Atopic Dermatitis

Activated circulating basophils appear to play a key role in mediating the underappreciated phenomenon of acute-on-chronic itch flares in atopic dermatitis, Brian S. Kim, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

Recent years have brought enormous progress in understanding how chronic itch in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) is mediated by type 2 cytokines, including interleukin-13, IL-4, and IL-31, as well as by Janus kinase (JAK) signaling. This has led to development of potent therapies targeting these mediators, including dupilumab (Dupixent) and the investigational agents tralokinumab, lebrikizumab, abrocitinib, upadacitinib, baricitinib, and the IL-31 inhibitor nemolizumab.

“This is now one of the most active areas in the field of dermatology,” observed Dr. Kim, a dermatologist and codirector of the Center for the Study of Itch and Sensory Disorders at Washington University in St. Louis.

He has figured prominently in this effort. He and his coinvestigators conducted translational studies in mouse models which unraveled key mechanisms by which the immune system responsible for skin inflammation in AD communicates with the nervous system to trigger the neural sensation of itch. He also led a phase 2 randomized trial in 307 patients with AD, which demonstrated that the investigational JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib cream markedly improved itch within 36 hours, well before subsequent improvement in skin inflammation – and the topical JAK inhibitor did so with minimal systemic absorption.

Compared with chronic itch, much less research attention has been devoted to the phenomenon of acute itch flares superimposed upon the chronic itch of AD. These acute-on-chronic itch flares are a common feature of the disease. In a soon-to-be-published study of 159 AD patients in the placebo arm of a clinical trial, Dr. Kim and coinvestigators found that 26% exhibited a pattern of acute itch flares during the course of a single month. During the next month, 3.1% of patients under study went from an acute-on-chronic itch pattern in month 1 to a nonflare pattern, 20% went from a nonflare pattern in month 1 to acute itch flares in month 2, and 23% of the overall study population retained their pattern of acute itch flares through both months.

“This does not seem to be just a static phenotype, but rather these patients can evolve over time. And we think that this can be driven by allergen-specific IgE,” according to Dr. Kim.

Indeed, the investigators found that patients with allergen-specific IgE in their serum were roughly twice as likely to exhibit the acute-on-chronic itch flare pattern than those without allergen-specific IgE.

The classical thinking has been that IgE binds to its receptors on mast cells, causing mast cell degranulation and release of histamine and other itch-inducing molecules. Yet antihistamines have proven notoriously ineffective for the treatment of AD.

Circulating basophils capable of working their way into inflamed skin also have IgE receptors. Dr. Kim and colleagues have shown that allergen-specific IgE in mice binds to those receptors, causing the basophils to degenerate, releasing itch-promoting chemicals. They have subsequently carried over this work into the clinical arena.

“We’ve found that patients with atopic dermatitis have significantly higher expression of receptors for IgE in their basophils than in the basophils of healthy controls, indicating perhaps that the basophils in patients with atopic dermatitis are much more prone to stimulation by allergen by way of IgE. This is a new concept that we’re exploring,” Dr. Kim said.

“We haven’t really known before what IgE does in atopic dermatitis, but it turns out that it may actually play a very important role in triggering acute flares of itch,” the dermatologist explained. “What’s been surprising is that the IgE activity is not mediated so much by mast cells, which are tissue-resident; the predominant means appears to be that IgE acts on basophils. That then creates release not of histamine, but of leukotriene C4, which is a very potent pruritogen. This may be responsible for those acute itch flares.”

Asked during an audience Q&A how allergen-specific IgE–mediated basophil activation might be targeted therapeutically in order to prevent acute-on-chronic itch flares in patients with AD, Dr. Kim mentioned two possibilities. One is treatment with potent anti-IgE agents, which to date have not been adequately tested for their antipruritic prowess in AD.

“Also, there’s another molecule that seems to be relatively basophil-selective and -specific that’s just been discovered by my colleague Xinzhong Dong at Johns Hopkins University [in Baltimore] – called MRGPRX2 – that may actually be a potentially viable way to go after basophils, maybe even by depleting them if you had an antibody against that,” Dr. Kim said. He was a coinvestigator in Dr. Dong’s recent study characterizing MRGPRX2, the mast-cell-expressed Mas-related G-protein–coupled receptor activator.

Dr. Kim reported receiving research funding from Cara Therapeutics and LEO Pharma, holding a patent for the use of JAK inhibitors in chronic itch, and serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

bjancin@mdedge.com

Activated circulating basophils appear to play a key role in mediating the underappreciated phenomenon of acute-on-chronic itch flares in atopic dermatitis, Brian S. Kim, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

Recent years have brought enormous progress in understanding how chronic itch in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) is mediated by type 2 cytokines, including interleukin-13, IL-4, and IL-31, as well as by Janus kinase (JAK) signaling. This has led to development of potent therapies targeting these mediators, including dupilumab (Dupixent) and the investigational agents tralokinumab, lebrikizumab, abrocitinib, upadacitinib, baricitinib, and the IL-31 inhibitor nemolizumab.

“This is now one of the most active areas in the field of dermatology,” observed Dr. Kim, a dermatologist and codirector of the Center for the Study of Itch and Sensory Disorders at Washington University in St. Louis.

He has figured prominently in this effort. He and his coinvestigators conducted translational studies in mouse models which unraveled key mechanisms by which the immune system responsible for skin inflammation in AD communicates with the nervous system to trigger the neural sensation of itch. He also led a phase 2 randomized trial in 307 patients with AD, which demonstrated that the investigational JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib cream markedly improved itch within 36 hours, well before subsequent improvement in skin inflammation – and the topical JAK inhibitor did so with minimal systemic absorption.

Compared with chronic itch, much less research attention has been devoted to the phenomenon of acute itch flares superimposed upon the chronic itch of AD. These acute-on-chronic itch flares are a common feature of the disease. In a soon-to-be-published study of 159 AD patients in the placebo arm of a clinical trial, Dr. Kim and coinvestigators found that 26% exhibited a pattern of acute itch flares during the course of a single month. During the next month, 3.1% of patients under study went from an acute-on-chronic itch pattern in month 1 to a nonflare pattern, 20% went from a nonflare pattern in month 1 to acute itch flares in month 2, and 23% of the overall study population retained their pattern of acute itch flares through both months.

“This does not seem to be just a static phenotype, but rather these patients can evolve over time. And we think that this can be driven by allergen-specific IgE,” according to Dr. Kim.

Indeed, the investigators found that patients with allergen-specific IgE in their serum were roughly twice as likely to exhibit the acute-on-chronic itch flare pattern than those without allergen-specific IgE.

The classical thinking has been that IgE binds to its receptors on mast cells, causing mast cell degranulation and release of histamine and other itch-inducing molecules. Yet antihistamines have proven notoriously ineffective for the treatment of AD.

Circulating basophils capable of working their way into inflamed skin also have IgE receptors. Dr. Kim and colleagues have shown that allergen-specific IgE in mice binds to those receptors, causing the basophils to degenerate, releasing itch-promoting chemicals. They have subsequently carried over this work into the clinical arena.

“We’ve found that patients with atopic dermatitis have significantly higher expression of receptors for IgE in their basophils than in the basophils of healthy controls, indicating perhaps that the basophils in patients with atopic dermatitis are much more prone to stimulation by allergen by way of IgE. This is a new concept that we’re exploring,” Dr. Kim said.

“We haven’t really known before what IgE does in atopic dermatitis, but it turns out that it may actually play a very important role in triggering acute flares of itch,” the dermatologist explained. “What’s been surprising is that the IgE activity is not mediated so much by mast cells, which are tissue-resident; the predominant means appears to be that IgE acts on basophils. That then creates release not of histamine, but of leukotriene C4, which is a very potent pruritogen. This may be responsible for those acute itch flares.”

Asked during an audience Q&A how allergen-specific IgE–mediated basophil activation might be targeted therapeutically in order to prevent acute-on-chronic itch flares in patients with AD, Dr. Kim mentioned two possibilities. One is treatment with potent anti-IgE agents, which to date have not been adequately tested for their antipruritic prowess in AD.

“Also, there’s another molecule that seems to be relatively basophil-selective and -specific that’s just been discovered by my colleague Xinzhong Dong at Johns Hopkins University [in Baltimore] – called MRGPRX2 – that may actually be a potentially viable way to go after basophils, maybe even by depleting them if you had an antibody against that,” Dr. Kim said. He was a coinvestigator in Dr. Dong’s recent study characterizing MRGPRX2, the mast-cell-expressed Mas-related G-protein–coupled receptor activator.

Dr. Kim reported receiving research funding from Cara Therapeutics and LEO Pharma, holding a patent for the use of JAK inhibitors in chronic itch, and serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

bjancin@mdedge.com

Activated circulating basophils appear to play a key role in mediating the underappreciated phenomenon of acute-on-chronic itch flares in atopic dermatitis, Brian S. Kim, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually this year.

Recent years have brought enormous progress in understanding how chronic itch in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) is mediated by type 2 cytokines, including interleukin-13, IL-4, and IL-31, as well as by Janus kinase (JAK) signaling. This has led to development of potent therapies targeting these mediators, including dupilumab (Dupixent) and the investigational agents tralokinumab, lebrikizumab, abrocitinib, upadacitinib, baricitinib, and the IL-31 inhibitor nemolizumab.

“This is now one of the most active areas in the field of dermatology,” observed Dr. Kim, a dermatologist and codirector of the Center for the Study of Itch and Sensory Disorders at Washington University in St. Louis.

He has figured prominently in this effort. He and his coinvestigators conducted translational studies in mouse models which unraveled key mechanisms by which the immune system responsible for skin inflammation in AD communicates with the nervous system to trigger the neural sensation of itch. He also led a phase 2 randomized trial in 307 patients with AD, which demonstrated that the investigational JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib cream markedly improved itch within 36 hours, well before subsequent improvement in skin inflammation – and the topical JAK inhibitor did so with minimal systemic absorption.

Compared with chronic itch, much less research attention has been devoted to the phenomenon of acute itch flares superimposed upon the chronic itch of AD. These acute-on-chronic itch flares are a common feature of the disease. In a soon-to-be-published study of 159 AD patients in the placebo arm of a clinical trial, Dr. Kim and coinvestigators found that 26% exhibited a pattern of acute itch flares during the course of a single month. During the next month, 3.1% of patients under study went from an acute-on-chronic itch pattern in month 1 to a nonflare pattern, 20% went from a nonflare pattern in month 1 to acute itch flares in month 2, and 23% of the overall study population retained their pattern of acute itch flares through both months.

“This does not seem to be just a static phenotype, but rather these patients can evolve over time. And we think that this can be driven by allergen-specific IgE,” according to Dr. Kim.

Indeed, the investigators found that patients with allergen-specific IgE in their serum were roughly twice as likely to exhibit the acute-on-chronic itch flare pattern than those without allergen-specific IgE.

The classical thinking has been that IgE binds to its receptors on mast cells, causing mast cell degranulation and release of histamine and other itch-inducing molecules. Yet antihistamines have proven notoriously ineffective for the treatment of AD.

Circulating basophils capable of working their way into inflamed skin also have IgE receptors. Dr. Kim and colleagues have shown that allergen-specific IgE in mice binds to those receptors, causing the basophils to degenerate, releasing itch-promoting chemicals. They have subsequently carried over this work into the clinical arena.

“We’ve found that patients with atopic dermatitis have significantly higher expression of receptors for IgE in their basophils than in the basophils of healthy controls, indicating perhaps that the basophils in patients with atopic dermatitis are much more prone to stimulation by allergen by way of IgE. This is a new concept that we’re exploring,” Dr. Kim said.

“We haven’t really known before what IgE does in atopic dermatitis, but it turns out that it may actually play a very important role in triggering acute flares of itch,” the dermatologist explained. “What’s been surprising is that the IgE activity is not mediated so much by mast cells, which are tissue-resident; the predominant means appears to be that IgE acts on basophils. That then creates release not of histamine, but of leukotriene C4, which is a very potent pruritogen. This may be responsible for those acute itch flares.”

Asked during an audience Q&A how allergen-specific IgE–mediated basophil activation might be targeted therapeutically in order to prevent acute-on-chronic itch flares in patients with AD, Dr. Kim mentioned two possibilities. One is treatment with potent anti-IgE agents, which to date have not been adequately tested for their antipruritic prowess in AD.

“Also, there’s another molecule that seems to be relatively basophil-selective and -specific that’s just been discovered by my colleague Xinzhong Dong at Johns Hopkins University [in Baltimore] – called MRGPRX2 – that may actually be a potentially viable way to go after basophils, maybe even by depleting them if you had an antibody against that,” Dr. Kim said. He was a coinvestigator in Dr. Dong’s recent study characterizing MRGPRX2, the mast-cell-expressed Mas-related G-protein–coupled receptor activator.

Dr. Kim reported receiving research funding from Cara Therapeutics and LEO Pharma, holding a patent for the use of JAK inhibitors in chronic itch, and serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

bjancin@mdedge.com

Conventional wisdom holds that patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) should shun wool clothing in favor of cotton or silk, because wool is said to be irritating and promote itching. But not so when the garments are made of fine-diameter fibers of merino wool, Joseph F. Fowler, Jr., MD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually.

“We’ve always though that wool is bad in atopics, right? Indeed, rough wool might be. But fine wool garments can actually improve atopic dermatitis, probably because wool is the most breathable fabric and has the best temperature regulation qualities of any fabric we can wear,” said Dr. Fowler, a dermatologist at the University of Louisville (Ky).

He was first author of a randomized, 12-week, crossover, assessor-blinded clinical trial which showed precisely that. And a second, similarly designed study, this one conducted in Australia, also concluded that fine merino wool assists in the management of AD.

The study by Dr. Fowler and coinvestigators included 50 children and adults with mild or moderate AD who either wore top-and-bottom base layer merino wool ensembles for 6 weeks and then switched to their regular nonwoolen clothing, or vice versa. The mean Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score in those initially randomized to merino wool improved from a mean baseline of 4.5 to 1.7 at week 6, a significantly greater improvement than in the group wearing their regular clothing. Similarly, those who switched to merino wool after 6 weeks experienced a significant decrease in EASI scores from that point on to week 12, while those who switched from merino wool to their regular clothing did not.

Mean Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores in patients who wore merino wool first improved from 6.9 at baseline to 3.4 at week 6. Those who wore their regular clothing first went from a mean baseline DLQI of 6.7 to 6.2 at week 6 – a nonsignificant change – but then improved to a week 12 mean DLQI of 3.7 while wearing wool. There was no improvement in DLQI scores while participants were wearing their regular clothing.

Static Investigator’s Global Assessment scores showed significantly greater improvement while patients wore merino wool garments than their regular clothing.

The Australian study included 39 patients with mild to moderate AD aged between 4 weeks and 3 years. This, too, was a 12-week, randomized, crossover, assessor-blinded clinical trial. Participating children wore merino wool for 6 weeks and cotton ensembles chosen by their parents for an equal time. The primary endpoint was change in the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index after each 6-week period. The mean 7.6-point greater SCORAD reduction at 6 weeks while wearing merino wool, compared with cotton, was “a pretty impressive reduction,” Dr. Fowler observed.

Reductions in the secondary endpoints of Atopic Dermatitis Severity Index and Infants’ Dermatitis Quality of Life Index while wearing merino wool followed suit. In contrast, switching from wool to cotton resulted in an increase in both scores. Also, use of topical corticosteroids was significantly reduced while patients wore merino wool.

Wool harvested from merino sheep is characterized by fine-diameter fibers. In Dr. Fowler’s study the mean fiber diameter was 17.5 mcm. This makes for a soft fabric with outstanding moisture absorbance capacity, a quality that’s beneficial in patients with AD, since their lesional skin loses the ability to regulate moisture, the dermatologist explained.

Both randomized trials were funded by Australian Wool Innovation and the Australian government.

