Article

Key clinical point: Topical 1% tapinarof showed significant clinical efficacy and favorable safety and tolerability in adults and children age 2 years or older with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At 8 weeks, a significantly higher proportion of patients treated with tapinarof vs vehicle achieved a Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis™ score of 0 or 1 and ≥2-grade improvement from baseline in ADORING 1 (45.4% vs 13.9%) and ADORING 2 (46.4% vs 18.0%) trials (both P < .0001). Few serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported; rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were lower with tapinarof compared to vehicle.

Study details: The phase 3 ADORING 1 (n = 407) and 2 (n = 406) trials included adults and children age 2 years or older with moderate to severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 1% tapinarof cream or vehicle once daily for 8 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Dermavant Sciences, Inc. Five authors declared being employees of or holding stock options in Dermavant Sciences. Several authors declared having other ties with various sources, including Dermavant Sciences.

Source: Silverberg JI, Eichenfield LF, Hebert AA, et al. Tapinarof cream 1% once daily: Significant efficacy in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adults and children down to 2 years of age in the pivotal phase 3 ADORING trials. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024 (May 20). doi:  10.1016/j.jaad.2024.05.023 Source

Key clinical point: Topical 1% tapinarof showed significant clinical efficacy and favorable safety and tolerability in adults and children age 2 years or older with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At 8 weeks, a significantly higher proportion of patients treated with tapinarof vs vehicle achieved a Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis™ score of 0 or 1 and ≥2-grade improvement from baseline in ADORING 1 (45.4% vs 13.9%) and ADORING 2 (46.4% vs 18.0%) trials (both P < .0001). Few serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported; rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were lower with tapinarof compared to vehicle.

Study details: The phase 3 ADORING 1 (n = 407) and 2 (n = 406) trials included adults and children age 2 years or older with moderate to severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 1% tapinarof cream or vehicle once daily for 8 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Dermavant Sciences, Inc. Five authors declared being employees of or holding stock options in Dermavant Sciences. Several authors declared having other ties with various sources, including Dermavant Sciences.

Source: Silverberg JI, Eichenfield LF, Hebert AA, et al. Tapinarof cream 1% once daily: Significant efficacy in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adults and children down to 2 years of age in the pivotal phase 3 ADORING trials. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024 (May 20). doi:  10.1016/j.jaad.2024.05.023 Source

Key clinical point: Topical 1% tapinarof showed significant clinical efficacy and favorable safety and tolerability in adults and children age 2 years or older with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At 8 weeks, a significantly higher proportion of patients treated with tapinarof vs vehicle achieved a Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis™ score of 0 or 1 and ≥2-grade improvement from baseline in ADORING 1 (45.4% vs 13.9%) and ADORING 2 (46.4% vs 18.0%) trials (both P < .0001). Few serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported; rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were lower with tapinarof compared to vehicle.

Study details: The phase 3 ADORING 1 (n = 407) and 2 (n = 406) trials included adults and children age 2 years or older with moderate to severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 1% tapinarof cream or vehicle once daily for 8 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Dermavant Sciences, Inc. Five authors declared being employees of or holding stock options in Dermavant Sciences. Several authors declared having other ties with various sources, including Dermavant Sciences.

Source: Silverberg JI, Eichenfield LF, Hebert AA, et al. Tapinarof cream 1% once daily: Significant efficacy in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adults and children down to 2 years of age in the pivotal phase 3 ADORING trials. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024 (May 20). doi:  10.1016/j.jaad.2024.05.023 Source

Key clinical point: Topical 1% tapinarof showed significant clinical efficacy and favorable safety and tolerability in adults and children age 2 years or older with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At 8 weeks, a significantly higher proportion of patients treated with tapinarof vs vehicle achieved a Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis™ score of 0 or 1 and ≥2-grade improvement from baseline in ADORING 1 (45.4% vs 13.9%) and ADORING 2 (46.4% vs 18.0%) trials (both P < .0001). Few serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported; rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were lower with tapinarof compared to vehicle.

Study details: The phase 3 ADORING 1 (n = 407) and 2 (n = 406) trials included adults and children age 2 years or older with moderate to severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 1% tapinarof cream or vehicle once daily for 8 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Dermavant Sciences, Inc. Five authors declared being employees of or holding stock options in Dermavant Sciences. Several authors declared having other ties with various sources, including Dermavant Sciences.

Source: Silverberg JI, Eichenfield LF, Hebert AA, et al. Tapinarof cream 1% once daily: Significant efficacy in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adults and children down to 2 years of age in the pivotal phase 3 ADORING trials. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024 (May 20). doi:  10.1016/j.jaad.2024.05.023 Source

Key clinical point: Topical 1% tapinarof showed significant clinical efficacy and favorable safety and tolerability in adults and children age 2 years or older with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At 8 weeks, a significantly higher proportion of patients treated with tapinarof vs vehicle achieved a Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis™ score of 0 or 1 and ≥2-grade improvement from baseline in ADORING 1 (45.4% vs 13.9%) and ADORING 2 (46.4% vs 18.0%) trials (both P < .0001). Few serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported; rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were lower with tapinarof compared to vehicle.

