Psoriasis

Considerable hair regrowth can be achieved in children with alopecia areata with the use of a novel plant-based drug, according to research presented during the first late-breaking news session at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

In the RAAINBOW study, a greater mean relative improvement in the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) scores at 24 weeks was recorded in children who had been treated topically with coacillium (22.9%) than in those who had received a topical placebo (–8.0%), with a significant 31% overall difference (P < .0001).

“Coacillium cutaneous solution was used for the first time for treatment of alopecia areata and also for the first time used in a pediatric population,” the presenting investigator Ulrike Blume-Peytavi, MD, said at the meeting.

“It’s well tolerated, and in fact what is interesting is, it has a durable response, even after treatment discontinuation,” added Dr. Blume-Peytavi, who is the deputy head of the department of dermatology, venereology and allergology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
 

Backing the botanical?

Paola Pasquali, MD, a dermatologist at Pius Hospital de Valls in Spain, who cochaired the session where the findings were presented, commented, “Thank you for showing that chocolate is great! I knew it. It is fantastic to see how chocolate is used.”

Dr. Pasquali was referring to the coacillium ingredient Theobroma cacao extract. The seeds of T. cacao, or the cocoa tree, are used to make various types of chocolate products. Theobroma cacao is one of four plant extracts that make up coacillium, the others being Allium cepa (onion), Citrus limon (lemon), and Paullinia cupana (guaraná, a source of caffeine).

The four plant extracts are classified as “generally regarded as safe” (GRAS), Dr. Blume-Peytavi observed, noting that the development of coacillium fell under the category of a prescription botanical drug as set out by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or a herbal medicinal product as set out by the European Medicines Agency.

But how does it work?

The botanical’s mode of action of acting positively on hair follicle cycling and endothelial cell activation was called into question, however, by Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, who was in the audience.

She asked, “So how do you explain that, after three large studies with topical JAK inhibitors that did not work actually in alopecia areata because it’s very hard to penetrate the scalp for a topical [drug], this one works?”

Dr. Guttman-Yassky, professor of dermatology and immunology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, added: “Looking at the ingredients, to me, it seems that it’s more like a DPCP [diphenylcyclopropenone]-like reaction.”

DPCP, which has been used to treat alopecia, purportedly works by stimulating the immune response to target the skin surface – causing an allergic reaction – rather than the hair follicle.

It’s an interesting question as to how a molecule penetrates the hair follicle, and it depends on the size of the molecule, Dr. Blume-Peytavi responded.

“We have done a lot of studies on follicular penetration, and we are quite aware that you need a certain size of the molecule,” she said. Between 14 and 200 nanometers appears to produce “the best penetrators,” she observed.

Dr. Blume-Peytavi commented that even after topical JAK inhibitors are applied, the molecules that penetrate do not remain in the local area for very long, yet still produce an inhibitory signaling effect.

No scalp irritation was seen in the trial, which suggests that coacillium is not working in the same way as DPCP, Dr. Blume-Peytavi countered.
 

Evaluating efficacy and safety: The RAAINBOW study

Dr. Blume-Peytavi acknowledged that JAK inhibitors were “a tremendous advance in treating severe and very severe alopecia areata,” but because of their benefit-to-risk ratio, there was still an unmet need for new treatments, particularly in children, in whom drug safety is of critical importance.

Having a drug that could be given safely and also have an effect early on in the disease, while it is still at a mild to moderate stage, would be of considerable value, Dr. Blume-Peytavi maintained.

The RAAINBOW study was a randomized, double-blind, phase 2/3 trial conducted at 12 sites in Germany and three other countries between March 2018 and March 2022 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of coacillium in the treatment of children and adolescents with moderate to severe alopecia areata.

In all, 62 children aged 2-18 years (mean age, 11 years) participated; 42 were treated twice daily with coacillium cutaneous solution 22.5% and 20 received placebo for 24 weeks. Treatment was then stopped, and participants followed for another 24 weeks off treatment to check for disease relapse, bringing the total study duration up to 48 weeks.

Baseline characteristics were “relatively comparable for severity,” Dr. Blume-Peytavi said. Most of the children had severe alopecia areata (57% for coacillium and 65% for placebo); the remainder had moderate disease (43% vs. 35%, respectively).

The average SALT scores at the start of treatment were 56 in the coacillium group and 62 in the placebo group, and a respective 44 and 61 at the end of 24 weeks’ treatment.

Perhaps the most important results, Dr. Blume-Peytavi said, was that at 48 weeks of follow-up, which was 24 weeks after treatment had been discontinued, the mean SALT scores were 29 for coacillium and 56 for placebo (P < .0001).

“You can see the improvement in the treated group is continuing even without treatment. However, the placebo group stays relatively about the same range,” she said.

Overall, 82% of patients treated with coacillium and 37% of those who received placebo experienced hair growth after treatment had stopped, and by week 48, a respective 46.7% vs. 9.1% had a SALT score of 20 or less, and 30.0% vs. 0% had a SALT score of 10 or less.

No safety concerns were raised, with no serious treatment-related reactions, no immunosuppressant-like reactions, and no steroidlike side effects.
 

Beyond the RAAINBOW

Larger studies are needed, Dr. Blume-Peytavi said. According to developer Legacy Healthcare’s website, coacillium cutaneous solution is not being developed just for childhood alopecia areata. It is also under investigation as a treatment for persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis. In addition, an oral solution is being tested for cancer-related fatigue.

The study was funded by Legacy Healthcare. Dr. Blume-Peytavi has received research funding and acts as an advisor to the company, among others; four of the study’s coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Pasquali and Dr. Guttman-Yassky were not involved in the study and had no relevant financial ties to disclose.

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

Considerable hair regrowth can be achieved in children with alopecia areata with the use of a novel plant-based drug, according to research presented during the first late-breaking news session at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

In the RAAINBOW study, a greater mean relative improvement in the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) scores at 24 weeks was recorded in children who had been treated topically with coacillium (22.9%) than in those who had received a topical placebo (–8.0%), with a significant 31% overall difference (P < .0001).

“Coacillium cutaneous solution was used for the first time for treatment of alopecia areata and also for the first time used in a pediatric population,” the presenting investigator Ulrike Blume-Peytavi, MD, said at the meeting.

“It’s well tolerated, and in fact what is interesting is, it has a durable response, even after treatment discontinuation,” added Dr. Blume-Peytavi, who is the deputy head of the department of dermatology, venereology and allergology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
 

Backing the botanical?

Paola Pasquali, MD, a dermatologist at Pius Hospital de Valls in Spain, who cochaired the session where the findings were presented, commented, “Thank you for showing that chocolate is great! I knew it. It is fantastic to see how chocolate is used.”

Dr. Pasquali was referring to the coacillium ingredient Theobroma cacao extract. The seeds of T. cacao, or the cocoa tree, are used to make various types of chocolate products. Theobroma cacao is one of four plant extracts that make up coacillium, the others being Allium cepa (onion), Citrus limon (lemon), and Paullinia cupana (guaraná, a source of caffeine).

The four plant extracts are classified as “generally regarded as safe” (GRAS), Dr. Blume-Peytavi observed, noting that the development of coacillium fell under the category of a prescription botanical drug as set out by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or a herbal medicinal product as set out by the European Medicines Agency.

But how does it work?

The botanical’s mode of action of acting positively on hair follicle cycling and endothelial cell activation was called into question, however, by Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, who was in the audience.

She asked, “So how do you explain that, after three large studies with topical JAK inhibitors that did not work actually in alopecia areata because it’s very hard to penetrate the scalp for a topical [drug], this one works?”

Dr. Guttman-Yassky, professor of dermatology and immunology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, added: “Looking at the ingredients, to me, it seems that it’s more like a DPCP [diphenylcyclopropenone]-like reaction.”

DPCP, which has been used to treat alopecia, purportedly works by stimulating the immune response to target the skin surface – causing an allergic reaction – rather than the hair follicle.

It’s an interesting question as to how a molecule penetrates the hair follicle, and it depends on the size of the molecule, Dr. Blume-Peytavi responded.

“We have done a lot of studies on follicular penetration, and we are quite aware that you need a certain size of the molecule,” she said. Between 14 and 200 nanometers appears to produce “the best penetrators,” she observed.

Dr. Blume-Peytavi commented that even after topical JAK inhibitors are applied, the molecules that penetrate do not remain in the local area for very long, yet still produce an inhibitory signaling effect.

No scalp irritation was seen in the trial, which suggests that coacillium is not working in the same way as DPCP, Dr. Blume-Peytavi countered.
 

Evaluating efficacy and safety: The RAAINBOW study

Dr. Blume-Peytavi acknowledged that JAK inhibitors were “a tremendous advance in treating severe and very severe alopecia areata,” but because of their benefit-to-risk ratio, there was still an unmet need for new treatments, particularly in children, in whom drug safety is of critical importance.

Having a drug that could be given safely and also have an effect early on in the disease, while it is still at a mild to moderate stage, would be of considerable value, Dr. Blume-Peytavi maintained.

The RAAINBOW study was a randomized, double-blind, phase 2/3 trial conducted at 12 sites in Germany and three other countries between March 2018 and March 2022 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of coacillium in the treatment of children and adolescents with moderate to severe alopecia areata.

In all, 62 children aged 2-18 years (mean age, 11 years) participated; 42 were treated twice daily with coacillium cutaneous solution 22.5% and 20 received placebo for 24 weeks. Treatment was then stopped, and participants followed for another 24 weeks off treatment to check for disease relapse, bringing the total study duration up to 48 weeks.

Baseline characteristics were “relatively comparable for severity,” Dr. Blume-Peytavi said. Most of the children had severe alopecia areata (57% for coacillium and 65% for placebo); the remainder had moderate disease (43% vs. 35%, respectively).

The average SALT scores at the start of treatment were 56 in the coacillium group and 62 in the placebo group, and a respective 44 and 61 at the end of 24 weeks’ treatment.

Perhaps the most important results, Dr. Blume-Peytavi said, was that at 48 weeks of follow-up, which was 24 weeks after treatment had been discontinued, the mean SALT scores were 29 for coacillium and 56 for placebo (P < .0001).

“You can see the improvement in the treated group is continuing even without treatment. However, the placebo group stays relatively about the same range,” she said.

Overall, 82% of patients treated with coacillium and 37% of those who received placebo experienced hair growth after treatment had stopped, and by week 48, a respective 46.7% vs. 9.1% had a SALT score of 20 or less, and 30.0% vs. 0% had a SALT score of 10 or less.

No safety concerns were raised, with no serious treatment-related reactions, no immunosuppressant-like reactions, and no steroidlike side effects.
 

Beyond the RAAINBOW

Larger studies are needed, Dr. Blume-Peytavi said. According to developer Legacy Healthcare’s website, coacillium cutaneous solution is not being developed just for childhood alopecia areata. It is also under investigation as a treatment for persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis. In addition, an oral solution is being tested for cancer-related fatigue.

The study was funded by Legacy Healthcare. Dr. Blume-Peytavi has received research funding and acts as an advisor to the company, among others; four of the study’s coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Pasquali and Dr. Guttman-Yassky were not involved in the study and had no relevant financial ties to disclose.

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

Considerable hair regrowth can be achieved in children with alopecia areata with the use of a novel plant-based drug, according to research presented during the first late-breaking news session at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

In the RAAINBOW study, a greater mean relative improvement in the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) scores at 24 weeks was recorded in children who had been treated topically with coacillium (22.9%) than in those who had received a topical placebo (–8.0%), with a significant 31% overall difference (P < .0001).

“Coacillium cutaneous solution was used for the first time for treatment of alopecia areata and also for the first time used in a pediatric population,” the presenting investigator Ulrike Blume-Peytavi, MD, said at the meeting.

