MDedge Dermatology

PARIS – “It’s not just what you give, it’s when you give it,” said the investigator reporting “that the same treatment for resectable melanoma given in a different sequence can generate lower rates of melanoma recurrence.”

Sapna Patel, MD, associate professor of melanoma medical oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, reported the results from the SWOG S1801 trial, which showed that patients with high-risk melanoma who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery had significantly longer event-free survival than patients who received pembrolizumab after surgery only.

At a median follow-up of almost 15 months, there was a 42% lower rate of recurrence or death.

“Compared to the same treatment given entirely in the adjuvant setting, neoadjuvant pembrolizumab followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab improves event-free survival in resectable melanoma,” Dr. Patel commented.

She suggested that the explanation for the findings was that “inhibiting the PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoints before surgery gives an antitumor response at local and distant sites, and this occurs before resection of the tumor bed. This approach tends to leave behind a larger number of anti-tumor T cells ... [and] these T cells can be activated and circulated systematically to recognize and attack micro-metastatic melanoma tumors.”

The findings were presented during a presidential symposium at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2022, Paris.

“This trial provides us with more evidence of when one strategy may be preferred over the other,” commented Maya Dimitrova, MD, medical oncologist at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center. She was not involved with the trial.

“Neoadjuvant immunotherapy has elicited impressive complete pathologic responses, which thus far have proven to be associated with a durable response. Neoadjuvant therapy may help identify patients who will respond well to checkpoint inhibitors and allow for de-escalation of therapy,” she told this news organization when approached for comment.

“As with all neoadjuvant therapy, we don’t want the treatment to compromise the outcomes of surgery when the intent is curative, and we once again have evidence that this is not the case when it comes to immune therapy,” she said. However, she added that “we will need further survival data to really change the standard of practice in high-risk melanoma and demonstrate whether there is a superior sequence of therapy and surgery.”

 

Details of the new results

The S1801 clinical trial enrolled 345 participants with stage IIIB through stage IV melanoma considered resectable. The cohort was randomized to receive either upfront surgery followed by 18 doses of pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses or neoadjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab 200 mg (3 doses) followed by 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab.

The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS), defined as the time from randomization to the occurrence of one of the following: disease progression or toxicity that resulted in not receiving surgery, failure to begin adjuvant therapy within 84 days of surgery, melanoma recurrence after surgery, or death from any cause.

At a median follow-up of 14.7 months, EFS was significantly higher for patients in the neoadjuvant group, compared with those receiving adjuvant therapy only (HR, 0.58; one-sided log-rank P = .004). A total of 36 participants died in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant groups (14 and 22 patients, extrapolating to a hazard ratio of 0.63; one-sided P = .091).

“With a limited number of events, overall survival is not statistically different at this time,” Dr. Patel said. “Landmark 2-year survival was 72% in the neoadjuvant arm and 49% in the adjuvant arm.”

The authors note that the benefit of neoadjuvant therapy remained consistent across a range of factors, including patient age, sex, performance status, stage of disease, ulceration, and BRAF status. The same proportion of patients in both groups received adjuvant pembrolizumab following surgery.

Rates of adverse events were similar in both groups, and neoadjuvant pembrolizumab did not result in an increase in adverse events related to surgery. In the neoadjuvant group, 28 patients (21%) with submitted pathology reports were noted to have had a complete pathologic response (0% viable tumor) on local review.
 

Questions remain

Invited discussant James Larkin, PhD, FRCP, FMedSci, a clinical researcher at The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, noted that the study had “striking results” and was a landmark trial with a simple but powerful design.

However, he pointed to some questions which need to be addressed in the future. “One important question is what is the optimal duration of neoadjuvant treatment, and can we individualize it?”

Another question is just how much postoperative treatment is really needed and whether pathology help determine that. “Can surgery be safely avoided altogether?” he asked. “Another issue is the need for anti-CTL4 therapy – which patients might benefit from anti-CTL4, in addition to anti-PD-1?”

“And by extension, this paradigm provides a great platform for testing new agents, including combinations in cases where PD-1 is not sufficient to achieve a sufficient response,” said Dr. Larkin. “In the future, trials addressing these questions hand us a major opportunity to individualize and rationally de-escalate treatment.”

Also weighing in on the study, another expert pointed out that neoadjuvant therapy in this setting is already being considered as an option. “The use of immunotherapy before surgery has been reported in some trials such as the OPACIN-neo and PRADO trials,” said Anthony J. Olszanski, RPh, MD, Vice Chair of Research at the Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia. “Results have been quite exciting and have led the NCCN to list this as a potential option for some patients in the current melanoma guidelines.”

S1801 is funded by the NIH/NCI and in part by MSD through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the NCI. Pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA) is Merck’s anti-PD-1 therapy. Dr. Patel has declared multiple relationships with industry as noted in the abstract; several co-authors have also made disclosures. Dr. Olszanski has reported participating in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, and InstilBio and running trials for them.

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

PARIS – “It’s not just what you give, it’s when you give it,” said the investigator reporting “that the same treatment for resectable melanoma given in a different sequence can generate lower rates of melanoma recurrence.”

Sapna Patel, MD, associate professor of melanoma medical oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, reported the results from the SWOG S1801 trial, which showed that patients with high-risk melanoma who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery had significantly longer event-free survival than patients who received pembrolizumab after surgery only.

At a median follow-up of almost 15 months, there was a 42% lower rate of recurrence or death.

“Compared to the same treatment given entirely in the adjuvant setting, neoadjuvant pembrolizumab followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab improves event-free survival in resectable melanoma,” Dr. Patel commented.

She suggested that the explanation for the findings was that “inhibiting the PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoints before surgery gives an antitumor response at local and distant sites, and this occurs before resection of the tumor bed. This approach tends to leave behind a larger number of anti-tumor T cells ... [and] these T cells can be activated and circulated systematically to recognize and attack micro-metastatic melanoma tumors.”

The findings were presented during a presidential symposium at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2022, Paris.

“This trial provides us with more evidence of when one strategy may be preferred over the other,” commented Maya Dimitrova, MD, medical oncologist at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center. She was not involved with the trial.

“Neoadjuvant immunotherapy has elicited impressive complete pathologic responses, which thus far have proven to be associated with a durable response. Neoadjuvant therapy may help identify patients who will respond well to checkpoint inhibitors and allow for de-escalation of therapy,” she told this news organization when approached for comment.

“As with all neoadjuvant therapy, we don’t want the treatment to compromise the outcomes of surgery when the intent is curative, and we once again have evidence that this is not the case when it comes to immune therapy,” she said. However, she added that “we will need further survival data to really change the standard of practice in high-risk melanoma and demonstrate whether there is a superior sequence of therapy and surgery.”

 

Details of the new results

The S1801 clinical trial enrolled 345 participants with stage IIIB through stage IV melanoma considered resectable. The cohort was randomized to receive either upfront surgery followed by 18 doses of pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses or neoadjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab 200 mg (3 doses) followed by 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab.

The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS), defined as the time from randomization to the occurrence of one of the following: disease progression or toxicity that resulted in not receiving surgery, failure to begin adjuvant therapy within 84 days of surgery, melanoma recurrence after surgery, or death from any cause.

At a median follow-up of 14.7 months, EFS was significantly higher for patients in the neoadjuvant group, compared with those receiving adjuvant therapy only (HR, 0.58; one-sided log-rank P = .004). A total of 36 participants died in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant groups (14 and 22 patients, extrapolating to a hazard ratio of 0.63; one-sided P = .091).

“With a limited number of events, overall survival is not statistically different at this time,” Dr. Patel said. “Landmark 2-year survival was 72% in the neoadjuvant arm and 49% in the adjuvant arm.”

The authors note that the benefit of neoadjuvant therapy remained consistent across a range of factors, including patient age, sex, performance status, stage of disease, ulceration, and BRAF status. The same proportion of patients in both groups received adjuvant pembrolizumab following surgery.

Rates of adverse events were similar in both groups, and neoadjuvant pembrolizumab did not result in an increase in adverse events related to surgery. In the neoadjuvant group, 28 patients (21%) with submitted pathology reports were noted to have had a complete pathologic response (0% viable tumor) on local review.
 

Questions remain

Invited discussant James Larkin, PhD, FRCP, FMedSci, a clinical researcher at The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, noted that the study had “striking results” and was a landmark trial with a simple but powerful design.