Study details: The phase 3 ADORING 1 (n = 407) and 2 (n = 406) trials included adults and children age 2 years or older with moderate to severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 1% tapinarof cream or vehicle once daily for 8 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Dermavant Sciences, Inc. Five authors declared being employees of or holding stock options in Dermavant Sciences. Several authors declared having other ties with various sources, including Dermavant Sciences.

Source: Silverberg JI, Eichenfield LF, Hebert AA, et al. Tapinarof cream 1% once daily: Significant efficacy in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adults and children down to 2 years of age in the pivotal phase 3 ADORING trials. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024 (May 20). doi:  10.1016/j.jaad.2024.05.023 Source

Key clinical point: Topical 1% tapinarof showed significant clinical efficacy and favorable safety and tolerability in adults and children age 2 years or older with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At 8 weeks, a significantly higher proportion of patients treated with tapinarof vs vehicle achieved a Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis™ score of 0 or 1 and ≥2-grade improvement from baseline in ADORING 1 (45.4% vs 13.9%) and ADORING 2 (46.4% vs 18.0%) trials (both P < .0001). Few serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported; rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were lower with tapinarof compared to vehicle.

Study details: The phase 3 ADORING 1 (n = 407) and 2 (n = 406) trials included adults and children age 2 years or older with moderate to severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive 1% tapinarof cream or vehicle once daily for 8 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Dermavant Sciences, Inc. Five authors declared being employees of or holding stock options in Dermavant Sciences. Several authors declared having other ties with various sources, including Dermavant Sciences.

Source: Silverberg JI, Eichenfield LF, Hebert AA, et al. Tapinarof cream 1% once daily: Significant efficacy in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adults and children down to 2 years of age in the pivotal phase 3 ADORING trials. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024 (May 20). doi:  10.1016/j.jaad.2024.05.023 Source

Key clinical point: A higher body mass index (BMI) was associated with short-term reduction in the efficacy of dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), with no effect on long-term efficacy.

Major finding: At week 16, patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m² vs those with BMI < 25 kg/m² showed a significantly reduced improvement in Eczema Area Severity Index (P < .001), Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (P < .05), and Dermatology Life Quality Index (P < .05) scores, but improvements were comparable at weeks 24 and 52. However, all patients showed significant improvement in all scores from baseline to week 16, which was sustained till week 52.

Study details: This single-center, retrospective study included 839 adult patients with moderate to severe AD and a BMI < 25 kg/m² or ≥ 25 kg/m² who received dupilumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Two authors declared serving as investigators, speakers, consultants, or advisory board members for various sources.

Source: Patruno C, Potestio L, Cecere D, et al. The impact of body mass index on dupilumab treatment outcomes in adult atopic dermatitis patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024 (May 19). doi: 10.1111/jdv.20111 Source

Key clinical point: A higher body mass index (BMI) was associated with short-term reduction in the efficacy of dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), with no effect on long-term efficacy.

Major finding: At week 16, patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m² vs those with BMI < 25 kg/m² showed a significantly reduced improvement in Eczema Area Severity Index (P < .001), Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (P < .05), and Dermatology Life Quality Index (P < .05) scores, but improvements were comparable at weeks 24 and 52. However, all patients showed significant improvement in all scores from baseline to week 16, which was sustained till week 52.

Study details: This single-center, retrospective study included 839 adult patients with moderate to severe AD and a BMI < 25 kg/m² or ≥ 25 kg/m² who received dupilumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Two authors declared serving as investigators, speakers, consultants, or advisory board members for various sources.

Source: Patruno C, Potestio L, Cecere D, et al. The impact of body mass index on dupilumab treatment outcomes in adult atopic dermatitis patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024 (May 19). doi: 10.1111/jdv.20111 Source

Key clinical point: A higher body mass index (BMI) was associated with short-term reduction in the efficacy of dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD), with no effect on long-term efficacy.

Major finding: At week 16, patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m² vs those with BMI < 25 kg/m² showed a significantly reduced improvement in Eczema Area Severity Index (P < .001), Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (P < .05), and Dermatology Life Quality Index (P < .05) scores, but improvements were comparable at weeks 24 and 52. However, all patients showed significant improvement in all scores from baseline to week 16, which was sustained till week 52.

Study details: This single-center, retrospective study included 839 adult patients with moderate to severe AD and a BMI < 25 kg/m² or ≥ 25 kg/m² who received dupilumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Two authors declared serving as investigators, speakers, consultants, or advisory board members for various sources.

Source: Patruno C, Potestio L, Cecere D, et al. The impact of body mass index on dupilumab treatment outcomes in adult atopic dermatitis patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024 (May 19). doi: 10.1111/jdv.20111 Source

Key clinical point: Lebrikizumab monotherapy significantly improved skin symptoms and itch in adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At week 16, a higher proportion of patients treated with lebrikizumab vs placebo in ADvocate 1 and 2 achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 with at least a two-point improvement from baseline (46.6% vs 14.3%) and at least a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (62.0% vs 17.3%), with improvements observed as early as week 4 (all P < .05). Consistent corresponding results were observed for ADhere.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the ADvocate 1 and 2 trials and ADhere trial included 148 adolescents with moderate to severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous lebrikizumab or placebo alone in ADvocate 1 and 2 or combined with topical corticosteroids in ADhere.