“It’s well tolerated, and in fact what is interesting is, it has a durable response, even after treatment discontinuation,” added Dr. Blume-Peytavi, who is the deputy head of the department of dermatology, venereology and allergology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
 

Backing the botanical?

Paola Pasquali, MD, a dermatologist at Pius Hospital de Valls in Spain, who cochaired the session where the findings were presented, commented, “Thank you for showing that chocolate is great! I knew it. It is fantastic to see how chocolate is used.”

Dr. Pasquali was referring to the coacillium ingredient Theobroma cacao extract. The seeds of T. cacao, or the cocoa tree, are used to make various types of chocolate products. Theobroma cacao is one of four plant extracts that make up coacillium, the others being Allium cepa (onion), Citrus limon (lemon), and Paullinia cupana (guaraná, a source of caffeine).

The four plant extracts are classified as “generally regarded as safe” (GRAS), Dr. Blume-Peytavi observed, noting that the development of coacillium fell under the category of a prescription botanical drug as set out by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or a herbal medicinal product as set out by the European Medicines Agency.

But how does it work?

The botanical’s mode of action of acting positively on hair follicle cycling and endothelial cell activation was called into question, however, by Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, who was in the audience.

She asked, “So how do you explain that, after three large studies with topical JAK inhibitors that did not work actually in alopecia areata because it’s very hard to penetrate the scalp for a topical [drug], this one works?”

Dr. Guttman-Yassky, professor of dermatology and immunology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, added: “Looking at the ingredients, to me, it seems that it’s more like a DPCP [diphenylcyclopropenone]-like reaction.”

DPCP, which has been used to treat alopecia, purportedly works by stimulating the immune response to target the skin surface – causing an allergic reaction – rather than the hair follicle.

It’s an interesting question as to how a molecule penetrates the hair follicle, and it depends on the size of the molecule, Dr. Blume-Peytavi responded.

“We have done a lot of studies on follicular penetration, and we are quite aware that you need a certain size of the molecule,” she said. Between 14 and 200 nanometers appears to produce “the best penetrators,” she observed.

Dr. Blume-Peytavi commented that even after topical JAK inhibitors are applied, the molecules that penetrate do not remain in the local area for very long, yet still produce an inhibitory signaling effect.

No scalp irritation was seen in the trial, which suggests that coacillium is not working in the same way as DPCP, Dr. Blume-Peytavi countered.
 

Evaluating efficacy and safety: The RAAINBOW study

Dr. Blume-Peytavi acknowledged that JAK inhibitors were “a tremendous advance in treating severe and very severe alopecia areata,” but because of their benefit-to-risk ratio, there was still an unmet need for new treatments, particularly in children, in whom drug safety is of critical importance.

Having a drug that could be given safely and also have an effect early on in the disease, while it is still at a mild to moderate stage, would be of considerable value, Dr. Blume-Peytavi maintained.

The RAAINBOW study was a randomized, double-blind, phase 2/3 trial conducted at 12 sites in Germany and three other countries between March 2018 and March 2022 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of coacillium in the treatment of children and adolescents with moderate to severe alopecia areata.

In all, 62 children aged 2-18 years (mean age, 11 years) participated; 42 were treated twice daily with coacillium cutaneous solution 22.5% and 20 received placebo for 24 weeks. Treatment was then stopped, and participants followed for another 24 weeks off treatment to check for disease relapse, bringing the total study duration up to 48 weeks.

Baseline characteristics were “relatively comparable for severity,” Dr. Blume-Peytavi said. Most of the children had severe alopecia areata (57% for coacillium and 65% for placebo); the remainder had moderate disease (43% vs. 35%, respectively).

The average SALT scores at the start of treatment were 56 in the coacillium group and 62 in the placebo group, and a respective 44 and 61 at the end of 24 weeks’ treatment.

Perhaps the most important results, Dr. Blume-Peytavi said, was that at 48 weeks of follow-up, which was 24 weeks after treatment had been discontinued, the mean SALT scores were 29 for coacillium and 56 for placebo (P < .0001).

“You can see the improvement in the treated group is continuing even without treatment. However, the placebo group stays relatively about the same range,” she said.

Overall, 82% of patients treated with coacillium and 37% of those who received placebo experienced hair growth after treatment had stopped, and by week 48, a respective 46.7% vs. 9.1% had a SALT score of 20 or less, and 30.0% vs. 0% had a SALT score of 10 or less.

No safety concerns were raised, with no serious treatment-related reactions, no immunosuppressant-like reactions, and no steroidlike side effects.
 

Beyond the RAAINBOW

Larger studies are needed, Dr. Blume-Peytavi said. According to developer Legacy Healthcare’s website, coacillium cutaneous solution is not being developed just for childhood alopecia areata. It is also under investigation as a treatment for persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis. In addition, an oral solution is being tested for cancer-related fatigue.

The study was funded by Legacy Healthcare. Dr. Blume-Peytavi has received research funding and acts as an advisor to the company, among others; four of the study’s coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Pasquali and Dr. Guttman-Yassky were not involved in the study and had no relevant financial ties to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

Among pediatric patients with psoriasis, Black children and male children are significantly more likely to have palmoplantar psoriasis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data on 330 children and youths aged 0-18 years who had received a primary psoriasis diagnosis and who were seen at an academic pediatric dermatology clinic from 2012 to 2022. Among these patients, 50 cases of palmoplantar psoriasis (PP) were identified by pediatric dermatologists.
• The study population was stratified by race/ethnicity on the basis of self-identification. The cohort included White, Black, and Hispanic/Latino patients, as well as patients who identified as other; 71.5% were White persons, 59.1% were female patients.
• The researchers used a regression analysis to investigate the association between race/ethnicity and PP after controlling for multiple confounding variables, including age and gender.

TAKEAWAY:

• Black children were significantly more likely to have PP than White children (adjusted odds ratio, 6.386; P < .0001). PP was diagnosed in 41.9%, 11.5%, and 8.9% of Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White children, respectively.
• Male gender was also identified as an independent risk factor for PP (aOR, 2.241).
• Nail involvement occurred in significantly more Black and Hispanic/Latino patients than in White patients (53.2%, 50.0%, and 33.9%, respectively).
• Black patients had significantly more palm and sole involvement, compared with the other groups (P < .0001 for both); however, White children had significantly more scalp involvement, compared with the other groups (P = .04).

IN PRACTICE:

“Further research is warranted to better understand the degree to which these associations are affected by racial disparities and environmental factors,” as well as potential genetic associations, the researchers noted.

SOURCE:

The corresponding author on the study was Amy Theos, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. The study was published online in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings were limited by the small sample size and incomplete data for some patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

Among pediatric patients with psoriasis, Black children and male children are significantly more likely to have palmoplantar psoriasis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data on 330 children and youths aged 0-18 years who had received a primary psoriasis diagnosis and who were seen at an academic pediatric dermatology clinic from 2012 to 2022. Among these patients, 50 cases of palmoplantar psoriasis (PP) were identified by pediatric dermatologists.
• The study population was stratified by race/ethnicity on the basis of self-identification. The cohort included White, Black, and Hispanic/Latino patients, as well as patients who identified as other; 71.5% were White persons, 59.1% were female patients.
• The researchers used a regression analysis to investigate the association between race/ethnicity and PP after controlling for multiple confounding variables, including age and gender.

TAKEAWAY:

• Black children were significantly more likely to have PP than White children (adjusted odds ratio, 6.386; P < .0001). PP was diagnosed in 41.9%, 11.5%, and 8.9% of Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White children, respectively.
• Male gender was also identified as an independent risk factor for PP (aOR, 2.241).
• Nail involvement occurred in significantly more Black and Hispanic/Latino patients than in White patients (53.2%, 50.0%, and 33.9%, respectively).
• Black patients had significantly more palm and sole involvement, compared with the other groups (P < .0001 for both); however, White children had significantly more scalp involvement, compared with the other groups (P = .04).

IN PRACTICE:

“Further research is warranted to better understand the degree to which these associations are affected by racial disparities and environmental factors,” as well as potential genetic associations, the researchers noted.

SOURCE:

The corresponding author on the study was Amy Theos, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. The study was published online in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings were limited by the small sample size and incomplete data for some patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

TOPLINE:

Among pediatric patients with psoriasis, Black children and male children are significantly more likely to have palmoplantar psoriasis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data on 330 children and youths aged 0-18 years who had received a primary psoriasis diagnosis and who were seen at an academic pediatric dermatology clinic from 2012 to 2022. Among these patients, 50 cases of palmoplantar psoriasis (PP) were identified by pediatric dermatologists.
• The study population was stratified by race/ethnicity on the basis of self-identification. The cohort included White, Black, and Hispanic/Latino patients, as well as patients who identified as other; 71.5% were White persons, 59.1% were female patients.
• The researchers used a regression analysis to investigate the association between race/ethnicity and PP after controlling for multiple confounding variables, including age and gender.

TAKEAWAY:

• Black children were significantly more likely to have PP than White children (adjusted odds ratio, 6.386; P < .0001). PP was diagnosed in 41.9%, 11.5%, and 8.9% of Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White children, respectively.
• Male gender was also identified as an independent risk factor for PP (aOR, 2.241).
• Nail involvement occurred in significantly more Black and Hispanic/Latino patients than in White patients (53.2%, 50.0%, and 33.9%, respectively).
• Black patients had significantly more palm and sole involvement, compared with the other groups (P < .0001 for both); however, White children had significantly more scalp involvement, compared with the other groups (P = .04).

IN PRACTICE:

“Further research is warranted to better understand the degree to which these associations are affected by racial disparities and environmental factors,” as well as potential genetic associations, the researchers noted.

SOURCE:

The corresponding author on the study was Amy Theos, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. The study was published online in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings were limited by the small sample size and incomplete data for some patients.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an intravenous (IV) formulation of secukinumab (Cosentyx) for the treatment of adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA).

Secukinumab is the only treatment approved in an IV formulation that specifically targets and blocks interleukin-17A and the only non–tumor necrosis factor alpha IV option available to treat the three indications of PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA, according to a press release from the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis.

The approval marks the first new IV treatment in 6 years for these three conditions. The drug was first approved in 2015 and up to now has been available only as a subcutaneous injection.

The new formulation is also approved for secukinumab’s other indications of plaque psoriasis in people aged 6 years or older, children aged 2 years or older with PsA, and enthesitis-related arthritis in patients aged 4 years or older.

“A significant portion of the millions of PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA patients in the United States require treatment through IV infusions for a variety of reasons, including not being comfortable with self-injections or simply preferring to have treatments administered in their health care provider’s office,” Philip J. Mease, MD, clinical professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of rheumatology research at the Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, said in the press release. “The approval of Cosentyx as an IV formulation is an important milestone for patients because it expands the treatment options available to them with a different mechanism of action than existing biologic IV therapies, along with the comfort and familiarity of an established treatment.”

This IV formulation is administered monthly in a 30-minute, weight-based dosing regimen. This new option will become available before the end of the year, Novartis said.

“With this approval of Cosentyx as an IV formulation, along with the subcutaneous formulation, we can broaden the use of Cosentyx to help more patients manage their condition with a medicine backed by more than a decade of clinical research and 8 years of real-world experience,” said Christy Siegel, vice president and head of immunology, Novartis U.S.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an intravenous (IV) formulation of secukinumab (Cosentyx) for the treatment of adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA).

Secukinumab is the only treatment approved in an IV formulation that specifically targets and blocks interleukin-17A and the only non–tumor necrosis factor alpha IV option available to treat the three indications of PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA, according to a press release from the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis.