However, he pointed to some questions which need to be addressed in the future. “One important question is what is the optimal duration of neoadjuvant treatment, and can we individualize it?”

Another question is just how much postoperative treatment is really needed and whether pathology help determine that. “Can surgery be safely avoided altogether?” he asked. “Another issue is the need for anti-CTL4 therapy – which patients might benefit from anti-CTL4, in addition to anti-PD-1?”

“And by extension, this paradigm provides a great platform for testing new agents, including combinations in cases where PD-1 is not sufficient to achieve a sufficient response,” said Dr. Larkin. “In the future, trials addressing these questions hand us a major opportunity to individualize and rationally de-escalate treatment.”

Also weighing in on the study, another expert pointed out that neoadjuvant therapy in this setting is already being considered as an option. “The use of immunotherapy before surgery has been reported in some trials such as the OPACIN-neo and PRADO trials,” said Anthony J. Olszanski, RPh, MD, Vice Chair of Research at the Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia. “Results have been quite exciting and have led the NCCN to list this as a potential option for some patients in the current melanoma guidelines.”

S1801 is funded by the NIH/NCI and in part by MSD through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the NCI. Pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA) is Merck’s anti-PD-1 therapy. Dr. Patel has declared multiple relationships with industry as noted in the abstract; several co-authors have also made disclosures. Dr. Olszanski has reported participating in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, and InstilBio and running trials for them.

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

PARIS – “It’s not just what you give, it’s when you give it,” said the investigator reporting “that the same treatment for resectable melanoma given in a different sequence can generate lower rates of melanoma recurrence.”

Sapna Patel, MD, associate professor of melanoma medical oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, reported the results from the SWOG S1801 trial, which showed that patients with high-risk melanoma who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery had significantly longer event-free survival than patients who received pembrolizumab after surgery only.

At a median follow-up of almost 15 months, there was a 42% lower rate of recurrence or death.

“Compared to the same treatment given entirely in the adjuvant setting, neoadjuvant pembrolizumab followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab improves event-free survival in resectable melanoma,” Dr. Patel commented.

She suggested that the explanation for the findings was that “inhibiting the PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoints before surgery gives an antitumor response at local and distant sites, and this occurs before resection of the tumor bed. This approach tends to leave behind a larger number of anti-tumor T cells ... [and] these T cells can be activated and circulated systematically to recognize and attack micro-metastatic melanoma tumors.”

The findings were presented during a presidential symposium at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2022, Paris.

“This trial provides us with more evidence of when one strategy may be preferred over the other,” commented Maya Dimitrova, MD, medical oncologist at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center. She was not involved with the trial.

“Neoadjuvant immunotherapy has elicited impressive complete pathologic responses, which thus far have proven to be associated with a durable response. Neoadjuvant therapy may help identify patients who will respond well to checkpoint inhibitors and allow for de-escalation of therapy,” she told this news organization when approached for comment.

“As with all neoadjuvant therapy, we don’t want the treatment to compromise the outcomes of surgery when the intent is curative, and we once again have evidence that this is not the case when it comes to immune therapy,” she said. However, she added that “we will need further survival data to really change the standard of practice in high-risk melanoma and demonstrate whether there is a superior sequence of therapy and surgery.”

 

Details of the new results

The S1801 clinical trial enrolled 345 participants with stage IIIB through stage IV melanoma considered resectable. The cohort was randomized to receive either upfront surgery followed by 18 doses of pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses or neoadjuvant therapy with pembrolizumab 200 mg (3 doses) followed by 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab.

The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS), defined as the time from randomization to the occurrence of one of the following: disease progression or toxicity that resulted in not receiving surgery, failure to begin adjuvant therapy within 84 days of surgery, melanoma recurrence after surgery, or death from any cause.

At a median follow-up of 14.7 months, EFS was significantly higher for patients in the neoadjuvant group, compared with those receiving adjuvant therapy only (HR, 0.58; one-sided log-rank P = .004). A total of 36 participants died in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant groups (14 and 22 patients, extrapolating to a hazard ratio of 0.63; one-sided P = .091).

“With a limited number of events, overall survival is not statistically different at this time,” Dr. Patel said. “Landmark 2-year survival was 72% in the neoadjuvant arm and 49% in the adjuvant arm.”

The authors note that the benefit of neoadjuvant therapy remained consistent across a range of factors, including patient age, sex, performance status, stage of disease, ulceration, and BRAF status. The same proportion of patients in both groups received adjuvant pembrolizumab following surgery.

Rates of adverse events were similar in both groups, and neoadjuvant pembrolizumab did not result in an increase in adverse events related to surgery. In the neoadjuvant group, 28 patients (21%) with submitted pathology reports were noted to have had a complete pathologic response (0% viable tumor) on local review.
 

Questions remain

Invited discussant James Larkin, PhD, FRCP, FMedSci, a clinical researcher at The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, noted that the study had “striking results” and was a landmark trial with a simple but powerful design.

However, he pointed to some questions which need to be addressed in the future. “One important question is what is the optimal duration of neoadjuvant treatment, and can we individualize it?”

Another question is just how much postoperative treatment is really needed and whether pathology help determine that. “Can surgery be safely avoided altogether?” he asked. “Another issue is the need for anti-CTL4 therapy – which patients might benefit from anti-CTL4, in addition to anti-PD-1?”

“And by extension, this paradigm provides a great platform for testing new agents, including combinations in cases where PD-1 is not sufficient to achieve a sufficient response,” said Dr. Larkin. “In the future, trials addressing these questions hand us a major opportunity to individualize and rationally de-escalate treatment.”

Also weighing in on the study, another expert pointed out that neoadjuvant therapy in this setting is already being considered as an option. “The use of immunotherapy before surgery has been reported in some trials such as the OPACIN-neo and PRADO trials,” said Anthony J. Olszanski, RPh, MD, Vice Chair of Research at the Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia. “Results have been quite exciting and have led the NCCN to list this as a potential option for some patients in the current melanoma guidelines.”

S1801 is funded by the NIH/NCI and in part by MSD through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the NCI. Pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA) is Merck’s anti-PD-1 therapy. Dr. Patel has declared multiple relationships with industry as noted in the abstract; several co-authors have also made disclosures. Dr. Olszanski has reported participating in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, and InstilBio and running trials for them.

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

PARIS – Cell therapies have already had a huge impact on the treatment of blood cancers, but progress in solid tumors has proved more difficult. Now, in a first multicenter randomized trial to compare the two, a novel cell therapy showed a superior outcome to immunotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma.

The cell therapy used in this trial was composed of adoptive tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), which were made individually for each patient, just as chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR T cells) are for patients with blood cancers. However, the process involved is somewhat different, as TILs are made from lymphocytes that have infiltrated the patient’s tumor and are obtained by surgery in the tumor, whereas CAR T cells are made from circulating blood cells. 

The phase 3 trial involved 168 patients with unresectable stage IIIC-4 melanoma and showed that patients who were treated with TILs achieved a significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with standard immunotherapy with ipilimumab (Yervoy).

The median PFS was more than doubled to 7.2 months with TILs versus 3.1 months with ipilimumab (hazard ratio, 0.50; P < .001).

“We do think that TIL could possibly become a new treatment option for patients with advanced stage melanoma,” commented lead author John Haanen, MD, PhD, research group leader at the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam and a professor in translational immunotherapy of cancer at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.  

He presented the findings at a presidential symposium during the European Society for Medical Oncology Annual Congress, Paris.

“The results of this trial may fuel further research of TIL in other cancer types, potentially demonstrating benefit in many other solid tumors and expanding available treatments for patients,” said Maya Dimitrova, MD, medical oncologist at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center. She was approached for comment by this news organization and was not involved in the research.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies have become the standard of care for advanced melanoma and greatly improved patient outcomes, she said. But as about half of patients treated with these agents will not achieve a durable benefit, there remains a need for new treatment options.

“Although immunotherapy can yield impressive long-term responses, a substantial percentage of patients will have no response, or no durable response, to checkpoint inhibitors,” said Dr. Dimitrova. “TIL therapy has proven effectiveness in melanoma. However, no phase III trials have been done to date to compare its effectiveness to a standard of care regimen.”

