and 1.61 for psoriasis, PsA, and AS, respectively.

Data from postmarketing surveillance showed similar results: The estimated crude cumulative incidence reporting rate per 100 PTY was 0.27 for malignancy across all indications. The cumulative exposure was 285,811 PTY.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the post hoc design, differences in clinical trial methodologies, and lack of controlling for confounding variables, such as smoking status and previous exposure to systemic and biologic treatments, the researchers noted. In addition, the analysis did not include postexposure follow-up data, or data on patients who discontinued clinical trials, they said.

Overall, the analysis is the largest to date and supports the low risk of malignancy in patients with psoriasis, PsA, and AS treated with secukinumab, the researchers noted.

However, “while this assessment provides a broader understanding of the safety of secukinumab and supports its long-term use in these chronic systemic inflammatory conditions, registry data are further warranted to fully understand the real-world effect of biologics on malignancy risk,” they concluded.

“Secukinumab is a relatively newer biologic, approved in 2015, and there is currently a lack of longer-term data on the incidence of malignancy in secukinumab-treated patients, so it’s important to look at the data we have so far on this topic so we can better understand the long-term risks and counsel our psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients,” Flavia Fedeles, MD, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

Dr. Fedeles, who was not involved with the study, said that she was not surprised by the study results. “Data reported in the past from phase 3 clinical trials of secukinumab compared with placebo did not show an increase in risk of malignancy, though at that time no long-term safety data or data from patients with history of malignancy was available,” she said. “This study is reassuring in that there wasn’t a signal of increased malignancy events up to 5 years of secukinumab treatment,” said Dr. Fedeles.

Malignancy rates were low in patients with psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis who were treated with secukinumab, for up to 5 years, based on data from a safety analysis that included 49 clinical trials.

Secukinumab (Cosentyx), an interleukin-17A antagonist, is approved for several conditions: moderate to severe psoriasis in children and adults, PsA, ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis.

Although secukinumab has demonstrated safety and tolerability, data on long-term malignancy rates are limited, wrote Mark Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and coauthors.

In a study published in the British Journal of Dermatology, they analyzed the combined safety data from clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance. The study population included 10,685 patients with psoriasis, 2,523 patients with PsA, and 1,311 patients with ankylosing spondylitis who received at least one approved dose of secukinumab (300 mg or 150 mg). The maximum follow-up was 5 years. The exposure-adjusted incidence rate was defined as the incidence rates per 100 patient treatment-years (PTY). The cumulative exposure for patients with psoriasis, PsA, and AS was 16,482, 4,944, and 2,668 PTY, respectively, with average follow-up times of 1.54, 1.96, and 2.03 years, respectively.

The observed and the expected number of malignancies were comparable, with a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) for malignancy of 0.99 across all treatment indications, the researchers said. In further analysis of malignancy by indication, the SIR was 0.87, 1.16, and 1.61 for psoriasis, PsA, and AS, respectively.

Data from postmarketing surveillance showed similar results: The estimated crude cumulative incidence reporting rate per 100 PTY was 0.27 for malignancy across all indications. The cumulative exposure was 285,811 PTY.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the post hoc design, differences in clinical trial methodologies, and lack of controlling for confounding variables, such as smoking status and previous exposure to systemic and biologic treatments, the researchers noted. In addition, the analysis did not include postexposure follow-up data, or data on patients who discontinued clinical trials, they said.

Overall, the analysis is the largest to date and supports the low risk of malignancy in patients with psoriasis, PsA, and AS treated with secukinumab, the researchers noted.

However, “while this assessment provides a broader understanding of the safety of secukinumab and supports its long-term use in these chronic systemic inflammatory conditions, registry data are further warranted to fully understand the real-world effect of biologics on malignancy risk,” they concluded.

“Secukinumab is a relatively newer biologic, approved in 2015, and there is currently a lack of longer-term data on the incidence of malignancy in secukinumab-treated patients, so it’s important to look at the data we have so far on this topic so we can better understand the long-term risks and counsel our psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients,” Flavia Fedeles, MD, of the department of dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

Dr. Fedeles, who was not involved with the study, said that she was not surprised by the study results. “Data reported in the past from phase 3 clinical trials of secukinumab compared with placebo did not show an increase in risk of malignancy, though at that time no long-term safety data or data from patients with history of malignancy was available,” she said. “This study is reassuring in that there wasn’t a signal of increased malignancy events up to 5 years of secukinumab treatment,” said Dr. Fedeles.