The approval marks the first new IV treatment in 6 years for these three conditions. The drug was first approved in 2015 and up to now has been available only as a subcutaneous injection.

The new formulation is also approved for secukinumab’s other indications of plaque psoriasis in people aged 6 years or older, children aged 2 years or older with PsA, and enthesitis-related arthritis in patients aged 4 years or older.

“A significant portion of the millions of PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA patients in the United States require treatment through IV infusions for a variety of reasons, including not being comfortable with self-injections or simply preferring to have treatments administered in their health care provider’s office,” Philip J. Mease, MD, clinical professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of rheumatology research at the Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, said in the press release. “The approval of Cosentyx as an IV formulation is an important milestone for patients because it expands the treatment options available to them with a different mechanism of action than existing biologic IV therapies, along with the comfort and familiarity of an established treatment.”

This IV formulation is administered monthly in a 30-minute, weight-based dosing regimen. This new option will become available before the end of the year, Novartis said.

“With this approval of Cosentyx as an IV formulation, along with the subcutaneous formulation, we can broaden the use of Cosentyx to help more patients manage their condition with a medicine backed by more than a decade of clinical research and 8 years of real-world experience,” said Christy Siegel, vice president and head of immunology, Novartis U.S.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved an intravenous (IV) formulation of secukinumab (Cosentyx) for the treatment of adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA).

Secukinumab is the only treatment approved in an IV formulation that specifically targets and blocks interleukin-17A and the only non–tumor necrosis factor alpha IV option available to treat the three indications of PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA, according to a press release from the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis.

The approval marks the first new IV treatment in 6 years for these three conditions. The drug was first approved in 2015 and up to now has been available only as a subcutaneous injection.

The new formulation is also approved for secukinumab’s other indications of plaque psoriasis in people aged 6 years or older, children aged 2 years or older with PsA, and enthesitis-related arthritis in patients aged 4 years or older.

“A significant portion of the millions of PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA patients in the United States require treatment through IV infusions for a variety of reasons, including not being comfortable with self-injections or simply preferring to have treatments administered in their health care provider’s office,” Philip J. Mease, MD, clinical professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of rheumatology research at the Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, said in the press release. “The approval of Cosentyx as an IV formulation is an important milestone for patients because it expands the treatment options available to them with a different mechanism of action than existing biologic IV therapies, along with the comfort and familiarity of an established treatment.”

This IV formulation is administered monthly in a 30-minute, weight-based dosing regimen. This new option will become available before the end of the year, Novartis said.

“With this approval of Cosentyx as an IV formulation, along with the subcutaneous formulation, we can broaden the use of Cosentyx to help more patients manage their condition with a medicine backed by more than a decade of clinical research and 8 years of real-world experience,” said Christy Siegel, vice president and head of immunology, Novartis U.S.

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

CARLSBAD, CALIF. – With 11 different biologics approved for the treatment of plaque psoriasis on the market, settling on which one to prescribe can be tricky.

“When you look at the list of options it can be confusing to many clinicians in deciding which one to choose,” April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, professor and chief of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said at the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery.

Dr. Armstrong

One approach is to consider how the biologics compare in short- and long-term efficacy. “Several different meta-analyses of biologics have been conducted,” which include some head-to head studies, Dr. Armstrong said. “In terms of efficacy, [biologics] are similar at the population level,” she said.

In a meta-analysis of 71 randomized, controlled trials through July 2020, Dr. Armstrong and colleagues found that in the short-term, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response rates at 10-16 weeks from baseline were highest for ixekizumab (72.9%), risankizumab (72.5%), and brodalumab (72%). These PASI 90 responses were significantly higher than among patients on guselkumab (65%), secukinumab (65%), infliximab (56.8%), certolizumab (400 mg: 49.6%; 200 mg: 42.2%), ustekinumab (90 mg: 47.9%; weight-based: 45.7%; 45 mg: 44.6%), adalimumab (43%), tildrakizumab (200 mg: 39.7%; 100 mg: 37.2%), etanercept (18.0%), apremilast (12.4%), and dimethyl fumarate (12.2%).

In a more recent meta-analysis, Dr. Armstrong and coauthors used area under the curve (AUC) analyses to compare the cumulative clinical benefits of biologics over 1 year. They found that the placebo-adjusted normalized maximum AUC for a PASI 100 response was greatest for ixekizumab (0.436), risankizumab (0.423), and brodalumab (0.378), followed by guselkumab (0.358), secukinumab (0.324), ustekinumab (0.201), adalimumab (0.183), and etanercept (0.087).

In Dr. Armstrong’s opinion, the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, and certolizumab “have served their purpose for plaque psoriasis over time, but these days I would probably choose either an IL [interleukin]-17 inhibitor or an IL-23 inhibitor first,” she said. Still, TNF inhibitors “are certainly good for psoriatic arthritis, and certolizumab is appropriate for patients who are pregnant or breastfeeding,” she said. “Avoid them in patients with demyelinating disease and in those with hepatitis B. They are not preferred in patients with latent TB or advanced CHF.”

Dr. Armstrong said that there are robust efficacy data for the IL-17 inhibitors ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab in psoriasis and in the peripheral and axial forms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). “Avoid using them in patients with a personal history of inflammatory bowel disease,” she advised.

Low rates of oral candidiasis have been reported in the literature, “but this has not been issue with our approved IL-17 inhibitors so far,” she said.

The IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab have robust data for psoriasis efficacy, she said, and three – guselkumab, risankizumab, and ustekinumab – are also approved for PsA. “These agents have the advantage of fewer injections, and the evidence [of efficacy] for IL-23 inhibitors continues to evolve, such as in patients with psoriatic arthritis involving the spine,” Dr. Armstrong said.

She also shared how she deals with patients who fail to respond to biologics. “Do you switch drugs, or do you dose escalate?” she asked. “In most cases, the strategy for dose escalation is to shorten the interval between the injections so the dosing is delivered more frequently.” In a case of primary failure, which Dr. Armstrong defined as a patient who has never responded optimally to a biologic, consider revisiting the diagnosis. “Maybe it’s cutaneous T-cell lymphoma or some other condition, because our current IL-17 and IL-23 medications work extremely well,” she said. “So, if you have a patient who is not responding at all, I would question the diagnosis and consider a biopsy.”

She generally waits about 6 months before switching a patient to another biologic, “to see if they’re one of the late bloomers who may catch up in efficacy,” she explained. “Switching the class of biologic is another consideration.”

If a patient had responded to the biologic for a long time and then lost response – known as secondary failure – Dr. Armstrong considers dose escalation or a switch to another agent within the same class “if it helps to address comorbidities such as PsA,” she said. “You can also try across-class switching.”

Dr. Armstrong disclosed ties with AbbVie, Arcutis, ASLAN, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermira, Dermavant, EPI, Galderma, InCyte, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Meiji, Modmed, Nimbus, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Parexel, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Suna, UCB, and Ventyx.

CARLSBAD, CALIF. – With 11 different biologics approved for the treatment of plaque psoriasis on the market, settling on which one to prescribe can be tricky.

“When you look at the list of options it can be confusing to many clinicians in deciding which one to choose,” April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, professor and chief of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said at the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery.

Dr. Armstrong

One approach is to consider how the biologics compare in short- and long-term efficacy. “Several different meta-analyses of biologics have been conducted,” which include some head-to head studies, Dr. Armstrong said. “In terms of efficacy, [biologics] are similar at the population level,” she said.

In a meta-analysis of 71 randomized, controlled trials through July 2020, Dr. Armstrong and colleagues found that in the short-term, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response rates at 10-16 weeks from baseline were highest for ixekizumab (72.9%), risankizumab (72.5%), and brodalumab (72%). These PASI 90 responses were significantly higher than among patients on guselkumab (65%), secukinumab (65%), infliximab (56.8%), certolizumab (400 mg: 49.6%; 200 mg: 42.2%), ustekinumab (90 mg: 47.9%; weight-based: 45.7%; 45 mg: 44.6%), adalimumab (43%), tildrakizumab (200 mg: 39.7%; 100 mg: 37.2%), etanercept (18.0%), apremilast (12.4%), and dimethyl fumarate (12.2%).

In a more recent meta-analysis, Dr. Armstrong and coauthors used area under the curve (AUC) analyses to compare the cumulative clinical benefits of biologics over 1 year. They found that the placebo-adjusted normalized maximum AUC for a PASI 100 response was greatest for ixekizumab (0.436), risankizumab (0.423), and brodalumab (0.378), followed by guselkumab (0.358), secukinumab (0.324), ustekinumab (0.201), adalimumab (0.183), and etanercept (0.087).

In Dr. Armstrong’s opinion, the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, and certolizumab “have served their purpose for plaque psoriasis over time, but these days I would probably choose either an IL [interleukin]-17 inhibitor or an IL-23 inhibitor first,” she said. Still, TNF inhibitors “are certainly good for psoriatic arthritis, and certolizumab is appropriate for patients who are pregnant or breastfeeding,” she said. “Avoid them in patients with demyelinating disease and in those with hepatitis B. They are not preferred in patients with latent TB or advanced CHF.”

Dr. Armstrong said that there are robust efficacy data for the IL-17 inhibitors ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab in psoriasis and in the peripheral and axial forms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). “Avoid using them in patients with a personal history of inflammatory bowel disease,” she advised.

Low rates of oral candidiasis have been reported in the literature, “but this has not been issue with our approved IL-17 inhibitors so far,” she said.

The IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab have robust data for psoriasis efficacy, she said, and three – guselkumab, risankizumab, and ustekinumab – are also approved for PsA. “These agents have the advantage of fewer injections, and the evidence [of efficacy] for IL-23 inhibitors continues to evolve, such as in patients with psoriatic arthritis involving the spine,” Dr. Armstrong said.

She also shared how she deals with patients who fail to respond to biologics. “Do you switch drugs, or do you dose escalate?” she asked. “In most cases, the strategy for dose escalation is to shorten the interval between the injections so the dosing is delivered more frequently.” In a case of primary failure, which Dr. Armstrong defined as a patient who has never responded optimally to a biologic, consider revisiting the diagnosis. “Maybe it’s cutaneous T-cell lymphoma or some other condition, because our current IL-17 and IL-23 medications work extremely well,” she said. “So, if you have a patient who is not responding at all, I would question the diagnosis and consider a biopsy.”

She generally waits about 6 months before switching a patient to another biologic, “to see if they’re one of the late bloomers who may catch up in efficacy,” she explained. “Switching the class of biologic is another consideration.”

If a patient had responded to the biologic for a long time and then lost response – known as secondary failure – Dr. Armstrong considers dose escalation or a switch to another agent within the same class “if it helps to address comorbidities such as PsA,” she said. “You can also try across-class switching.”

Dr. Armstrong disclosed ties with AbbVie, Arcutis, ASLAN, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermira, Dermavant, EPI, Galderma, InCyte, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Meiji, Modmed, Nimbus, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Parexel, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Suna, UCB, and Ventyx.

CARLSBAD, CALIF. – With 11 different biologics approved for the treatment of plaque psoriasis on the market, settling on which one to prescribe can be tricky.

“When you look at the list of options it can be confusing to many clinicians in deciding which one to choose,” April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, professor and chief of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said at the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery.

Dr. Armstrong

One approach is to consider how the biologics compare in short- and long-term efficacy. “Several different meta-analyses of biologics have been conducted,” which include some head-to head studies, Dr. Armstrong said. “In terms of efficacy, [biologics] are similar at the population level,” she said.