Disclosures: The three trials were funded by Dermira, Inc., a subsidiary wholly owned by Eli Lilly and Company. Four authors declared being employees of Eli Lilly and Company. Several authors declared being consultants or speakers for or having other ties with various sources, including Eli Lilly and Company.

Source: Hebert AA, Flohr C, Hong HC, et al. Efficacy of lebrikizumab in adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: 16-week results from three randomized phase 3 clinical trials. J Dermatolog Treat. 2024;35:2324833. doi: 10.1080/09546634.2024.2324833 Source

Key clinical point: Lebrikizumab monotherapy significantly improved skin symptoms and itch in adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At week 16, a higher proportion of patients treated with lebrikizumab vs placebo in ADvocate 1 and 2 achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 with at least a two-point improvement from baseline (46.6% vs 14.3%) and at least a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (62.0% vs 17.3%), with improvements observed as early as week 4 (all P < .05). Consistent corresponding results were observed for ADhere.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the ADvocate 1 and 2 trials and ADhere trial included 148 adolescents with moderate to severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous lebrikizumab or placebo alone in ADvocate 1 and 2 or combined with topical corticosteroids in ADhere.

Disclosures: The three trials were funded by Dermira, Inc., a subsidiary wholly owned by Eli Lilly and Company. Four authors declared being employees of Eli Lilly and Company. Several authors declared being consultants or speakers for or having other ties with various sources, including Eli Lilly and Company.

Source: Hebert AA, Flohr C, Hong HC, et al. Efficacy of lebrikizumab in adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: 16-week results from three randomized phase 3 clinical trials. J Dermatolog Treat. 2024;35:2324833. doi: 10.1080/09546634.2024.2324833 Source

Key clinical point: Lebrikizumab monotherapy significantly improved skin symptoms and itch in adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At week 16, a higher proportion of patients treated with lebrikizumab vs placebo in ADvocate 1 and 2 achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 with at least a two-point improvement from baseline (46.6% vs 14.3%) and at least a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (62.0% vs 17.3%), with improvements observed as early as week 4 (all P < .05). Consistent corresponding results were observed for ADhere.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the ADvocate 1 and 2 trials and ADhere trial included 148 adolescents with moderate to severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous lebrikizumab or placebo alone in ADvocate 1 and 2 or combined with topical corticosteroids in ADhere.

Disclosures: The three trials were funded by Dermira, Inc., a subsidiary wholly owned by Eli Lilly and Company. Four authors declared being employees of Eli Lilly and Company. Several authors declared being consultants or speakers for or having other ties with various sources, including Eli Lilly and Company.

Source: Hebert AA, Flohr C, Hong HC, et al. Efficacy of lebrikizumab in adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: 16-week results from three randomized phase 3 clinical trials. J Dermatolog Treat. 2024;35:2324833. doi: 10.1080/09546634.2024.2324833 Source

Key clinical point: Dupilumab demonstrated sustained clinical benefits and an acceptable long-term safety profile in children age 6 months to 5 years with uncontrolled moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At week 52, 36.2% of patients achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, and 96.6%, 79.3%, and 58.6% of patients achieved at least a 50%, 75%, and 90% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score, respectively. Overall, 78.2% of patients reported one or more treatment-emergent adverse events, most of mild or moderate severity.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study that included 142 children with moderate to severe AD who had previously participated in the LIBERTY AD PRESCHOOL part B study and received a weight-tiered dose of 200 mg or 300 mg of subcutaneous dupilumab every 4 weeks.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. Five authors declared being employees of or holding stocks or stock options in Sanofi or Regeneron. The other authors declared having ties with various sources, including Sanofi and Regeneron.

Source: Paller AS, Siegfried EC, Simpson EL, et al. Dupilumab safety and efficacy up to 1 year in children aged 6 months to 5 years with atopic dermatitis: Results from a phase 3 open-label extension study. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2024 (May 14). doi: 10.1007/s40257-024-00859-y Source

Key clinical point: Dupilumab demonstrated sustained clinical benefits and an acceptable long-term safety profile in children age 6 months to 5 years with uncontrolled moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At week 52, 36.2% of patients achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, and 96.6%, 79.3%, and 58.6% of patients achieved at least a 50%, 75%, and 90% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score, respectively. Overall, 78.2% of patients reported one or more treatment-emergent adverse events, most of mild or moderate severity.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study that included 142 children with moderate to severe AD who had previously participated in the LIBERTY AD PRESCHOOL part B study and received a weight-tiered dose of 200 mg or 300 mg of subcutaneous dupilumab every 4 weeks.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. Five authors declared being employees of or holding stocks or stock options in Sanofi or Regeneron. The other authors declared having ties with various sources, including Sanofi and Regeneron.

Source: Paller AS, Siegfried EC, Simpson EL, et al. Dupilumab safety and efficacy up to 1 year in children aged 6 months to 5 years with atopic dermatitis: Results from a phase 3 open-label extension study. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2024 (May 14). doi: 10.1007/s40257-024-00859-y Source

Key clinical point: Dupilumab demonstrated sustained clinical benefits and an acceptable long-term safety profile in children age 6 months to 5 years with uncontrolled moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At week 52, 36.2% of patients achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, and 96.6%, 79.3%, and 58.6% of patients achieved at least a 50%, 75%, and 90% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score, respectively. Overall, 78.2% of patients reported one or more treatment-emergent adverse events, most of mild or moderate severity.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 LIBERTY AD PED-OLE study that included 142 children with moderate to severe AD who had previously participated in the LIBERTY AD PRESCHOOL part B study and received a weight-tiered dose of 200 mg or 300 mg of subcutaneous dupilumab every 4 weeks.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. Five authors declared being employees of or holding stocks or stock options in Sanofi or Regeneron. The other authors declared having ties with various sources, including Sanofi and Regeneron.