Baricitinib, at a dose of 2 mg a day, demonstrated efficacy in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis up to 52 weeks, integrated data from two trials demonstrated.

Bruce Jancin/MDEdge News

“With long-term therapy, the baricitinib 2 mg response remains stable or slightly improved, compared with week 16 for skin inflammation, itch, sleep, and quality of life,” presenting study author Eric L. Simpson, MD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/JAK2 inhibitor being developed for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy. The drug is already approved for AD in Europe at the 2-mg and 4-mg doses. A 16-week placebo-controlled study conducted in North America known as BREEZE-AD5 found that 2 mg of baricitinib improved disease in adults with moderate to severe AD.

For the current analysis, Dr. Simpson, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and colleagues integrated data from BREEZE-AD5 and BREEZE-AD6, an ongoing, open-label study of BREEZE-AD5, to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of baricitinib 2 mg in patients with moderate to severe AD.

At week 16, patients from BREEZE-AD5 who were on baricitinib 2 mg could either continue the trial out to week 52, or they could transition to BREEZE-AD6 if they were nonresponders. The use of low-potency corticosteroids was permitted after week 16 in BREEZE-AD5 and throughout BREEZE-AD6. Endpoints of interest at week 52 in both trials were the proportions of patients with 75% or greater improvement from baseline in the Eczema and Severity Index (EASI75), a Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) score of 0 or 1, a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 5 or less, as well as mean SCORing AD (SCORAD) visual analog scales of itch and sleeplessness scores, and the mean percent change from baseline in EASI score.

Dr. Simpson presented data on 146 patients from both trials who were randomized to baricitinib 2 mg. Their mean age was 40 years, 53% were female, 58% were White, 21% were Black, 15% were Asian, and the remainder were from other backgrounds. Their mean duration of AD was 16 years and their average EASI score was 26.6. At weeks 16, 32, and 52, the proportion of patients who achieved an EASI75 response was 40%, 51%, and 49%, respectively, while the mean percent change from baseline in EASI score was –50%, –59%, and –57%.

At weeks 16, 32, and 52, the vIGA-AD responses of 0 or 1 were observed in 27%, 38%, and 31% of patients. The mean SCORAD pruritus score improved from 7.7 at baseline to 4.8 at week 16 and was maintained at weeks 32 (3.8) and 52 (4.3). The mean SCORAD sleeplessness score also improved from 6.5 at baseline to 3.9 at week 16 and remained stable through weeks 32 (3.4) and 52 (3.7).

Finally, among 129 patients who had a baseline DLQI of greater than 5, 39% had DLQI scores of 5 or lower at week 16, compared with 49% at week 32 and 45% at week 52, indicating a small or no effect of AD on quality of life.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly, which is developing baricitinib. Dr. Simpson disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Baricitinib, at a dose of 2 mg a day, demonstrated efficacy in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis up to 52 weeks, integrated data from two trials demonstrated.

Bruce Jancin/MDEdge News

“With long-term therapy, the baricitinib 2 mg response remains stable or slightly improved, compared with week 16 for skin inflammation, itch, sleep, and quality of life,” presenting study author Eric L. Simpson, MD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/JAK2 inhibitor being developed for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy. The drug is already approved for AD in Europe at the 2-mg and 4-mg doses. A 16-week placebo-controlled study conducted in North America known as BREEZE-AD5 found that 2 mg of baricitinib improved disease in adults with moderate to severe AD.

For the current analysis, Dr. Simpson, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and colleagues integrated data from BREEZE-AD5 and BREEZE-AD6, an ongoing, open-label study of BREEZE-AD5, to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of baricitinib 2 mg in patients with moderate to severe AD.

At week 16, patients from BREEZE-AD5 who were on baricitinib 2 mg could either continue the trial out to week 52, or they could transition to BREEZE-AD6 if they were nonresponders. The use of low-potency corticosteroids was permitted after week 16 in BREEZE-AD5 and throughout BREEZE-AD6. Endpoints of interest at week 52 in both trials were the proportions of patients with 75% or greater improvement from baseline in the Eczema and Severity Index (EASI75), a Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) score of 0 or 1, a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 5 or less, as well as mean SCORing AD (SCORAD) visual analog scales of itch and sleeplessness scores, and the mean percent change from baseline in EASI score.

Dr. Simpson presented data on 146 patients from both trials who were randomized to baricitinib 2 mg. Their mean age was 40 years, 53% were female, 58% were White, 21% were Black, 15% were Asian, and the remainder were from other backgrounds. Their mean duration of AD was 16 years and their average EASI score was 26.6. At weeks 16, 32, and 52, the proportion of patients who achieved an EASI75 response was 40%, 51%, and 49%, respectively, while the mean percent change from baseline in EASI score was –50%, –59%, and –57%.