She noted that these results are consistent with past reports of an approximately 50% response rate with an impressive 20% complete response rate in the TIL group. Data from a phase 2 trial reported last year, for example, showed an objective response rate of 36.4%.

“It will be important to determine the persistence of antitumor activity and whether there are biomarkers that could help with patient selection given the resource intensity of the therapy,” Dr. Dimitrova said. “TIL therapy will likely become a new standard of care in metastatic melanoma refractory to immune checkpoint inhibitors.” 
 

Superior to immunotherapy

In the current study, Dr. Haanen and colleagues randomly assigned 168 patients to TIL or ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, maximum 4 doses). Patients were stratified for BRAFV600 mutation status, treatment line and center, and the majority (86%) were refractory to anti–PD-1 treatment.

Patients in the TIL group underwent resection of a melanoma lesion (2-3 cm) for the ex vivo outgrowth and expansion of tumor-resident T cells. Before the cultured TILs were infused back into the patients from which they were made, the patient underwent nonmyeloablative, lymphodepleting chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide plus fludarabine that was followed by high-dose interleukin-2.

The study’s primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and secondary endpoints included overall and complete response rate, overall survival, and safety.

At a median follow-up of 33 months, TIL significantly improved progression-free survival, compared with ipilimumab. The overall response rate also favored TIL, compared with ipilimumab (49% vs. 21%), with 20% versus 7% complete responses, respectively.

The median overall survival was 25.8 months for TIL and 18.9 months for ipilimumab (HR, 0.83; P = 0.39).

Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in all TIL and 57% of ipilimumab patients, although Dr. Haanen noted they were manageable and, in most cases, resolved by the time patients were discharged from the hospital.

“There were no new safety concerns with TIL,” said Dr. Haanen, “And these toxicities are driven by the chemotherapy and interleukin-2 that are part of the TIL regimen. There were no long-term sequelae in patients treated with TIL, and health-related quality of life was higher in patients treated with TIL.”
 

Ultra-personalized

Also commenting on the study, Anthony J. Olszanski, MD, RPh, associate professor and vice chair of clinical research, department of hematology/oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, agreed that the treatment of patients with melanoma who do not respond to or progress after receiving treatment with immunotherapy is “challenging and represents an unmet need.”

“TIL therapy is, in some ways, ultra-personalized therapy, because we harvest immune cells from the patient’s tumor, expand them outside of the body, and then re-infuse them,” he said. “This trial, which randomized patients between TIL versus the CTLA-4 inhibitor, ipilimumab, has shown an impressive progression-free survival and overall response rate benefit and will help establish TIL therapy as a viable treatment strategy for some patients.”

The study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, the Dutch Ministry of Health, Stichting Avento, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, the Danish Cancer Society, and Capital Region of Denmark Research Foundation.

Dr. Haanen and several of the co-authors have declared multiple relationships with industry as noted in the abstract. Dr. Olszanski reports participation in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, and Instil Bio, and he reports running trials for them.

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

PARIS – Cell therapies have already had a huge impact on the treatment of blood cancers, but progress in solid tumors has proved more difficult. Now, in a first multicenter randomized trial to compare the two, a novel cell therapy showed a superior outcome to immunotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma.

The cell therapy used in this trial was composed of adoptive tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), which were made individually for each patient, just as chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR T cells) are for patients with blood cancers. However, the process involved is somewhat different, as TILs are made from lymphocytes that have infiltrated the patient’s tumor and are obtained by surgery in the tumor, whereas CAR T cells are made from circulating blood cells. 

The phase 3 trial involved 168 patients with unresectable stage IIIC-4 melanoma and showed that patients who were treated with TILs achieved a significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with standard immunotherapy with ipilimumab (Yervoy).

The median PFS was more than doubled to 7.2 months with TILs versus 3.1 months with ipilimumab (hazard ratio, 0.50; P < .001).

“We do think that TIL could possibly become a new treatment option for patients with advanced stage melanoma,” commented lead author John Haanen, MD, PhD, research group leader at the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam and a professor in translational immunotherapy of cancer at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.  

He presented the findings at a presidential symposium during the European Society for Medical Oncology Annual Congress, Paris.

“The results of this trial may fuel further research of TIL in other cancer types, potentially demonstrating benefit in many other solid tumors and expanding available treatments for patients,” said Maya Dimitrova, MD, medical oncologist at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center. She was approached for comment by this news organization and was not involved in the research.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies have become the standard of care for advanced melanoma and greatly improved patient outcomes, she said. But as about half of patients treated with these agents will not achieve a durable benefit, there remains a need for new treatment options.

“Although immunotherapy can yield impressive long-term responses, a substantial percentage of patients will have no response, or no durable response, to checkpoint inhibitors,” said Dr. Dimitrova. “TIL therapy has proven effectiveness in melanoma. However, no phase III trials have been done to date to compare its effectiveness to a standard of care regimen.”

She noted that these results are consistent with past reports of an approximately 50% response rate with an impressive 20% complete response rate in the TIL group. Data from a phase 2 trial reported last year, for example, showed an objective response rate of 36.4%.

“It will be important to determine the persistence of antitumor activity and whether there are biomarkers that could help with patient selection given the resource intensity of the therapy,” Dr. Dimitrova said. “TIL therapy will likely become a new standard of care in metastatic melanoma refractory to immune checkpoint inhibitors.” 
 

Superior to immunotherapy

In the current study, Dr. Haanen and colleagues randomly assigned 168 patients to TIL or ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, maximum 4 doses). Patients were stratified for BRAFV600 mutation status, treatment line and center, and the majority (86%) were refractory to anti–PD-1 treatment.

Patients in the TIL group underwent resection of a melanoma lesion (2-3 cm) for the ex vivo outgrowth and expansion of tumor-resident T cells. Before the cultured TILs were infused back into the patients from which they were made, the patient underwent nonmyeloablative, lymphodepleting chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide plus fludarabine that was followed by high-dose interleukin-2.

The study’s primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and secondary endpoints included overall and complete response rate, overall survival, and safety.

At a median follow-up of 33 months, TIL significantly improved progression-free survival, compared with ipilimumab. The overall response rate also favored TIL, compared with ipilimumab (49% vs. 21%), with 20% versus 7% complete responses, respectively.

The median overall survival was 25.8 months for TIL and 18.9 months for ipilimumab (HR, 0.83; P = 0.39).

Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in all TIL and 57% of ipilimumab patients, although Dr. Haanen noted they were manageable and, in most cases, resolved by the time patients were discharged from the hospital.

“There were no new safety concerns with TIL,” said Dr. Haanen, “And these toxicities are driven by the chemotherapy and interleukin-2 that are part of the TIL regimen. There were no long-term sequelae in patients treated with TIL, and health-related quality of life was higher in patients treated with TIL.”
 

Ultra-personalized

Also commenting on the study, Anthony J. Olszanski, MD, RPh, associate professor and vice chair of clinical research, department of hematology/oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, agreed that the treatment of patients with melanoma who do not respond to or progress after receiving treatment with immunotherapy is “challenging and represents an unmet need.”

“TIL therapy is, in some ways, ultra-personalized therapy, because we harvest immune cells from the patient’s tumor, expand them outside of the body, and then re-infuse them,” he said. “This trial, which randomized patients between TIL versus the CTLA-4 inhibitor, ipilimumab, has shown an impressive progression-free survival and overall response rate benefit and will help establish TIL therapy as a viable treatment strategy for some patients.”

The study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, the Dutch Ministry of Health, Stichting Avento, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, the Danish Cancer Society, and Capital Region of Denmark Research Foundation.

Dr. Haanen and several of the co-authors have declared multiple relationships with industry as noted in the abstract. Dr. Olszanski reports participation in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, and Instil Bio, and he reports running trials for them.

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

PARIS – Cell therapies have already had a huge impact on the treatment of blood cancers, but progress in solid tumors has proved more difficult. Now, in a first multicenter randomized trial to compare the two, a novel cell therapy showed a superior outcome to immunotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma.

The cell therapy used in this trial was composed of adoptive tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), which were made individually for each patient, just as chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR T cells) are for patients with blood cancers. However, the process involved is somewhat different, as TILs are made from lymphocytes that have infiltrated the patient’s tumor and are obtained by surgery in the tumor, whereas CAR T cells are made from circulating blood cells. 

The phase 3 trial involved 168 patients with unresectable stage IIIC-4 melanoma and showed that patients who were treated with TILs achieved a significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with standard immunotherapy with ipilimumab (Yervoy).