Source: Paller AS, Siegfried EC, Simpson EL, et al. Dupilumab safety and efficacy up to 1 year in children aged 6 months to 5 years with atopic dermatitis: Results from a phase 3 open-label extension study. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2024 (May 14). doi: 10.1007/s40257-024-00859-y Source

Key clinical point: Use of e-cigarettes by parents is associated with an increased risk for atopic dermatitis (AD) in children.

Major finding: The prevalence of parental e-cigarette use was 18.0% (95% CI 16.5%-19.0%) among children with AD and 14.4% (95% CI 13.9%-15.0%) among those without AD. The risk for AD was significantly higher in children whose parents used e-cigarettes (adjusted odds ratio 1.24; P = .002).

Study details: This retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of data from the US National Health Interview Survey (2014-2018) included 48,637,111 children (age < 18 years), of whom 6,354,515 had a history of AD.

Disclosures: This study did not receive specific funding from any sources. Albert S. Chiou declared receiving consultation fees from Corvus Therapeutics outside the submitted work.

Source: Youn GM, Sarin KY, Chiou AS, et al. Parental e-cigarette use and pediatric atopic dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol. 2024 (May 22). doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.1283 Source

Key clinical point: Use of e-cigarettes by parents is associated with an increased risk for atopic dermatitis (AD) in children.

Major finding: The prevalence of parental e-cigarette use was 18.0% (95% CI 16.5%-19.0%) among children with AD and 14.4% (95% CI 13.9%-15.0%) among those without AD. The risk for AD was significantly higher in children whose parents used e-cigarettes (adjusted odds ratio 1.24; P = .002).

Study details: This retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of data from the US National Health Interview Survey (2014-2018) included 48,637,111 children (age < 18 years), of whom 6,354,515 had a history of AD.

Disclosures: This study did not receive specific funding from any sources. Albert S. Chiou declared receiving consultation fees from Corvus Therapeutics outside the submitted work.

Source: Youn GM, Sarin KY, Chiou AS, et al. Parental e-cigarette use and pediatric atopic dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol. 2024 (May 22). doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.1283 Source

Key clinical point: Use of e-cigarettes by parents is associated with an increased risk for atopic dermatitis (AD) in children.

Major finding: The prevalence of parental e-cigarette use was 18.0% (95% CI 16.5%-19.0%) among children with AD and 14.4% (95% CI 13.9%-15.0%) among those without AD. The risk for AD was significantly higher in children whose parents used e-cigarettes (adjusted odds ratio 1.24; P = .002).

Study details: This retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of data from the US National Health Interview Survey (2014-2018) included 48,637,111 children (age < 18 years), of whom 6,354,515 had a history of AD.

Disclosures: This study did not receive specific funding from any sources. Albert S. Chiou declared receiving consultation fees from Corvus Therapeutics outside the submitted work.

Source: Youn GM, Sarin KY, Chiou AS, et al. Parental e-cigarette use and pediatric atopic dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol. 2024 (May 22). doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.1283 Source

Key clinical point: High dietary intake of sodium, estimated according to 24-hour urinary sodium excretion, was associated with a greater likelihood of atopic dermatitis (AD) diagnosis, having active AD, and increasing severity of AD.

Major finding: A 1-g increase in estimated 24-hour urine sodium excretion was associated with an increased likelihood of AD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.11; 95% CI 1.07-1.14), active AD (aOR 1.16; 95% CI 1.05-1.28), and increasing AD severity (aOR 1.11; 95% CI 1.07-1.15).

Study details: This cross-sectional study evaluated the association between high levels of dietary sodium intake and AD prevalence, activity, and severity in 215,832 adults from the UK Biobank cohort, of whom 10,839 had AD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the Medical Student in Aging Research Program and US National Institute on Aging and by the National Eczema Association. One author declared receiving research funding to her institution and consulting fees from various sources.

Source: Chiang BM, Ye M, Chattopadhyay A, et al. Sodium intake and atopic dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol. 2024 (Jun 5). doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.1544 Source

Key clinical point: High dietary intake of sodium, estimated according to 24-hour urinary sodium excretion, was associated with a greater likelihood of atopic dermatitis (AD) diagnosis, having active AD, and increasing severity of AD.

Major finding: A 1-g increase in estimated 24-hour urine sodium excretion was associated with an increased likelihood of AD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.11; 95% CI 1.07-1.14), active AD (aOR 1.16; 95% CI 1.05-1.28), and increasing AD severity (aOR 1.11; 95% CI 1.07-1.15).

Study details: This cross-sectional study evaluated the association between high levels of dietary sodium intake and AD prevalence, activity, and severity in 215,832 adults from the UK Biobank cohort, of whom 10,839 had AD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the Medical Student in Aging Research Program and US National Institute on Aging and by the National Eczema Association. One author declared receiving research funding to her institution and consulting fees from various sources.