In a meta-analysis of 71 randomized, controlled trials through July 2020, Dr. Armstrong and colleagues found that in the short-term, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response rates at 10-16 weeks from baseline were highest for ixekizumab (72.9%), risankizumab (72.5%), and brodalumab (72%). These PASI 90 responses were significantly higher than among patients on guselkumab (65%), secukinumab (65%), infliximab (56.8%), certolizumab (400 mg: 49.6%; 200 mg: 42.2%), ustekinumab (90 mg: 47.9%; weight-based: 45.7%; 45 mg: 44.6%), adalimumab (43%), tildrakizumab (200 mg: 39.7%; 100 mg: 37.2%), etanercept (18.0%), apremilast (12.4%), and dimethyl fumarate (12.2%).

In a more recent meta-analysis, Dr. Armstrong and coauthors used area under the curve (AUC) analyses to compare the cumulative clinical benefits of biologics over 1 year. They found that the placebo-adjusted normalized maximum AUC for a PASI 100 response was greatest for ixekizumab (0.436), risankizumab (0.423), and brodalumab (0.378), followed by guselkumab (0.358), secukinumab (0.324), ustekinumab (0.201), adalimumab (0.183), and etanercept (0.087).

In Dr. Armstrong’s opinion, the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, and certolizumab “have served their purpose for plaque psoriasis over time, but these days I would probably choose either an IL [interleukin]-17 inhibitor or an IL-23 inhibitor first,” she said. Still, TNF inhibitors “are certainly good for psoriatic arthritis, and certolizumab is appropriate for patients who are pregnant or breastfeeding,” she said. “Avoid them in patients with demyelinating disease and in those with hepatitis B. They are not preferred in patients with latent TB or advanced CHF.”

Dr. Armstrong said that there are robust efficacy data for the IL-17 inhibitors ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab in psoriasis and in the peripheral and axial forms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). “Avoid using them in patients with a personal history of inflammatory bowel disease,” she advised.

Low rates of oral candidiasis have been reported in the literature, “but this has not been issue with our approved IL-17 inhibitors so far,” she said.

The IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab have robust data for psoriasis efficacy, she said, and three – guselkumab, risankizumab, and ustekinumab – are also approved for PsA. “These agents have the advantage of fewer injections, and the evidence [of efficacy] for IL-23 inhibitors continues to evolve, such as in patients with psoriatic arthritis involving the spine,” Dr. Armstrong said.

She also shared how she deals with patients who fail to respond to biologics. “Do you switch drugs, or do you dose escalate?” she asked. “In most cases, the strategy for dose escalation is to shorten the interval between the injections so the dosing is delivered more frequently.” In a case of primary failure, which Dr. Armstrong defined as a patient who has never responded optimally to a biologic, consider revisiting the diagnosis. “Maybe it’s cutaneous T-cell lymphoma or some other condition, because our current IL-17 and IL-23 medications work extremely well,” she said. “So, if you have a patient who is not responding at all, I would question the diagnosis and consider a biopsy.”

She generally waits about 6 months before switching a patient to another biologic, “to see if they’re one of the late bloomers who may catch up in efficacy,” she explained. “Switching the class of biologic is another consideration.”

If a patient had responded to the biologic for a long time and then lost response – known as secondary failure – Dr. Armstrong considers dose escalation or a switch to another agent within the same class “if it helps to address comorbidities such as PsA,” she said. “You can also try across-class switching.”

Dr. Armstrong disclosed ties with AbbVie, Arcutis, ASLAN, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermira, Dermavant, EPI, Galderma, InCyte, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Meiji, Modmed, Nimbus, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Parexel, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Suna, UCB, and Ventyx.

On Oct. 6, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of topical roflumilast cream 0.3% for the treatment of plaque psoriasis, including intertriginous areas, for children ages 6-11. This marks an expanded indication for the drug, which was first approved for the same indication in July, 2022, for individuals aged 12 and older.

Roflumilast cream 0.3% is a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor approved for once-daily topical treatment of mild, moderate, and severe plaque psoriasis. According to a press release from the manufacturer, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, approval of the expanded indication is based on data from a 4-week Maximal Usage Systemic Exposure (MUSE) study in children ages 6-11 years with plaque psoriasis. It stated that pharmacokinetic, safety, tolerability, and efficacy data from this study were “generally consistent” with data from the DERMIS-1 and DERMIS-2 pivotal phase 3 trials in adults.

According to the press release, a future FDA review is planned for the results from a second MUSE study in children ages 2-5 years, as well as data from an ongoing open-label extension study evaluating the long-term safety of roflumilast cream in individuals with plaque psoriasis aged 2 years and older. The company markets topical roflumilast as Zoryve.








 

On Oct. 6, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of topical roflumilast cream 0.3% for the treatment of plaque psoriasis, including intertriginous areas, for children ages 6-11. This marks an expanded indication for the drug, which was first approved for the same indication in July, 2022, for individuals aged 12 and older.

Roflumilast cream 0.3% is a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor approved for once-daily topical treatment of mild, moderate, and severe plaque psoriasis. According to a press release from the manufacturer, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, approval of the expanded indication is based on data from a 4-week Maximal Usage Systemic Exposure (MUSE) study in children ages 6-11 years with plaque psoriasis. It stated that pharmacokinetic, safety, tolerability, and efficacy data from this study were “generally consistent” with data from the DERMIS-1 and DERMIS-2 pivotal phase 3 trials in adults.

According to the press release, a future FDA review is planned for the results from a second MUSE study in children ages 2-5 years, as well as data from an ongoing open-label extension study evaluating the long-term safety of roflumilast cream in individuals with plaque psoriasis aged 2 years and older. The company markets topical roflumilast as Zoryve.








 

On Oct. 6, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of topical roflumilast cream 0.3% for the treatment of plaque psoriasis, including intertriginous areas, for children ages 6-11. This marks an expanded indication for the drug, which was first approved for the same indication in July, 2022, for individuals aged 12 and older.

Roflumilast cream 0.3% is a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor approved for once-daily topical treatment of mild, moderate, and severe plaque psoriasis. According to a press release from the manufacturer, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, approval of the expanded indication is based on data from a 4-week Maximal Usage Systemic Exposure (MUSE) study in children ages 6-11 years with plaque psoriasis. It stated that pharmacokinetic, safety, tolerability, and efficacy data from this study were “generally consistent” with data from the DERMIS-1 and DERMIS-2 pivotal phase 3 trials in adults.

According to the press release, a future FDA review is planned for the results from a second MUSE study in children ages 2-5 years, as well as data from an ongoing open-label extension study evaluating the long-term safety of roflumilast cream in individuals with plaque psoriasis aged 2 years and older. The company markets topical roflumilast as Zoryve.








 

TOPLINE:

Cutaneous immune-related adverse events are associated with improved overall and progression-free survival among patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

METHODOLOGY:

• Emerging evidence suggests that the presence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events may be linked with favorable outcomes among patients with cancer who receive ICIs.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 23 studies and a total of 22,749 patients with cancer who received ICI treatment; studies compared outcomes among patients with and those without cutaneous immune-related adverse events.
• The major outcomes evaluated in the analysis were overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS); subgroup analyses assessed cutaneous immune-related adverse event type, cancer type, and other factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• The occurrence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events was associated with improved PFS (hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 0.61; P < .001).
• In the subgroup analysis, patients with eczematous (HR, 0.69), lichenoid or lichen planus–like skin lesions (HR, 0.51), pruritus without rash (HR, 0.70), psoriasis (HR, 0.63), or vitiligo (HR, 0.30) demonstrated a significant overall survival advantage. Vitiligo was the only adverse event associated with a PFS advantage (HR, 0.28).
• Among patients with melanoma, analyses revealed a significant association between the incidence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events and improved overall survival (HR, 0.51) and PFS (HR, 0.45). The authors highlighted similar findings among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (HR, 0.50 for overall survival and 0.61 for PFS).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest that [cutaneous immune-related adverse events] may have useful prognostic value in ICI treatment,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The analysis, led by Fei Wang, MD, Zhong Da Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Most of the data came from retrospective studies, and there were limited data on specific patient subgroups. The Egger tests, used to assess potential publication bias in meta-analyses, revealed publication bias.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures were reported. The study was supported by a grant from the Postgraduate Research and Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province.

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

TOPLINE:

Cutaneous immune-related adverse events are associated with improved overall and progression-free survival among patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

METHODOLOGY:

• Emerging evidence suggests that the presence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events may be linked with favorable outcomes among patients with cancer who receive ICIs.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 23 studies and a total of 22,749 patients with cancer who received ICI treatment; studies compared outcomes among patients with and those without cutaneous immune-related adverse events.
• The major outcomes evaluated in the analysis were overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS); subgroup analyses assessed cutaneous immune-related adverse event type, cancer type, and other factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• The occurrence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events was associated with improved PFS (hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 0.61; P < .001).
• In the subgroup analysis, patients with eczematous (HR, 0.69), lichenoid or lichen planus–like skin lesions (HR, 0.51), pruritus without rash (HR, 0.70), psoriasis (HR, 0.63), or vitiligo (HR, 0.30) demonstrated a significant overall survival advantage. Vitiligo was the only adverse event associated with a PFS advantage (HR, 0.28).
• Among patients with melanoma, analyses revealed a significant association between the incidence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events and improved overall survival (HR, 0.51) and PFS (HR, 0.45). The authors highlighted similar findings among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (HR, 0.50 for overall survival and 0.61 for PFS).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest that [cutaneous immune-related adverse events] may have useful prognostic value in ICI treatment,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The analysis, led by Fei Wang, MD, Zhong Da Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Most of the data came from retrospective studies, and there were limited data on specific patient subgroups. The Egger tests, used to assess potential publication bias in meta-analyses, revealed publication bias.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures were reported. The study was supported by a grant from the Postgraduate Research and Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province.

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

TOPLINE:

Cutaneous immune-related adverse events are associated with improved overall and progression-free survival among patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

METHODOLOGY:

• Emerging evidence suggests that the presence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events may be linked with favorable outcomes among patients with cancer who receive ICIs.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 23 studies and a total of 22,749 patients with cancer who received ICI treatment; studies compared outcomes among patients with and those without cutaneous immune-related adverse events.
• The major outcomes evaluated in the analysis were overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS); subgroup analyses assessed cutaneous immune-related adverse event type, cancer type, and other factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• The occurrence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events was associated with improved PFS (hazard ratio, 0.52; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, 0.61; P < .001).
• In the subgroup analysis, patients with eczematous (HR, 0.69), lichenoid or lichen planus–like skin lesions (HR, 0.51), pruritus without rash (HR, 0.70), psoriasis (HR, 0.63), or vitiligo (HR, 0.30) demonstrated a significant overall survival advantage. Vitiligo was the only adverse event associated with a PFS advantage (HR, 0.28).
• Among patients with melanoma, analyses revealed a significant association between the incidence of cutaneous immune-related adverse events and improved overall survival (HR, 0.51) and PFS (HR, 0.45). The authors highlighted similar findings among patients with non–small cell lung cancer (HR, 0.50 for overall survival and 0.61 for PFS).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest that [cutaneous immune-related adverse events] may have useful prognostic value in ICI treatment,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The analysis, led by Fei Wang, MD, Zhong Da Hospital, School of Medicine, Southeast University, Nanjing, China, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Most of the data came from retrospective studies, and there were limited data on specific patient subgroups. The Egger tests, used to assess potential publication bias in meta-analyses, revealed publication bias.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures were reported. The study was supported by a grant from the Postgraduate Research and Practice Innovation Program of Jiangsu Province.