The median PFS was more than doubled to 7.2 months with TILs versus 3.1 months with ipilimumab (hazard ratio, 0.50; P < .001).

“We do think that TIL could possibly become a new treatment option for patients with advanced stage melanoma,” commented lead author John Haanen, MD, PhD, research group leader at the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam and a professor in translational immunotherapy of cancer at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.  

He presented the findings at a presidential symposium during the European Society for Medical Oncology Annual Congress, Paris.

“The results of this trial may fuel further research of TIL in other cancer types, potentially demonstrating benefit in many other solid tumors and expanding available treatments for patients,” said Maya Dimitrova, MD, medical oncologist at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center. She was approached for comment by this news organization and was not involved in the research.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies have become the standard of care for advanced melanoma and greatly improved patient outcomes, she said. But as about half of patients treated with these agents will not achieve a durable benefit, there remains a need for new treatment options.

“Although immunotherapy can yield impressive long-term responses, a substantial percentage of patients will have no response, or no durable response, to checkpoint inhibitors,” said Dr. Dimitrova. “TIL therapy has proven effectiveness in melanoma. However, no phase III trials have been done to date to compare its effectiveness to a standard of care regimen.”

She noted that these results are consistent with past reports of an approximately 50% response rate with an impressive 20% complete response rate in the TIL group. Data from a phase 2 trial reported last year, for example, showed an objective response rate of 36.4%.

“It will be important to determine the persistence of antitumor activity and whether there are biomarkers that could help with patient selection given the resource intensity of the therapy,” Dr. Dimitrova said. “TIL therapy will likely become a new standard of care in metastatic melanoma refractory to immune checkpoint inhibitors.” 
 

Superior to immunotherapy

In the current study, Dr. Haanen and colleagues randomly assigned 168 patients to TIL or ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks, maximum 4 doses). Patients were stratified for BRAFV600 mutation status, treatment line and center, and the majority (86%) were refractory to anti–PD-1 treatment.

Patients in the TIL group underwent resection of a melanoma lesion (2-3 cm) for the ex vivo outgrowth and expansion of tumor-resident T cells. Before the cultured TILs were infused back into the patients from which they were made, the patient underwent nonmyeloablative, lymphodepleting chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide plus fludarabine that was followed by high-dose interleukin-2.

The study’s primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and secondary endpoints included overall and complete response rate, overall survival, and safety.

At a median follow-up of 33 months, TIL significantly improved progression-free survival, compared with ipilimumab. The overall response rate also favored TIL, compared with ipilimumab (49% vs. 21%), with 20% versus 7% complete responses, respectively.

The median overall survival was 25.8 months for TIL and 18.9 months for ipilimumab (HR, 0.83; P = 0.39).

Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in all TIL and 57% of ipilimumab patients, although Dr. Haanen noted they were manageable and, in most cases, resolved by the time patients were discharged from the hospital.

“There were no new safety concerns with TIL,” said Dr. Haanen, “And these toxicities are driven by the chemotherapy and interleukin-2 that are part of the TIL regimen. There were no long-term sequelae in patients treated with TIL, and health-related quality of life was higher in patients treated with TIL.”
 

Ultra-personalized

Also commenting on the study, Anthony J. Olszanski, MD, RPh, associate professor and vice chair of clinical research, department of hematology/oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, agreed that the treatment of patients with melanoma who do not respond to or progress after receiving treatment with immunotherapy is “challenging and represents an unmet need.”

“TIL therapy is, in some ways, ultra-personalized therapy, because we harvest immune cells from the patient’s tumor, expand them outside of the body, and then re-infuse them,” he said. “This trial, which randomized patients between TIL versus the CTLA-4 inhibitor, ipilimumab, has shown an impressive progression-free survival and overall response rate benefit and will help establish TIL therapy as a viable treatment strategy for some patients.”

The study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, the Dutch Ministry of Health, Stichting Avento, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, the Danish Cancer Society, and Capital Region of Denmark Research Foundation.

Dr. Haanen and several of the co-authors have declared multiple relationships with industry as noted in the abstract. Dr. Olszanski reports participation in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, and Instil Bio, and he reports running trials for them.

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

PARIS – Air pollution has been recognized as a risk factor for lung cancer for about 2 decades, and investigators in the UK have now identified a potential mechanism whereby the air we breathe may trigger driver mutations already present in normal lung cells to cause cancer.

Think of it as “smoking gun–level” evidence that may explain why many nonsmokers still develop non–small cell lung cancer, said Charles Swanton, PhD, from the Francis Crick Institute and Cancer Research UK Chief Clinician, London.

“What this work shows is that air pollution is directly causing lung cancer but through a slightly unexpected pathway,” he said at a briefing prior to his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium held earlier this month in Paris at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2022.

Importantly, he and his team also propose a mechanism for blocking the effects of air pollution with monoclonal antibodies directed against the inflammatory cytokine interleukein-1 beta.
 

Carcinogenesis explored

Lung cancer in never-smokers has a low mutational burden, with about 5- to 10-fold fewer mutations in a nonsmoker, compared with an ever smoker or current smoker, Dr. Swanton noted.

“The other thing to say about never-smokers is that they don’t have a clear environmental carcinogenic signature. So how do you square the circle? You’ve got the problem that you know that air pollution is associated with lung cancer – we don’t know if it causes it – but we also see that we’ve got no DNA mutations due to an environmental carcinogen,” he said during his symposium presentation.

The traditional model proposed to explain how carcinogens cause cancer holds that exposure to a carcinogen causes DNA mutations that lead to clonal expansion and tumor growth.

“But there are some major problems with this model,” Dr. Swanton said.

For example, normal skin contains a “patchwork of mutant clones,” but skin cancer is still uncommon, he said, and in studies in mice, 17 of 20 environmental carcinogens did not induce DNA mutations. He also noted that a common melanoma driver mutation, BRAF V600E, is not induced by exposure to a ultraviolet light.

“Any explanation for never-smoking lung cancer would have to fulfill three criteria: one, you have to explain why geographic variation exists; two, you have to prove causation; and three, you have to explain how cancers can be initiated without directly causing DNA mutations,” he said.

Normal lung tissues in nonsmoking adults can harbor pre-existing mutations, with the number of mutations increasing likely as a consequence of aging. In fact, more than 50% of normal lung biopsy tissues have been shown to harbor driver KRAS and/or EGFR mutations, Dr. Swanton said.

“In our research, these mutations alone only weakly potentiated cancer in laboratory models. However, when lung cells with these mutations were exposed to air pollutants, we saw more cancers and these occurred more quickly than when lung cells with these mutations were not exposed to pollutants, suggesting that air pollution promotes the initiation of lung cancer in cells harboring driver gene mutations. The next step is to discover why some lung cells with mutations become cancerous when exposed to pollutants while others don’t,” he said.
 

Geographical exposures

Looking at data on 447,932 participants in the UK Biobank, the investigators found that increasing exposure to ambient air particles smaller than 2.5 mcm (PM_2.5) was significantly associated with seven cancer types, including lung cancer. They also saw an association between PM­­_2.5 exposure levels and EGFR-mutated lung cancer incidence in the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Taiwan.

And crucially, as Dr. Swanton and associates showed in mouse models, exposure of lung cells bearing somatic EGFR and KRAS mutations to PM2.5 causes recruitment of macrophages that in turn secrete IL-1B, resulting in a transdifferentiation of EGFR-mutated cells into a cancer stem cell state, and tumor formation.

Importantly, pollution-induced tumor formation can be blocked by antibodies directed against IL-1B, Dr. Swanton said.

He pointed to a 2017 study in The Lancet suggesting that anti-inflammatory therapy with the anti–IL-1 antibody canakinumab (Ilaris) could reduce incident lung cancer and lung cancer deaths.
 

‘Elegant first demonstration’

“This is a very meaningful demonstration, from epidemiological data to preclinical models of the role of PM_­2.5 air pollutants in the promotion of lung cancer, and it provides us with very important insights into the mechanism through which nonsmokers can get lung cancer,” commented Suzette Delaloge, MD, from the cancer interception program at Institut Goustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, the invited discussant.

“But beyond that, it also has a great impact on our vision of carcinogenesis, with this very elegant first demonstration of the alternative nonmutagenic, carcinogenetic promotion hypothesis for fine particulate matter,” she said.