Source: Chiang BM, Ye M, Chattopadhyay A, et al. Sodium intake and atopic dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol. 2024 (Jun 5). doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.1544 Source

Key clinical point: High dietary intake of sodium, estimated according to 24-hour urinary sodium excretion, was associated with a greater likelihood of atopic dermatitis (AD) diagnosis, having active AD, and increasing severity of AD.

Major finding: A 1-g increase in estimated 24-hour urine sodium excretion was associated with an increased likelihood of AD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.11; 95% CI 1.07-1.14), active AD (aOR 1.16; 95% CI 1.05-1.28), and increasing AD severity (aOR 1.11; 95% CI 1.07-1.15).

Study details: This cross-sectional study evaluated the association between high levels of dietary sodium intake and AD prevalence, activity, and severity in 215,832 adults from the UK Biobank cohort, of whom 10,839 had AD.

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the Medical Student in Aging Research Program and US National Institute on Aging and by the National Eczema Association. One author declared receiving research funding to her institution and consulting fees from various sources.

Source: Chiang BM, Ye M, Chattopadhyay A, et al. Sodium intake and atopic dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol. 2024 (Jun 5). doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.1544 Source

A hot topic of PsA research is whether treating psoriasis patients with biologics reduces the risk of developing PsA. Floris and colleagues analyzed data from 1023 patients with psoriasis aged 18 years or older, of whom 29.6% received biologics at least once and 21.0% had PsA. They observed that patients treated at least once vs never treated with biologics had a significantly lower risk for PsA. The "protective" effect of biologics against PsA persisted irrespective of the class of biologic used. However, the study has many built-in biases; it was not a prospective study of psoriasis patients without PsA, but rather a retrospective analysis of data collected at enrollment. Nevertheless, effective psoriasis therapies may indeed reduce the risk for PsA; prospective interventional studies are required and are currently underway.

Development of radiographic damage indicates severe PsA and affects quality of life and physical function. Identifying patients at risk for joint damage may help treatment stratification. Using data from a real-world cohort of 476 patients with early PsA, of whom 14% demonstrated progressive radiographic damage, Koc and colleagues found that female sex was a protective factor whereas old age and initial radiographic damage were risk factors for radiographic progression. These results are consistent with previous studies. Male sex, older age, and presence of radiographic damage at first visit should prompt more aggressive management to prevent further joint damage.

Regarding newer treatments, Gossec and colleagues demonstrated that bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting both interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, improved disease effects in a rapid and sustained manner in patients with PsA who had not used biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or had prior inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Bimekizumab is a welcome addition to the drugs available to manage PsA. Its comparative efficacy against other targeted therapies, especially other IL-17 inhibitors, is yet to be determined.

Finally, a study from the Greek multicenter PsA registry by Vassilakis and colleagues showed that, of 467 patients with PsA, 16.5% had D2T PsA. Compared with non–D2T patients, those with D2T disease were more likely to have extensive psoriasis at diagnosis, higher body mass index, and a history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Treatment-resistant disease is increasingly prevalent in PsA. Certain diseases and comorbidities, such as IBD and obesity, are associated with D2T PsA. A uniform definition of D2T PsA and prospective studies to identify risk factors, as well as new strategies to manage D2T PsA, are required.

A hot topic of PsA research is whether treating psoriasis patients with biologics reduces the risk of developing PsA. Floris and colleagues analyzed data from 1023 patients with psoriasis aged 18 years or older, of whom 29.6% received biologics at least once and 21.0% had PsA. They observed that patients treated at least once vs never treated with biologics had a significantly lower risk for PsA. The "protective" effect of biologics against PsA persisted irrespective of the class of biologic used. However, the study has many built-in biases; it was not a prospective study of psoriasis patients without PsA, but rather a retrospective analysis of data collected at enrollment. Nevertheless, effective psoriasis therapies may indeed reduce the risk for PsA; prospective interventional studies are required and are currently underway.

Development of radiographic damage indicates severe PsA and affects quality of life and physical function. Identifying patients at risk for joint damage may help treatment stratification. Using data from a real-world cohort of 476 patients with early PsA, of whom 14% demonstrated progressive radiographic damage, Koc and colleagues found that female sex was a protective factor whereas old age and initial radiographic damage were risk factors for radiographic progression. These results are consistent with previous studies. Male sex, older age, and presence of radiographic damage at first visit should prompt more aggressive management to prevent further joint damage.

Regarding newer treatments, Gossec and colleagues demonstrated that bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting both interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, improved disease effects in a rapid and sustained manner in patients with PsA who had not used biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or had prior inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Bimekizumab is a welcome addition to the drugs available to manage PsA. Its comparative efficacy against other targeted therapies, especially other IL-17 inhibitors, is yet to be determined.

Finally, a study from the Greek multicenter PsA registry by Vassilakis and colleagues showed that, of 467 patients with PsA, 16.5% had D2T PsA. Compared with non–D2T patients, those with D2T disease were more likely to have extensive psoriasis at diagnosis, higher body mass index, and a history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Treatment-resistant disease is increasingly prevalent in PsA. Certain diseases and comorbidities, such as IBD and obesity, are associated with D2T PsA. A uniform definition of D2T PsA and prospective studies to identify risk factors, as well as new strategies to manage D2T PsA, are required.