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

bjancin@mdedge.com

Conventional wisdom holds that patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) should shun wool clothing in favor of cotton or silk, because wool is said to be irritating and promote itching. But not so when the garments are made of fine-diameter fibers of merino wool, Joseph F. Fowler, Jr., MD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually.

“We’ve always though that wool is bad in atopics, right? Indeed, rough wool might be. But fine wool garments can actually improve atopic dermatitis, probably because wool is the most breathable fabric and has the best temperature regulation qualities of any fabric we can wear,” said Dr. Fowler, a dermatologist at the University of Louisville (Ky).

He was first author of a randomized, 12-week, crossover, assessor-blinded clinical trial which showed precisely that. And a second, similarly designed study, this one conducted in Australia, also concluded that fine merino wool assists in the management of AD.

The study by Dr. Fowler and coinvestigators included 50 children and adults with mild or moderate AD who either wore top-and-bottom base layer merino wool ensembles for 6 weeks and then switched to their regular nonwoolen clothing, or vice versa. The mean Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score in those initially randomized to merino wool improved from a mean baseline of 4.5 to 1.7 at week 6, a significantly greater improvement than in the group wearing their regular clothing. Similarly, those who switched to merino wool after 6 weeks experienced a significant decrease in EASI scores from that point on to week 12, while those who switched from merino wool to their regular clothing did not.

Mean Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores in patients who wore merino wool first improved from 6.9 at baseline to 3.4 at week 6. Those who wore their regular clothing first went from a mean baseline DLQI of 6.7 to 6.2 at week 6 – a nonsignificant change – but then improved to a week 12 mean DLQI of 3.7 while wearing wool. There was no improvement in DLQI scores while participants were wearing their regular clothing.

Static Investigator’s Global Assessment scores showed significantly greater improvement while patients wore merino wool garments than their regular clothing.

The Australian study included 39 patients with mild to moderate AD aged between 4 weeks and 3 years. This, too, was a 12-week, randomized, crossover, assessor-blinded clinical trial. Participating children wore merino wool for 6 weeks and cotton ensembles chosen by their parents for an equal time. The primary endpoint was change in the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index after each 6-week period. The mean 7.6-point greater SCORAD reduction at 6 weeks while wearing merino wool, compared with cotton, was “a pretty impressive reduction,” Dr. Fowler observed.

Reductions in the secondary endpoints of Atopic Dermatitis Severity Index and Infants’ Dermatitis Quality of Life Index while wearing merino wool followed suit. In contrast, switching from wool to cotton resulted in an increase in both scores. Also, use of topical corticosteroids was significantly reduced while patients wore merino wool.

Wool harvested from merino sheep is characterized by fine-diameter fibers. In Dr. Fowler’s study the mean fiber diameter was 17.5 mcm. This makes for a soft fabric with outstanding moisture absorbance capacity, a quality that’s beneficial in patients with AD, since their lesional skin loses the ability to regulate moisture, the dermatologist explained.

Both randomized trials were funded by Australian Wool Innovation and the Australian government.

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

bjancin@mdedge.com

Conventional wisdom holds that patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) should shun wool clothing in favor of cotton or silk, because wool is said to be irritating and promote itching. But not so when the garments are made of fine-diameter fibers of merino wool, Joseph F. Fowler, Jr., MD, said at MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar, held virtually.

“We’ve always though that wool is bad in atopics, right? Indeed, rough wool might be. But fine wool garments can actually improve atopic dermatitis, probably because wool is the most breathable fabric and has the best temperature regulation qualities of any fabric we can wear,” said Dr. Fowler, a dermatologist at the University of Louisville (Ky).

He was first author of a randomized, 12-week, crossover, assessor-blinded clinical trial which showed precisely that. And a second, similarly designed study, this one conducted in Australia, also concluded that fine merino wool assists in the management of AD.

The study by Dr. Fowler and coinvestigators included 50 children and adults with mild or moderate AD who either wore top-and-bottom base layer merino wool ensembles for 6 weeks and then switched to their regular nonwoolen clothing, or vice versa. The mean Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score in those initially randomized to merino wool improved from a mean baseline of 4.5 to 1.7 at week 6, a significantly greater improvement than in the group wearing their regular clothing. Similarly, those who switched to merino wool after 6 weeks experienced a significant decrease in EASI scores from that point on to week 12, while those who switched from merino wool to their regular clothing did not.

Mean Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores in patients who wore merino wool first improved from 6.9 at baseline to 3.4 at week 6. Those who wore their regular clothing first went from a mean baseline DLQI of 6.7 to 6.2 at week 6 – a nonsignificant change – but then improved to a week 12 mean DLQI of 3.7 while wearing wool. There was no improvement in DLQI scores while participants were wearing their regular clothing.

Static Investigator’s Global Assessment scores showed significantly greater improvement while patients wore merino wool garments than their regular clothing.

The Australian study included 39 patients with mild to moderate AD aged between 4 weeks and 3 years. This, too, was a 12-week, randomized, crossover, assessor-blinded clinical trial. Participating children wore merino wool for 6 weeks and cotton ensembles chosen by their parents for an equal time. The primary endpoint was change in the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index after each 6-week period. The mean 7.6-point greater SCORAD reduction at 6 weeks while wearing merino wool, compared with cotton, was “a pretty impressive reduction,” Dr. Fowler observed.

Reductions in the secondary endpoints of Atopic Dermatitis Severity Index and Infants’ Dermatitis Quality of Life Index while wearing merino wool followed suit. In contrast, switching from wool to cotton resulted in an increase in both scores. Also, use of topical corticosteroids was significantly reduced while patients wore merino wool.

Wool harvested from merino sheep is characterized by fine-diameter fibers. In Dr. Fowler’s study the mean fiber diameter was 17.5 mcm. This makes for a soft fabric with outstanding moisture absorbance capacity, a quality that’s beneficial in patients with AD, since their lesional skin loses the ability to regulate moisture, the dermatologist explained.

Both randomized trials were funded by Australian Wool Innovation and the Australian government.

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

bjancin@mdedge.com

Gusacitinib, a novel oral inhibitor of multiple inflammatory pathways, achieved rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in corticosteroid-refractory moderate to severe chronic hand eczema in a phase 2b, randomized trial, Howard Sofen, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The once-daily drug proved effective for this challenging condition, regardless of whether an individual’s chronic hand eczema was driven chiefly by irritant contact dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, or atopic dermatitis, added Dr. Sofen, medical director of Dermatology Research Associates, Los Angeles, and chief of the dermatology division at LA County/Olive View Medical Center.

Gusacitinib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of Janus kinase 1, 2, and 3, tyrosine kinase 2, and spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK). As such, it targets the Th1, Th2, Th17, and Th22 cytokine pathways, as well as SYK-mediated interleukin-17 signaling of keratinocyte proliferation and differentiation. Thus, its spectrum of activity makes it a candidate for the treatment of a variety of other inflammatory dermatologic diseases, although chronic hand eczema alone affects an estimated 7 million Americans, the dermatologist noted.

The phase 2b, double-blind, 16-week, multicenter, randomized trial included 97 patients who were randomized to oral gusacitinib as monotherapy at 40 or 80 mg once daily or placebo. All participants had chronic hand eczema of more than 6 months duration that was refractory to potent or superpotent topical and/or systemic steroids. Participants were split 60/40 between those with severe chronic hand eczema, defined by a baseline score on the 0-4 Physician’s Global Assessment scale, and moderate disease, with a PGA of 3.

The primary endpoint was the percent improvement in modified total lesion severity score (mTLSS) at week 16 from a mean baseline of 13.2. A clearcut dose response was evident: Gusacitinib at 80 mg/day achieved a 69.5% decrease, while 40 mg brought a 40% reduction, which wasn’t significantly better than the 33.5% decrease in placebo-treated controls.

The rapidity of response was noteworthy in these steroid-refractory patients. The 80-mg group showed significant separation from placebo by 2 weeks, with a mean 40.1% reduction in mTLSS versus 13.6% with placebo.

The secondary endpoint was achievement of a PGA score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – with a 2-grade improvement over placebo. This was achieved in 31.3% of patients assigned to the higher dose of gusacitinib at week 16, a success rate fivefold higher than the 6.3% rate in controls. The two groups separated on this endpoint at week 2, the first assessment. At week 8 there was an eightfold difference in response: 25% in patients on gusacitinib at 80 mg, 3.1% with placebo.

The other secondary endpoint was improvement in itch as measured by the mTLSS pruritus 0-3 subscore. As for the other outcomes, the improvement in itch was rapid. At week 2, patients on gusacitinib at 80 mg averaged a 43.1% reduction from their baseline pruritus score, compared with 4.6% with placebo. At week 16, the reductions were 65.7% and 29.8%, respectively.

Both doses of gusacitinib were well tolerated, according to Dr. Sofer. No thromboembolic events, major adverse cardiovascular events, or opportunistic infections occurred during the short 16-week study. The drug’s safety profile was consistent with what’s been seen in a collective gusacitinib clinical trial experience totaling more than 350 patients: mild to moderate nasopharyngitis, headache, asymptomatic elevations in creatine phosphokinase, and a slight increase in HDL cholesterol accompanied by a small reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Dr. Sofen reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Asana BioSciences, the study sponsor, as well as more than half a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Gusacitinib, a novel oral inhibitor of multiple inflammatory pathways, achieved rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in corticosteroid-refractory moderate to severe chronic hand eczema in a phase 2b, randomized trial, Howard Sofen, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The once-daily drug proved effective for this challenging condition, regardless of whether an individual’s chronic hand eczema was driven chiefly by irritant contact dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, or atopic dermatitis, added Dr. Sofen, medical director of Dermatology Research Associates, Los Angeles, and chief of the dermatology division at LA County/Olive View Medical Center.

Gusacitinib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of Janus kinase 1, 2, and 3, tyrosine kinase 2, and spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK). As such, it targets the Th1, Th2, Th17, and Th22 cytokine pathways, as well as SYK-mediated interleukin-17 signaling of keratinocyte proliferation and differentiation. Thus, its spectrum of activity makes it a candidate for the treatment of a variety of other inflammatory dermatologic diseases, although chronic hand eczema alone affects an estimated 7 million Americans, the dermatologist noted.

The phase 2b, double-blind, 16-week, multicenter, randomized trial included 97 patients who were randomized to oral gusacitinib as monotherapy at 40 or 80 mg once daily or placebo. All participants had chronic hand eczema of more than 6 months duration that was refractory to potent or superpotent topical and/or systemic steroids. Participants were split 60/40 between those with severe chronic hand eczema, defined by a baseline score on the 0-4 Physician’s Global Assessment scale, and moderate disease, with a PGA of 3.

The primary endpoint was the percent improvement in modified total lesion severity score (mTLSS) at week 16 from a mean baseline of 13.2. A clearcut dose response was evident: Gusacitinib at 80 mg/day achieved a 69.5% decrease, while 40 mg brought a 40% reduction, which wasn’t significantly better than the 33.5% decrease in placebo-treated controls.

The rapidity of response was noteworthy in these steroid-refractory patients. The 80-mg group showed significant separation from placebo by 2 weeks, with a mean 40.1% reduction in mTLSS versus 13.6% with placebo.

The secondary endpoint was achievement of a PGA score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – with a 2-grade improvement over placebo. This was achieved in 31.3% of patients assigned to the higher dose of gusacitinib at week 16, a success rate fivefold higher than the 6.3% rate in controls. The two groups separated on this endpoint at week 2, the first assessment. At week 8 there was an eightfold difference in response: 25% in patients on gusacitinib at 80 mg, 3.1% with placebo.

The other secondary endpoint was improvement in itch as measured by the mTLSS pruritus 0-3 subscore. As for the other outcomes, the improvement in itch was rapid. At week 2, patients on gusacitinib at 80 mg averaged a 43.1% reduction from their baseline pruritus score, compared with 4.6% with placebo. At week 16, the reductions were 65.7% and 29.8%, respectively.

Both doses of gusacitinib were well tolerated, according to Dr. Sofer. No thromboembolic events, major adverse cardiovascular events, or opportunistic infections occurred during the short 16-week study. The drug’s safety profile was consistent with what’s been seen in a collective gusacitinib clinical trial experience totaling more than 350 patients: mild to moderate nasopharyngitis, headache, asymptomatic elevations in creatine phosphokinase, and a slight increase in HDL cholesterol accompanied by a small reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Dr. Sofen reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Asana BioSciences, the study sponsor, as well as more than half a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Gusacitinib, a novel oral inhibitor of multiple inflammatory pathways, achieved rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in corticosteroid-refractory moderate to severe chronic hand eczema in a phase 2b, randomized trial, Howard Sofen, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The once-daily drug proved effective for this challenging condition, regardless of whether an individual’s chronic hand eczema was driven chiefly by irritant contact dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, or atopic dermatitis, added Dr. Sofen, medical director of Dermatology Research Associates, Los Angeles, and chief of the dermatology division at LA County/Olive View Medical Center.

Gusacitinib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of Janus kinase 1, 2, and 3, tyrosine kinase 2, and spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK). As such, it targets the Th1, Th2, Th17, and Th22 cytokine pathways, as well as SYK-mediated interleukin-17 signaling of keratinocyte proliferation and differentiation. Thus, its spectrum of activity makes it a candidate for the treatment of a variety of other inflammatory dermatologic diseases, although chronic hand eczema alone affects an estimated 7 million Americans, the dermatologist noted.

The phase 2b, double-blind, 16-week, multicenter, randomized trial included 97 patients who were randomized to oral gusacitinib as monotherapy at 40 or 80 mg once daily or placebo. All participants had chronic hand eczema of more than 6 months duration that was refractory to potent or superpotent topical and/or systemic steroids. Participants were split 60/40 between those with severe chronic hand eczema, defined by a baseline score on the 0-4 Physician’s Global Assessment scale, and moderate disease, with a PGA of 3.

The primary endpoint was the percent improvement in modified total lesion severity score (mTLSS) at week 16 from a mean baseline of 13.2. A clearcut dose response was evident: Gusacitinib at 80 mg/day achieved a 69.5% decrease, while 40 mg brought a 40% reduction, which wasn’t significantly better than the 33.5% decrease in placebo-treated controls.

The rapidity of response was noteworthy in these steroid-refractory patients. The 80-mg group showed significant separation from placebo by 2 weeks, with a mean 40.1% reduction in mTLSS versus 13.6% with placebo.

The secondary endpoint was achievement of a PGA score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – with a 2-grade improvement over placebo. This was achieved in 31.3% of patients assigned to the higher dose of gusacitinib at week 16, a success rate fivefold higher than the 6.3% rate in controls. The two groups separated on this endpoint at week 2, the first assessment. At week 8 there was an eightfold difference in response: 25% in patients on gusacitinib at 80 mg, 3.1% with placebo.

The other secondary endpoint was improvement in itch as measured by the mTLSS pruritus 0-3 subscore. As for the other outcomes, the improvement in itch was rapid. At week 2, patients on gusacitinib at 80 mg averaged a 43.1% reduction from their baseline pruritus score, compared with 4.6% with placebo. At week 16, the reductions were 65.7% and 29.8%, respectively.

Both doses of gusacitinib were well tolerated, according to Dr. Sofer. No thromboembolic events, major adverse cardiovascular events, or opportunistic infections occurred during the short 16-week study. The drug’s safety profile was consistent with what’s been seen in a collective gusacitinib clinical trial experience totaling more than 350 patients: mild to moderate nasopharyngitis, headache, asymptomatic elevations in creatine phosphokinase, and a slight increase in HDL cholesterol accompanied by a small reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Dr. Sofen reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Asana BioSciences, the study sponsor, as well as more than half a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

About 70% of patients on the oral selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor abrocitinib for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) achieved high-efficacy responses without need for any supplemental topical therapies through 48 weeks of follow-up in the JADE EXTEND study, Kristian Reich, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The head-turning outcomes achieved at the higher studied dose of 200 mg once daily as monotherapy – namely, 87% of patients had an EASI-75 response, defined as at least a 75% reduction from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index score, and 62% had an EASI-90 response – herald a new era in the management of atopic dermatitis, predicted Dr. Reich, of the Center for Translational Research in Inflammatory Skin Diseases at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

“I think we will see an evolution in the treatment goals in atopic dermatitis. It’s really good to see nearly 90% of the patients achieved EASI-75 over time. I am completely convinced that if you ultimately want to have a happy patient, you will see treatment goals moving up. We have already seen this in psoriasis. I want to see drugs that give the majority of my patients an EASI-75. And ultimately I want to see EASI-90 for my patients,” he said.