Questions still to be answered include whether PM_2.5 pollutants could also be mutagenic, is the oncogenic pathway ubiquitous in tissue, which components of PM_2.5 might drive the effect, how long of an exposure is required to promote lung cancer, and why and how persons without cancer develop specific driver mutations such as EGFR, she said.

“This research is intriguing and exciting as it means that we can ask whether, in the future, it will be possible to use lung scans to look for precancerous lesions in the lungs and try to reverse them with medicines such as interleukin-1B inhibitors,” said Tony Mok, MD, a lung cancer specialist at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, who was not involved in the study.

“We don’t yet know whether it will be possible to use highly sensitive EGFR profiling on blood or other samples to find nonsmokers who are predisposed to lung cancer and may benefit from lung scanning, so discussions are still very speculative,” he said in a statement.

The study was supported by Cancer Research UK, the Lung Cancer Research Foundations, Rosetrees Trust, the Mark Foundation for Cancer Research and the Ruth Strauss Foundation. Dr. Swanton disclosed grants/research support, honoraria, and stock ownership with multiple entities. Dr. Delaloge disclosed institutional financing and research funding from multiple companies. Dr. Mok disclosed stock ownership and honoraria with multiple companies.

PARIS – Air pollution has been recognized as a risk factor for lung cancer for about 2 decades, and investigators in the UK have now identified a potential mechanism whereby the air we breathe may trigger driver mutations already present in normal lung cells to cause cancer.

Think of it as “smoking gun–level” evidence that may explain why many nonsmokers still develop non–small cell lung cancer, said Charles Swanton, PhD, from the Francis Crick Institute and Cancer Research UK Chief Clinician, London.

“What this work shows is that air pollution is directly causing lung cancer but through a slightly unexpected pathway,” he said at a briefing prior to his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium held earlier this month in Paris at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2022.

Importantly, he and his team also propose a mechanism for blocking the effects of air pollution with monoclonal antibodies directed against the inflammatory cytokine interleukein-1 beta.
 

Carcinogenesis explored

Lung cancer in never-smokers has a low mutational burden, with about 5- to 10-fold fewer mutations in a nonsmoker, compared with an ever smoker or current smoker, Dr. Swanton noted.

“The other thing to say about never-smokers is that they don’t have a clear environmental carcinogenic signature. So how do you square the circle? You’ve got the problem that you know that air pollution is associated with lung cancer – we don’t know if it causes it – but we also see that we’ve got no DNA mutations due to an environmental carcinogen,” he said during his symposium presentation.

The traditional model proposed to explain how carcinogens cause cancer holds that exposure to a carcinogen causes DNA mutations that lead to clonal expansion and tumor growth.

“But there are some major problems with this model,” Dr. Swanton said.

For example, normal skin contains a “patchwork of mutant clones,” but skin cancer is still uncommon, he said, and in studies in mice, 17 of 20 environmental carcinogens did not induce DNA mutations. He also noted that a common melanoma driver mutation, BRAF V600E, is not induced by exposure to a ultraviolet light.

“Any explanation for never-smoking lung cancer would have to fulfill three criteria: one, you have to explain why geographic variation exists; two, you have to prove causation; and three, you have to explain how cancers can be initiated without directly causing DNA mutations,” he said.

Normal lung tissues in nonsmoking adults can harbor pre-existing mutations, with the number of mutations increasing likely as a consequence of aging. In fact, more than 50% of normal lung biopsy tissues have been shown to harbor driver KRAS and/or EGFR mutations, Dr. Swanton said.

“In our research, these mutations alone only weakly potentiated cancer in laboratory models. However, when lung cells with these mutations were exposed to air pollutants, we saw more cancers and these occurred more quickly than when lung cells with these mutations were not exposed to pollutants, suggesting that air pollution promotes the initiation of lung cancer in cells harboring driver gene mutations. The next step is to discover why some lung cells with mutations become cancerous when exposed to pollutants while others don’t,” he said.
 

Geographical exposures

Looking at data on 447,932 participants in the UK Biobank, the investigators found that increasing exposure to ambient air particles smaller than 2.5 mcm (PM_2.5) was significantly associated with seven cancer types, including lung cancer. They also saw an association between PM­­_2.5 exposure levels and EGFR-mutated lung cancer incidence in the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Taiwan.

And crucially, as Dr. Swanton and associates showed in mouse models, exposure of lung cells bearing somatic EGFR and KRAS mutations to PM2.5 causes recruitment of macrophages that in turn secrete IL-1B, resulting in a transdifferentiation of EGFR-mutated cells into a cancer stem cell state, and tumor formation.

Importantly, pollution-induced tumor formation can be blocked by antibodies directed against IL-1B, Dr. Swanton said.

He pointed to a 2017 study in The Lancet suggesting that anti-inflammatory therapy with the anti–IL-1 antibody canakinumab (Ilaris) could reduce incident lung cancer and lung cancer deaths.
 

‘Elegant first demonstration’

“This is a very meaningful demonstration, from epidemiological data to preclinical models of the role of PM_­2.5 air pollutants in the promotion of lung cancer, and it provides us with very important insights into the mechanism through which nonsmokers can get lung cancer,” commented Suzette Delaloge, MD, from the cancer interception program at Institut Goustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, the invited discussant.

“But beyond that, it also has a great impact on our vision of carcinogenesis, with this very elegant first demonstration of the alternative nonmutagenic, carcinogenetic promotion hypothesis for fine particulate matter,” she said.

Questions still to be answered include whether PM_2.5 pollutants could also be mutagenic, is the oncogenic pathway ubiquitous in tissue, which components of PM_2.5 might drive the effect, how long of an exposure is required to promote lung cancer, and why and how persons without cancer develop specific driver mutations such as EGFR, she said.

“This research is intriguing and exciting as it means that we can ask whether, in the future, it will be possible to use lung scans to look for precancerous lesions in the lungs and try to reverse them with medicines such as interleukin-1B inhibitors,” said Tony Mok, MD, a lung cancer specialist at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, who was not involved in the study.

“We don’t yet know whether it will be possible to use highly sensitive EGFR profiling on blood or other samples to find nonsmokers who are predisposed to lung cancer and may benefit from lung scanning, so discussions are still very speculative,” he said in a statement.

The study was supported by Cancer Research UK, the Lung Cancer Research Foundations, Rosetrees Trust, the Mark Foundation for Cancer Research and the Ruth Strauss Foundation. Dr. Swanton disclosed grants/research support, honoraria, and stock ownership with multiple entities. Dr. Delaloge disclosed institutional financing and research funding from multiple companies. Dr. Mok disclosed stock ownership and honoraria with multiple companies.

PARIS – Air pollution has been recognized as a risk factor for lung cancer for about 2 decades, and investigators in the UK have now identified a potential mechanism whereby the air we breathe may trigger driver mutations already present in normal lung cells to cause cancer.

Think of it as “smoking gun–level” evidence that may explain why many nonsmokers still develop non–small cell lung cancer, said Charles Swanton, PhD, from the Francis Crick Institute and Cancer Research UK Chief Clinician, London.

“What this work shows is that air pollution is directly causing lung cancer but through a slightly unexpected pathway,” he said at a briefing prior to his presentation of the data in a presidential symposium held earlier this month in Paris at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress 2022.

Importantly, he and his team also propose a mechanism for blocking the effects of air pollution with monoclonal antibodies directed against the inflammatory cytokine interleukein-1 beta.
 

Carcinogenesis explored

Lung cancer in never-smokers has a low mutational burden, with about 5- to 10-fold fewer mutations in a nonsmoker, compared with an ever smoker or current smoker, Dr. Swanton noted.

“The other thing to say about never-smokers is that they don’t have a clear environmental carcinogenic signature. So how do you square the circle? You’ve got the problem that you know that air pollution is associated with lung cancer – we don’t know if it causes it – but we also see that we’ve got no DNA mutations due to an environmental carcinogen,” he said during his symposium presentation.

The traditional model proposed to explain how carcinogens cause cancer holds that exposure to a carcinogen causes DNA mutations that lead to clonal expansion and tumor growth.

“But there are some major problems with this model,” Dr. Swanton said.