A hot topic of PsA research is whether treating psoriasis patients with biologics reduces the risk of developing PsA. Floris and colleagues analyzed data from 1023 patients with psoriasis aged 18 years or older, of whom 29.6% received biologics at least once and 21.0% had PsA. They observed that patients treated at least once vs never treated with biologics had a significantly lower risk for PsA. The "protective" effect of biologics against PsA persisted irrespective of the class of biologic used. However, the study has many built-in biases; it was not a prospective study of psoriasis patients without PsA, but rather a retrospective analysis of data collected at enrollment. Nevertheless, effective psoriasis therapies may indeed reduce the risk for PsA; prospective interventional studies are required and are currently underway.

Development of radiographic damage indicates severe PsA and affects quality of life and physical function. Identifying patients at risk for joint damage may help treatment stratification. Using data from a real-world cohort of 476 patients with early PsA, of whom 14% demonstrated progressive radiographic damage, Koc and colleagues found that female sex was a protective factor whereas old age and initial radiographic damage were risk factors for radiographic progression. These results are consistent with previous studies. Male sex, older age, and presence of radiographic damage at first visit should prompt more aggressive management to prevent further joint damage.

Regarding newer treatments, Gossec and colleagues demonstrated that bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting both interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, improved disease effects in a rapid and sustained manner in patients with PsA who had not used biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or had prior inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Bimekizumab is a welcome addition to the drugs available to manage PsA. Its comparative efficacy against other targeted therapies, especially other IL-17 inhibitors, is yet to be determined.

Finally, a study from the Greek multicenter PsA registry by Vassilakis and colleagues showed that, of 467 patients with PsA, 16.5% had D2T PsA. Compared with non–D2T patients, those with D2T disease were more likely to have extensive psoriasis at diagnosis, higher body mass index, and a history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Treatment-resistant disease is increasingly prevalent in PsA. Certain diseases and comorbidities, such as IBD and obesity, are associated with D2T PsA. A uniform definition of D2T PsA and prospective studies to identify risk factors, as well as new strategies to manage D2T PsA, are required.

A hot topic of PsA research is whether treating psoriasis patients with biologics reduces the risk of developing PsA. Floris and colleagues analyzed data from 1023 patients with psoriasis aged 18 years or older, of whom 29.6% received biologics at least once and 21.0% had PsA. They observed that patients treated at least once vs never treated with biologics had a significantly lower risk for PsA. The "protective" effect of biologics against PsA persisted irrespective of the class of biologic used. However, the study has many built-in biases; it was not a prospective study of psoriasis patients without PsA, but rather a retrospective analysis of data collected at enrollment. Nevertheless, effective psoriasis therapies may indeed reduce the risk for PsA; prospective interventional studies are required and are currently underway.

Development of radiographic damage indicates severe PsA and affects quality of life and physical function. Identifying patients at risk for joint damage may help treatment stratification. Using data from a real-world cohort of 476 patients with early PsA, of whom 14% demonstrated progressive radiographic damage, Koc and colleagues found that female sex was a protective factor whereas old age and initial radiographic damage were risk factors for radiographic progression. These results are consistent with previous studies. Male sex, older age, and presence of radiographic damage at first visit should prompt more aggressive management to prevent further joint damage.

Regarding newer treatments, Gossec and colleagues demonstrated that bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting both interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, improved disease effects in a rapid and sustained manner in patients with PsA who had not used biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or had prior inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Bimekizumab is a welcome addition to the drugs available to manage PsA. Its comparative efficacy against other targeted therapies, especially other IL-17 inhibitors, is yet to be determined.

Finally, a study from the Greek multicenter PsA registry by Vassilakis and colleagues showed that, of 467 patients with PsA, 16.5% had D2T PsA. Compared with non–D2T patients, those with D2T disease were more likely to have extensive psoriasis at diagnosis, higher body mass index, and a history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Treatment-resistant disease is increasingly prevalent in PsA. Certain diseases and comorbidities, such as IBD and obesity, are associated with D2T PsA. A uniform definition of D2T PsA and prospective studies to identify risk factors, as well as new strategies to manage D2T PsA, are required.

A hot topic of PsA research is whether treating psoriasis patients with biologics reduces the risk of developing PsA. Floris and colleagues analyzed data from 1023 patients with psoriasis aged 18 years or older, of whom 29.6% received biologics at least once and 21.0% had PsA. They observed that patients treated at least once vs never treated with biologics had a significantly lower risk for PsA. The "protective" effect of biologics against PsA persisted irrespective of the class of biologic used. However, the study has many built-in biases; it was not a prospective study of psoriasis patients without PsA, but rather a retrospective analysis of data collected at enrollment. Nevertheless, effective psoriasis therapies may indeed reduce the risk for PsA; prospective interventional studies are required and are currently underway.

Development of radiographic damage indicates severe PsA and affects quality of life and physical function. Identifying patients at risk for joint damage may help treatment stratification. Using data from a real-world cohort of 476 patients with early PsA, of whom 14% demonstrated progressive radiographic damage, Koc and colleagues found that female sex was a protective factor whereas old age and initial radiographic damage were risk factors for radiographic progression. These results are consistent with previous studies. Male sex, older age, and presence of radiographic damage at first visit should prompt more aggressive management to prevent further joint damage.