Concurrent with his presentation at the EADV congress, Pfizer announced it has filed for marketing approval of abrocitinib at 100 mg and 200 mg once daily for the treatment of moderate to severe AD. The Food and Drug Administration has granted the application priority review status, with a decision due next April. The company has also filed for marketing approval with the European Medicines Agency.

The JADE EXTEND study is an ongoing extension of the previously reported phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week JADE MONO-1 and JADE MONO-2 trials. The two trials included a total of 309 patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day and 314 on the selective Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor at 100 mg/day, 519 of whom subsequently entered the long-term extension study on their same dose. The 70% who required no supplemental topical therapy through 48 weeks were the focus of the analysis presented by Dr. Reich.

The proportion of strong responders increased up until the week 24 or 36 assessments, then remained steady until week 48. For example, the EASI-75 rate in patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day rose from 82.5% at week 16, to 86.2% at week 24, 90.1% at week 36, and reached 87.2% at week 48. The EASI-90 rates at the same time points were 56.7%, 64.5%, 65.5%, and 61.6%, respectively. And the EASI-100 rates were 24%, 31.6%, 29.6%, and 24%, respectively.

Not surprisingly, the EASI-75 rates in patients on abrocitinib at 100 mg/day were less robust: 64.4% at week 16, 75.5% at week 24, 74.5% at week 36, and 68% at week 48.

An Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – was achieved at week 16 in 55% of patients on 200 mg/day, 64.5% at week 24, 66% at week 36, and 60.5% at week 48. In patients on the 100-mg dose, the corresponding figures were 36.5%, 46.6%, 53.3%, and 45.2%.

A hallmark of all of the JAK inhibitors under study for AD is what Dr. Reich characterized as “an amazingly fast reduction of itch,” the dominant symptom of the disease. A clinically meaningful reduction of at least 4 points in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale – a response of 4 or greater is considered clinically important – from the mean baseline score of 7.1 was present at week 12 in 56.3% of patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg, in 74.3% at week 16, and in 72.5% at week 48. The proportion of patients achieving this endpoint on 100 mg was 41.6% at week 12, 49.4% at week 16, and 52% at week 48.

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 6.1% of JADE EXTEND participants on abrocitinib at 100 mg and 12.8% of those on 200 mg. These events included oral herpes and elevated creatine phosphokinase levels. The sole case of pulmonary embolism that occurred during the study was deemed unrelated to treatment.

“What this is telling me here is there are no signals that we haven’t seen earlier with this drug and with other JAK inhibitors before,” the dermatologist observed. “But I want to see more data. I want to see the overall safety, not just for a year, but for 2, 3, 4, and 5 years.”

Asked by an audience member if nonresponsiveness to one JAK inhibitor predicts nonresponse to others, Dr. Reich speculated that it’s likely to be so. He noted that all three of the JAK inhibitors furthest along in the developmental pipeline for atopic dermatitis – abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib – are inhibitors of JAK 1, although baricitinib also targets JAK 2.

“I would think that if you really are a nonresponder to any of these that it will be hard to get a good response with the others. We’re not talking about antibodies here, where there may be different epitopes. The affinity is different, and we have seen that if you have no response to a weak TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor, you can still have a response to a strong TNF inhibitor. I don’t expect the same here,” according to Dr. Reich.

He reported serving as an adviser to and paid clinical research for Pfizer, which sponsored JADE EXTEND, as well as more than two dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

About 70% of patients on the oral selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor abrocitinib for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) achieved high-efficacy responses without need for any supplemental topical therapies through 48 weeks of follow-up in the JADE EXTEND study, Kristian Reich, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The head-turning outcomes achieved at the higher studied dose of 200 mg once daily as monotherapy – namely, 87% of patients had an EASI-75 response, defined as at least a 75% reduction from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index score, and 62% had an EASI-90 response – herald a new era in the management of atopic dermatitis, predicted Dr. Reich, of the Center for Translational Research in Inflammatory Skin Diseases at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

“I think we will see an evolution in the treatment goals in atopic dermatitis. It’s really good to see nearly 90% of the patients achieved EASI-75 over time. I am completely convinced that if you ultimately want to have a happy patient, you will see treatment goals moving up. We have already seen this in psoriasis. I want to see drugs that give the majority of my patients an EASI-75. And ultimately I want to see EASI-90 for my patients,” he said.

Concurrent with his presentation at the EADV congress, Pfizer announced it has filed for marketing approval of abrocitinib at 100 mg and 200 mg once daily for the treatment of moderate to severe AD. The Food and Drug Administration has granted the application priority review status, with a decision due next April. The company has also filed for marketing approval with the European Medicines Agency.

The JADE EXTEND study is an ongoing extension of the previously reported phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week JADE MONO-1 and JADE MONO-2 trials. The two trials included a total of 309 patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day and 314 on the selective Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor at 100 mg/day, 519 of whom subsequently entered the long-term extension study on their same dose. The 70% who required no supplemental topical therapy through 48 weeks were the focus of the analysis presented by Dr. Reich.

The proportion of strong responders increased up until the week 24 or 36 assessments, then remained steady until week 48. For example, the EASI-75 rate in patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day rose from 82.5% at week 16, to 86.2% at week 24, 90.1% at week 36, and reached 87.2% at week 48. The EASI-90 rates at the same time points were 56.7%, 64.5%, 65.5%, and 61.6%, respectively. And the EASI-100 rates were 24%, 31.6%, 29.6%, and 24%, respectively.

Not surprisingly, the EASI-75 rates in patients on abrocitinib at 100 mg/day were less robust: 64.4% at week 16, 75.5% at week 24, 74.5% at week 36, and 68% at week 48.

An Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – was achieved at week 16 in 55% of patients on 200 mg/day, 64.5% at week 24, 66% at week 36, and 60.5% at week 48. In patients on the 100-mg dose, the corresponding figures were 36.5%, 46.6%, 53.3%, and 45.2%.

A hallmark of all of the JAK inhibitors under study for AD is what Dr. Reich characterized as “an amazingly fast reduction of itch,” the dominant symptom of the disease. A clinically meaningful reduction of at least 4 points in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale – a response of 4 or greater is considered clinically important – from the mean baseline score of 7.1 was present at week 12 in 56.3% of patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg, in 74.3% at week 16, and in 72.5% at week 48. The proportion of patients achieving this endpoint on 100 mg was 41.6% at week 12, 49.4% at week 16, and 52% at week 48.

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 6.1% of JADE EXTEND participants on abrocitinib at 100 mg and 12.8% of those on 200 mg. These events included oral herpes and elevated creatine phosphokinase levels. The sole case of pulmonary embolism that occurred during the study was deemed unrelated to treatment.

“What this is telling me here is there are no signals that we haven’t seen earlier with this drug and with other JAK inhibitors before,” the dermatologist observed. “But I want to see more data. I want to see the overall safety, not just for a year, but for 2, 3, 4, and 5 years.”

Asked by an audience member if nonresponsiveness to one JAK inhibitor predicts nonresponse to others, Dr. Reich speculated that it’s likely to be so. He noted that all three of the JAK inhibitors furthest along in the developmental pipeline for atopic dermatitis – abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib – are inhibitors of JAK 1, although baricitinib also targets JAK 2.

“I would think that if you really are a nonresponder to any of these that it will be hard to get a good response with the others. We’re not talking about antibodies here, where there may be different epitopes. The affinity is different, and we have seen that if you have no response to a weak TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor, you can still have a response to a strong TNF inhibitor. I don’t expect the same here,” according to Dr. Reich.

He reported serving as an adviser to and paid clinical research for Pfizer, which sponsored JADE EXTEND, as well as more than two dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

About 70% of patients on the oral selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor abrocitinib for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) achieved high-efficacy responses without need for any supplemental topical therapies through 48 weeks of follow-up in the JADE EXTEND study, Kristian Reich, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The head-turning outcomes achieved at the higher studied dose of 200 mg once daily as monotherapy – namely, 87% of patients had an EASI-75 response, defined as at least a 75% reduction from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index score, and 62% had an EASI-90 response – herald a new era in the management of atopic dermatitis, predicted Dr. Reich, of the Center for Translational Research in Inflammatory Skin Diseases at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

“I think we will see an evolution in the treatment goals in atopic dermatitis. It’s really good to see nearly 90% of the patients achieved EASI-75 over time. I am completely convinced that if you ultimately want to have a happy patient, you will see treatment goals moving up. We have already seen this in psoriasis. I want to see drugs that give the majority of my patients an EASI-75. And ultimately I want to see EASI-90 for my patients,” he said.

Concurrent with his presentation at the EADV congress, Pfizer announced it has filed for marketing approval of abrocitinib at 100 mg and 200 mg once daily for the treatment of moderate to severe AD. The Food and Drug Administration has granted the application priority review status, with a decision due next April. The company has also filed for marketing approval with the European Medicines Agency.

The JADE EXTEND study is an ongoing extension of the previously reported phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week JADE MONO-1 and JADE MONO-2 trials. The two trials included a total of 309 patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day and 314 on the selective Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor at 100 mg/day, 519 of whom subsequently entered the long-term extension study on their same dose. The 70% who required no supplemental topical therapy through 48 weeks were the focus of the analysis presented by Dr. Reich.

The proportion of strong responders increased up until the week 24 or 36 assessments, then remained steady until week 48. For example, the EASI-75 rate in patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day rose from 82.5% at week 16, to 86.2% at week 24, 90.1% at week 36, and reached 87.2% at week 48. The EASI-90 rates at the same time points were 56.7%, 64.5%, 65.5%, and 61.6%, respectively. And the EASI-100 rates were 24%, 31.6%, 29.6%, and 24%, respectively.

Not surprisingly, the EASI-75 rates in patients on abrocitinib at 100 mg/day were less robust: 64.4% at week 16, 75.5% at week 24, 74.5% at week 36, and 68% at week 48.

An Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – was achieved at week 16 in 55% of patients on 200 mg/day, 64.5% at week 24, 66% at week 36, and 60.5% at week 48. In patients on the 100-mg dose, the corresponding figures were 36.5%, 46.6%, 53.3%, and 45.2%.

A hallmark of all of the JAK inhibitors under study for AD is what Dr. Reich characterized as “an amazingly fast reduction of itch,” the dominant symptom of the disease. A clinically meaningful reduction of at least 4 points in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale – a response of 4 or greater is considered clinically important – from the mean baseline score of 7.1 was present at week 12 in 56.3% of patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg, in 74.3% at week 16, and in 72.5% at week 48. The proportion of patients achieving this endpoint on 100 mg was 41.6% at week 12, 49.4% at week 16, and 52% at week 48.

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 6.1% of JADE EXTEND participants on abrocitinib at 100 mg and 12.8% of those on 200 mg. These events included oral herpes and elevated creatine phosphokinase levels. The sole case of pulmonary embolism that occurred during the study was deemed unrelated to treatment.

“What this is telling me here is there are no signals that we haven’t seen earlier with this drug and with other JAK inhibitors before,” the dermatologist observed. “But I want to see more data. I want to see the overall safety, not just for a year, but for 2, 3, 4, and 5 years.”

Asked by an audience member if nonresponsiveness to one JAK inhibitor predicts nonresponse to others, Dr. Reich speculated that it’s likely to be so. He noted that all three of the JAK inhibitors furthest along in the developmental pipeline for atopic dermatitis – abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib – are inhibitors of JAK 1, although baricitinib also targets JAK 2.

“I would think that if you really are a nonresponder to any of these that it will be hard to get a good response with the others. We’re not talking about antibodies here, where there may be different epitopes. The affinity is different, and we have seen that if you have no response to a weak TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor, you can still have a response to a strong TNF inhibitor. I don’t expect the same here,” according to Dr. Reich.

He reported serving as an adviser to and paid clinical research for Pfizer, which sponsored JADE EXTEND, as well as more than two dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Psoriasis and atopic dermatitis (AD) can impact quality of life (QOL) in pediatric patients, warranting early recognition and treatment.¹ Topical agents often are inadequate to treat moderate to severe disease, but the potential toxicity of systemic agents, which largely include immunosuppressives, limit their use in this population despite their effectiveness. Our expanding knowledge of the pathogenesis of psoriasis (tumor necrosis factor [TNF] α and IL-23/T_H17 pathways) and AD has led to targeted interventions, particularly monoclonal antibody biologics, which have revolutionized treatment for affected adults and more recently children. Several agents are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for pediatric psoriasis, and dupilumab is approved for pediatric AD. Herein, we discuss the latest developments in the treatment landscape for pediatric psoriasis and AD.

Pediatric Psoriasis

Methotrexate (MTX) and cyclosporine have been FDA approved for psoriasis in adults since 1972 and 1997, respectively.² Before biologics, MTX was the primary systemic agent used to treat pediatric psoriasis, given its lower toxicity vs cyclosporine. The TNF-α inhibitor etanercept became the first FDA-approved biologic for pediatric psoriasis in 2016. Adalimumab has been available in Europe for children since 2015 but is not FDA approved. Certolizumab, a pegylated TNF-α inhibitor that distinctly fails to cross the placental barrier currently is in clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04123795). Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors have shown more rapid onset and greater efficacy during the first 16 weeks of use than MTX, including a head-to-head trial comparing MTX to adalimumab.³ A recent real-world study showed that pediatric patients receiving biologics, primarily TNF-α inhibitors, were more likely to achieve psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) 75 or clear/almost clear status (similar to PASI 90) than MTX and had higher drug survival rates.⁴

Ustekinumab targets both IL-12 and IL-23, which share the IL-23 receptor p40 subunit. It was the first biologic to target IL-23, which promotes the proliferation and survival of helper T cells (T_H17). Ustekinumab has led to greater reductions in PASI scores than TNF-α inhibitors.^5,6 Pediatric trials of guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab, all targeting the IL-23 receptor–specific p19 subunit, are completed or currently recruiting (NCT03451851, NCT03997786, NCT04435600). Ixekizumab is the first IL-17A–targeting biologic approved for children.⁷ Secukinumab and the IL-17 receptor inhibitor brodalumab are in pediatric trials (NCT03668613, NCT04305327, NCT03240809). One potential issue with T_H17 pathway inhibitors is their association with inflammatory bowel disease, a contraindication when considering if a patient is a potential candidate for treatment.

Skin disease can profoundly affect QOL during childhood and adolescence, a critical time for psychosocial development. In psoriasis, improvement in QOL is proportional to clearance and is greater when PASI 90 is achieved vs PASI 75.⁸ The high efficacy of IL-23 and IL-17A pathway inhibitors now makes achieving at least PASI 90 the new standard, which can be reached in most patients.

Pediatric AD

For AD in the pediatric population, systemic treatments primarily include corticosteroids, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, cyclosporine, and MTX. Although cyclosporine was the favored systemic agent among pediatric dermatologists in one study,⁹ claims data analyses show that systemic corticosteroids are used much more often overall, prescribed in 24.4% (116,635 total cases) of children with AD vs nonsteroidal immunosuppressants in less than 0.5%.¹⁰ Systemic steroids are impractical given their side effects and risk for disease rebound; however, no immunosuppressants are safe for long-term use, and all require frequent laboratory monitoring. The development of biologics for AD largely involves targeting T_H2-driven inflammation.¹¹ Dupilumab is the only FDA-approved biologic for moderate to severe pediatric AD, including in patients as young as 6 years of age. Dupilumab inhibits activation of the IL-4Rα subunit, thereby blocking responses to its ligands, IL-4 and IL-13. Phase 3 trials are now underway in children aged 6 months to 5 years (NCT02612454, NCT03346434). The concomitant ameliorative effects of dupilumab on asthma and other allergic disorders, occurring in approximately 90% of children with moderate to severe AD, is an added benefit.¹² Although dupilumab does not appear to modify the disease course in children with AD, the possibility that early introduction could reduce the risk for later developing allergic disease is intriguing.