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

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis are common skin diseases in which dysfunction of the epidermal barrier leads to skin inflammation and altered expression of proinflammatory cytokines.¹ There often is overlap in the clinical and histopathologic features of AD and psoriasis, which can make diagnosis a challenge. Persistent late-stage AD can present with psoriasiform lichenified changes, and psoriasis lesions in the acute stage can have an eczematous appearance.² Histologically, chronic psoriasis lesions share many overlapping features with AD, and some subsets of AD with IL-17 predominance (ie, intrinsic, pediatric, presentation in Asian patients) exhibit a psoriasiform appearance.^3,4

Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis are considered 2 distinct conditions because AD is a helper T cell (T_H2)–driven disease with subsequent overproduction of IL-4 and IL-13 and psoriasis is a T_H17 cell–driven disease with overproduction of IL-17³; however, the shared features of AD and psoriasis represent an underlying immunopathological spectrum^2,5,6 in which one condition can develop following treatment of the other condition (immunological shift in pathways), both conditions can occur at different times in a patient’s life with alternating cycles of disease flares, or both conditions can coexist as an overlapping syndrome.^1,2 A retrospective study from 2012 to 2019 estimated the prevalence of concomitant AD and psoriasis in the United States at 1.3%, with AD following the diagnosis of psoriasis in 67% of cases.¹ Concurrent AD and psoriasis—when both diseases flaresimultaneously—is the rarest scenario.^2,5

Treatment modalities for AD include topical corticosteroids, which act on immune cells to suppress the release of proinflammatory cytokines, as well as dupilumab, which offers targeted blockade of involved cytokines IL-4 and IL-13. Psoriasis can be treated with multiple immune modulators, including topical corticosteroids and vitamin D analogs, as well as systemic medications that reduce T-cell activation and inflammatory cytokines through targeting of IFN-γ, IL-2, tumor necrosis factor α, IL-17, and IL-23.^7,8

We present the case of a patient with long-standing concurrent, treatment-resistant AD and psoriasis who was successfully treated with dual biologic therapy with guselkumab and dupilumab.

Case Report

A 62-year-old woman presented to our dermatology clinic with red itchy scales and painful fissures on the palms, hands, and soles of more than 12 years’ duration. Her medical history included an allergy to amoxicillin-clavulanate as well as an allergy to both dog and cat dander on prick testing. Her family history included dyshidrotic eczema in her mother. A complete blood cell count with differential was within reference range. A shave biopsy of the right dorsal hand performed at the onset of symptoms at an outside facility revealed hyperkeratotic acanthotic epidermis with a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate.

Results of patch testing indicated contact hypersensitivity to the botanical rosin colophonium (or colophony); carba mix (1, 3-diphenylguanidine, zinc dibutyldithiocarbamate, and zinc diethydithiocarbamate); thiuram mix (tetramethylthiuram disulfide, tetramethylthiuram monosulfide, and tetraethylthiuram disulfide); n,n-diphenylguanidine; and tixocortol-21-pivalate. Our patient was given guidance on avoiding these agents, as it was suspected that exposure may be exacerbating the psoriasis. The psoriasis was treated with topical corticosteroids, keratolytics, and calcineurin inhibitors, all of which offered minimal or no relief. Trials of systemic agents, including methotrexate (discontinued because transaminitis developed), etanercept, adalimumab, and apremilast for 6 to 10 months did not provide improvement.

Two years prior to the current presentation, our patient had been treated with the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab, which provided moderate improvement. When she presented to our clinic, physical examination while she was taking guselkumab demonstrated prurigo with excoriations of the extremities, hyperkeratosis with scaling and fissures of the soles, erythematous scaly plaques on the palms and dorsal surface of the hands, and mild onycholysis of the nails (Figures 1 and 2). Because we were concerned about concomitant intrinsic AD, dupilumab was initiated in conjunction with guselkumab. A second biopsy was considered but deferred in favor of clinical monitoring.

After 1 year of dual biologic therapy, the patient experienced near-complete resolution of symptoms. The psoriasis completely resolved from an initial body surface area of 5%, and the AD body surface area decreased from 30% to 2% (Figure 3). The patient reported no adverse effects from treatment.

Comment

Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis involve complex immunopathology and a spectrum of cytokines that might explain the overlap in their clinical and histopathologic presentations.

Atopic dermatitis—Atopic dermatitis involves T_H1, T_H2, T_H9, T_H17, and T_H22 cells; T_H2 cells release IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13, all of which are key cytokines in the inflammatory pathway of AD.^9,10 Activation of the helper T-cell subset and the release of cytokines differ slightly based on the subcategory of AD and the stage of exacerbation. In addition to T_H2-cell activation, T_H1 cells and T_H22 cells—which release IL-12 and IL-22, respectively—are active in both intrinsic and extrinsic AD. T_H17 cells and T_H9 cells—which release IL-17 and IL-9, respectively—are more prominent in the intrinsic pathway than in the extrinsic pathway.⁹ Intrinsic AD is recognized by a lack of eosinophilia, female predominance, and delayed onset compared to extrinsic AD; there also is a lack of history of atopy.¹ Extrinsic AD is characterized by eosinophilia as well as a personal and family history of atopy.¹¹ Our patient—a female with onset in older adulthood, lack of eosinophilia, and a family history of atopy—displayed features of both intrinsic and extrinsic AD.

Psoriasis—The immunopathology of psoriasis involves stimulation of dendritic cells, which activate T_H17 cells through IL-23. T_H17 cells then release IL-17 and IL-22. Therefore, both AD and psoriasis involve activation of T_H22 and T_H1 cells, with increased IL-17 and IL-22 production.^3,10,12 IL-17 and IL-22 induce epidermal hyperplasia; IL-22 also contributes to skin barrier dysfunction.¹² Therefore, it might be reasonable to consider psoriasis and AD as diseases that exist across a T-cell axis spectrum, thereby accounting for some overlap in disease characteristics.³

Dual Biologic Therapy—Dupilumab blocks the IL-4 receptor α subunit, a receptor for IL-4 and IL-13, which are key cytokines in the pathogenesis of AD.¹⁰ Guselkumab inhibits IL-23, thus blocking the inflammatory cascade of T_H17 cell activation and release of IL-17 and IL-22 in the psoriasis pathway.¹³ Although an immunopathological spectrum exists between the 2 diseases, the continued presence of AD symptoms after blocking the IL-23 cascade suggests that additional blockade of T_H2 cells is required to control AD in patients with true concurrent disease.

Accurate diagnosis of AD and/or psoriasis is important when considering targeted treatment of these conditions with biologics. The use of dual biologics is limited by a paucity of data regarding the safety of these agents when given in combination. A recent meta-analysis of dual biologic therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease demonstrated acceptable safety results with a pooled adverse reaction rate of 31%.¹⁴

Anchoring Bias—Anchoring bias can occur when a clinician’s decisions are influenced by a particular event or reference point, which might cause them to disregard subsequent evidence. Our case illustrates the importance of critically assessing the response to treatment and being mindful of the potential influence of anchoring bias on the differential diagnosis. Although overcoming biases in conditions with clinical overlap can be challenging, it is important to consider coexisting AD and psoriasis in patients with extensive hand involvement when multiple treatments have failed and only a partial response to targeted pathways has been achieved. In our case, the patient also had contact hypersensitivity to tixocortol-21-pivalate, which indicates hypersensitivity to many prescription topical corticosteroids, oral prednisone, and over-the-counter hydrocortisone; however, topical corticosteroids continued to be prescribed for her, which might have contributed to the lack of improvement and even exacerbated the rash.

Future Considerations—A consideration for the future in this case is discontinuing guselkumab to observe whether symptoms recur. We discussed this option with the patient, but she opted to continue treatment with dupilumab and guselkumab because of the symptom resolution.

Conclusion

Concomitant disease can present as an overlapping pattern in the same area, whereas other regions might have geographically isolated disease. Our patient’s overlap of symptoms, the failure of multiple treatments, and the partial improvement she experienced on guselkumab made diagnosis and management challenging; however, dual biologic therapy was successful.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis are common skin diseases in which dysfunction of the epidermal barrier leads to skin inflammation and altered expression of proinflammatory cytokines.¹ There often is overlap in the clinical and histopathologic features of AD and psoriasis, which can make diagnosis a challenge. Persistent late-stage AD can present with psoriasiform lichenified changes, and psoriasis lesions in the acute stage can have an eczematous appearance.² Histologically, chronic psoriasis lesions share many overlapping features with AD, and some subsets of AD with IL-17 predominance (ie, intrinsic, pediatric, presentation in Asian patients) exhibit a psoriasiform appearance.^3,4

Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis are considered 2 distinct conditions because AD is a helper T cell (T_H2)–driven disease with subsequent overproduction of IL-4 and IL-13 and psoriasis is a T_H17 cell–driven disease with overproduction of IL-17³; however, the shared features of AD and psoriasis represent an underlying immunopathological spectrum^2,5,6 in which one condition can develop following treatment of the other condition (immunological shift in pathways), both conditions can occur at different times in a patient’s life with alternating cycles of disease flares, or both conditions can coexist as an overlapping syndrome.^1,2 A retrospective study from 2012 to 2019 estimated the prevalence of concomitant AD and psoriasis in the United States at 1.3%, with AD following the diagnosis of psoriasis in 67% of cases.¹ Concurrent AD and psoriasis—when both diseases flaresimultaneously—is the rarest scenario.^2,5

Treatment modalities for AD include topical corticosteroids, which act on immune cells to suppress the release of proinflammatory cytokines, as well as dupilumab, which offers targeted blockade of involved cytokines IL-4 and IL-13. Psoriasis can be treated with multiple immune modulators, including topical corticosteroids and vitamin D analogs, as well as systemic medications that reduce T-cell activation and inflammatory cytokines through targeting of IFN-γ, IL-2, tumor necrosis factor α, IL-17, and IL-23.^7,8

We present the case of a patient with long-standing concurrent, treatment-resistant AD and psoriasis who was successfully treated with dual biologic therapy with guselkumab and dupilumab.

Case Report

A 62-year-old woman presented to our dermatology clinic with red itchy scales and painful fissures on the palms, hands, and soles of more than 12 years’ duration. Her medical history included an allergy to amoxicillin-clavulanate as well as an allergy to both dog and cat dander on prick testing. Her family history included dyshidrotic eczema in her mother. A complete blood cell count with differential was within reference range. A shave biopsy of the right dorsal hand performed at the onset of symptoms at an outside facility revealed hyperkeratotic acanthotic epidermis with a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate.

Results of patch testing indicated contact hypersensitivity to the botanical rosin colophonium (or colophony); carba mix (1, 3-diphenylguanidine, zinc dibutyldithiocarbamate, and zinc diethydithiocarbamate); thiuram mix (tetramethylthiuram disulfide, tetramethylthiuram monosulfide, and tetraethylthiuram disulfide); n,n-diphenylguanidine; and tixocortol-21-pivalate. Our patient was given guidance on avoiding these agents, as it was suspected that exposure may be exacerbating the psoriasis. The psoriasis was treated with topical corticosteroids, keratolytics, and calcineurin inhibitors, all of which offered minimal or no relief. Trials of systemic agents, including methotrexate (discontinued because transaminitis developed), etanercept, adalimumab, and apremilast for 6 to 10 months did not provide improvement.

Two years prior to the current presentation, our patient had been treated with the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab, which provided moderate improvement. When she presented to our clinic, physical examination while she was taking guselkumab demonstrated prurigo with excoriations of the extremities, hyperkeratosis with scaling and fissures of the soles, erythematous scaly plaques on the palms and dorsal surface of the hands, and mild onycholysis of the nails (Figures 1 and 2). Because we were concerned about concomitant intrinsic AD, dupilumab was initiated in conjunction with guselkumab. A second biopsy was considered but deferred in favor of clinical monitoring.