Regarding newer treatments, Gossec and colleagues demonstrated that bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting both interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, improved disease effects in a rapid and sustained manner in patients with PsA who had not used biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or had prior inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Bimekizumab is a welcome addition to the drugs available to manage PsA. Its comparative efficacy against other targeted therapies, especially other IL-17 inhibitors, is yet to be determined.

Finally, a study from the Greek multicenter PsA registry by Vassilakis and colleagues showed that, of 467 patients with PsA, 16.5% had D2T PsA. Compared with non–D2T patients, those with D2T disease were more likely to have extensive psoriasis at diagnosis, higher body mass index, and a history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Treatment-resistant disease is increasingly prevalent in PsA. Certain diseases and comorbidities, such as IBD and obesity, are associated with D2T PsA. A uniform definition of D2T PsA and prospective studies to identify risk factors, as well as new strategies to manage D2T PsA, are required.

A hot topic of PsA research is whether treating psoriasis patients with biologics reduces the risk of developing PsA. Floris and colleagues analyzed data from 1023 patients with psoriasis aged 18 years or older, of whom 29.6% received biologics at least once and 21.0% had PsA. They observed that patients treated at least once vs never treated with biologics had a significantly lower risk for PsA. The "protective" effect of biologics against PsA persisted irrespective of the class of biologic used. However, the study has many built-in biases; it was not a prospective study of psoriasis patients without PsA, but rather a retrospective analysis of data collected at enrollment. Nevertheless, effective psoriasis therapies may indeed reduce the risk for PsA; prospective interventional studies are required and are currently underway.

Development of radiographic damage indicates severe PsA and affects quality of life and physical function. Identifying patients at risk for joint damage may help treatment stratification. Using data from a real-world cohort of 476 patients with early PsA, of whom 14% demonstrated progressive radiographic damage, Koc and colleagues found that female sex was a protective factor whereas old age and initial radiographic damage were risk factors for radiographic progression. These results are consistent with previous studies. Male sex, older age, and presence of radiographic damage at first visit should prompt more aggressive management to prevent further joint damage.

Regarding newer treatments, Gossec and colleagues demonstrated that bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting both interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, improved disease effects in a rapid and sustained manner in patients with PsA who had not used biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or had prior inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Bimekizumab is a welcome addition to the drugs available to manage PsA. Its comparative efficacy against other targeted therapies, especially other IL-17 inhibitors, is yet to be determined.

Finally, a study from the Greek multicenter PsA registry by Vassilakis and colleagues showed that, of 467 patients with PsA, 16.5% had D2T PsA. Compared with non–D2T patients, those with D2T disease were more likely to have extensive psoriasis at diagnosis, higher body mass index, and a history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Treatment-resistant disease is increasingly prevalent in PsA. Certain diseases and comorbidities, such as IBD and obesity, are associated with D2T PsA. A uniform definition of D2T PsA and prospective studies to identify risk factors, as well as new strategies to manage D2T PsA, are required.

Not too long ago, prostate-cancer genetics didn’t mean much to patient care. But in recent years, the landscape of therapy has transformed as researchers have discovered links between multiple genes and aggressive tumors. 

Now, as a hematologist-oncologist explained to attendees at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology regional meeting in Detroit, genetic tests can guide treatment for some—but not all—men with prostate cancer.

For patients with mutations, appropriate supplemental medications “can improve overall outcomes and have a long-standing impact on patients” said Scott J. Dawsey, MD, of the John D. Dingell Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Detroit in an interview following the AVAHO meeting, which focused on the management of prostate cancer.

As Dawsey explained, about 10% of patients with prostate cancer appear to have genetic mutations, although the exact percentage is unclear. The mutations are especially common in metastatic forms of prostate cancer. They’re estimated to be present in 11.8%-16.2% of those cases.

While these proportions are relatively small, the number of overall prostate-cancer cases with mutations is large due to the high burden of the disease, Dawsey said. Prostate cancer is by far the most common cancer in men, and estimated 299,010 cases will be diagnosed in the United States this year.

According to Dawsey, genetic mutations seem to boost the risk of more aggressive disease—and the risk of other malignancies—by disrupting DNA repair. This process can lead to even more mutations that may “make the cancer behave and grow more aggressively.”

But not all prostate cancer patients need to undergo genetic testing. Dawsey urged colleagues to figure out which patients should be tested by consulting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and the newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway.

The two sets of recommendations agree on germline testing in patients with cases that are metastatic, very high risk, and high risk. Lower-risk cases should only be tested if patients meet family history criteria. The sets of guidelines also recommend somatic testing in patients with metastatic cancer.

In addition to providing guidance about treatment, genetic test results can have implications regarding other potential malignancies that may affect patients, Dawsey said. The results may also have implications for cancer risk in family members.

Several drugs are now available for patients with genetic mutations, including checkpoint inhibitors and PARP inhibitors. The drugs, which have unique mechanisms of action, are given in addition to standard prostate cancer treatments, he said.

“If a patient doesn’t have one of these genetic changes,” he said, “these drugs aren’t an option.”

A long list of drugs or combinations of drugs are in clinical trials, including the poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib, abiraterone, and niraparib and the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and cemiplimab.