Adolescent trials have been started for lebrikizumab (NCT04392154) and have been completed for tralokinumab (NCT03160885). Both agents selectively target IL-13 to block T_H2 pathway inflammation. The only reported adverse effects of IL-4Rα and IL-13 inhibitors have been injection-site pain/reactions and increased conjunctivitis.¹³

The only other biologic for AD currently in clinical trials for adolescents is nemolizumab, targeting the receptor for IL-31, a predominantly T_H2 cytokine that causes pruritus (NCT03989349). In adults, nemolizumab has shown rapid and potent suppression of itch (but not inflammation) without adding topical corticosteroids.¹⁴

Advantages of Biologics and Laboratory Monitoring

By targeting specific cytokines, biologics have greater and more rapid efficacy, fewer side effects, fewer drug interactions, less frequent dosing, and less immunosuppression compared to other systemic agents.^3,4,15,16

Recent pediatric-specific guidelines for psoriasis recommend baseline monitoring for tuberculosis for all biologics but yearly tuberculosis testing only for TNF-α inhibitors unless the individual patient is at increased risk.² No tuberculosis testing is needed for dupilumab, and no other laboratory monitoring is recommended for any biologic in children unless warranted by risk. This difference in recommended monitoring suggests the safety of biologics and is advantageous in managing pediatric therapy.

Unanswered Questions: Vaccines and Antidrug Antibodies

Although administration of killed vaccines is considered safe with all approved biologics, questions remain about the safety of administering live vaccines while on biologics, a particularly pertinent issue in younger children treated with dupilumab and other biologics for AD. Another unanswered question is the potential reduction in clinical response and drug durability with intermittent use of biologics due to the potential development of neutralizing antidrug antibodies (ADAs). The ability to discontinue medication intermittently is desirable, both to determine the natural course of the underlying disease and give a holiday as tolerated. Newer biologics are thought to have lower immunogenicity and less frequent ADA development.^17-19 Even with TNF-α inhibitors, the presence of anti-ADAs is not temporally related to response in children with psoriasis.²⁰ Long-term outcomes of the use of biologics in adults have been reassuring, and safety profiles of biologics studied thus far appear to be similar in children.^21,22 However, understanding the potential long-term effects from the use of newly approved and emerging biologics in the pediatric population will require decades of study to ensure safety, including nonrandomized studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies.

Cost Considerations

Biologics are disease and QOL altering for children with moderate to severe psoriasis or AD; however, access to biologics often is an obstacle for patients and practitioners. Biologics cost $30,000 to $60,000 annually, while conventional systemic treatments such as MTX, cyclosporine, and acitretin cost $100 to $3000 annually, raising the question of cost effectiveness. In 2016, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review concluded that biologics for psoriasis had reasonably good value based on improved QOL and concluded in 2017 that dupilumab had a benefit that outweighed its cost.^23,24 Prior authorizations and multiple appeals have been necessary to obtain approval, especially in the pediatric population.²⁵ This difficulty highlights the need for programs to cover the cost of biologics for all children, as well as registries to further assess effectiveness and long-term safety, especially compared to traditional systemic agents.

On the Horizon

Clinical trials for other therapies for children and adolescents are ongoing. Details on recommended dosing, approval status, and efficacy in trials are provided in the eTable. Given their high efficacy in adults with psoriasis, IL-23–specific and T_H17 pathway biologics likely are similarly efficacious and raise the bar for the expectation of achieving PASI 90 and PASI 100 responses. The long-term safety, durability of responses, and ability to modify disease, particularly when started early in life (eg, preadolescence) and early in the disease course, remains to be determined.

Psoriasis and atopic dermatitis (AD) can impact quality of life (QOL) in pediatric patients, warranting early recognition and treatment.¹ Topical agents often are inadequate to treat moderate to severe disease, but the potential toxicity of systemic agents, which largely include immunosuppressives, limit their use in this population despite their effectiveness. Our expanding knowledge of the pathogenesis of psoriasis (tumor necrosis factor [TNF] α and IL-23/T_H17 pathways) and AD has led to targeted interventions, particularly monoclonal antibody biologics, which have revolutionized treatment for affected adults and more recently children. Several agents are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for pediatric psoriasis, and dupilumab is approved for pediatric AD. Herein, we discuss the latest developments in the treatment landscape for pediatric psoriasis and AD.

Pediatric Psoriasis

Methotrexate (MTX) and cyclosporine have been FDA approved for psoriasis in adults since 1972 and 1997, respectively.² Before biologics, MTX was the primary systemic agent used to treat pediatric psoriasis, given its lower toxicity vs cyclosporine. The TNF-α inhibitor etanercept became the first FDA-approved biologic for pediatric psoriasis in 2016. Adalimumab has been available in Europe for children since 2015 but is not FDA approved. Certolizumab, a pegylated TNF-α inhibitor that distinctly fails to cross the placental barrier currently is in clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04123795). Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors have shown more rapid onset and greater efficacy during the first 16 weeks of use than MTX, including a head-to-head trial comparing MTX to adalimumab.³ A recent real-world study showed that pediatric patients receiving biologics, primarily TNF-α inhibitors, were more likely to achieve psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) 75 or clear/almost clear status (similar to PASI 90) than MTX and had higher drug survival rates.⁴

Ustekinumab targets both IL-12 and IL-23, which share the IL-23 receptor p40 subunit. It was the first biologic to target IL-23, which promotes the proliferation and survival of helper T cells (T_H17). Ustekinumab has led to greater reductions in PASI scores than TNF-α inhibitors.^5,6 Pediatric trials of guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab, all targeting the IL-23 receptor–specific p19 subunit, are completed or currently recruiting (NCT03451851, NCT03997786, NCT04435600). Ixekizumab is the first IL-17A–targeting biologic approved for children.⁷ Secukinumab and the IL-17 receptor inhibitor brodalumab are in pediatric trials (NCT03668613, NCT04305327, NCT03240809). One potential issue with T_H17 pathway inhibitors is their association with inflammatory bowel disease, a contraindication when considering if a patient is a potential candidate for treatment.

Skin disease can profoundly affect QOL during childhood and adolescence, a critical time for psychosocial development. In psoriasis, improvement in QOL is proportional to clearance and is greater when PASI 90 is achieved vs PASI 75.⁸ The high efficacy of IL-23 and IL-17A pathway inhibitors now makes achieving at least PASI 90 the new standard, which can be reached in most patients.

Pediatric AD

For AD in the pediatric population, systemic treatments primarily include corticosteroids, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, cyclosporine, and MTX. Although cyclosporine was the favored systemic agent among pediatric dermatologists in one study,⁹ claims data analyses show that systemic corticosteroids are used much more often overall, prescribed in 24.4% (116,635 total cases) of children with AD vs nonsteroidal immunosuppressants in less than 0.5%.¹⁰ Systemic steroids are impractical given their side effects and risk for disease rebound; however, no immunosuppressants are safe for long-term use, and all require frequent laboratory monitoring. The development of biologics for AD largely involves targeting T_H2-driven inflammation.¹¹ Dupilumab is the only FDA-approved biologic for moderate to severe pediatric AD, including in patients as young as 6 years of age. Dupilumab inhibits activation of the IL-4Rα subunit, thereby blocking responses to its ligands, IL-4 and IL-13. Phase 3 trials are now underway in children aged 6 months to 5 years (NCT02612454, NCT03346434). The concomitant ameliorative effects of dupilumab on asthma and other allergic disorders, occurring in approximately 90% of children with moderate to severe AD, is an added benefit.¹² Although dupilumab does not appear to modify the disease course in children with AD, the possibility that early introduction could reduce the risk for later developing allergic disease is intriguing.

Adolescent trials have been started for lebrikizumab (NCT04392154) and have been completed for tralokinumab (NCT03160885). Both agents selectively target IL-13 to block T_H2 pathway inflammation. The only reported adverse effects of IL-4Rα and IL-13 inhibitors have been injection-site pain/reactions and increased conjunctivitis.¹³

The only other biologic for AD currently in clinical trials for adolescents is nemolizumab, targeting the receptor for IL-31, a predominantly T_H2 cytokine that causes pruritus (NCT03989349). In adults, nemolizumab has shown rapid and potent suppression of itch (but not inflammation) without adding topical corticosteroids.¹⁴

Advantages of Biologics and Laboratory Monitoring

By targeting specific cytokines, biologics have greater and more rapid efficacy, fewer side effects, fewer drug interactions, less frequent dosing, and less immunosuppression compared to other systemic agents.^3,4,15,16

Recent pediatric-specific guidelines for psoriasis recommend baseline monitoring for tuberculosis for all biologics but yearly tuberculosis testing only for TNF-α inhibitors unless the individual patient is at increased risk.² No tuberculosis testing is needed for dupilumab, and no other laboratory monitoring is recommended for any biologic in children unless warranted by risk. This difference in recommended monitoring suggests the safety of biologics and is advantageous in managing pediatric therapy.

Unanswered Questions: Vaccines and Antidrug Antibodies

Although administration of killed vaccines is considered safe with all approved biologics, questions remain about the safety of administering live vaccines while on biologics, a particularly pertinent issue in younger children treated with dupilumab and other biologics for AD. Another unanswered question is the potential reduction in clinical response and drug durability with intermittent use of biologics due to the potential development of neutralizing antidrug antibodies (ADAs). The ability to discontinue medication intermittently is desirable, both to determine the natural course of the underlying disease and give a holiday as tolerated. Newer biologics are thought to have lower immunogenicity and less frequent ADA development.^17-19 Even with TNF-α inhibitors, the presence of anti-ADAs is not temporally related to response in children with psoriasis.²⁰ Long-term outcomes of the use of biologics in adults have been reassuring, and safety profiles of biologics studied thus far appear to be similar in children.^21,22 However, understanding the potential long-term effects from the use of newly approved and emerging biologics in the pediatric population will require decades of study to ensure safety, including nonrandomized studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies.

Cost Considerations

Biologics are disease and QOL altering for children with moderate to severe psoriasis or AD; however, access to biologics often is an obstacle for patients and practitioners. Biologics cost $30,000 to $60,000 annually, while conventional systemic treatments such as MTX, cyclosporine, and acitretin cost $100 to $3000 annually, raising the question of cost effectiveness. In 2016, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review concluded that biologics for psoriasis had reasonably good value based on improved QOL and concluded in 2017 that dupilumab had a benefit that outweighed its cost.^23,24 Prior authorizations and multiple appeals have been necessary to obtain approval, especially in the pediatric population.²⁵ This difficulty highlights the need for programs to cover the cost of biologics for all children, as well as registries to further assess effectiveness and long-term safety, especially compared to traditional systemic agents.

On the Horizon

Clinical trials for other therapies for children and adolescents are ongoing. Details on recommended dosing, approval status, and efficacy in trials are provided in the eTable. Given their high efficacy in adults with psoriasis, IL-23–specific and T_H17 pathway biologics likely are similarly efficacious and raise the bar for the expectation of achieving PASI 90 and PASI 100 responses. The long-term safety, durability of responses, and ability to modify disease, particularly when started early in life (eg, preadolescence) and early in the disease course, remains to be determined.

Psoriasis and atopic dermatitis (AD) can impact quality of life (QOL) in pediatric patients, warranting early recognition and treatment.¹ Topical agents often are inadequate to treat moderate to severe disease, but the potential toxicity of systemic agents, which largely include immunosuppressives, limit their use in this population despite their effectiveness. Our expanding knowledge of the pathogenesis of psoriasis (tumor necrosis factor [TNF] α and IL-23/T_H17 pathways) and AD has led to targeted interventions, particularly monoclonal antibody biologics, which have revolutionized treatment for affected adults and more recently children. Several agents are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for pediatric psoriasis, and dupilumab is approved for pediatric AD. Herein, we discuss the latest developments in the treatment landscape for pediatric psoriasis and AD.

Pediatric Psoriasis

Methotrexate (MTX) and cyclosporine have been FDA approved for psoriasis in adults since 1972 and 1997, respectively.² Before biologics, MTX was the primary systemic agent used to treat pediatric psoriasis, given its lower toxicity vs cyclosporine. The TNF-α inhibitor etanercept became the first FDA-approved biologic for pediatric psoriasis in 2016. Adalimumab has been available in Europe for children since 2015 but is not FDA approved. Certolizumab, a pegylated TNF-α inhibitor that distinctly fails to cross the placental barrier currently is in clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04123795). Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors have shown more rapid onset and greater efficacy during the first 16 weeks of use than MTX, including a head-to-head trial comparing MTX to adalimumab.³ A recent real-world study showed that pediatric patients receiving biologics, primarily TNF-α inhibitors, were more likely to achieve psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) 75 or clear/almost clear status (similar to PASI 90) than MTX and had higher drug survival rates.⁴

Ustekinumab targets both IL-12 and IL-23, which share the IL-23 receptor p40 subunit. It was the first biologic to target IL-23, which promotes the proliferation and survival of helper T cells (T_H17). Ustekinumab has led to greater reductions in PASI scores than TNF-α inhibitors.^5,6 Pediatric trials of guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab, all targeting the IL-23 receptor–specific p19 subunit, are completed or currently recruiting (NCT03451851, NCT03997786, NCT04435600). Ixekizumab is the first IL-17A–targeting biologic approved for children.⁷ Secukinumab and the IL-17 receptor inhibitor brodalumab are in pediatric trials (NCT03668613, NCT04305327, NCT03240809). One potential issue with T_H17 pathway inhibitors is their association with inflammatory bowel disease, a contraindication when considering if a patient is a potential candidate for treatment.

Skin disease can profoundly affect QOL during childhood and adolescence, a critical time for psychosocial development. In psoriasis, improvement in QOL is proportional to clearance and is greater when PASI 90 is achieved vs PASI 75.⁸ The high efficacy of IL-23 and IL-17A pathway inhibitors now makes achieving at least PASI 90 the new standard, which can be reached in most patients.

Pediatric AD

For AD in the pediatric population, systemic treatments primarily include corticosteroids, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, cyclosporine, and MTX. Although cyclosporine was the favored systemic agent among pediatric dermatologists in one study,⁹ claims data analyses show that systemic corticosteroids are used much more often overall, prescribed in 24.4% (116,635 total cases) of children with AD vs nonsteroidal immunosuppressants in less than 0.5%.¹⁰ Systemic steroids are impractical given their side effects and risk for disease rebound; however, no immunosuppressants are safe for long-term use, and all require frequent laboratory monitoring. The development of biologics for AD largely involves targeting T_H2-driven inflammation.¹¹ Dupilumab is the only FDA-approved biologic for moderate to severe pediatric AD, including in patients as young as 6 years of age. Dupilumab inhibits activation of the IL-4Rα subunit, thereby blocking responses to its ligands, IL-4 and IL-13. Phase 3 trials are now underway in children aged 6 months to 5 years (NCT02612454, NCT03346434). The concomitant ameliorative effects of dupilumab on asthma and other allergic disorders, occurring in approximately 90% of children with moderate to severe AD, is an added benefit.¹² Although dupilumab does not appear to modify the disease course in children with AD, the possibility that early introduction could reduce the risk for later developing allergic disease is intriguing.