For example, normal skin contains a “patchwork of mutant clones,” but skin cancer is still uncommon, he said, and in studies in mice, 17 of 20 environmental carcinogens did not induce DNA mutations. He also noted that a common melanoma driver mutation, BRAF V600E, is not induced by exposure to a ultraviolet light.

“Any explanation for never-smoking lung cancer would have to fulfill three criteria: one, you have to explain why geographic variation exists; two, you have to prove causation; and three, you have to explain how cancers can be initiated without directly causing DNA mutations,” he said.

Normal lung tissues in nonsmoking adults can harbor pre-existing mutations, with the number of mutations increasing likely as a consequence of aging. In fact, more than 50% of normal lung biopsy tissues have been shown to harbor driver KRAS and/or EGFR mutations, Dr. Swanton said.

“In our research, these mutations alone only weakly potentiated cancer in laboratory models. However, when lung cells with these mutations were exposed to air pollutants, we saw more cancers and these occurred more quickly than when lung cells with these mutations were not exposed to pollutants, suggesting that air pollution promotes the initiation of lung cancer in cells harboring driver gene mutations. The next step is to discover why some lung cells with mutations become cancerous when exposed to pollutants while others don’t,” he said.
 

Geographical exposures

Looking at data on 447,932 participants in the UK Biobank, the investigators found that increasing exposure to ambient air particles smaller than 2.5 mcm (PM_2.5) was significantly associated with seven cancer types, including lung cancer. They also saw an association between PM­­_2.5 exposure levels and EGFR-mutated lung cancer incidence in the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Taiwan.

And crucially, as Dr. Swanton and associates showed in mouse models, exposure of lung cells bearing somatic EGFR and KRAS mutations to PM2.5 causes recruitment of macrophages that in turn secrete IL-1B, resulting in a transdifferentiation of EGFR-mutated cells into a cancer stem cell state, and tumor formation.

Importantly, pollution-induced tumor formation can be blocked by antibodies directed against IL-1B, Dr. Swanton said.

He pointed to a 2017 study in The Lancet suggesting that anti-inflammatory therapy with the anti–IL-1 antibody canakinumab (Ilaris) could reduce incident lung cancer and lung cancer deaths.
 

‘Elegant first demonstration’

“This is a very meaningful demonstration, from epidemiological data to preclinical models of the role of PM_­2.5 air pollutants in the promotion of lung cancer, and it provides us with very important insights into the mechanism through which nonsmokers can get lung cancer,” commented Suzette Delaloge, MD, from the cancer interception program at Institut Goustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, the invited discussant.

“But beyond that, it also has a great impact on our vision of carcinogenesis, with this very elegant first demonstration of the alternative nonmutagenic, carcinogenetic promotion hypothesis for fine particulate matter,” she said.

Questions still to be answered include whether PM_2.5 pollutants could also be mutagenic, is the oncogenic pathway ubiquitous in tissue, which components of PM_2.5 might drive the effect, how long of an exposure is required to promote lung cancer, and why and how persons without cancer develop specific driver mutations such as EGFR, she said.

“This research is intriguing and exciting as it means that we can ask whether, in the future, it will be possible to use lung scans to look for precancerous lesions in the lungs and try to reverse them with medicines such as interleukin-1B inhibitors,” said Tony Mok, MD, a lung cancer specialist at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, who was not involved in the study.

“We don’t yet know whether it will be possible to use highly sensitive EGFR profiling on blood or other samples to find nonsmokers who are predisposed to lung cancer and may benefit from lung scanning, so discussions are still very speculative,” he said in a statement.

The study was supported by Cancer Research UK, the Lung Cancer Research Foundations, Rosetrees Trust, the Mark Foundation for Cancer Research and the Ruth Strauss Foundation. Dr. Swanton disclosed grants/research support, honoraria, and stock ownership with multiple entities. Dr. Delaloge disclosed institutional financing and research funding from multiple companies. Dr. Mok disclosed stock ownership and honoraria with multiple companies.

Even with recent pharmacologic treatment advances, narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) phototherapy remains a versatile, safe, and efficacious adjunctive or exclusive treatment for multiple dermatologic conditions, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. ^1-9 Some providers choose NB-UVB phototherapy as a first-line treatment for older adult patients who frequently use multiple treatment modalities for more than 1 health condition. Older adults with atopic dermatitis and psoriasis are at higher risk for comorbidities such as autoimmune disorders, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, sleep disorders, neuropsychiatric disorders, and cardiovascular disease that can complicate treatment compared with their peers without these dermatologic diagnoses. ^10-12 Polypharmacy (ie, the use of 5 or more daily medications), frequently associated with these conditions, contributes to prescribers pursuing NB-UVB phototherapy as a nonpharmacologic treatment, but some providers wonder if it is as effective and safe for their older patients compared with younger patients.

In a prior study, Matthews et al¹³ reported that 96% (50/52) of patients older than 65 years achieved medium to high levels of clearance with NB-UVB phototherapy. Nonetheless, 2 other findings in this study related to the number of treatments required to achieve clearance (ie, clearance rates) and erythema rates prompted further investigation. The first finding was higher-than-expected clearance rates. Older adults had a clearance rate with a mean of 33 treatments compared to prior studies featuring mean clearance rates of 20 to 28 treatments.^7,8,14-16 This finding resembled a study in the United Kingdom¹⁷ with a median clearance rate in older adults of 30 treatments. In contrast, the median clearance rate from a study in Turkey¹⁸ was 42 treatments in older adults. We hypothesized that more photosensitizing medications used in older vs younger adults prompted more dose adjustments with NB-UVB phototherapy to avoid burning (ie, erythema) at baseline and throughout the treatment course. These dose adjustments may have increased the overall clearance rates. If true, we predicted that younger adults treated with the same protocol would have cleared more quickly, either because of age-related differences or because they likely had fewer comorbidities and therefore fewer medications.

The second finding from Matthews et al¹³ that warranted further investigation was a higher erythema rate compared to the older adult study from the United Kingdom.¹⁷ We hypothesized that potentially greater use of photosensitizing medications in the United States could explain the higher erythema rates. Although medication-induced photosensitivity is less likely with NB-UVB phototherapy than with UVA, certain medications can cause UVB photosensitivity, including thiazides, quinidine, calcium channel antagonists, phenothiazines, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.^8,19,20 Therefore, photosensitizing medication use either at baseline or during a course of NB-UVB phototherapy could increase the risk for erythema. Age-related skin changes also have been considered as a potential cause for erythema. One study found that the skin of older patients was more sensitive than younger patients, resulting in a lower minimal erythema dose (MED)¹⁴—the lowest UV dose that results in erythema.²¹ Others, however, found similar MEDs across age groups, but older adults experienced more intense erythema in the late phase of NB-UVB treatment.^22,23 Such conflicting findings indicate that questions remain regarding the risk for erythema in older patients and if photosensitizing medications are responsible for an increased risk.

This retrospective study aimed to determine if NB-UVB phototherapy is equally effective in both older and younger adults treated with the same protocol; to examine the association between the use of photosensitizing medications and clearance rates in both older and younger adults; and to examine the association between the use of photosensitizing medications and erythema rates in older vs younger adults.

Methods

Study Design and Patients—This retrospective cohort study used billing records to identify patients who received NB-UVB phototherapy at 3 different clinical sites within a large US health care system in Washington (Group Health Cooperative, now Kaiser Permanente Washington), serving more than 600,000 patients between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016. The institutional review board of Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute approved this study (IRB 1498087-4). Younger adults were classified as those 64 years or younger and older adults as those 65 years and older at the start of their phototherapy regimen. A power analysis determined that the optimal sample size for this study was 250 patients.

Individuals were excluded if they had fewer than 6 phototherapy treatments; a diagnosis of vitiligo, photosensitivity dermatitis, morphea, or pityriasis rubra pilaris; and/or treatment of the hands or feet only.

Phototherapy Protocol—Using a 48-lamp NB-UVB unit, trained phototherapy nurses provided all treatments following standardized treatment protocols¹³ based on previously published phototherapy guidelines.²⁴ Nurses determined each patient’s disease clearance level using a 3-point clearance scale (high, medium, low).¹³ Each patient’s starting dose was determined based on the estimated MED for their skin phototype. If the patient was using photosensitizing medications, the protocol indicated a need for a decreased starting dose—down 25% to 50%—depending on the presumed level of photosensitivity. All clinical sites used the same protocol, but decisions about adjustments within this range were made by individual registered nurses and dermatologists, which could lead to variability across sites. Protocols also directed nurses to query patients about specific treatment responses, including erythema, tenderness, or itching; how their condition was responding; use of photosensitizing medications; missed treatments; and placement of shielding. Doses were adjusted accordingly.