The drugs generally improve response rates and progression-free survival, Dawsey said, and patients are generally able to tolerate them. In regard to which drugs to choose, he suggested consulting the and NCCN guidelines and the VA oncology clinical pathway for prostate cancer.

Not too long ago, prostate-cancer genetics didn’t mean much to patient care. But in recent years, the landscape of therapy has transformed as researchers have discovered links between multiple genes and aggressive tumors. 

Now, as a hematologist-oncologist explained to attendees at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology regional meeting in Detroit, genetic tests can guide treatment for some—but not all—men with prostate cancer.

For patients with mutations, appropriate supplemental medications “can improve overall outcomes and have a long-standing impact on patients” said Scott J. Dawsey, MD, of the John D. Dingell Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Detroit in an interview following the AVAHO meeting, which focused on the management of prostate cancer.

As Dawsey explained, about 10% of patients with prostate cancer appear to have genetic mutations, although the exact percentage is unclear. The mutations are especially common in metastatic forms of prostate cancer. They’re estimated to be present in 11.8%-16.2% of those cases.

While these proportions are relatively small, the number of overall prostate-cancer cases with mutations is large due to the high burden of the disease, Dawsey said. Prostate cancer is by far the most common cancer in men, and estimated 299,010 cases will be diagnosed in the United States this year.

According to Dawsey, genetic mutations seem to boost the risk of more aggressive disease—and the risk of other malignancies—by disrupting DNA repair. This process can lead to even more mutations that may “make the cancer behave and grow more aggressively.”

But not all prostate cancer patients need to undergo genetic testing. Dawsey urged colleagues to figure out which patients should be tested by consulting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and the newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway.

The two sets of recommendations agree on germline testing in patients with cases that are metastatic, very high risk, and high risk. Lower-risk cases should only be tested if patients meet family history criteria. The sets of guidelines also recommend somatic testing in patients with metastatic cancer.

In addition to providing guidance about treatment, genetic test results can have implications regarding other potential malignancies that may affect patients, Dawsey said. The results may also have implications for cancer risk in family members.

Several drugs are now available for patients with genetic mutations, including checkpoint inhibitors and PARP inhibitors. The drugs, which have unique mechanisms of action, are given in addition to standard prostate cancer treatments, he said.

“If a patient doesn’t have one of these genetic changes,” he said, “these drugs aren’t an option.”

A long list of drugs or combinations of drugs are in clinical trials, including the poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib, abiraterone, and niraparib and the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and cemiplimab.

The drugs generally improve response rates and progression-free survival, Dawsey said, and patients are generally able to tolerate them. In regard to which drugs to choose, he suggested consulting the and NCCN guidelines and the VA oncology clinical pathway for prostate cancer.

Not too long ago, prostate-cancer genetics didn’t mean much to patient care. But in recent years, the landscape of therapy has transformed as researchers have discovered links between multiple genes and aggressive tumors. 

Now, as a hematologist-oncologist explained to attendees at an Association of VA Hematology/Oncology regional meeting in Detroit, genetic tests can guide treatment for some—but not all—men with prostate cancer.

For patients with mutations, appropriate supplemental medications “can improve overall outcomes and have a long-standing impact on patients” said Scott J. Dawsey, MD, of the John D. Dingell Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Detroit in an interview following the AVAHO meeting, which focused on the management of prostate cancer.

As Dawsey explained, about 10% of patients with prostate cancer appear to have genetic mutations, although the exact percentage is unclear. The mutations are especially common in metastatic forms of prostate cancer. They’re estimated to be present in 11.8%-16.2% of those cases.

While these proportions are relatively small, the number of overall prostate-cancer cases with mutations is large due to the high burden of the disease, Dawsey said. Prostate cancer is by far the most common cancer in men, and estimated 299,010 cases will be diagnosed in the United States this year.

According to Dawsey, genetic mutations seem to boost the risk of more aggressive disease—and the risk of other malignancies—by disrupting DNA repair. This process can lead to even more mutations that may “make the cancer behave and grow more aggressively.”

But not all prostate cancer patients need to undergo genetic testing. Dawsey urged colleagues to figure out which patients should be tested by consulting National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and the newly updated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prostate cancer clinical pathway.

The two sets of recommendations agree on germline testing in patients with cases that are metastatic, very high risk, and high risk. Lower-risk cases should only be tested if patients meet family history criteria. The sets of guidelines also recommend somatic testing in patients with metastatic cancer.

In addition to providing guidance about treatment, genetic test results can have implications regarding other potential malignancies that may affect patients, Dawsey said. The results may also have implications for cancer risk in family members.

Several drugs are now available for patients with genetic mutations, including checkpoint inhibitors and PARP inhibitors. The drugs, which have unique mechanisms of action, are given in addition to standard prostate cancer treatments, he said.

“If a patient doesn’t have one of these genetic changes,” he said, “these drugs aren’t an option.”

A long list of drugs or combinations of drugs are in clinical trials, including the poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors olaparib, abiraterone, and niraparib and the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and cemiplimab.

The drugs generally improve response rates and progression-free survival, Dawsey said, and patients are generally able to tolerate them. In regard to which drugs to choose, he suggested consulting the and NCCN guidelines and the VA oncology clinical pathway for prostate cancer.