Adolescent trials have been started for lebrikizumab (NCT04392154) and have been completed for tralokinumab (NCT03160885). Both agents selectively target IL-13 to block T_H2 pathway inflammation. The only reported adverse effects of IL-4Rα and IL-13 inhibitors have been injection-site pain/reactions and increased conjunctivitis.¹³

The only other biologic for AD currently in clinical trials for adolescents is nemolizumab, targeting the receptor for IL-31, a predominantly T_H2 cytokine that causes pruritus (NCT03989349). In adults, nemolizumab has shown rapid and potent suppression of itch (but not inflammation) without adding topical corticosteroids.¹⁴

Advantages of Biologics and Laboratory Monitoring

By targeting specific cytokines, biologics have greater and more rapid efficacy, fewer side effects, fewer drug interactions, less frequent dosing, and less immunosuppression compared to other systemic agents.^3,4,15,16

Recent pediatric-specific guidelines for psoriasis recommend baseline monitoring for tuberculosis for all biologics but yearly tuberculosis testing only for TNF-α inhibitors unless the individual patient is at increased risk.² No tuberculosis testing is needed for dupilumab, and no other laboratory monitoring is recommended for any biologic in children unless warranted by risk. This difference in recommended monitoring suggests the safety of biologics and is advantageous in managing pediatric therapy.

Unanswered Questions: Vaccines and Antidrug Antibodies

Although administration of killed vaccines is considered safe with all approved biologics, questions remain about the safety of administering live vaccines while on biologics, a particularly pertinent issue in younger children treated with dupilumab and other biologics for AD. Another unanswered question is the potential reduction in clinical response and drug durability with intermittent use of biologics due to the potential development of neutralizing antidrug antibodies (ADAs). The ability to discontinue medication intermittently is desirable, both to determine the natural course of the underlying disease and give a holiday as tolerated. Newer biologics are thought to have lower immunogenicity and less frequent ADA development.^17-19 Even with TNF-α inhibitors, the presence of anti-ADAs is not temporally related to response in children with psoriasis.²⁰ Long-term outcomes of the use of biologics in adults have been reassuring, and safety profiles of biologics studied thus far appear to be similar in children.^21,22 However, understanding the potential long-term effects from the use of newly approved and emerging biologics in the pediatric population will require decades of study to ensure safety, including nonrandomized studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies.

Cost Considerations

Biologics are disease and QOL altering for children with moderate to severe psoriasis or AD; however, access to biologics often is an obstacle for patients and practitioners. Biologics cost $30,000 to $60,000 annually, while conventional systemic treatments such as MTX, cyclosporine, and acitretin cost $100 to $3000 annually, raising the question of cost effectiveness. In 2016, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review concluded that biologics for psoriasis had reasonably good value based on improved QOL and concluded in 2017 that dupilumab had a benefit that outweighed its cost.^23,24 Prior authorizations and multiple appeals have been necessary to obtain approval, especially in the pediatric population.²⁵ This difficulty highlights the need for programs to cover the cost of biologics for all children, as well as registries to further assess effectiveness and long-term safety, especially compared to traditional systemic agents.

On the Horizon

Clinical trials for other therapies for children and adolescents are ongoing. Details on recommended dosing, approval status, and efficacy in trials are provided in the eTable. Given their high efficacy in adults with psoriasis, IL-23–specific and T_H17 pathway biologics likely are similarly efficacious and raise the bar for the expectation of achieving PASI 90 and PASI 100 responses. The long-term safety, durability of responses, and ability to modify disease, particularly when started early in life (eg, preadolescence) and early in the disease course, remains to be determined.

The most effective initial step for clearing atopic dermatitis in infants and young children involves daily bathing, followed by immediate application of a moisturizer, topical steroid, or both, according to an expert speaking at the virtual annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium.

FotoDuets/iStock/Getty Images

“If they are really severe, you can do it twice-daily, but there are several studies that show there is not a huge benefit of twice-daily over once-daily,” said Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

He called this technique “soak-and-smear.” The “smear” is performed immediately after the bath when the skin is still damp, he said. When clearing is the goal, and the child has moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), 0.1% triamcinolone or a similar medium potency topical steroid can be applied, and after clearing, the steroid can be switched for a moisturizer, according to Dr. Simpson.

Rather than restricting application to areas of greatest skin involvement, “put it all over,” he advised.

The clearing regimen should be continued “for a couple of more days” after the lesions have resolved, with a return visit in about a week to confirm clearing and reinforce the next steps for keeping patients clear, he added.

The next steps depend on severity. According to Dr. Simpson, severity is defined less by the extent of skin involvement at the baseline examination than the speed at which symptoms return.

For those with only mild symptoms after an extended period of clearing, moisturizer might be sufficient to prevent a significant relapse. For children with a more rapid relapse, it will be necessary to reintroduce topical steroid either every day, every other day, or twice per week.

Whether with moisturizer or with topical steroids, the soak-and-smear technique has now been validated in a recently published crossover randomized trial.

In the trial, children aged 6 months to 11 years, with moderate to severe AD, were randomized to a twice-daily bath, called the “wet method,” versus a twice-weekly bath, called the “dry method.” Both groups received a cleanser and moisturizer along with a low-potency topical steroid as needed.

After 2 weeks, the 40 evaluable patients were crossed over to the opposite bathing technique. The wet, or soak-and-smear approach, was associated with a highly significant reduction in the primary endpoint of SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index, compared with the dry method (95% confidence interval, 14.9-27.6; P less than .0001). In a secondary analysis, this translated into a 30% relative reduction in favor of the wet method.

In addition, there was improvement in a caregiver assessment of the Atopic Dermatitis Quickscore (ADQ). These data show that “twice-daily baths with topical steroids and moisturizer can help in more moderate to severe population,” said Dr. Simpson, who noted that he has participated in open-label studies with the same soak-and-smear technique that have produced similar results.

Once children are clear, Dr. Simpson recommends a maintenance strategy individualized for severity. In many cases, this will involve moisturizers applied after the bath, supplemented intermittently, such as once or twice per week, with topical steroids. However, if parents find themselves resorting to daily steroids to maintain control, “that’s when you incorporate the TCIs [topical calcineurin inhibitors].”

TCIs “can help you stay at twice-per-week topical steroids,” Dr. Simpson said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education.

TCIs also help patients avoid steroid withdrawal, a particularly common phenomenon when topical steroids are applied repeatedly to the face. He recommended a proactive approach. By applying TCIs to areas where skin lesions frequently recur, such as the eyelids, flares can often be prevented.

Repeated applications of TCIs “is perfectly safe and effective, and there are many studies that show proactive treatment is very effective and can prevent you from having to use too much topical steroids” or move to a systemic steroid, Dr. Simpson said.

These steps have been highly effective for sustained control even in challenging cases of AD, but he emphasized the importance of explaining the rationale to parents and eliciting their adherence to these treatment steps. Writing out the instructions will reduce confusion and help parents keep their children clear, he added.

Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, agreed that this recently published crossover trial has been helpful in counseling parents about how to manage AD in their children.

The most effective initial step for clearing atopic dermatitis in infants and young children involves daily bathing, followed by immediate application of a moisturizer, topical steroid, or both, according to an expert speaking at the virtual annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium.

FotoDuets/iStock/Getty Images

“If they are really severe, you can do it twice-daily, but there are several studies that show there is not a huge benefit of twice-daily over once-daily,” said Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

He called this technique “soak-and-smear.” The “smear” is performed immediately after the bath when the skin is still damp, he said. When clearing is the goal, and the child has moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), 0.1% triamcinolone or a similar medium potency topical steroid can be applied, and after clearing, the steroid can be switched for a moisturizer, according to Dr. Simpson.

Rather than restricting application to areas of greatest skin involvement, “put it all over,” he advised.

The clearing regimen should be continued “for a couple of more days” after the lesions have resolved, with a return visit in about a week to confirm clearing and reinforce the next steps for keeping patients clear, he added.

The next steps depend on severity. According to Dr. Simpson, severity is defined less by the extent of skin involvement at the baseline examination than the speed at which symptoms return.

For those with only mild symptoms after an extended period of clearing, moisturizer might be sufficient to prevent a significant relapse. For children with a more rapid relapse, it will be necessary to reintroduce topical steroid either every day, every other day, or twice per week.

Whether with moisturizer or with topical steroids, the soak-and-smear technique has now been validated in a recently published crossover randomized trial.

In the trial, children aged 6 months to 11 years, with moderate to severe AD, were randomized to a twice-daily bath, called the “wet method,” versus a twice-weekly bath, called the “dry method.” Both groups received a cleanser and moisturizer along with a low-potency topical steroid as needed.

After 2 weeks, the 40 evaluable patients were crossed over to the opposite bathing technique. The wet, or soak-and-smear approach, was associated with a highly significant reduction in the primary endpoint of SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index, compared with the dry method (95% confidence interval, 14.9-27.6; P less than .0001). In a secondary analysis, this translated into a 30% relative reduction in favor of the wet method.

In addition, there was improvement in a caregiver assessment of the Atopic Dermatitis Quickscore (ADQ). These data show that “twice-daily baths with topical steroids and moisturizer can help in more moderate to severe population,” said Dr. Simpson, who noted that he has participated in open-label studies with the same soak-and-smear technique that have produced similar results.

Once children are clear, Dr. Simpson recommends a maintenance strategy individualized for severity. In many cases, this will involve moisturizers applied after the bath, supplemented intermittently, such as once or twice per week, with topical steroids. However, if parents find themselves resorting to daily steroids to maintain control, “that’s when you incorporate the TCIs [topical calcineurin inhibitors].”

TCIs “can help you stay at twice-per-week topical steroids,” Dr. Simpson said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education.

TCIs also help patients avoid steroid withdrawal, a particularly common phenomenon when topical steroids are applied repeatedly to the face. He recommended a proactive approach. By applying TCIs to areas where skin lesions frequently recur, such as the eyelids, flares can often be prevented.

Repeated applications of TCIs “is perfectly safe and effective, and there are many studies that show proactive treatment is very effective and can prevent you from having to use too much topical steroids” or move to a systemic steroid, Dr. Simpson said.

These steps have been highly effective for sustained control even in challenging cases of AD, but he emphasized the importance of explaining the rationale to parents and eliciting their adherence to these treatment steps. Writing out the instructions will reduce confusion and help parents keep their children clear, he added.

Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, agreed that this recently published crossover trial has been helpful in counseling parents about how to manage AD in their children.

The most effective initial step for clearing atopic dermatitis in infants and young children involves daily bathing, followed by immediate application of a moisturizer, topical steroid, or both, according to an expert speaking at the virtual annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium.

FotoDuets/iStock/Getty Images

“If they are really severe, you can do it twice-daily, but there are several studies that show there is not a huge benefit of twice-daily over once-daily,” said Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

He called this technique “soak-and-smear.” The “smear” is performed immediately after the bath when the skin is still damp, he said. When clearing is the goal, and the child has moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), 0.1% triamcinolone or a similar medium potency topical steroid can be applied, and after clearing, the steroid can be switched for a moisturizer, according to Dr. Simpson.

Rather than restricting application to areas of greatest skin involvement, “put it all over,” he advised.

The clearing regimen should be continued “for a couple of more days” after the lesions have resolved, with a return visit in about a week to confirm clearing and reinforce the next steps for keeping patients clear, he added.

The next steps depend on severity. According to Dr. Simpson, severity is defined less by the extent of skin involvement at the baseline examination than the speed at which symptoms return.

For those with only mild symptoms after an extended period of clearing, moisturizer might be sufficient to prevent a significant relapse. For children with a more rapid relapse, it will be necessary to reintroduce topical steroid either every day, every other day, or twice per week.

Whether with moisturizer or with topical steroids, the soak-and-smear technique has now been validated in a recently published crossover randomized trial.

In the trial, children aged 6 months to 11 years, with moderate to severe AD, were randomized to a twice-daily bath, called the “wet method,” versus a twice-weekly bath, called the “dry method.” Both groups received a cleanser and moisturizer along with a low-potency topical steroid as needed.

After 2 weeks, the 40 evaluable patients were crossed over to the opposite bathing technique. The wet, or soak-and-smear approach, was associated with a highly significant reduction in the primary endpoint of SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index, compared with the dry method (95% confidence interval, 14.9-27.6; P less than .0001). In a secondary analysis, this translated into a 30% relative reduction in favor of the wet method.

In addition, there was improvement in a caregiver assessment of the Atopic Dermatitis Quickscore (ADQ). These data show that “twice-daily baths with topical steroids and moisturizer can help in more moderate to severe population,” said Dr. Simpson, who noted that he has participated in open-label studies with the same soak-and-smear technique that have produced similar results.

Once children are clear, Dr. Simpson recommends a maintenance strategy individualized for severity. In many cases, this will involve moisturizers applied after the bath, supplemented intermittently, such as once or twice per week, with topical steroids. However, if parents find themselves resorting to daily steroids to maintain control, “that’s when you incorporate the TCIs [topical calcineurin inhibitors].”

TCIs “can help you stay at twice-per-week topical steroids,” Dr. Simpson said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education.

TCIs also help patients avoid steroid withdrawal, a particularly common phenomenon when topical steroids are applied repeatedly to the face. He recommended a proactive approach. By applying TCIs to areas where skin lesions frequently recur, such as the eyelids, flares can often be prevented.

Repeated applications of TCIs “is perfectly safe and effective, and there are many studies that show proactive treatment is very effective and can prevent you from having to use too much topical steroids” or move to a systemic steroid, Dr. Simpson said.

These steps have been highly effective for sustained control even in challenging cases of AD, but he emphasized the importance of explaining the rationale to parents and eliciting their adherence to these treatment steps. Writing out the instructions will reduce confusion and help parents keep their children clear, he added.

Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, agreed that this recently published crossover trial has been helpful in counseling parents about how to manage AD in their children.

No clinically meaningful changes in laboratory values occurred in adolescents during 52 weeks on dupilumab for atopic dermatitis in a large, open-label safety study, Michael J. Cork, MBBS, PhD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

These reassuring results from the ongoing LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study confirm that, as previously established in adults, no blood monitoring is required in adolescents on the monoclonal antibody, which inhibits signaling of interleukins-4 and -13, said Dr. Cork, professor of dermatology and head of Sheffield Dermatology Research at the University of Sheffield (England).

“The practical importance of this finding is that there are no other systemic drugs available that don’t require blood samples. Cyclosporine, methotrexate, and the others used for atopic dermatitis require a lot of blood monitoring, and they’re off-license anyway for use in children and adolescents,” he said in an interview.

Many pediatric patients are afraid of needles and have an intense dislike of blood draws. And in a pandemic, no one wants to come into the office for blood draws if they don’t need to.

“Blood draws are very different from the injection for dupilumab. Taking a blood sample is much more painful for children. The needle in the autoinjector is really, really tiny; you can hardly feel it, and with the autoinjector you can’t even see it,” noted Dr. Cork, who is both a pediatric and adult dermatologist.

This report from the ongoing LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study included 105 patients aged 12-17 years who completed 52 weeks on dupilumab (Dupixent) with assessments of hematologic and serum chemistry parameters at baseline and weeks 16 and 52.

“The results were anticipated, but we want to know the drug is safe in every age group. The immune system is different in different age groups, so we have to be really careful,” Dr. Cork said.

The clinical side-effect profile was the same as in adults, consisting mainly of mild conjunctivitis and injection-site reactions. It’s a much less problematic side effect picture than with the older drugs.

“We’re finding the conjunctivitis to be slightly less severe than in adults, maybe because we’ve learned from the first trials in adults and from clinical experience to use prophylactic therapy. There would be no child going on dupilumab now – and no adult – that I wouldn’t put on prophylactic eye drops with replacement tears. I start them 2 weeks before I start dupilumab,” the dermatologist explained.

He and others with extensive experience using the biologic agent also work closely with an ophthalmologist.

“If we see an eye problem before going on dupilumab we get an assessment and then ophthalmologic monitoring during treatment,” Dr. Cork said.