Statistical Analysis—Data were analyzed using Stata statistical software (StataCorp LLC). Univariate analyses were used to examine the data and identify outliers, bad values, and missing data, as well as to calculate descriptive statistics. Pearson χ² and Fisher exact statistics were used to calculate differences in categorical variables. Linear multivariate regression models and logistic multivariate models were used to examine statistical relationships between variables. Statistical significance was defined as P≤.05.

Results

Patient Characteristics—Medical records were reviewed for 172 patients who received phototherapy between 2012 and 2016. Patients ranged in age from 23 to 91 years, with 102 patients 64 years and younger and 70 patients 65 years and older. Tables 1 and 2 outline the patient characteristics and conditions treated.

Phototherapy Effectiveness—Narrowband UVB phototherapy was found to be equally effective in older vs younger adults, with 82.9% of older adults (n=58) achieving a high level of clearance vs 80.4% (n=82) of younger adults, and 5.7% (n=4) of older adults achieved a medium level of clearance vs 10% (n=10) of younger adults (Table 3). Although older adults had slightly faster clearance rates on average (34.6 vs 37.2 treatments), these differences were not significant.

Photosensitizing Medications, Clearance Levels, and Clearance Rates—There was no significant association between clearance levels and number of photosensitizing medications in either younger (Figure 1) or older (Figure 2) adults. There was a wide range of clearance rates in both groups (Table 3), but no relationship was identified between clearance rates and photosensitizing medications or age (Figure 3). Clinic C had higher overall clearance rates for both age groups compared to the other clinics (Figure 4), but the clearance levels were still equivalent. No consistent pattern emerged indicating that age was a factor for the slower clearance at this site, and no relationship was identified between taking photosensitizing medications and clearance levels (Fisher exact test, P=.467) or clearance rates (t[149]=0.75; P=.45).

Frequency of Treatments and Clearance Rates—Older adults more consistently completed the recommended frequency of treatments—3 times weekly—compared to younger adults (74.3% vs 58.5%). However, all patients who completed 3 treatments per week required a similar number of treatments to clear (older adults, mean [SD]: 35.7 [21.6]; younger adults, mean [SD]: 34.7 [19.0]; P=.85). Among patients completing 2 or fewer treatments per week, older adults required a mean (SD) of only 31 (9.0) treatments to clear vs 41.5 (21.3) treatments to clear for younger adults, but the difference was not statistically significant (P=.08). However, even those with suboptimal frequency ultimately achieved similar clearance levels.

Photosensitizing Medications and Erythema Rates—Many patients in both age groups took medications that listed photosensitivity as a potential side effect (77.1% of older adults and 60.8% of younger adults). Of them, most patients took only 1 or 2 photosensitizing medications. However, significantly more older patients took 3 or more photosensitizing medications (28.6% vs 12.7%; P=.01)(Table 3). Asymptomatic (grade 1) erythema was unrelated to medication use and quite common in all adults (48.6% of older adults and 60.8% of younger adults). Most patients had only a few episodes of grade 1 erythema (mean [SD], 1.2 [2.9] in older adults and 1.6 [2.2] in younger adults). More older adults had grade 2 erythema (28.6%) compared to younger adults (17.6%). Patients using 3 or more photosensitizing medications were twice as likely to experience grade 2 erythema. Grades 3 and 4 erythema were extremely rare; none of the patients stopped phototherapy because they experienced erythema.

Overall, phototherapy nurses adjusted the starting dose according to the phototype-based protocol an average of 69% of the time for patients on medications with photosensitivity listed as a potential side effect. However, the frequency depended significantly on the clinic (clinic A, 24%; clinic B, 92%; clinic C, 87%)(P≤.001). Nurses across all clinics consistently decreased the treatment dose when patients reported starting new photosensitizing medications. Patients with adjusted starting doses had slightly but not significantly higher clearance rates compared to those without (mean, 37.8 vs 35.5; t(104)=0.58; P=.56).

Comment

Comparisons to Prior Studies—This study confirmed that phototherapy is equally effective for older and younger adults, with approximately 90% reaching medium to high clearance levels with approximately 35 treatments in both groups. Prior studies of all age groups found that patients typically cleared with an average of 20 to 28 treatments.^7,8,14-16 In contrast, the findings in older adults from this study were similar to the older adult study from the United Kingdom that reported a 91% clear/near clear rate with an average of 30 treatments.¹⁷ The clearance level also was similar to the older adult study in Turkey¹⁸ that reported 73.7% (70/95) of patients with psoriasis achieved a minimum psoriasis area severity index of 75, indicating 75% improvement from baseline.

Impact of Photosensitizing Medications on Clearance—Photosensitizing medications and treatment frequency were 2 factors that might explain the slower clearance rates in younger adults. In this study, both groups of patients used similar numbers of photosensitizing medications, but more older adults were taking 3 or more medications (Table 3). We found no statistically significant relationship between taking photosensitizing medications and either the clearance rates or the level of clearance achieved in either age group.

Impact of Treatment Frequency—Weekly treatment frequency also was examined. One prior study demonstrated that treatments 3 times weekly led to a faster clearance time and higher clearance levels compared with twice-weekly treatment.⁷ When patients completed treatments twice weekly, it took an average of 1.5 times more days to clear, which impacted cost and clinical resource availability. The patients ranged in age from 17 to 80 years, but outcomes in older patients were not described separately.⁷ Interestingly, our study seemed to find a difference between age groups when the impact of treatment frequency was examined. Older adults completed nearly 4 fewer mean treatments to clear when treating less often, with more than 80% achieving high levels of clearance, whereas the younger adults required almost 7 more treatments to clear when they came in less frequently, with approximately 80% achieving a high level of clearance. As a result, our study found that in both age groups, slowing the treatment frequency extended the treatment time to clearance—more for the younger adults than the older adults—but did not significantly change the percentage of individuals reaching full clearance in either group.

Erythema Rates—There was no association between photosensitizing medications and erythema rates except when patients were taking at least 3 medications. Most medications that listed photosensitivity as a possible side effect did not specify their relevant range of UV radiation; therefore, all such medications were examined during this analysis. Prior research has shown UVB range photosensitizing medications include thiazides, quinidine, calcium channel antagonists, phenothiazines, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.¹⁹ A sensitivity analysis that focused only on these medications found no association between them and any particular grade of erythema. However, patients taking 3 or more of any medications listing photosensitivity as a side effect had an increased risk for grade 2 erythema.

Erythema rates in this study were consistent with a 2013 systematic review that reported 57% of patients with asymptomatic grade 1 erythema.²⁵ In the 2 other comparative older adult studies, erythema rates varied widely: 35% in a study from Turkey¹⁸compared to only1.89% in a study from the United Kingdom.¹⁷

The starting dose for NB-UVB may drive erythema rates. The current study’s protocols were based on an estimated MED that is subjectively determined by the dermatology provider’s assessment of the patient’s skin sensitivity via examination and questions to the patient about their response to environmental sun exposure (ie, burning and tanning)²⁶ and is frequently used to determine the starting dose and subsequent dose escalation. Certain medications have been found to increase photosensitivity and erythema,²⁰ which can change an individual’s MED. If photosensitizing medications are started prior to or during a course of NB-UVB without a pretreatment MED, they might increase the risk for erythema. This study did not identify specific erythema-inducing medications but did find that taking 3 or more photosensitizing medications was associated with increased episodes of grade 2 erythema. Similarly, Harrop et al⁸ found that patients who were taking photosensitizing medications were more likely to have grade 2 or higher erythema, despite baseline MED testing, which is an established safety mechanism to reduce the risk and severity of erythema.^14,20,27 The authors of a recent study of older adults in Taiwan specifically recommended MED testing due to the unpredictable influence of polypharmacy on MED calculations in this population.²⁸ Therefore, this study’s use of an estimated MED in older adults may have influenced the starting dose as well as the incidence and severity of erythemic events. Age-related skin changes likely are ruled out as a consideration for mild erythema by the similarity of grade 1 erythema rates in both older and younger adults. Other studies have identified differences between the age groups, where older patients experienced more intense erythema in the late phase of UVB treatments.^22,23 This phenomenon could increase the risk for a grade 2 erythema, which may correspond with this study’s findings.