At weeks 16, 32, and 52, the vIGA-AD responses of 0 or 1 were observed in 27%, 38%, and 31% of patients. The mean SCORAD pruritus score improved from 7.7 at baseline to 4.8 at week 16 and was maintained at weeks 32 (3.8) and 52 (4.3). The mean SCORAD sleeplessness score also improved from 6.5 at baseline to 3.9 at week 16 and remained stable through weeks 32 (3.4) and 52 (3.7).

Finally, among 129 patients who had a baseline DLQI of greater than 5, 39% had DLQI scores of 5 or lower at week 16, compared with 49% at week 32 and 45% at week 52, indicating a small or no effect of AD on quality of life.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly, which is developing baricitinib. Dr. Simpson disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Baricitinib, at a dose of 2 mg a day, demonstrated efficacy in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis up to 52 weeks, integrated data from two trials demonstrated.

Bruce Jancin/MDEdge News

“With long-term therapy, the baricitinib 2 mg response remains stable or slightly improved, compared with week 16 for skin inflammation, itch, sleep, and quality of life,” presenting study author Eric L. Simpson, MD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/JAK2 inhibitor being developed for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy. The drug is already approved for AD in Europe at the 2-mg and 4-mg doses. A 16-week placebo-controlled study conducted in North America known as BREEZE-AD5 found that 2 mg of baricitinib improved disease in adults with moderate to severe AD.

For the current analysis, Dr. Simpson, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, and colleagues integrated data from BREEZE-AD5 and BREEZE-AD6, an ongoing, open-label study of BREEZE-AD5, to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of baricitinib 2 mg in patients with moderate to severe AD.

At week 16, patients from BREEZE-AD5 who were on baricitinib 2 mg could either continue the trial out to week 52, or they could transition to BREEZE-AD6 if they were nonresponders. The use of low-potency corticosteroids was permitted after week 16 in BREEZE-AD5 and throughout BREEZE-AD6. Endpoints of interest at week 52 in both trials were the proportions of patients with 75% or greater improvement from baseline in the Eczema and Severity Index (EASI75), a Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) score of 0 or 1, a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 5 or less, as well as mean SCORing AD (SCORAD) visual analog scales of itch and sleeplessness scores, and the mean percent change from baseline in EASI score.

Dr. Simpson presented data on 146 patients from both trials who were randomized to baricitinib 2 mg. Their mean age was 40 years, 53% were female, 58% were White, 21% were Black, 15% were Asian, and the remainder were from other backgrounds. Their mean duration of AD was 16 years and their average EASI score was 26.6. At weeks 16, 32, and 52, the proportion of patients who achieved an EASI75 response was 40%, 51%, and 49%, respectively, while the mean percent change from baseline in EASI score was –50%, –59%, and –57%.

At weeks 16, 32, and 52, the vIGA-AD responses of 0 or 1 were observed in 27%, 38%, and 31% of patients. The mean SCORAD pruritus score improved from 7.7 at baseline to 4.8 at week 16 and was maintained at weeks 32 (3.8) and 52 (4.3). The mean SCORAD sleeplessness score also improved from 6.5 at baseline to 3.9 at week 16 and remained stable through weeks 32 (3.4) and 52 (3.7).

Finally, among 129 patients who had a baseline DLQI of greater than 5, 39% had DLQI scores of 5 or lower at week 16, compared with 49% at week 32 and 45% at week 52, indicating a small or no effect of AD on quality of life.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly, which is developing baricitinib. Dr. Simpson disclosed that he is a consultant to and/or an investigator for several pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

After treatment with ruxolitinib cream for 52 weeks, between 60% and 80% of atopic dermatitis patients maintained clear or almost clear skin, with no safety signals, results from a long-term analysis of clinical trial data showed.

“The incidence of application-site reactions was low, and there were no clinically meaningful changes or trends in hematologic parameters,” Kim Papp, MD, PhD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Ruxolitinib cream is a selective Janus kinase 1/JAK2 inhibitor being developed by Incyte for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD).

According to a press release from the company, the Food and Drug Administration has extended the New Drug Application review period for the agent by 3 months to September 2021. If approved, it would become first topical JAK inhibitor for use in dermatology.