After 1 year of dual biologic therapy, the patient experienced near-complete resolution of symptoms. The psoriasis completely resolved from an initial body surface area of 5%, and the AD body surface area decreased from 30% to 2% (Figure 3). The patient reported no adverse effects from treatment.

Comment

Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis involve complex immunopathology and a spectrum of cytokines that might explain the overlap in their clinical and histopathologic presentations.

Atopic dermatitis—Atopic dermatitis involves T_H1, T_H2, T_H9, T_H17, and T_H22 cells; T_H2 cells release IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13, all of which are key cytokines in the inflammatory pathway of AD.^9,10 Activation of the helper T-cell subset and the release of cytokines differ slightly based on the subcategory of AD and the stage of exacerbation. In addition to T_H2-cell activation, T_H1 cells and T_H22 cells—which release IL-12 and IL-22, respectively—are active in both intrinsic and extrinsic AD. T_H17 cells and T_H9 cells—which release IL-17 and IL-9, respectively—are more prominent in the intrinsic pathway than in the extrinsic pathway.⁹ Intrinsic AD is recognized by a lack of eosinophilia, female predominance, and delayed onset compared to extrinsic AD; there also is a lack of history of atopy.¹ Extrinsic AD is characterized by eosinophilia as well as a personal and family history of atopy.¹¹ Our patient—a female with onset in older adulthood, lack of eosinophilia, and a family history of atopy—displayed features of both intrinsic and extrinsic AD.

Psoriasis—The immunopathology of psoriasis involves stimulation of dendritic cells, which activate T_H17 cells through IL-23. T_H17 cells then release IL-17 and IL-22. Therefore, both AD and psoriasis involve activation of T_H22 and T_H1 cells, with increased IL-17 and IL-22 production.^3,10,12 IL-17 and IL-22 induce epidermal hyperplasia; IL-22 also contributes to skin barrier dysfunction.¹² Therefore, it might be reasonable to consider psoriasis and AD as diseases that exist across a T-cell axis spectrum, thereby accounting for some overlap in disease characteristics.³

Dual Biologic Therapy—Dupilumab blocks the IL-4 receptor α subunit, a receptor for IL-4 and IL-13, which are key cytokines in the pathogenesis of AD.¹⁰ Guselkumab inhibits IL-23, thus blocking the inflammatory cascade of T_H17 cell activation and release of IL-17 and IL-22 in the psoriasis pathway.¹³ Although an immunopathological spectrum exists between the 2 diseases, the continued presence of AD symptoms after blocking the IL-23 cascade suggests that additional blockade of T_H2 cells is required to control AD in patients with true concurrent disease.

Accurate diagnosis of AD and/or psoriasis is important when considering targeted treatment of these conditions with biologics. The use of dual biologics is limited by a paucity of data regarding the safety of these agents when given in combination. A recent meta-analysis of dual biologic therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease demonstrated acceptable safety results with a pooled adverse reaction rate of 31%.¹⁴

Anchoring Bias—Anchoring bias can occur when a clinician’s decisions are influenced by a particular event or reference point, which might cause them to disregard subsequent evidence. Our case illustrates the importance of critically assessing the response to treatment and being mindful of the potential influence of anchoring bias on the differential diagnosis. Although overcoming biases in conditions with clinical overlap can be challenging, it is important to consider coexisting AD and psoriasis in patients with extensive hand involvement when multiple treatments have failed and only a partial response to targeted pathways has been achieved. In our case, the patient also had contact hypersensitivity to tixocortol-21-pivalate, which indicates hypersensitivity to many prescription topical corticosteroids, oral prednisone, and over-the-counter hydrocortisone; however, topical corticosteroids continued to be prescribed for her, which might have contributed to the lack of improvement and even exacerbated the rash.

Future Considerations—A consideration for the future in this case is discontinuing guselkumab to observe whether symptoms recur. We discussed this option with the patient, but she opted to continue treatment with dupilumab and guselkumab because of the symptom resolution.

Conclusion

Concomitant disease can present as an overlapping pattern in the same area, whereas other regions might have geographically isolated disease. Our patient’s overlap of symptoms, the failure of multiple treatments, and the partial improvement she experienced on guselkumab made diagnosis and management challenging; however, dual biologic therapy was successful.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis are common skin diseases in which dysfunction of the epidermal barrier leads to skin inflammation and altered expression of proinflammatory cytokines.¹ There often is overlap in the clinical and histopathologic features of AD and psoriasis, which can make diagnosis a challenge. Persistent late-stage AD can present with psoriasiform lichenified changes, and psoriasis lesions in the acute stage can have an eczematous appearance.² Histologically, chronic psoriasis lesions share many overlapping features with AD, and some subsets of AD with IL-17 predominance (ie, intrinsic, pediatric, presentation in Asian patients) exhibit a psoriasiform appearance.^3,4

Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis are considered 2 distinct conditions because AD is a helper T cell (T_H2)–driven disease with subsequent overproduction of IL-4 and IL-13 and psoriasis is a T_H17 cell–driven disease with overproduction of IL-17³; however, the shared features of AD and psoriasis represent an underlying immunopathological spectrum^2,5,6 in which one condition can develop following treatment of the other condition (immunological shift in pathways), both conditions can occur at different times in a patient’s life with alternating cycles of disease flares, or both conditions can coexist as an overlapping syndrome.^1,2 A retrospective study from 2012 to 2019 estimated the prevalence of concomitant AD and psoriasis in the United States at 1.3%, with AD following the diagnosis of psoriasis in 67% of cases.¹ Concurrent AD and psoriasis—when both diseases flaresimultaneously—is the rarest scenario.^2,5

Treatment modalities for AD include topical corticosteroids, which act on immune cells to suppress the release of proinflammatory cytokines, as well as dupilumab, which offers targeted blockade of involved cytokines IL-4 and IL-13. Psoriasis can be treated with multiple immune modulators, including topical corticosteroids and vitamin D analogs, as well as systemic medications that reduce T-cell activation and inflammatory cytokines through targeting of IFN-γ, IL-2, tumor necrosis factor α, IL-17, and IL-23.^7,8

We present the case of a patient with long-standing concurrent, treatment-resistant AD and psoriasis who was successfully treated with dual biologic therapy with guselkumab and dupilumab.

Case Report

A 62-year-old woman presented to our dermatology clinic with red itchy scales and painful fissures on the palms, hands, and soles of more than 12 years’ duration. Her medical history included an allergy to amoxicillin-clavulanate as well as an allergy to both dog and cat dander on prick testing. Her family history included dyshidrotic eczema in her mother. A complete blood cell count with differential was within reference range. A shave biopsy of the right dorsal hand performed at the onset of symptoms at an outside facility revealed hyperkeratotic acanthotic epidermis with a mild perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate.

Results of patch testing indicated contact hypersensitivity to the botanical rosin colophonium (or colophony); carba mix (1, 3-diphenylguanidine, zinc dibutyldithiocarbamate, and zinc diethydithiocarbamate); thiuram mix (tetramethylthiuram disulfide, tetramethylthiuram monosulfide, and tetraethylthiuram disulfide); n,n-diphenylguanidine; and tixocortol-21-pivalate. Our patient was given guidance on avoiding these agents, as it was suspected that exposure may be exacerbating the psoriasis. The psoriasis was treated with topical corticosteroids, keratolytics, and calcineurin inhibitors, all of which offered minimal or no relief. Trials of systemic agents, including methotrexate (discontinued because transaminitis developed), etanercept, adalimumab, and apremilast for 6 to 10 months did not provide improvement.

Two years prior to the current presentation, our patient had been treated with the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab, which provided moderate improvement. When she presented to our clinic, physical examination while she was taking guselkumab demonstrated prurigo with excoriations of the extremities, hyperkeratosis with scaling and fissures of the soles, erythematous scaly plaques on the palms and dorsal surface of the hands, and mild onycholysis of the nails (Figures 1 and 2). Because we were concerned about concomitant intrinsic AD, dupilumab was initiated in conjunction with guselkumab. A second biopsy was considered but deferred in favor of clinical monitoring.

After 1 year of dual biologic therapy, the patient experienced near-complete resolution of symptoms. The psoriasis completely resolved from an initial body surface area of 5%, and the AD body surface area decreased from 30% to 2% (Figure 3). The patient reported no adverse effects from treatment.

Comment

Atopic dermatitis and psoriasis involve complex immunopathology and a spectrum of cytokines that might explain the overlap in their clinical and histopathologic presentations.

Atopic dermatitis—Atopic dermatitis involves T_H1, T_H2, T_H9, T_H17, and T_H22 cells; T_H2 cells release IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13, all of which are key cytokines in the inflammatory pathway of AD.^9,10 Activation of the helper T-cell subset and the release of cytokines differ slightly based on the subcategory of AD and the stage of exacerbation. In addition to T_H2-cell activation, T_H1 cells and T_H22 cells—which release IL-12 and IL-22, respectively—are active in both intrinsic and extrinsic AD. T_H17 cells and T_H9 cells—which release IL-17 and IL-9, respectively—are more prominent in the intrinsic pathway than in the extrinsic pathway.⁹ Intrinsic AD is recognized by a lack of eosinophilia, female predominance, and delayed onset compared to extrinsic AD; there also is a lack of history of atopy.¹ Extrinsic AD is characterized by eosinophilia as well as a personal and family history of atopy.¹¹ Our patient—a female with onset in older adulthood, lack of eosinophilia, and a family history of atopy—displayed features of both intrinsic and extrinsic AD.

Psoriasis—The immunopathology of psoriasis involves stimulation of dendritic cells, which activate T_H17 cells through IL-23. T_H17 cells then release IL-17 and IL-22. Therefore, both AD and psoriasis involve activation of T_H22 and T_H1 cells, with increased IL-17 and IL-22 production.^3,10,12 IL-17 and IL-22 induce epidermal hyperplasia; IL-22 also contributes to skin barrier dysfunction.¹² Therefore, it might be reasonable to consider psoriasis and AD as diseases that exist across a T-cell axis spectrum, thereby accounting for some overlap in disease characteristics.³

Dual Biologic Therapy—Dupilumab blocks the IL-4 receptor α subunit, a receptor for IL-4 and IL-13, which are key cytokines in the pathogenesis of AD.¹⁰ Guselkumab inhibits IL-23, thus blocking the inflammatory cascade of T_H17 cell activation and release of IL-17 and IL-22 in the psoriasis pathway.¹³ Although an immunopathological spectrum exists between the 2 diseases, the continued presence of AD symptoms after blocking the IL-23 cascade suggests that additional blockade of T_H2 cells is required to control AD in patients with true concurrent disease.

Accurate diagnosis of AD and/or psoriasis is important when considering targeted treatment of these conditions with biologics. The use of dual biologics is limited by a paucity of data regarding the safety of these agents when given in combination. A recent meta-analysis of dual biologic therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease demonstrated acceptable safety results with a pooled adverse reaction rate of 31%.¹⁴

Anchoring Bias—Anchoring bias can occur when a clinician’s decisions are influenced by a particular event or reference point, which might cause them to disregard subsequent evidence. Our case illustrates the importance of critically assessing the response to treatment and being mindful of the potential influence of anchoring bias on the differential diagnosis. Although overcoming biases in conditions with clinical overlap can be challenging, it is important to consider coexisting AD and psoriasis in patients with extensive hand involvement when multiple treatments have failed and only a partial response to targeted pathways has been achieved. In our case, the patient also had contact hypersensitivity to tixocortol-21-pivalate, which indicates hypersensitivity to many prescription topical corticosteroids, oral prednisone, and over-the-counter hydrocortisone; however, topical corticosteroids continued to be prescribed for her, which might have contributed to the lack of improvement and even exacerbated the rash.