As a dermatologist specializing in atopic dermatitis, he confessed to feeling deprived over the years as he watched the multitude of targeted biologic agents being developed for psoriasis. When he became involved in the first pediatric clinical trials of dupilumab, he had a realization: “It’s a miraculous treatment.”

“The first child I put on dupilumab spent 70 days in the hospital for IV antibiotics in the prior year. Seventy days! He almost died from MRSA septicemia. His serum IgE was 155,000 kU/L. And his IgE just went down and down and down as the dupilumab took effect. It was just incredible,” he recalled.

Dr. Cork reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Sanofi and Regeneron, which fund the LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Cork MJ. EADV 2020, Abstract 1772.

No clinically meaningful changes in laboratory values occurred in adolescents during 52 weeks on dupilumab for atopic dermatitis in a large, open-label safety study, Michael J. Cork, MBBS, PhD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

These reassuring results from the ongoing LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study confirm that, as previously established in adults, no blood monitoring is required in adolescents on the monoclonal antibody, which inhibits signaling of interleukins-4 and -13, said Dr. Cork, professor of dermatology and head of Sheffield Dermatology Research at the University of Sheffield (England).

“The practical importance of this finding is that there are no other systemic drugs available that don’t require blood samples. Cyclosporine, methotrexate, and the others used for atopic dermatitis require a lot of blood monitoring, and they’re off-license anyway for use in children and adolescents,” he said in an interview.

Many pediatric patients are afraid of needles and have an intense dislike of blood draws. And in a pandemic, no one wants to come into the office for blood draws if they don’t need to.

“Blood draws are very different from the injection for dupilumab. Taking a blood sample is much more painful for children. The needle in the autoinjector is really, really tiny; you can hardly feel it, and with the autoinjector you can’t even see it,” noted Dr. Cork, who is both a pediatric and adult dermatologist.

This report from the ongoing LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study included 105 patients aged 12-17 years who completed 52 weeks on dupilumab (Dupixent) with assessments of hematologic and serum chemistry parameters at baseline and weeks 16 and 52.

“The results were anticipated, but we want to know the drug is safe in every age group. The immune system is different in different age groups, so we have to be really careful,” Dr. Cork said.

The clinical side-effect profile was the same as in adults, consisting mainly of mild conjunctivitis and injection-site reactions. It’s a much less problematic side effect picture than with the older drugs.

“We’re finding the conjunctivitis to be slightly less severe than in adults, maybe because we’ve learned from the first trials in adults and from clinical experience to use prophylactic therapy. There would be no child going on dupilumab now – and no adult – that I wouldn’t put on prophylactic eye drops with replacement tears. I start them 2 weeks before I start dupilumab,” the dermatologist explained.

He and others with extensive experience using the biologic agent also work closely with an ophthalmologist.

“If we see an eye problem before going on dupilumab we get an assessment and then ophthalmologic monitoring during treatment,” Dr. Cork said.

As a dermatologist specializing in atopic dermatitis, he confessed to feeling deprived over the years as he watched the multitude of targeted biologic agents being developed for psoriasis. When he became involved in the first pediatric clinical trials of dupilumab, he had a realization: “It’s a miraculous treatment.”

“The first child I put on dupilumab spent 70 days in the hospital for IV antibiotics in the prior year. Seventy days! He almost died from MRSA septicemia. His serum IgE was 155,000 kU/L. And his IgE just went down and down and down as the dupilumab took effect. It was just incredible,” he recalled.

Dr. Cork reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Sanofi and Regeneron, which fund the LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Cork MJ. EADV 2020, Abstract 1772.

No clinically meaningful changes in laboratory values occurred in adolescents during 52 weeks on dupilumab for atopic dermatitis in a large, open-label safety study, Michael J. Cork, MBBS, PhD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

These reassuring results from the ongoing LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study confirm that, as previously established in adults, no blood monitoring is required in adolescents on the monoclonal antibody, which inhibits signaling of interleukins-4 and -13, said Dr. Cork, professor of dermatology and head of Sheffield Dermatology Research at the University of Sheffield (England).

“The practical importance of this finding is that there are no other systemic drugs available that don’t require blood samples. Cyclosporine, methotrexate, and the others used for atopic dermatitis require a lot of blood monitoring, and they’re off-license anyway for use in children and adolescents,” he said in an interview.

Many pediatric patients are afraid of needles and have an intense dislike of blood draws. And in a pandemic, no one wants to come into the office for blood draws if they don’t need to.

“Blood draws are very different from the injection for dupilumab. Taking a blood sample is much more painful for children. The needle in the autoinjector is really, really tiny; you can hardly feel it, and with the autoinjector you can’t even see it,” noted Dr. Cork, who is both a pediatric and adult dermatologist.

This report from the ongoing LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study included 105 patients aged 12-17 years who completed 52 weeks on dupilumab (Dupixent) with assessments of hematologic and serum chemistry parameters at baseline and weeks 16 and 52.

“The results were anticipated, but we want to know the drug is safe in every age group. The immune system is different in different age groups, so we have to be really careful,” Dr. Cork said.

The clinical side-effect profile was the same as in adults, consisting mainly of mild conjunctivitis and injection-site reactions. It’s a much less problematic side effect picture than with the older drugs.

“We’re finding the conjunctivitis to be slightly less severe than in adults, maybe because we’ve learned from the first trials in adults and from clinical experience to use prophylactic therapy. There would be no child going on dupilumab now – and no adult – that I wouldn’t put on prophylactic eye drops with replacement tears. I start them 2 weeks before I start dupilumab,” the dermatologist explained.

He and others with extensive experience using the biologic agent also work closely with an ophthalmologist.

“If we see an eye problem before going on dupilumab we get an assessment and then ophthalmologic monitoring during treatment,” Dr. Cork said.

As a dermatologist specializing in atopic dermatitis, he confessed to feeling deprived over the years as he watched the multitude of targeted biologic agents being developed for psoriasis. When he became involved in the first pediatric clinical trials of dupilumab, he had a realization: “It’s a miraculous treatment.”

“The first child I put on dupilumab spent 70 days in the hospital for IV antibiotics in the prior year. Seventy days! He almost died from MRSA septicemia. His serum IgE was 155,000 kU/L. And his IgE just went down and down and down as the dupilumab took effect. It was just incredible,” he recalled.

Dr. Cork reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Sanofi and Regeneron, which fund the LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Cork MJ. EADV 2020, Abstract 1772.

Signs and symptoms of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) were significantly reduced with baricitinib 4 mg on top of topical corticosteroids, compared with placebo in the phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, BREEZE-AD7 study.

The study enrolled patients with inadequate responses to topical corticosteroids, according to Kristian Reich, MD, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, and his coauthors.
 

First test of baricitinib plus topical steroids

Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, inhibits several cytokines in AD pathogenesis, and in two monotherapy studies (BREEZE-AD1 and BREEZE-AD2), it was superior to placebo for reducing several AD clinical signs and symptoms. The current BREEZE-AD7 study is the first to test baricitinib plus background topical corticosteroid therapy, more closely mirroring clinical practice, the authors noted.

BREEZE-AD7 was conducted at 68 centers in 10 countries in Asia, Australia, Europe, and South America. It included 329 adults with moderate to severe AD (mean age around 34 years, and around 34% were female) with inadequate responses to topical corticosteroids documented within the last 6 months. They were randomized 1:1:1 to daily baricitinib 4 mg, daily baricitinib 2 mg, or placebo for 16 weeks. All patients received moderate- and/or low-potency topical corticosteroids (such as 0.1%triamcinolone cream and 2.5% hydrocortisone ointment, respectively) for active lesions.
 

Significant benefit at 4 mg

At week 16, 31% of AD patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg achieved Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) scores of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) versus 15% in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-5.6; P = .004). Among patients receiving baricitinib 2 mg, 24% achieved vI-GA-AD scores of 0 or 1 (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.9-3.9; P = .08).

The same pattern of improving scores from placebo to baricitinib 2 mg to baricitinib 4 mg persisted, as reflected with secondary endpoints at week 16. Among patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg, 48% achieved Eczema Area Severity Index (EASI) 75 responses, versus 43% and 23% in 2 mg and placebo groups, respectively. Percent changes from baseline in total EASI score were –67%, –58%, –45% for baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg, and placebo, respectively; the proportion of patients achieving 4-point or greater improvements in Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) was 44%, 38%, and 20% for baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg and placebo, respectively.

Similarly, mean change from baseline on the Skin Pain numeric rating scale was –3.7, –3.2, and –2.1 for baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg and placebo. Nighttime itch awakenings were also reduced in a similar progression from placebo to the higher baricitinib dose.
 

Adverse events dose related

Treatment-related adverse events were reported more frequently in the baricitinib groups (58% baricitinib 4 mg, 56% baricitinib 2 mg) versus placebo 38%. Nasopharyngitis was most common, followed by oral herpes, upper respiratory tract infection, acne, diarrhea, and back pain. Serious adverse event rates were similar across treatment groups. Permanent discontinuation rates were low at 5% for baricitinib 4 mg, 0% for baricitinib 2 mg, and 1% for placebo. The side-effect profile for baricitinib was consistent with prior studies, Dr. Reich and his coauthors reported.

The authors noted further, “data in this study suggest that patients with AD treated with baricitinib may be able to reduce the frequency and total quantity of concomitant TCSs [topical corticosteroids] used, thus mitigating concerns associated with continual or sustained application of topical treatments.”

“Overall, this study provides further evidence to support the efficacy and safety profile of baricitinib for the treatment of moderate-severe AD,” commented one of the authors, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at George Washington University in Washington.

“In particular, this study shows that adding topical corticosteroids to baricitinib increases the rate of treatment success compared with the efficacy seen in baricitinib monotherapy studies. These data will be important to guide the use of baricitinib with topical corticosteroids in clinical practice. I think these data are also important because they show that baricitinib 4 mg may be more effective than 2 mg in some patients,” he said in an interview.

In late September, the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended approval of oral baricitinib for adults with moderate to severe AD who are candidates for systemic therapy. Baricitinib is approved in the European Union and the United States to treat moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis. If approved in Europe, it will be the first JAK inhibitor and first oral medication indicated to treat patients with AD.

The study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company under license from Incyte Corporation. Dr. Reich reported receiving fees to the institution for participation in clinical trials from Eli Lilly and Company during the conduct of the study and personal fees for lectures. Dr. Silverberg reported receiving fees from Eli Lilly and Company during the conduct of the study, and fees from companies outside of this work. Other authors also reported disclosures related to Eli Lilly and other pharmaceutical companies, and several authors were Eli Lilly employees.
 

SOURCE: Reich K et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.3260.

Signs and symptoms of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) were significantly reduced with baricitinib 4 mg on top of topical corticosteroids, compared with placebo in the phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, BREEZE-AD7 study.

The study enrolled patients with inadequate responses to topical corticosteroids, according to Kristian Reich, MD, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, and his coauthors.
 

First test of baricitinib plus topical steroids

Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, inhibits several cytokines in AD pathogenesis, and in two monotherapy studies (BREEZE-AD1 and BREEZE-AD2), it was superior to placebo for reducing several AD clinical signs and symptoms. The current BREEZE-AD7 study is the first to test baricitinib plus background topical corticosteroid therapy, more closely mirroring clinical practice, the authors noted.

BREEZE-AD7 was conducted at 68 centers in 10 countries in Asia, Australia, Europe, and South America. It included 329 adults with moderate to severe AD (mean age around 34 years, and around 34% were female) with inadequate responses to topical corticosteroids documented within the last 6 months. They were randomized 1:1:1 to daily baricitinib 4 mg, daily baricitinib 2 mg, or placebo for 16 weeks. All patients received moderate- and/or low-potency topical corticosteroids (such as 0.1%triamcinolone cream and 2.5% hydrocortisone ointment, respectively) for active lesions.
 

Significant benefit at 4 mg

At week 16, 31% of AD patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg achieved Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) scores of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) versus 15% in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-5.6; P = .004). Among patients receiving baricitinib 2 mg, 24% achieved vI-GA-AD scores of 0 or 1 (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.9-3.9; P = .08).

The same pattern of improving scores from placebo to baricitinib 2 mg to baricitinib 4 mg persisted, as reflected with secondary endpoints at week 16. Among patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg, 48% achieved Eczema Area Severity Index (EASI) 75 responses, versus 43% and 23% in 2 mg and placebo groups, respectively. Percent changes from baseline in total EASI score were –67%, –58%, –45% for baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg, and placebo, respectively; the proportion of patients achieving 4-point or greater improvements in Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) was 44%, 38%, and 20% for baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg and placebo, respectively.

Similarly, mean change from baseline on the Skin Pain numeric rating scale was –3.7, –3.2, and –2.1 for baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg and placebo. Nighttime itch awakenings were also reduced in a similar progression from placebo to the higher baricitinib dose.
 

Adverse events dose related

Treatment-related adverse events were reported more frequently in the baricitinib groups (58% baricitinib 4 mg, 56% baricitinib 2 mg) versus placebo 38%. Nasopharyngitis was most common, followed by oral herpes, upper respiratory tract infection, acne, diarrhea, and back pain. Serious adverse event rates were similar across treatment groups. Permanent discontinuation rates were low at 5% for baricitinib 4 mg, 0% for baricitinib 2 mg, and 1% for placebo. The side-effect profile for baricitinib was consistent with prior studies, Dr. Reich and his coauthors reported.

The authors noted further, “data in this study suggest that patients with AD treated with baricitinib may be able to reduce the frequency and total quantity of concomitant TCSs [topical corticosteroids] used, thus mitigating concerns associated with continual or sustained application of topical treatments.”

“Overall, this study provides further evidence to support the efficacy and safety profile of baricitinib for the treatment of moderate-severe AD,” commented one of the authors, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at George Washington University in Washington.

“In particular, this study shows that adding topical corticosteroids to baricitinib increases the rate of treatment success compared with the efficacy seen in baricitinib monotherapy studies. These data will be important to guide the use of baricitinib with topical corticosteroids in clinical practice. I think these data are also important because they show that baricitinib 4 mg may be more effective than 2 mg in some patients,” he said in an interview.

In late September, the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended approval of oral baricitinib for adults with moderate to severe AD who are candidates for systemic therapy. Baricitinib is approved in the European Union and the United States to treat moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis. If approved in Europe, it will be the first JAK inhibitor and first oral medication indicated to treat patients with AD.

The study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company under license from Incyte Corporation. Dr. Reich reported receiving fees to the institution for participation in clinical trials from Eli Lilly and Company during the conduct of the study and personal fees for lectures. Dr. Silverberg reported receiving fees from Eli Lilly and Company during the conduct of the study, and fees from companies outside of this work. Other authors also reported disclosures related to Eli Lilly and other pharmaceutical companies, and several authors were Eli Lilly employees.
 

SOURCE: Reich K et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.3260.

Signs and symptoms of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) were significantly reduced with baricitinib 4 mg on top of topical corticosteroids, compared with placebo in the phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, BREEZE-AD7 study.

The study enrolled patients with inadequate responses to topical corticosteroids, according to Kristian Reich, MD, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, and his coauthors.
 

First test of baricitinib plus topical steroids

Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, inhibits several cytokines in AD pathogenesis, and in two monotherapy studies (BREEZE-AD1 and BREEZE-AD2), it was superior to placebo for reducing several AD clinical signs and symptoms. The current BREEZE-AD7 study is the first to test baricitinib plus background topical corticosteroid therapy, more closely mirroring clinical practice, the authors noted.

BREEZE-AD7 was conducted at 68 centers in 10 countries in Asia, Australia, Europe, and South America. It included 329 adults with moderate to severe AD (mean age around 34 years, and around 34% were female) with inadequate responses to topical corticosteroids documented within the last 6 months. They were randomized 1:1:1 to daily baricitinib 4 mg, daily baricitinib 2 mg, or placebo for 16 weeks. All patients received moderate- and/or low-potency topical corticosteroids (such as 0.1%triamcinolone cream and 2.5% hydrocortisone ointment, respectively) for active lesions.
 