In two phase 3, randomized studies of identical design involving 1,249 patients aged 12 and older with AD – TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 – ruxolitinib cream demonstrated anti-inflammatory activity, with rapid and sustained antipruritic action, compared with vehicle. To be eligible for the trials patients with an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 2 or 3 and 3%-20% of affected body surface area (BSA) were randomized (2:2:1) to twice-daily 0.75% ruxolitinib cream, 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, or vehicle cream for 8 continuous weeks.

A recently published report found that significantly more patients in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 achieved IGA treatment success with 0.75% (50% vs. 39%, respectively) and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (53.8% vs. 51.3%), compared with vehicle (15.1% vs. 7.6%; P < .0001) at week 8. In addition, significant reductions in itch, compared with vehicle, were reported within 12 hours of first applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (P < .05).
 

Longterm data

During the symposium, Dr. Papp presented long-term safety data of ruxolitinib cream in patients who were followed for an additional 44 weeks. Those initially randomized to vehicle were rerandomized 1:1 (blinded) to either ruxolitinib cream regimen. They were instructed to treat skin areas with active AD only and to stop treatment 3 days after clearance of lesions, and to restart treatment with ruxolitinib cream at the first sign of recurrence. Safety and tolerability were assessed by frequency and severity of adverse events, while disease control was measured by the proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 and the affected BSA.

Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and founder of Probity Medical Research, Waterloo, Ont., reported that 543 patients from TRuE-AD1 and 530 from TRuE-AD2 entered the long-term analysis and that about 78% of these patients completed the study. From weeks 12 to 52, the proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 with 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream ranged from 62%-77% and 67%-77%, respectively, in TRuE-AD1 to 60%-77% and 72%-80% in TRuE-AD2.

The measured mean total affected BSA was less than 3% throughout the follow-up period in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream arm in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 and was less than 3% in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream arm during most of the study period.

In a pooled safety analysis, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 60% and 54% of patients who applied 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, respectively, over 44 weeks. The frequency of application-site reactions remained low. Specifically, treatment-related adverse events were reported in 5% of patients who applied 0.75% ruxolitinib cream and in 3% of patients who applied 1.5% ruxolitinib cream; none were serious. TEAEs led to discontinuation in 2% of patients in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream group, and no patients in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream group.

“The most common treatment adverse events were upper respiratory tract infections and nasopharyngitis,” Dr. Papp said. “When looking at exposure-adjusted adverse events, we see that there is a high degree of similarity between any of the TEAEs across all of the treatment groups in both studies. We also see that it was patients on the vehicle who experienced the greatest number of application-site reactions.”

Dr. Papp disclosed that he has received honoraria or clinical research grants as a consultant, speaker, scientific officer, advisory board member, and/or steering committee member for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

After treatment with ruxolitinib cream for 52 weeks, between 60% and 80% of atopic dermatitis patients maintained clear or almost clear skin, with no safety signals, results from a long-term analysis of clinical trial data showed.

“The incidence of application-site reactions was low, and there were no clinically meaningful changes or trends in hematologic parameters,” Kim Papp, MD, PhD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Ruxolitinib cream is a selective Janus kinase 1/JAK2 inhibitor being developed by Incyte for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD).

According to a press release from the company, the Food and Drug Administration has extended the New Drug Application review period for the agent by 3 months to September 2021. If approved, it would become first topical JAK inhibitor for use in dermatology.

In two phase 3, randomized studies of identical design involving 1,249 patients aged 12 and older with AD – TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 – ruxolitinib cream demonstrated anti-inflammatory activity, with rapid and sustained antipruritic action, compared with vehicle. To be eligible for the trials patients with an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 2 or 3 and 3%-20% of affected body surface area (BSA) were randomized (2:2:1) to twice-daily 0.75% ruxolitinib cream, 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, or vehicle cream for 8 continuous weeks.

A recently published report found that significantly more patients in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 achieved IGA treatment success with 0.75% (50% vs. 39%, respectively) and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (53.8% vs. 51.3%), compared with vehicle (15.1% vs. 7.6%; P < .0001) at week 8. In addition, significant reductions in itch, compared with vehicle, were reported within 12 hours of first applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (P < .05).
 

Longterm data

During the symposium, Dr. Papp presented long-term safety data of ruxolitinib cream in patients who were followed for an additional 44 weeks. Those initially randomized to vehicle were rerandomized 1:1 (blinded) to either ruxolitinib cream regimen. They were instructed to treat skin areas with active AD only and to stop treatment 3 days after clearance of lesions, and to restart treatment with ruxolitinib cream at the first sign of recurrence. Safety and tolerability were assessed by frequency and severity of adverse events, while disease control was measured by the proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 and the affected BSA.

Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and founder of Probity Medical Research, Waterloo, Ont., reported that 543 patients from TRuE-AD1 and 530 from TRuE-AD2 entered the long-term analysis and that about 78% of these patients completed the study. From weeks 12 to 52, the proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 with 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream ranged from 62%-77% and 67%-77%, respectively, in TRuE-AD1 to 60%-77% and 72%-80% in TRuE-AD2.

The measured mean total affected BSA was less than 3% throughout the follow-up period in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream arm in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 and was less than 3% in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream arm during most of the study period.

In a pooled safety analysis, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 60% and 54% of patients who applied 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, respectively, over 44 weeks. The frequency of application-site reactions remained low. Specifically, treatment-related adverse events were reported in 5% of patients who applied 0.75% ruxolitinib cream and in 3% of patients who applied 1.5% ruxolitinib cream; none were serious. TEAEs led to discontinuation in 2% of patients in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream group, and no patients in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream group.

“The most common treatment adverse events were upper respiratory tract infections and nasopharyngitis,” Dr. Papp said. “When looking at exposure-adjusted adverse events, we see that there is a high degree of similarity between any of the TEAEs across all of the treatment groups in both studies. We also see that it was patients on the vehicle who experienced the greatest number of application-site reactions.”

Dr. Papp disclosed that he has received honoraria or clinical research grants as a consultant, speaker, scientific officer, advisory board member, and/or steering committee member for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

After treatment with ruxolitinib cream for 52 weeks, between 60% and 80% of atopic dermatitis patients maintained clear or almost clear skin, with no safety signals, results from a long-term analysis of clinical trial data showed.

“The incidence of application-site reactions was low, and there were no clinically meaningful changes or trends in hematologic parameters,” Kim Papp, MD, PhD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Ruxolitinib cream is a selective Janus kinase 1/JAK2 inhibitor being developed by Incyte for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD).

According to a press release from the company, the Food and Drug Administration has extended the New Drug Application review period for the agent by 3 months to September 2021. If approved, it would become first topical JAK inhibitor for use in dermatology.

In two phase 3, randomized studies of identical design involving 1,249 patients aged 12 and older with AD – TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 – ruxolitinib cream demonstrated anti-inflammatory activity, with rapid and sustained antipruritic action, compared with vehicle. To be eligible for the trials patients with an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 2 or 3 and 3%-20% of affected body surface area (BSA) were randomized (2:2:1) to twice-daily 0.75% ruxolitinib cream, 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, or vehicle cream for 8 continuous weeks.

A recently published report found that significantly more patients in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 achieved IGA treatment success with 0.75% (50% vs. 39%, respectively) and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (53.8% vs. 51.3%), compared with vehicle (15.1% vs. 7.6%; P < .0001) at week 8. In addition, significant reductions in itch, compared with vehicle, were reported within 12 hours of first applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream (P < .05).
 

Longterm data

During the symposium, Dr. Papp presented long-term safety data of ruxolitinib cream in patients who were followed for an additional 44 weeks. Those initially randomized to vehicle were rerandomized 1:1 (blinded) to either ruxolitinib cream regimen. They were instructed to treat skin areas with active AD only and to stop treatment 3 days after clearance of lesions, and to restart treatment with ruxolitinib cream at the first sign of recurrence. Safety and tolerability were assessed by frequency and severity of adverse events, while disease control was measured by the proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 and the affected BSA.

Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and founder of Probity Medical Research, Waterloo, Ont., reported that 543 patients from TRuE-AD1 and 530 from TRuE-AD2 entered the long-term analysis and that about 78% of these patients completed the study. From weeks 12 to 52, the proportion of patients with an IGA score of 0 or 1 with 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream ranged from 62%-77% and 67%-77%, respectively, in TRuE-AD1 to 60%-77% and 72%-80% in TRuE-AD2.

The measured mean total affected BSA was less than 3% throughout the follow-up period in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream arm in TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 and was less than 3% in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream arm during most of the study period.

In a pooled safety analysis, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 60% and 54% of patients who applied 0.75% and 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, respectively, over 44 weeks. The frequency of application-site reactions remained low. Specifically, treatment-related adverse events were reported in 5% of patients who applied 0.75% ruxolitinib cream and in 3% of patients who applied 1.5% ruxolitinib cream; none were serious. TEAEs led to discontinuation in 2% of patients in the 0.75% ruxolitinib cream group, and no patients in the 1.5% ruxolitinib cream group.