Future Considerations—A consideration for the future in this case is discontinuing guselkumab to observe whether symptoms recur. We discussed this option with the patient, but she opted to continue treatment with dupilumab and guselkumab because of the symptom resolution.

Conclusion

Concomitant disease can present as an overlapping pattern in the same area, whereas other regions might have geographically isolated disease. Our patient’s overlap of symptoms, the failure of multiple treatments, and the partial improvement she experienced on guselkumab made diagnosis and management challenging; however, dual biologic therapy was successful.

TOPLINE:

In a large cross-sectional study, nearly one-third of patients with severe psoriasis met criteria for coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD).

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior studies with small sample sizes have shown that CMD predicts poor cardiovascular outcomes in patients with severe psoriasis.
• In a prospective multicenter study, researchers enrolled 448 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis with no documented clinical cardiovascular disease who underwent transthoracic Doppler echocardiography to evaluate coronary microcirculation.
• The outcome variable of interest was CMD, defined as a coronary flow rate of 2.5 mL or less.
• The researchers used multivariable linear regression to model the associations of the characteristics of patients with psoriasis with CMD.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 448 patients, 141 (31.5%) showed CMD.
• Multivariable regression revealed four variables independently associated with CMD: higher Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) score (per unit, odds ratio, 1.058; P < .001), duration of psoriasis (per year; OR, 1.046; P < .001), the presence of psoriatic arthritis (OR, 1.938; P = .015), and hypertension (OR, 2.169; P = .010).
• An increase of 1 point in the PASI score and 1 year of psoriasis duration were associated with a 5.8% and a 4.6% increased risk for CMD, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“We should diagnose and actively search for microvascular dysfunction in patients with psoriasis, as this population is at particularly high risk,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Stefano Piaserico, MD, PhD, of the University of Padova (Italy), led the research. The study was published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small proportion of patients in the study were being treated for psoriasis, and other tools for assessing CMD were not used, such as PET-CT and cardiovascular MRI.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

In a large cross-sectional study, nearly one-third of patients with severe psoriasis met criteria for coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD).

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior studies with small sample sizes have shown that CMD predicts poor cardiovascular outcomes in patients with severe psoriasis.
• In a prospective multicenter study, researchers enrolled 448 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis with no documented clinical cardiovascular disease who underwent transthoracic Doppler echocardiography to evaluate coronary microcirculation.
• The outcome variable of interest was CMD, defined as a coronary flow rate of 2.5 mL or less.
• The researchers used multivariable linear regression to model the associations of the characteristics of patients with psoriasis with CMD.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 448 patients, 141 (31.5%) showed CMD.
• Multivariable regression revealed four variables independently associated with CMD: higher Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) score (per unit, odds ratio, 1.058; P < .001), duration of psoriasis (per year; OR, 1.046; P < .001), the presence of psoriatic arthritis (OR, 1.938; P = .015), and hypertension (OR, 2.169; P = .010).
• An increase of 1 point in the PASI score and 1 year of psoriasis duration were associated with a 5.8% and a 4.6% increased risk for CMD, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“We should diagnose and actively search for microvascular dysfunction in patients with psoriasis, as this population is at particularly high risk,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Stefano Piaserico, MD, PhD, of the University of Padova (Italy), led the research. The study was published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small proportion of patients in the study were being treated for psoriasis, and other tools for assessing CMD were not used, such as PET-CT and cardiovascular MRI.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

In a large cross-sectional study, nearly one-third of patients with severe psoriasis met criteria for coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD).

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior studies with small sample sizes have shown that CMD predicts poor cardiovascular outcomes in patients with severe psoriasis.
• In a prospective multicenter study, researchers enrolled 448 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis with no documented clinical cardiovascular disease who underwent transthoracic Doppler echocardiography to evaluate coronary microcirculation.
• The outcome variable of interest was CMD, defined as a coronary flow rate of 2.5 mL or less.
• The researchers used multivariable linear regression to model the associations of the characteristics of patients with psoriasis with CMD.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 448 patients, 141 (31.5%) showed CMD.
• Multivariable regression revealed four variables independently associated with CMD: higher Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) score (per unit, odds ratio, 1.058; P < .001), duration of psoriasis (per year; OR, 1.046; P < .001), the presence of psoriatic arthritis (OR, 1.938; P = .015), and hypertension (OR, 2.169; P = .010).
• An increase of 1 point in the PASI score and 1 year of psoriasis duration were associated with a 5.8% and a 4.6% increased risk for CMD, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“We should diagnose and actively search for microvascular dysfunction in patients with psoriasis, as this population is at particularly high risk,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Stefano Piaserico, MD, PhD, of the University of Padova (Italy), led the research. The study was published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small proportion of patients in the study were being treated for psoriasis, and other tools for assessing CMD were not used, such as PET-CT and cardiovascular MRI.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

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

To the Editor:

COVID-19 infection has resulted in 6.9 million deaths worldwide. India has the third highest mortality from COVID-19 infection after the United States and Brazil.¹ Vaccination plays a crucial role in containing COVID-19 infection and reducing its severity. At present, 11 vaccines have been approved by the World Health Organization. India started its vaccination program on January 16, 2021, with approval for use of Covaxin (Bharat Biotech) and Covishield (Oxford/AstraZeneca formulation)(Serum Institute of India). More than 2 billion doses have been administered since then.^2,3

Patients with psoriasis are prone to develop a severe form of COVID-19 due to comorbidities and the intake of immunosuppressive drugs.⁴ These patients often are hesitant to receive the vaccine without an expert opinion. COVID-19 vaccines are considered to increase tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and IFN-γ production by CD4⁺ T cells. Tumor necrosis factor α is a key proinflammatory cytokine implicated in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. COVID-19 messenger RNA vaccines induce elevation of IL-6 and helper T cells (T_H17), which can induce a flare of psoriasis in a subset of patients.⁵The International Psoriasis Council recommends that patients with psoriasis receive one of the vaccines approved to prevent COVID-19 infection as soon as possible.⁶ Reports of new-onset psoriasis and flare of psoriasis after the use of COVID-19 vaccines, such as those manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca, have been published from different parts of the world.⁷ India used locally developed whole virion inactivated BBV152 (Covaxin) and nonreplicating viral vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Covishield) in its vaccination program and exported them to other developing countries. There is a dearth of data on the safety of these vaccines in patients with psoriasis, which needs to be assessed. Later, Covaxin, ZyCoV-D (DNA plasmid vaccine; Cadila Healthcare), and CorbeVax (protein subunit vaccine; Biological E) were approved for usage in children.⁸ We conducted a cross-sectional study using the direct interview method.

Patients with psoriasis who attended the outpatient department of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (Chandigarh, India) from April 2022 to June 2022 were invited to participate in the study after written informed consent was received. Patients 18 years and older with chronic plaque psoriasis who had received a COVID-19 vaccine dose in the last 90 days were enrolled. Data on demographics, comorbidities, treatment received for psoriasis, vaccination concerns, history of COVID-19 infection, type of vaccine received with doses, adverse effects, and psoriasis flare after receiving the vaccine (considered up to 2 weeks from the date of vaccination) were collected. Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with a psoriasis flare following vaccination. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

A total of 202 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who received either Covaxin or Covishield were enrolled during the study period. The mean age (SD) was 40.3 (13.1) years, and 149 (73.8%) patients were male. One hundred thirty-five (66.8%) patients completed 2 doses of the vaccine. eTable 1 provides the clinicodemographic details of the patients. Eighty-three (41.1%) patients had a fear of psoriasis flare after vaccination. Seventy-two (35.6%) patients received the vaccine after clearance from their treating physician/dermatologist. One hundred sixty-four (81.2%) patients received the Covishield vaccine, and 38 (18.8%) patients received Covaxin. Eighty-three (41.1%) patients reported flulike symptoms, such as fever, myalgia, or body pain, within the first week of vaccination. Sixty-one (30.2%) patients reported a psoriasis flare after vaccination in the form of new lesions or worsening of pre-existing lesions. Of these patients, 51 reported a flare after receiving the first dose of vaccine, 8 patients reported a flare after receiving the second dose of vaccine, and 2 patients reported a flare after receiving both doses of vaccine. The mean (SD) flare onset was 8.1 (3.4) days after the vaccination. Eighteen patients considered the flare to be severe. Seventeen (8.4%) patients reported a positive history of COVID-19 infection before vaccination. None of the patients reported breakthrough COVID-19 infection or pustular aggravation of psoriasis following the vaccination.

The self-reported psoriasis flare after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine was significantly higher in patients who experienced immediate adverse effects (P=.005), which included fever, myalgia, joint pain, and injection-site reaction. The reported postvaccination psoriasis flare was not significantly associated with patient sex, history of COVID-19 infection, type of vaccine received, comorbidities, or therapy for psoriasis (eTable 2).

Nearly 30% of our patients reported a postvaccination psoriasis flare, which was more common after the first vaccine dose. Sotiriou et al⁷ reported 14 cases of psoriasis flare in patients after receiving Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines. These patients experienced an exacerbation of disease soon after the second dose of vaccine (mean [SD], 10.36 [7.71] days), and 21% of the 713 enrolled patients wanted to forego the immunization due to concern of a postvaccination psoriasis flare.⁷ In another report, 14 (27%) patients developed a psoriasis flare after COVID-19 vaccination; the mean (SD) flare onset was 9.3 (4.3) days after vaccination.⁹

Data on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in patients using immunosuppressive drugs are limited. We did not find a significant association between the psoriasis flare and use of immunosuppressive drugs or type of vaccine received. Huang and Tsai⁹ observed similar results, with no association between psoriasis flare and use of immunosuppressive drugs or biologics, while Damiani et al¹⁰ demonstrated a protective role of biologics in preventing vaccine-induced psoriasis flare.

Similar to another study from India,¹¹ the immediate adverse effects due to immunization with Covaxin and Covishield were mild in our study and resolved within a week. The incidence of psoriasis flare was significantly higher in patients who reported adverse effects (P=.005). Activation of immune response after vaccination leads to the release of proinflammatory and pyrogenic cytokines (ie, IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α), which may explain the higher incidence of psoriasis flare in patients experiencing adverse effects to vaccination.¹²

Our study showed approximately 30% of patients developed a psoriasis flare after COVID-19 vaccination, with no patients experiencing any vaccine-related serious adverse events, which suggests that Covaxin and Covishield are safe for patients with psoriasis in India. Limitations of our study include potential inaccuracy of the patient’s self-assessment of symptoms and disease flare, recall bias that may lead to errors in estimating patient-reported outcomes, the flare of psoriasis potentially being a part of disease fluctuation, and flare being enhanced by the psychological stress of vaccination.

Considering a high risk for severe COVID-19 infection in patients with psoriasis with comorbidities and those using immunosuppressive drugs, Covaxin and Covishield can be safely recommended in India. However, caution needs to be exercised when vaccinating patients with an unstable disease or severe psoriasis.