Significant benefit at 4 mg

At week 16, 31% of AD patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg achieved Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) scores of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) versus 15% in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-5.6; P = .004). Among patients receiving baricitinib 2 mg, 24% achieved vI-GA-AD scores of 0 or 1 (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.9-3.9; P = .08).

The same pattern of improving scores from placebo to baricitinib 2 mg to baricitinib 4 mg persisted, as reflected with secondary endpoints at week 16. Among patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg, 48% achieved Eczema Area Severity Index (EASI) 75 responses, versus 43% and 23% in 2 mg and placebo groups, respectively. Percent changes from baseline in total EASI score were –67%, –58%, –45% for baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg, and placebo, respectively; the proportion of patients achieving 4-point or greater improvements in Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) was 44%, 38%, and 20% for baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg and placebo, respectively.

Similarly, mean change from baseline on the Skin Pain numeric rating scale was –3.7, –3.2, and –2.1 for baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg and placebo. Nighttime itch awakenings were also reduced in a similar progression from placebo to the higher baricitinib dose.
 

Adverse events dose related

Treatment-related adverse events were reported more frequently in the baricitinib groups (58% baricitinib 4 mg, 56% baricitinib 2 mg) versus placebo 38%. Nasopharyngitis was most common, followed by oral herpes, upper respiratory tract infection, acne, diarrhea, and back pain. Serious adverse event rates were similar across treatment groups. Permanent discontinuation rates were low at 5% for baricitinib 4 mg, 0% for baricitinib 2 mg, and 1% for placebo. The side-effect profile for baricitinib was consistent with prior studies, Dr. Reich and his coauthors reported.

The authors noted further, “data in this study suggest that patients with AD treated with baricitinib may be able to reduce the frequency and total quantity of concomitant TCSs [topical corticosteroids] used, thus mitigating concerns associated with continual or sustained application of topical treatments.”

“Overall, this study provides further evidence to support the efficacy and safety profile of baricitinib for the treatment of moderate-severe AD,” commented one of the authors, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at George Washington University in Washington.

“In particular, this study shows that adding topical corticosteroids to baricitinib increases the rate of treatment success compared with the efficacy seen in baricitinib monotherapy studies. These data will be important to guide the use of baricitinib with topical corticosteroids in clinical practice. I think these data are also important because they show that baricitinib 4 mg may be more effective than 2 mg in some patients,” he said in an interview.

In late September, the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended approval of oral baricitinib for adults with moderate to severe AD who are candidates for systemic therapy. Baricitinib is approved in the European Union and the United States to treat moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis. If approved in Europe, it will be the first JAK inhibitor and first oral medication indicated to treat patients with AD.

The study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company under license from Incyte Corporation. Dr. Reich reported receiving fees to the institution for participation in clinical trials from Eli Lilly and Company during the conduct of the study and personal fees for lectures. Dr. Silverberg reported receiving fees from Eli Lilly and Company during the conduct of the study, and fees from companies outside of this work. Other authors also reported disclosures related to Eli Lilly and other pharmaceutical companies, and several authors were Eli Lilly employees.
 

SOURCE: Reich K et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.3260.

The Diagnosis: Acrodermatitis Enteropathica 

Acrodermatitis enteropathica (AE) was the presumptive diagnosis. Oral supplementation with zinc sulfate 3 mg/kg/d was started immediately after a zinc level was ordered. A low zinc level of 15 µg/dL (reference range, 56-134 µg/dL) eventually was obtained. The lesions began to fade in 2 days along with return of normal feeding and disposition, and the patient was discharged with continued zinc supplementation.  

Acrodermatitis enteropathica is an autosomal-recessive condition resulting in severe zinc deficiency caused by a defect of dietary zinc absorption in the duodenum and jejunum.¹ It occurs in 1 in 500,000 individuals with no gender or racial predilection. It can be acquired or inherited.² Recognition of clinical symptoms is essential due to potential death if untreated. Zinc is an important trace element required for the proper functioning of all cells and plays a large role in the metabolism of protein, carbohydrates, and vitamin A. Zinc deficiency impairs immune function, leading to bacterial infections. It also is a cofactor of numerous metal enzymes such as alkaline phosphatase, RNA polymerase, and numerous digestive enzymes.³  

Our laboratory analysis revealed low alkaline phosphatase and zinc levels, which led to the diagnosis of AE; unfortunately, these levels can be ambiguous.⁴ There are many causes of acquired zinc deficiency, including premature birth, low birth weight, zinc deficiency in maternal milk, exclusive parenteral nutrition, malabsorption syndromes such as Crohn disease and celiac disease, alcoholism, low calcium and phytate (cereal grain) diet, and kwashiorkor.⁵ The hereditary deficiency of zinc classically is known as AE and is caused by an autosomal-recessive mutation of the SLC39A4 gene on chromosome arm 8q24.3, which determines a congenital partial or total deficiency of the zinc transporter protein ZIP4.⁶  

The clinical manifestations of acquired zinc deficiency and AE are similar and consist of 3 essential symptoms: periorificial dermatitis, alopecia, and diarrhea. Unfortunately, this clinical triad is complete in only 20% of patients with AE.³ For example, our patient was too young for an alopecia determination. The disease typically presents with eczematous papules and sometimes vesiculobullous or pustular lesions located around perioral and acral areas (Figure 1) as well as the anogenital region (Figures 2 and 3). The severity of the skin lesions is variable.⁷ Our patient also presented with eczematous truncal papules on the chest (Figure 4). Acrodermatitis enteropathica usually presents during childhood after weaning. Along with the aforementioned skin findings, other symptoms in infancy can include diarrhea, mood changes, and anorexia. In school-aged children and toddlers, zinc deficiency is characterized by growth retardation, alopecia, weight loss, and recurrent infections.  

In the differential diagnosis, the clinical presentation of biotin deficiency involves abnormalities of the hair, skin, nails, and central nervous system (eg, seizures, ataxia, deafness).⁸ Cystic fibrosis presentation depends on the multiorgan involvement, but neonates often present with failure to thrive.⁹ Essential fatty acid deficiency presents clinically as dermatitis, alopecia, and thrombocytopenia, but a complete blood cell count with platelets was within reference range in our patient.¹⁰ Langerhans cell histiocytosis presents with perineal and postauricular lesions, but the skin biopsy did not confirm this diagnosis in our patient.¹¹ Histopathologic examination of the buttock biopsy in our patient revealed nonspecific epidermal hyperplasia with acanthosis as well as clustered necrotic keratinocytes with vacuolization and parakeratosis.  

Most clinicians who suspect AE treat with a therapeutic supplementation of zinc sulfate 3 mg/kg/d while awaiting laboratory results. Acrodermatitis enteropathica is a rare condition, and early recognition of skin findings is important because misdiagnosis can lead to infections, malnutrition, and possibly death.  

The Diagnosis: Acrodermatitis Enteropathica 

Acrodermatitis enteropathica (AE) was the presumptive diagnosis. Oral supplementation with zinc sulfate 3 mg/kg/d was started immediately after a zinc level was ordered. A low zinc level of 15 µg/dL (reference range, 56-134 µg/dL) eventually was obtained. The lesions began to fade in 2 days along with return of normal feeding and disposition, and the patient was discharged with continued zinc supplementation.  

Acrodermatitis enteropathica is an autosomal-recessive condition resulting in severe zinc deficiency caused by a defect of dietary zinc absorption in the duodenum and jejunum.¹ It occurs in 1 in 500,000 individuals with no gender or racial predilection. It can be acquired or inherited.² Recognition of clinical symptoms is essential due to potential death if untreated. Zinc is an important trace element required for the proper functioning of all cells and plays a large role in the metabolism of protein, carbohydrates, and vitamin A. Zinc deficiency impairs immune function, leading to bacterial infections. It also is a cofactor of numerous metal enzymes such as alkaline phosphatase, RNA polymerase, and numerous digestive enzymes.³  

Our laboratory analysis revealed low alkaline phosphatase and zinc levels, which led to the diagnosis of AE; unfortunately, these levels can be ambiguous.⁴ There are many causes of acquired zinc deficiency, including premature birth, low birth weight, zinc deficiency in maternal milk, exclusive parenteral nutrition, malabsorption syndromes such as Crohn disease and celiac disease, alcoholism, low calcium and phytate (cereal grain) diet, and kwashiorkor.⁵ The hereditary deficiency of zinc classically is known as AE and is caused by an autosomal-recessive mutation of the SLC39A4 gene on chromosome arm 8q24.3, which determines a congenital partial or total deficiency of the zinc transporter protein ZIP4.⁶  

The clinical manifestations of acquired zinc deficiency and AE are similar and consist of 3 essential symptoms: periorificial dermatitis, alopecia, and diarrhea. Unfortunately, this clinical triad is complete in only 20% of patients with AE.³ For example, our patient was too young for an alopecia determination. The disease typically presents with eczematous papules and sometimes vesiculobullous or pustular lesions located around perioral and acral areas (Figure 1) as well as the anogenital region (Figures 2 and 3). The severity of the skin lesions is variable.⁷ Our patient also presented with eczematous truncal papules on the chest (Figure 4). Acrodermatitis enteropathica usually presents during childhood after weaning. Along with the aforementioned skin findings, other symptoms in infancy can include diarrhea, mood changes, and anorexia. In school-aged children and toddlers, zinc deficiency is characterized by growth retardation, alopecia, weight loss, and recurrent infections.  

In the differential diagnosis, the clinical presentation of biotin deficiency involves abnormalities of the hair, skin, nails, and central nervous system (eg, seizures, ataxia, deafness).⁸ Cystic fibrosis presentation depends on the multiorgan involvement, but neonates often present with failure to thrive.⁹ Essential fatty acid deficiency presents clinically as dermatitis, alopecia, and thrombocytopenia, but a complete blood cell count with platelets was within reference range in our patient.¹⁰ Langerhans cell histiocytosis presents with perineal and postauricular lesions, but the skin biopsy did not confirm this diagnosis in our patient.¹¹ Histopathologic examination of the buttock biopsy in our patient revealed nonspecific epidermal hyperplasia with acanthosis as well as clustered necrotic keratinocytes with vacuolization and parakeratosis.  

Most clinicians who suspect AE treat with a therapeutic supplementation of zinc sulfate 3 mg/kg/d while awaiting laboratory results. Acrodermatitis enteropathica is a rare condition, and early recognition of skin findings is important because misdiagnosis can lead to infections, malnutrition, and possibly death.  

The Diagnosis: Acrodermatitis Enteropathica 

Acrodermatitis enteropathica (AE) was the presumptive diagnosis. Oral supplementation with zinc sulfate 3 mg/kg/d was started immediately after a zinc level was ordered. A low zinc level of 15 µg/dL (reference range, 56-134 µg/dL) eventually was obtained. The lesions began to fade in 2 days along with return of normal feeding and disposition, and the patient was discharged with continued zinc supplementation.  

Acrodermatitis enteropathica is an autosomal-recessive condition resulting in severe zinc deficiency caused by a defect of dietary zinc absorption in the duodenum and jejunum.¹ It occurs in 1 in 500,000 individuals with no gender or racial predilection. It can be acquired or inherited.² Recognition of clinical symptoms is essential due to potential death if untreated. Zinc is an important trace element required for the proper functioning of all cells and plays a large role in the metabolism of protein, carbohydrates, and vitamin A. Zinc deficiency impairs immune function, leading to bacterial infections. It also is a cofactor of numerous metal enzymes such as alkaline phosphatase, RNA polymerase, and numerous digestive enzymes.³  

Our laboratory analysis revealed low alkaline phosphatase and zinc levels, which led to the diagnosis of AE; unfortunately, these levels can be ambiguous.⁴ There are many causes of acquired zinc deficiency, including premature birth, low birth weight, zinc deficiency in maternal milk, exclusive parenteral nutrition, malabsorption syndromes such as Crohn disease and celiac disease, alcoholism, low calcium and phytate (cereal grain) diet, and kwashiorkor.⁵ The hereditary deficiency of zinc classically is known as AE and is caused by an autosomal-recessive mutation of the SLC39A4 gene on chromosome arm 8q24.3, which determines a congenital partial or total deficiency of the zinc transporter protein ZIP4.⁶  

The clinical manifestations of acquired zinc deficiency and AE are similar and consist of 3 essential symptoms: periorificial dermatitis, alopecia, and diarrhea. Unfortunately, this clinical triad is complete in only 20% of patients with AE.³ For example, our patient was too young for an alopecia determination. The disease typically presents with eczematous papules and sometimes vesiculobullous or pustular lesions located around perioral and acral areas (Figure 1) as well as the anogenital region (Figures 2 and 3). The severity of the skin lesions is variable.⁷ Our patient also presented with eczematous truncal papules on the chest (Figure 4). Acrodermatitis enteropathica usually presents during childhood after weaning. Along with the aforementioned skin findings, other symptoms in infancy can include diarrhea, mood changes, and anorexia. In school-aged children and toddlers, zinc deficiency is characterized by growth retardation, alopecia, weight loss, and recurrent infections.  

In the differential diagnosis, the clinical presentation of biotin deficiency involves abnormalities of the hair, skin, nails, and central nervous system (eg, seizures, ataxia, deafness).⁸ Cystic fibrosis presentation depends on the multiorgan involvement, but neonates often present with failure to thrive.⁹ Essential fatty acid deficiency presents clinically as dermatitis, alopecia, and thrombocytopenia, but a complete blood cell count with platelets was within reference range in our patient.¹⁰ Langerhans cell histiocytosis presents with perineal and postauricular lesions, but the skin biopsy did not confirm this diagnosis in our patient.¹¹ Histopathologic examination of the buttock biopsy in our patient revealed nonspecific epidermal hyperplasia with acanthosis as well as clustered necrotic keratinocytes with vacuolization and parakeratosis.  

Most clinicians who suspect AE treat with a therapeutic supplementation of zinc sulfate 3 mg/kg/d while awaiting laboratory results. Acrodermatitis enteropathica is a rare condition, and early recognition of skin findings is important because misdiagnosis can lead to infections, malnutrition, and possibly death.  

Spending on medications is expected to grow from $344 billion in 2018 to $420 billion in 2023, largely driven by the introduction of new branded drugs.¹ These costs place substantial financial burden on patients, with nearly 30% of patients not taking their prescriptions as directed because of costs. Although many new medications have transformed how we care for patients, others may not offer meaningful benefit over existing less-costly alternatives that are supported by declining effect sizes of conventional placebo-controlled trials.² Most medications are approved based on placebo-controlled trial data that does not include an arm comparing the new drug to standard of care, leaving clinicians and patients unable to make meaningful comparisons when deciding on the most appropriate or cost-effective treatment. We consider ways in which clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators could compel more meaningful trials from industry.

Although we often look to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure rigorous and appropriate testing of new medications, the primary mission of the FDA is to ensure efficacy and safety. As a result, pharmaceutical companies seeking approval in the United States have little incentive to go beyond providing the minimal level of evidence required: placebo-controlled randomized trials. Although these trials provide important data on whether a treatment works and its associated risks, they do not provide data on comparative effectiveness. When relevant inexpensive medications are already on the market for the same indication, these placebo-controlled trials provide inadequate evidence to guide clinical decision-making. This issue is particularly relevant in dermatology given how easily topical medications can be combined or reformulated to pursue additional market exclusivity. The addition of an active comparator arm represents an important opportunity to improve the value of these studies.

In the pivotal trials of clindamycin phosphate 1.2%–benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel for the treatment of acne, the experimental group was not only compared to vehicle but also the active comparator arms of clindamycin alone and benzoyl peroxide alone. The mean percentage change in total lesions was 47.9% with clindamycin phosphate 1.2%–benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel, 41.6% with the active comparator arm of benzoyl peroxide alone, 40.4% with the active comparator arm of clindamycin alone, and 26.2% for vehicle.³ With these data in mind, clinicians and patients can decide whether the additional benefit of this new product over benzoyl peroxide alone is worth the increased cost.