“The most common treatment adverse events were upper respiratory tract infections and nasopharyngitis,” Dr. Papp said. “When looking at exposure-adjusted adverse events, we see that there is a high degree of similarity between any of the TEAEs across all of the treatment groups in both studies. We also see that it was patients on the vehicle who experienced the greatest number of application-site reactions.”

Dr. Papp disclosed that he has received honoraria or clinical research grants as a consultant, speaker, scientific officer, advisory board member, and/or steering committee member for several pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Compared with their non-Black counterparts, Black patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) are significantly more likely to be younger, have lower household incomes, live in an urban setting, and use Medicaid or state assistance. They also have significantly poorer disease control and an increased rate of comorbid skin infections.

Those are among the key findings from a 25-question survey administered to members of the National Eczema Association.

“Black individuals with AD have a unique sociodemographic and disease profile,” lead study investigator Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “Out-of-pocket expenses are just one component of the real-world burden faced by this population.”

According to Dr. Chovatiya, of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, the clinical phenotype and burden of AD can vary across racial and ethnic groups. Black race, for example, is associated with a higher prevalence of AD, a higher burden of moderate to severe disease, increased rates of allergic comorbidities, greater AD-related impact on health-related quality of life, and more treatment-resistant AD.

“These features can make long-term AD control very difficult,” he said. “Given the variable long-term efficacy and safety of current treatments, health care providers and patients often have to combine therapies, seek new treatments, and consider adjunctive approaches – all of which can contribute to increased costs.”

AD is also associated with a considerable financial burden, he continued, including direct health care costs, lost work productivity and out-of-pocket health care expenses. “Previous population-based studies suggest that there are multifactorial increases in overall out-of-pocket health expenses in AD,” Dr. Chovatiya said. “Black race in particular is thought to be associated with increased health care utilization in AD, but little is known about the out-of-pocket health care expenses.”

To characterize the categories and impact of out-of-pocket health care expenses associated with AD management among Black individuals, he and his colleagues administered a 25-question voluntary survey to 113,502 members of the NEA between Nov. 14 and Dec. 21, 2019. They included adults with a self-reported diagnosis of AD or children, teens, or young adults who had a caregiver responding for them. In all, 1,118 respondents met inclusion criteria. Questions included those about out-of-pocket expenses for AD over the past 30 days and over the past year, as well as the disease impact on household finances.

The cohort included 75% of individuals with AD; 25% were primary caregivers of children, teens, and young adults with AD. More than three-quarters of respondents (77%) were female, 73% were White, 11% were Black, 6% were Asian, and the remainder were from other ethnic backgrounds. More than half of respondents (58%) had employer-sponsored insurance coverage and the median annual household income was between $50,000 and $75,000.

Nearly three-quarters of respondents (74%) classified their AD severity as moderate or severe, and 63% reported minimally controlled or somewhat-controlled AD. Black respondents were significantly more likely to be younger, have lower household incomes, live in an urban setting, use Medicaid or state assistance, have poor disease control, and frequent skin infections (P ≤ .02). “A numerically higher proportion of Black respondents also had increased AD severity and reported the use of step-up therapy with systemic agents, prescription polypharmacy with three or more prescriptions, and a higher monthly out-of-pocket cost,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

Compared with their non-Black counterparts, Black survey respondents reported more out-of-pocket costs for prescription medications covered by insurance (74.2% vs. 63.6%, P = .04), prescription medications not covered by insurance (65.1% vs. 46.5%, P = .0004), ED visits (22.1% vs. 11.8%, P = .005), and outpatient laboratory testing (33.3% vs. 21.8%, P = .01). Black race was associated with increased household financial impact from out-of-pocket expenses (P = .0009), and predictors of financial impact included minimally controlled AD (adjusted odds ratio, 13.88; P = .02), comorbid anxiety and/or depression (aOR, 4.34; P = .01), systemic therapy (aOR, 4.34; P = .003), out-of-pocket costs that exceeded $200 per month (aOR, 14.28; P = .0003), and Medicaid insurance (aOR, 4.02; P = .03). Blacks with Medicaid had higher odds of harmful financial impact (aOR, 3.32; P = .0002) than respondents who were Black (aOR, 1.81; P = .04) or those with Medicaid alone (aOR, 1.39; P = .04).