To the Editor:

COVID-19 infection has resulted in 6.9 million deaths worldwide. India has the third highest mortality from COVID-19 infection after the United States and Brazil.¹ Vaccination plays a crucial role in containing COVID-19 infection and reducing its severity. At present, 11 vaccines have been approved by the World Health Organization. India started its vaccination program on January 16, 2021, with approval for use of Covaxin (Bharat Biotech) and Covishield (Oxford/AstraZeneca formulation)(Serum Institute of India). More than 2 billion doses have been administered since then.^2,3

Patients with psoriasis are prone to develop a severe form of COVID-19 due to comorbidities and the intake of immunosuppressive drugs.⁴ These patients often are hesitant to receive the vaccine without an expert opinion. COVID-19 vaccines are considered to increase tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and IFN-γ production by CD4⁺ T cells. Tumor necrosis factor α is a key proinflammatory cytokine implicated in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. COVID-19 messenger RNA vaccines induce elevation of IL-6 and helper T cells (T_H17), which can induce a flare of psoriasis in a subset of patients.⁵The International Psoriasis Council recommends that patients with psoriasis receive one of the vaccines approved to prevent COVID-19 infection as soon as possible.⁶ Reports of new-onset psoriasis and flare of psoriasis after the use of COVID-19 vaccines, such as those manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca, have been published from different parts of the world.⁷ India used locally developed whole virion inactivated BBV152 (Covaxin) and nonreplicating viral vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Covishield) in its vaccination program and exported them to other developing countries. There is a dearth of data on the safety of these vaccines in patients with psoriasis, which needs to be assessed. Later, Covaxin, ZyCoV-D (DNA plasmid vaccine; Cadila Healthcare), and CorbeVax (protein subunit vaccine; Biological E) were approved for usage in children.⁸ We conducted a cross-sectional study using the direct interview method.

Patients with psoriasis who attended the outpatient department of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (Chandigarh, India) from April 2022 to June 2022 were invited to participate in the study after written informed consent was received. Patients 18 years and older with chronic plaque psoriasis who had received a COVID-19 vaccine dose in the last 90 days were enrolled. Data on demographics, comorbidities, treatment received for psoriasis, vaccination concerns, history of COVID-19 infection, type of vaccine received with doses, adverse effects, and psoriasis flare after receiving the vaccine (considered up to 2 weeks from the date of vaccination) were collected. Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with a psoriasis flare following vaccination. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

A total of 202 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who received either Covaxin or Covishield were enrolled during the study period. The mean age (SD) was 40.3 (13.1) years, and 149 (73.8%) patients were male. One hundred thirty-five (66.8%) patients completed 2 doses of the vaccine. eTable 1 provides the clinicodemographic details of the patients. Eighty-three (41.1%) patients had a fear of psoriasis flare after vaccination. Seventy-two (35.6%) patients received the vaccine after clearance from their treating physician/dermatologist. One hundred sixty-four (81.2%) patients received the Covishield vaccine, and 38 (18.8%) patients received Covaxin. Eighty-three (41.1%) patients reported flulike symptoms, such as fever, myalgia, or body pain, within the first week of vaccination. Sixty-one (30.2%) patients reported a psoriasis flare after vaccination in the form of new lesions or worsening of pre-existing lesions. Of these patients, 51 reported a flare after receiving the first dose of vaccine, 8 patients reported a flare after receiving the second dose of vaccine, and 2 patients reported a flare after receiving both doses of vaccine. The mean (SD) flare onset was 8.1 (3.4) days after the vaccination. Eighteen patients considered the flare to be severe. Seventeen (8.4%) patients reported a positive history of COVID-19 infection before vaccination. None of the patients reported breakthrough COVID-19 infection or pustular aggravation of psoriasis following the vaccination.

The self-reported psoriasis flare after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine was significantly higher in patients who experienced immediate adverse effects (P=.005), which included fever, myalgia, joint pain, and injection-site reaction. The reported postvaccination psoriasis flare was not significantly associated with patient sex, history of COVID-19 infection, type of vaccine received, comorbidities, or therapy for psoriasis (eTable 2).

Nearly 30% of our patients reported a postvaccination psoriasis flare, which was more common after the first vaccine dose. Sotiriou et al⁷ reported 14 cases of psoriasis flare in patients after receiving Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines. These patients experienced an exacerbation of disease soon after the second dose of vaccine (mean [SD], 10.36 [7.71] days), and 21% of the 713 enrolled patients wanted to forego the immunization due to concern of a postvaccination psoriasis flare.⁷ In another report, 14 (27%) patients developed a psoriasis flare after COVID-19 vaccination; the mean (SD) flare onset was 9.3 (4.3) days after vaccination.⁹

Data on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in patients using immunosuppressive drugs are limited. We did not find a significant association between the psoriasis flare and use of immunosuppressive drugs or type of vaccine received. Huang and Tsai⁹ observed similar results, with no association between psoriasis flare and use of immunosuppressive drugs or biologics, while Damiani et al¹⁰ demonstrated a protective role of biologics in preventing vaccine-induced psoriasis flare.

Similar to another study from India,¹¹ the immediate adverse effects due to immunization with Covaxin and Covishield were mild in our study and resolved within a week. The incidence of psoriasis flare was significantly higher in patients who reported adverse effects (P=.005). Activation of immune response after vaccination leads to the release of proinflammatory and pyrogenic cytokines (ie, IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α), which may explain the higher incidence of psoriasis flare in patients experiencing adverse effects to vaccination.¹²

Our study showed approximately 30% of patients developed a psoriasis flare after COVID-19 vaccination, with no patients experiencing any vaccine-related serious adverse events, which suggests that Covaxin and Covishield are safe for patients with psoriasis in India. Limitations of our study include potential inaccuracy of the patient’s self-assessment of symptoms and disease flare, recall bias that may lead to errors in estimating patient-reported outcomes, the flare of psoriasis potentially being a part of disease fluctuation, and flare being enhanced by the psychological stress of vaccination.

Considering a high risk for severe COVID-19 infection in patients with psoriasis with comorbidities and those using immunosuppressive drugs, Covaxin and Covishield can be safely recommended in India. However, caution needs to be exercised when vaccinating patients with an unstable disease or severe psoriasis.

To the Editor:

COVID-19 infection has resulted in 6.9 million deaths worldwide. India has the third highest mortality from COVID-19 infection after the United States and Brazil.¹ Vaccination plays a crucial role in containing COVID-19 infection and reducing its severity. At present, 11 vaccines have been approved by the World Health Organization. India started its vaccination program on January 16, 2021, with approval for use of Covaxin (Bharat Biotech) and Covishield (Oxford/AstraZeneca formulation)(Serum Institute of India). More than 2 billion doses have been administered since then.^2,3

Patients with psoriasis are prone to develop a severe form of COVID-19 due to comorbidities and the intake of immunosuppressive drugs.⁴ These patients often are hesitant to receive the vaccine without an expert opinion. COVID-19 vaccines are considered to increase tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and IFN-γ production by CD4⁺ T cells. Tumor necrosis factor α is a key proinflammatory cytokine implicated in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. COVID-19 messenger RNA vaccines induce elevation of IL-6 and helper T cells (T_H17), which can induce a flare of psoriasis in a subset of patients.⁵The International Psoriasis Council recommends that patients with psoriasis receive one of the vaccines approved to prevent COVID-19 infection as soon as possible.⁶ Reports of new-onset psoriasis and flare of psoriasis after the use of COVID-19 vaccines, such as those manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca, have been published from different parts of the world.⁷ India used locally developed whole virion inactivated BBV152 (Covaxin) and nonreplicating viral vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Covishield) in its vaccination program and exported them to other developing countries. There is a dearth of data on the safety of these vaccines in patients with psoriasis, which needs to be assessed. Later, Covaxin, ZyCoV-D (DNA plasmid vaccine; Cadila Healthcare), and CorbeVax (protein subunit vaccine; Biological E) were approved for usage in children.⁸ We conducted a cross-sectional study using the direct interview method.

Patients with psoriasis who attended the outpatient department of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (Chandigarh, India) from April 2022 to June 2022 were invited to participate in the study after written informed consent was received. Patients 18 years and older with chronic plaque psoriasis who had received a COVID-19 vaccine dose in the last 90 days were enrolled. Data on demographics, comorbidities, treatment received for psoriasis, vaccination concerns, history of COVID-19 infection, type of vaccine received with doses, adverse effects, and psoriasis flare after receiving the vaccine (considered up to 2 weeks from the date of vaccination) were collected. Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with a psoriasis flare following vaccination. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

A total of 202 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who received either Covaxin or Covishield were enrolled during the study period. The mean age (SD) was 40.3 (13.1) years, and 149 (73.8%) patients were male. One hundred thirty-five (66.8%) patients completed 2 doses of the vaccine. eTable 1 provides the clinicodemographic details of the patients. Eighty-three (41.1%) patients had a fear of psoriasis flare after vaccination. Seventy-two (35.6%) patients received the vaccine after clearance from their treating physician/dermatologist. One hundred sixty-four (81.2%) patients received the Covishield vaccine, and 38 (18.8%) patients received Covaxin. Eighty-three (41.1%) patients reported flulike symptoms, such as fever, myalgia, or body pain, within the first week of vaccination. Sixty-one (30.2%) patients reported a psoriasis flare after vaccination in the form of new lesions or worsening of pre-existing lesions. Of these patients, 51 reported a flare after receiving the first dose of vaccine, 8 patients reported a flare after receiving the second dose of vaccine, and 2 patients reported a flare after receiving both doses of vaccine. The mean (SD) flare onset was 8.1 (3.4) days after the vaccination. Eighteen patients considered the flare to be severe. Seventeen (8.4%) patients reported a positive history of COVID-19 infection before vaccination. None of the patients reported breakthrough COVID-19 infection or pustular aggravation of psoriasis following the vaccination.

The self-reported psoriasis flare after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine was significantly higher in patients who experienced immediate adverse effects (P=.005), which included fever, myalgia, joint pain, and injection-site reaction. The reported postvaccination psoriasis flare was not significantly associated with patient sex, history of COVID-19 infection, type of vaccine received, comorbidities, or therapy for psoriasis (eTable 2).

Nearly 30% of our patients reported a postvaccination psoriasis flare, which was more common after the first vaccine dose. Sotiriou et al⁷ reported 14 cases of psoriasis flare in patients after receiving Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines. These patients experienced an exacerbation of disease soon after the second dose of vaccine (mean [SD], 10.36 [7.71] days), and 21% of the 713 enrolled patients wanted to forego the immunization due to concern of a postvaccination psoriasis flare.⁷ In another report, 14 (27%) patients developed a psoriasis flare after COVID-19 vaccination; the mean (SD) flare onset was 9.3 (4.3) days after vaccination.⁹

Data on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine in patients using immunosuppressive drugs are limited. We did not find a significant association between the psoriasis flare and use of immunosuppressive drugs or type of vaccine received. Huang and Tsai⁹ observed similar results, with no association between psoriasis flare and use of immunosuppressive drugs or biologics, while Damiani et al¹⁰ demonstrated a protective role of biologics in preventing vaccine-induced psoriasis flare.

Similar to another study from India,¹¹ the immediate adverse effects due to immunization with Covaxin and Covishield were mild in our study and resolved within a week. The incidence of psoriasis flare was significantly higher in patients who reported adverse effects (P=.005). Activation of immune response after vaccination leads to the release of proinflammatory and pyrogenic cytokines (ie, IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α), which may explain the higher incidence of psoriasis flare in patients experiencing adverse effects to vaccination.¹²

Our study showed approximately 30% of patients developed a psoriasis flare after COVID-19 vaccination, with no patients experiencing any vaccine-related serious adverse events, which suggests that Covaxin and Covishield are safe for patients with psoriasis in India. Limitations of our study include potential inaccuracy of the patient’s self-assessment of symptoms and disease flare, recall bias that may lead to errors in estimating patient-reported outcomes, the flare of psoriasis potentially being a part of disease fluctuation, and flare being enhanced by the psychological stress of vaccination.

Considering a high risk for severe COVID-19 infection in patients with psoriasis with comorbidities and those using immunosuppressive drugs, Covaxin and Covishield can be safely recommended in India. However, caution needs to be exercised when vaccinating patients with an unstable disease or severe psoriasis.

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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