In contrast, the trials of dapsone gel 7.5% for the treatment of acne did not include an active comparator. The mean percentage change in total lesions was 48.9% for dapsone gel and 43.2% for vehicle.⁴ Given these data, it is possible that dapsone gel may be no more effective, or possibly less effective, than alternatives such as benzoyl peroxide or other topical antibiotics. Nevertheless, dapsone annual sales were more than $200 million in 2016,⁵ suggesting that effectively marketed new products can achieve high sales even without convincing evidence of their value compared to standard of care. Although dapsone may be a useful treatment, we cannot effectively make patient-centered clinical decisions given the lack of an active comparator trial design.

This issue is not limited to acne. Phase 3 trials of halobetasol propionate foam 0.05% for psoriasis and crisaborole for atopic dermatitis also did not include an active comparator arm.^6,7 Given that topical steroids—and calcineurin inhibitors for atopic dermatitis—are mainstays of treatment for each condition, it is difficult to determine whether these new treatments offer meaningful advantages over existing options and how to incorporate them into our management strategies.

Unfortunately, expensive new medications that are adopted without convincing evidence of their benefit above standard of care can put patients at risk for financial toxicity, either directly through higher out-of-pocket costs or indirectly through higher premiums. Given the impact of rising medication costs on clinicians, patients, and payers, we propose several approaches these stakeholders could adopt to encourage the use of active comparator trial designs.

Clinicians and patients can encourage these trials by remaining skeptical of new treatments that were only compared to vehicle or placebo. Because new medications often are more expensive, clinicians and patients could avoid using these treatments without evidence of either increased efficacy or improved safety and tolerability. In addition, health care institutions should consider reducing pharmaceutical representatives’ access to clinicians to encourage treatment decisions based on the published literature and comparative effectiveness data rather than marketing.

Payers, such as Medicare, also could play a role by requiring active comparator trials for coverage of new medications, particularly when there are already other effective treatments available or other medications in the same class. Payers also could give preferred coverage tier or step therapy status to medications that demonstrate value over existing options.

Although regulatory approaches to increase use of active comparator designs may be more politically challenging to introduce, these options would be more administratively robust. The FDA or a novel regulatory body could require that new treatments demonstrate value in addition to safety and efficacy. This approach would be similar to the role of The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom or the recommendations of the European Medicines Agency. Such a group also could provide independent adjudication to ensure appropriate selection of a relevant active comparator. Another approach would be to give extended market exclusivity to medications that are approved based on trials including an additional active comparator arm, an approach used by the European Medicines Agency.

Any approach that encourages increased use of active comparator trials is not without potential downsides. It will be important to avoid unintended consequences of reduced research for rare diseases with smaller markets that may not be able to support the increased cost of these trials. As a result, it would be reasonable to forgo active comparator designs for mediations indicated for rare and orphan diseases or for medications with novel mechanisms of action.

Another argument against including an active comparator arm is that it may stifle innovation by driving up the cost of conducting trials; however, if a product is so marginally innovative that it cannot demonstrate superior safety or efficacy to an existing product, such a new treatment may not be worth the increased cost. In addition, patients provide a notable contribution by participating in these trials, and it is important to ensure that their efforts result in the highest-quality data possible. Furthermore, given the adverse physical and psychosocial impact of a wide variety of dermatologic diseases, the inclusion of an active comparator arm reduces the likelihood that patients will receive placebo, which will make these trials more ethical when effective treatments are available.⁸ By raising the bar, we can encourage pharmaceutical companies to pursue novel approaches that are more likely to have a revolutionary impact rather than minor modifications or formulations that offer little to no benefit at substantially increased cost.

Although some recent clinical trials in dermatology have included active comparators, many new medications continue to be introduced without any evidence of how they compare to existing standards of care. Until clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators demand that pharmaceutical companies conduct the necessary trials to not only demonstrate whether a treatment is effective and safe but also how it provides value, there will be continued introduction of marginal innovations rather than revolutionary treatments that improve patients’ lives. The next time a new medication is approved, as clinicians, patients, and payers, we must ask ourselves, is this treatment worth it?

Spending on medications is expected to grow from $344 billion in 2018 to $420 billion in 2023, largely driven by the introduction of new branded drugs.¹ These costs place substantial financial burden on patients, with nearly 30% of patients not taking their prescriptions as directed because of costs. Although many new medications have transformed how we care for patients, others may not offer meaningful benefit over existing less-costly alternatives that are supported by declining effect sizes of conventional placebo-controlled trials.² Most medications are approved based on placebo-controlled trial data that does not include an arm comparing the new drug to standard of care, leaving clinicians and patients unable to make meaningful comparisons when deciding on the most appropriate or cost-effective treatment. We consider ways in which clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators could compel more meaningful trials from industry.

Although we often look to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure rigorous and appropriate testing of new medications, the primary mission of the FDA is to ensure efficacy and safety. As a result, pharmaceutical companies seeking approval in the United States have little incentive to go beyond providing the minimal level of evidence required: placebo-controlled randomized trials. Although these trials provide important data on whether a treatment works and its associated risks, they do not provide data on comparative effectiveness. When relevant inexpensive medications are already on the market for the same indication, these placebo-controlled trials provide inadequate evidence to guide clinical decision-making. This issue is particularly relevant in dermatology given how easily topical medications can be combined or reformulated to pursue additional market exclusivity. The addition of an active comparator arm represents an important opportunity to improve the value of these studies.

In the pivotal trials of clindamycin phosphate 1.2%–benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel for the treatment of acne, the experimental group was not only compared to vehicle but also the active comparator arms of clindamycin alone and benzoyl peroxide alone. The mean percentage change in total lesions was 47.9% with clindamycin phosphate 1.2%–benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel, 41.6% with the active comparator arm of benzoyl peroxide alone, 40.4% with the active comparator arm of clindamycin alone, and 26.2% for vehicle.³ With these data in mind, clinicians and patients can decide whether the additional benefit of this new product over benzoyl peroxide alone is worth the increased cost.

In contrast, the trials of dapsone gel 7.5% for the treatment of acne did not include an active comparator. The mean percentage change in total lesions was 48.9% for dapsone gel and 43.2% for vehicle.⁴ Given these data, it is possible that dapsone gel may be no more effective, or possibly less effective, than alternatives such as benzoyl peroxide or other topical antibiotics. Nevertheless, dapsone annual sales were more than $200 million in 2016,⁵ suggesting that effectively marketed new products can achieve high sales even without convincing evidence of their value compared to standard of care. Although dapsone may be a useful treatment, we cannot effectively make patient-centered clinical decisions given the lack of an active comparator trial design.

This issue is not limited to acne. Phase 3 trials of halobetasol propionate foam 0.05% for psoriasis and crisaborole for atopic dermatitis also did not include an active comparator arm.^6,7 Given that topical steroids—and calcineurin inhibitors for atopic dermatitis—are mainstays of treatment for each condition, it is difficult to determine whether these new treatments offer meaningful advantages over existing options and how to incorporate them into our management strategies.

Unfortunately, expensive new medications that are adopted without convincing evidence of their benefit above standard of care can put patients at risk for financial toxicity, either directly through higher out-of-pocket costs or indirectly through higher premiums. Given the impact of rising medication costs on clinicians, patients, and payers, we propose several approaches these stakeholders could adopt to encourage the use of active comparator trial designs.

Clinicians and patients can encourage these trials by remaining skeptical of new treatments that were only compared to vehicle or placebo. Because new medications often are more expensive, clinicians and patients could avoid using these treatments without evidence of either increased efficacy or improved safety and tolerability. In addition, health care institutions should consider reducing pharmaceutical representatives’ access to clinicians to encourage treatment decisions based on the published literature and comparative effectiveness data rather than marketing.

Payers, such as Medicare, also could play a role by requiring active comparator trials for coverage of new medications, particularly when there are already other effective treatments available or other medications in the same class. Payers also could give preferred coverage tier or step therapy status to medications that demonstrate value over existing options.

Although regulatory approaches to increase use of active comparator designs may be more politically challenging to introduce, these options would be more administratively robust. The FDA or a novel regulatory body could require that new treatments demonstrate value in addition to safety and efficacy. This approach would be similar to the role of The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom or the recommendations of the European Medicines Agency. Such a group also could provide independent adjudication to ensure appropriate selection of a relevant active comparator. Another approach would be to give extended market exclusivity to medications that are approved based on trials including an additional active comparator arm, an approach used by the European Medicines Agency.

Any approach that encourages increased use of active comparator trials is not without potential downsides. It will be important to avoid unintended consequences of reduced research for rare diseases with smaller markets that may not be able to support the increased cost of these trials. As a result, it would be reasonable to forgo active comparator designs for mediations indicated for rare and orphan diseases or for medications with novel mechanisms of action.

Another argument against including an active comparator arm is that it may stifle innovation by driving up the cost of conducting trials; however, if a product is so marginally innovative that it cannot demonstrate superior safety or efficacy to an existing product, such a new treatment may not be worth the increased cost. In addition, patients provide a notable contribution by participating in these trials, and it is important to ensure that their efforts result in the highest-quality data possible. Furthermore, given the adverse physical and psychosocial impact of a wide variety of dermatologic diseases, the inclusion of an active comparator arm reduces the likelihood that patients will receive placebo, which will make these trials more ethical when effective treatments are available.⁸ By raising the bar, we can encourage pharmaceutical companies to pursue novel approaches that are more likely to have a revolutionary impact rather than minor modifications or formulations that offer little to no benefit at substantially increased cost.

Although some recent clinical trials in dermatology have included active comparators, many new medications continue to be introduced without any evidence of how they compare to existing standards of care. Until clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators demand that pharmaceutical companies conduct the necessary trials to not only demonstrate whether a treatment is effective and safe but also how it provides value, there will be continued introduction of marginal innovations rather than revolutionary treatments that improve patients’ lives. The next time a new medication is approved, as clinicians, patients, and payers, we must ask ourselves, is this treatment worth it?

Spending on medications is expected to grow from $344 billion in 2018 to $420 billion in 2023, largely driven by the introduction of new branded drugs.¹ These costs place substantial financial burden on patients, with nearly 30% of patients not taking their prescriptions as directed because of costs. Although many new medications have transformed how we care for patients, others may not offer meaningful benefit over existing less-costly alternatives that are supported by declining effect sizes of conventional placebo-controlled trials.² Most medications are approved based on placebo-controlled trial data that does not include an arm comparing the new drug to standard of care, leaving clinicians and patients unable to make meaningful comparisons when deciding on the most appropriate or cost-effective treatment. We consider ways in which clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators could compel more meaningful trials from industry.

Although we often look to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure rigorous and appropriate testing of new medications, the primary mission of the FDA is to ensure efficacy and safety. As a result, pharmaceutical companies seeking approval in the United States have little incentive to go beyond providing the minimal level of evidence required: placebo-controlled randomized trials. Although these trials provide important data on whether a treatment works and its associated risks, they do not provide data on comparative effectiveness. When relevant inexpensive medications are already on the market for the same indication, these placebo-controlled trials provide inadequate evidence to guide clinical decision-making. This issue is particularly relevant in dermatology given how easily topical medications can be combined or reformulated to pursue additional market exclusivity. The addition of an active comparator arm represents an important opportunity to improve the value of these studies.

In the pivotal trials of clindamycin phosphate 1.2%–benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel for the treatment of acne, the experimental group was not only compared to vehicle but also the active comparator arms of clindamycin alone and benzoyl peroxide alone. The mean percentage change in total lesions was 47.9% with clindamycin phosphate 1.2%–benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel, 41.6% with the active comparator arm of benzoyl peroxide alone, 40.4% with the active comparator arm of clindamycin alone, and 26.2% for vehicle.³ With these data in mind, clinicians and patients can decide whether the additional benefit of this new product over benzoyl peroxide alone is worth the increased cost.

In contrast, the trials of dapsone gel 7.5% for the treatment of acne did not include an active comparator. The mean percentage change in total lesions was 48.9% for dapsone gel and 43.2% for vehicle.⁴ Given these data, it is possible that dapsone gel may be no more effective, or possibly less effective, than alternatives such as benzoyl peroxide or other topical antibiotics. Nevertheless, dapsone annual sales were more than $200 million in 2016,⁵ suggesting that effectively marketed new products can achieve high sales even without convincing evidence of their value compared to standard of care. Although dapsone may be a useful treatment, we cannot effectively make patient-centered clinical decisions given the lack of an active comparator trial design.

This issue is not limited to acne. Phase 3 trials of halobetasol propionate foam 0.05% for psoriasis and crisaborole for atopic dermatitis also did not include an active comparator arm.^6,7 Given that topical steroids—and calcineurin inhibitors for atopic dermatitis—are mainstays of treatment for each condition, it is difficult to determine whether these new treatments offer meaningful advantages over existing options and how to incorporate them into our management strategies.

Unfortunately, expensive new medications that are adopted without convincing evidence of their benefit above standard of care can put patients at risk for financial toxicity, either directly through higher out-of-pocket costs or indirectly through higher premiums. Given the impact of rising medication costs on clinicians, patients, and payers, we propose several approaches these stakeholders could adopt to encourage the use of active comparator trial designs.

Clinicians and patients can encourage these trials by remaining skeptical of new treatments that were only compared to vehicle or placebo. Because new medications often are more expensive, clinicians and patients could avoid using these treatments without evidence of either increased efficacy or improved safety and tolerability. In addition, health care institutions should consider reducing pharmaceutical representatives’ access to clinicians to encourage treatment decisions based on the published literature and comparative effectiveness data rather than marketing.

Payers, such as Medicare, also could play a role by requiring active comparator trials for coverage of new medications, particularly when there are already other effective treatments available or other medications in the same class. Payers also could give preferred coverage tier or step therapy status to medications that demonstrate value over existing options.

Although regulatory approaches to increase use of active comparator designs may be more politically challenging to introduce, these options would be more administratively robust. The FDA or a novel regulatory body could require that new treatments demonstrate value in addition to safety and efficacy. This approach would be similar to the role of The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom or the recommendations of the European Medicines Agency. Such a group also could provide independent adjudication to ensure appropriate selection of a relevant active comparator. Another approach would be to give extended market exclusivity to medications that are approved based on trials including an additional active comparator arm, an approach used by the European Medicines Agency.

Any approach that encourages increased use of active comparator trials is not without potential downsides. It will be important to avoid unintended consequences of reduced research for rare diseases with smaller markets that may not be able to support the increased cost of these trials. As a result, it would be reasonable to forgo active comparator designs for mediations indicated for rare and orphan diseases or for medications with novel mechanisms of action.

Another argument against including an active comparator arm is that it may stifle innovation by driving up the cost of conducting trials; however, if a product is so marginally innovative that it cannot demonstrate superior safety or efficacy to an existing product, such a new treatment may not be worth the increased cost. In addition, patients provide a notable contribution by participating in these trials, and it is important to ensure that their efforts result in the highest-quality data possible. Furthermore, given the adverse physical and psychosocial impact of a wide variety of dermatologic diseases, the inclusion of an active comparator arm reduces the likelihood that patients will receive placebo, which will make these trials more ethical when effective treatments are available.⁸ By raising the bar, we can encourage pharmaceutical companies to pursue novel approaches that are more likely to have a revolutionary impact rather than minor modifications or formulations that offer little to no benefit at substantially increased cost.

Although some recent clinical trials in dermatology have included active comparators, many new medications continue to be introduced without any evidence of how they compare to existing standards of care. Until clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators demand that pharmaceutical companies conduct the necessary trials to not only demonstrate whether a treatment is effective and safe but also how it provides value, there will be continued introduction of marginal innovations rather than revolutionary treatments that improve patients’ lives. The next time a new medication is approved, as clinicians, patients, and payers, we must ask ourselves, is this treatment worth it?