“I looked at some of the findings from recent studies that have talked about this burden, including an increased prevalence among Black children, a higher likelihood of moderate to severe disease, higher rates of ED visits and hospitalizations, and increased prescription medications,” Dr. Chovatiya said.“Our findings reflect these racial and socioeconomic disparities and provide another piece of evidence for increased financial burden among Black individuals with AD and support the need for targeted strategies to address these inequities.”

The study received funding support from the NEA. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for AbbVie, Incyte, and Regeneron/Sanofi-Genzyme.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Compared with their non-Black counterparts, Black patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) are significantly more likely to be younger, have lower household incomes, live in an urban setting, and use Medicaid or state assistance. They also have significantly poorer disease control and an increased rate of comorbid skin infections.

Those are among the key findings from a 25-question survey administered to members of the National Eczema Association.

“Black individuals with AD have a unique sociodemographic and disease profile,” lead study investigator Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “Out-of-pocket expenses are just one component of the real-world burden faced by this population.”

According to Dr. Chovatiya, of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, the clinical phenotype and burden of AD can vary across racial and ethnic groups. Black race, for example, is associated with a higher prevalence of AD, a higher burden of moderate to severe disease, increased rates of allergic comorbidities, greater AD-related impact on health-related quality of life, and more treatment-resistant AD.

“These features can make long-term AD control very difficult,” he said. “Given the variable long-term efficacy and safety of current treatments, health care providers and patients often have to combine therapies, seek new treatments, and consider adjunctive approaches – all of which can contribute to increased costs.”

AD is also associated with a considerable financial burden, he continued, including direct health care costs, lost work productivity and out-of-pocket health care expenses. “Previous population-based studies suggest that there are multifactorial increases in overall out-of-pocket health expenses in AD,” Dr. Chovatiya said. “Black race in particular is thought to be associated with increased health care utilization in AD, but little is known about the out-of-pocket health care expenses.”

To characterize the categories and impact of out-of-pocket health care expenses associated with AD management among Black individuals, he and his colleagues administered a 25-question voluntary survey to 113,502 members of the NEA between Nov. 14 and Dec. 21, 2019. They included adults with a self-reported diagnosis of AD or children, teens, or young adults who had a caregiver responding for them. In all, 1,118 respondents met inclusion criteria. Questions included those about out-of-pocket expenses for AD over the past 30 days and over the past year, as well as the disease impact on household finances.

The cohort included 75% of individuals with AD; 25% were primary caregivers of children, teens, and young adults with AD. More than three-quarters of respondents (77%) were female, 73% were White, 11% were Black, 6% were Asian, and the remainder were from other ethnic backgrounds. More than half of respondents (58%) had employer-sponsored insurance coverage and the median annual household income was between $50,000 and $75,000.

Nearly three-quarters of respondents (74%) classified their AD severity as moderate or severe, and 63% reported minimally controlled or somewhat-controlled AD. Black respondents were significantly more likely to be younger, have lower household incomes, live in an urban setting, use Medicaid or state assistance, have poor disease control, and frequent skin infections (P ≤ .02). “A numerically higher proportion of Black respondents also had increased AD severity and reported the use of step-up therapy with systemic agents, prescription polypharmacy with three or more prescriptions, and a higher monthly out-of-pocket cost,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

Compared with their non-Black counterparts, Black survey respondents reported more out-of-pocket costs for prescription medications covered by insurance (74.2% vs. 63.6%, P = .04), prescription medications not covered by insurance (65.1% vs. 46.5%, P = .0004), ED visits (22.1% vs. 11.8%, P = .005), and outpatient laboratory testing (33.3% vs. 21.8%, P = .01). Black race was associated with increased household financial impact from out-of-pocket expenses (P = .0009), and predictors of financial impact included minimally controlled AD (adjusted odds ratio, 13.88; P = .02), comorbid anxiety and/or depression (aOR, 4.34; P = .01), systemic therapy (aOR, 4.34; P = .003), out-of-pocket costs that exceeded $200 per month (aOR, 14.28; P = .0003), and Medicaid insurance (aOR, 4.02; P = .03). Blacks with Medicaid had higher odds of harmful financial impact (aOR, 3.32; P = .0002) than respondents who were Black (aOR, 1.81; P = .04) or those with Medicaid alone (aOR, 1.39; P = .04).

“I looked at some of the findings from recent studies that have talked about this burden, including an increased prevalence among Black children, a higher likelihood of moderate to severe disease, higher rates of ED visits and hospitalizations, and increased prescription medications,” Dr. Chovatiya said.“Our findings reflect these racial and socioeconomic disparities and provide another piece of evidence for increased financial burden among Black individuals with AD and support the need for targeted strategies to address these inequities.”

The study received funding support from the NEA. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for AbbVie, Incyte, and Regeneron/Sanofi-Genzyme.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Compared with their non-Black counterparts, Black patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) are significantly more likely to be younger, have lower household incomes, live in an urban setting, and use Medicaid or state assistance. They also have significantly poorer disease control and an increased rate of comorbid skin infections.

Those are among the key findings from a 25-question survey administered to members of the National Eczema Association.

“Black individuals with AD have a unique sociodemographic and disease profile,” lead study investigator Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “Out-of-pocket expenses are just one component of the real-world burden faced by this population.”

According to Dr. Chovatiya, of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, the clinical phenotype and burden of AD can vary across racial and ethnic groups. Black race, for example, is associated with a higher prevalence of AD, a higher burden of moderate to severe disease, increased rates of allergic comorbidities, greater AD-related impact on health-related quality of life, and more treatment-resistant AD.

“These features can make long-term AD control very difficult,” he said. “Given the variable long-term efficacy and safety of current treatments, health care providers and patients often have to combine therapies, seek new treatments, and consider adjunctive approaches – all of which can contribute to increased costs.”

AD is also associated with a considerable financial burden, he continued, including direct health care costs, lost work productivity and out-of-pocket health care expenses. “Previous population-based studies suggest that there are multifactorial increases in overall out-of-pocket health expenses in AD,” Dr. Chovatiya said. “Black race in particular is thought to be associated with increased health care utilization in AD, but little is known about the out-of-pocket health care expenses.”

To characterize the categories and impact of out-of-pocket health care expenses associated with AD management among Black individuals, he and his colleagues administered a 25-question voluntary survey to 113,502 members of the NEA between Nov. 14 and Dec. 21, 2019. They included adults with a self-reported diagnosis of AD or children, teens, or young adults who had a caregiver responding for them. In all, 1,118 respondents met inclusion criteria. Questions included those about out-of-pocket expenses for AD over the past 30 days and over the past year, as well as the disease impact on household finances.

The cohort included 75% of individuals with AD; 25% were primary caregivers of children, teens, and young adults with AD. More than three-quarters of respondents (77%) were female, 73% were White, 11% were Black, 6% were Asian, and the remainder were from other ethnic backgrounds. More than half of respondents (58%) had employer-sponsored insurance coverage and the median annual household income was between $50,000 and $75,000.

Nearly three-quarters of respondents (74%) classified their AD severity as moderate or severe, and 63% reported minimally controlled or somewhat-controlled AD. Black respondents were significantly more likely to be younger, have lower household incomes, live in an urban setting, use Medicaid or state assistance, have poor disease control, and frequent skin infections (P ≤ .02). “A numerically higher proportion of Black respondents also had increased AD severity and reported the use of step-up therapy with systemic agents, prescription polypharmacy with three or more prescriptions, and a higher monthly out-of-pocket cost,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

Compared with their non-Black counterparts, Black survey respondents reported more out-of-pocket costs for prescription medications covered by insurance (74.2% vs. 63.6%, P = .04), prescription medications not covered by insurance (65.1% vs. 46.5%, P = .0004), ED visits (22.1% vs. 11.8%, P = .005), and outpatient laboratory testing (33.3% vs. 21.8%, P = .01). Black race was associated with increased household financial impact from out-of-pocket expenses (P = .0009), and predictors of financial impact included minimally controlled AD (adjusted odds ratio, 13.88; P = .02), comorbid anxiety and/or depression (aOR, 4.34; P = .01), systemic therapy (aOR, 4.34; P = .003), out-of-pocket costs that exceeded $200 per month (aOR, 14.28; P = .0003), and Medicaid insurance (aOR, 4.02; P = .03). Blacks with Medicaid had higher odds of harmful financial impact (aOR, 3.32; P = .0002) than respondents who were Black (aOR, 1.81; P = .04) or those with Medicaid alone (aOR, 1.39; P = .04).

“I looked at some of the findings from recent studies that have talked about this burden, including an increased prevalence among Black children, a higher likelihood of moderate to severe disease, higher rates of ED visits and hospitalizations, and increased prescription medications,” Dr. Chovatiya said.“Our findings reflect these racial and socioeconomic disparities and provide another piece of evidence for increased financial burden among Black individuals with AD and support the need for targeted strategies to address these inequities.”

The study received funding support from the NEA. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for AbbVie, Incyte, and Regeneron/Sanofi-Genzyme.

dbrunk@mdedge.com