Other potential causes of erythema were ruled out during our study, including erythema related to missed treatments and shielding mishaps. Other factors, however, may impact the level of sensitivity each patient has to phototherapy, including genetics, epigenetics, and cumulative sun damage. With NB-UVB, near-erythemogenic doses are optimal to achieve effective treatments but require a delicate balance to achieve, which may be more problematic for older adults, especially those taking several medications.

Study Limitations—Our study design made it difficult to draw conclusions about rarer dermatologic conditions. Some patients received treatments over years that were not included in the study period. Finally, power calculations suggested that our actual sample size was too small, with approximately one-third of the required sample missing.

Practical Implications—The goals of phototherapy are to achieve a high level of disease clearance with the fewest number of treatments possible and minimal side effects. Skin phototype–driven standardized doses based on estimated MED may be conservatively low to minimize the risk of side effects (eg, erythema), which could slow the treatment progression. Thus, basing the starting dose on individual MED assessments may improve clearance rates. This study also confirmed that phototherapy is safe with minimal erythema in adults of all ages. The erythema episodes that patients experienced were few and mild, but because of greater rates of grade 2 erythema in patients on 3 or more photosensitizing medications, consideration of MED testing in both age groups might optimize doses at baseline and prompt caution for subsequent dose titration in this subset of patients.

The extra staff training and patient monitoring required for MED testing likely is to add value and preserve resources if faster clearance rates could be achieved and may warrant further investigation. Phototherapy centers require standardized treatment protocols, diligent well-trained staff, and program monitoring to ensure consistent care to all patients. This study highlighted the ongoing opportunity for health care organizations to conduct evidence-based practice inquiries to continually optimize care for their patients.

Even with recent pharmacologic treatment advances, narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) phototherapy remains a versatile, safe, and efficacious adjunctive or exclusive treatment for multiple dermatologic conditions, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. ^1-9 Some providers choose NB-UVB phototherapy as a first-line treatment for older adult patients who frequently use multiple treatment modalities for more than 1 health condition. Older adults with atopic dermatitis and psoriasis are at higher risk for comorbidities such as autoimmune disorders, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, sleep disorders, neuropsychiatric disorders, and cardiovascular disease that can complicate treatment compared with their peers without these dermatologic diagnoses. ^10-12 Polypharmacy (ie, the use of 5 or more daily medications), frequently associated with these conditions, contributes to prescribers pursuing NB-UVB phototherapy as a nonpharmacologic treatment, but some providers wonder if it is as effective and safe for their older patients compared with younger patients.

In a prior study, Matthews et al¹³ reported that 96% (50/52) of patients older than 65 years achieved medium to high levels of clearance with NB-UVB phototherapy. Nonetheless, 2 other findings in this study related to the number of treatments required to achieve clearance (ie, clearance rates) and erythema rates prompted further investigation. The first finding was higher-than-expected clearance rates. Older adults had a clearance rate with a mean of 33 treatments compared to prior studies featuring mean clearance rates of 20 to 28 treatments.^7,8,14-16 This finding resembled a study in the United Kingdom¹⁷ with a median clearance rate in older adults of 30 treatments. In contrast, the median clearance rate from a study in Turkey¹⁸ was 42 treatments in older adults. We hypothesized that more photosensitizing medications used in older vs younger adults prompted more dose adjustments with NB-UVB phototherapy to avoid burning (ie, erythema) at baseline and throughout the treatment course. These dose adjustments may have increased the overall clearance rates. If true, we predicted that younger adults treated with the same protocol would have cleared more quickly, either because of age-related differences or because they likely had fewer comorbidities and therefore fewer medications.

The second finding from Matthews et al¹³ that warranted further investigation was a higher erythema rate compared to the older adult study from the United Kingdom.¹⁷ We hypothesized that potentially greater use of photosensitizing medications in the United States could explain the higher erythema rates. Although medication-induced photosensitivity is less likely with NB-UVB phototherapy than with UVA, certain medications can cause UVB photosensitivity, including thiazides, quinidine, calcium channel antagonists, phenothiazines, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.^8,19,20 Therefore, photosensitizing medication use either at baseline or during a course of NB-UVB phototherapy could increase the risk for erythema. Age-related skin changes also have been considered as a potential cause for erythema. One study found that the skin of older patients was more sensitive than younger patients, resulting in a lower minimal erythema dose (MED)¹⁴—the lowest UV dose that results in erythema.²¹ Others, however, found similar MEDs across age groups, but older adults experienced more intense erythema in the late phase of NB-UVB treatment.^22,23 Such conflicting findings indicate that questions remain regarding the risk for erythema in older patients and if photosensitizing medications are responsible for an increased risk.

This retrospective study aimed to determine if NB-UVB phototherapy is equally effective in both older and younger adults treated with the same protocol; to examine the association between the use of photosensitizing medications and clearance rates in both older and younger adults; and to examine the association between the use of photosensitizing medications and erythema rates in older vs younger adults.

Methods

Study Design and Patients—This retrospective cohort study used billing records to identify patients who received NB-UVB phototherapy at 3 different clinical sites within a large US health care system in Washington (Group Health Cooperative, now Kaiser Permanente Washington), serving more than 600,000 patients between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016. The institutional review board of Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute approved this study (IRB 1498087-4). Younger adults were classified as those 64 years or younger and older adults as those 65 years and older at the start of their phototherapy regimen. A power analysis determined that the optimal sample size for this study was 250 patients.

Individuals were excluded if they had fewer than 6 phototherapy treatments; a diagnosis of vitiligo, photosensitivity dermatitis, morphea, or pityriasis rubra pilaris; and/or treatment of the hands or feet only.

Phototherapy Protocol—Using a 48-lamp NB-UVB unit, trained phototherapy nurses provided all treatments following standardized treatment protocols¹³ based on previously published phototherapy guidelines.²⁴ Nurses determined each patient’s disease clearance level using a 3-point clearance scale (high, medium, low).¹³ Each patient’s starting dose was determined based on the estimated MED for their skin phototype. If the patient was using photosensitizing medications, the protocol indicated a need for a decreased starting dose—down 25% to 50%—depending on the presumed level of photosensitivity. All clinical sites used the same protocol, but decisions about adjustments within this range were made by individual registered nurses and dermatologists, which could lead to variability across sites. Protocols also directed nurses to query patients about specific treatment responses, including erythema, tenderness, or itching; how their condition was responding; use of photosensitizing medications; missed treatments; and placement of shielding. Doses were adjusted accordingly.

Statistical Analysis—Data were analyzed using Stata statistical software (StataCorp LLC). Univariate analyses were used to examine the data and identify outliers, bad values, and missing data, as well as to calculate descriptive statistics. Pearson χ² and Fisher exact statistics were used to calculate differences in categorical variables. Linear multivariate regression models and logistic multivariate models were used to examine statistical relationships between variables. Statistical significance was defined as P≤.05.

Results

Patient Characteristics—Medical records were reviewed for 172 patients who received phototherapy between 2012 and 2016. Patients ranged in age from 23 to 91 years, with 102 patients 64 years and younger and 70 patients 65 years and older. Tables 1 and 2 outline the patient characteristics and conditions treated.

Phototherapy Effectiveness—Narrowband UVB phototherapy was found to be equally effective in older vs younger adults, with 82.9% of older adults (n=58) achieving a high level of clearance vs 80.4% (n=82) of younger adults, and 5.7% (n=4) of older adults achieved a medium level of clearance vs 10% (n=10) of younger adults (Table 3). Although older adults had slightly faster clearance rates on average (34.6 vs 37.2 treatments), these differences were not significant.

Photosensitizing Medications, Clearance Levels, and Clearance Rates—There was no significant association between clearance levels and number of photosensitizing medications in either younger (Figure 1) or older (Figure 2) adults. There was a wide range of clearance rates in both groups (Table 3), but no relationship was identified between clearance rates and photosensitizing medications or age (Figure 3). Clinic C had higher overall clearance rates for both age groups compared to the other clinics (Figure 4), but the clearance levels were still equivalent. No consistent pattern emerged indicating that age was a factor for the slower clearance at this site, and no relationship was identified between taking photosensitizing medications and clearance levels (Fisher exact test, P=.467) or clearance rates (t[149]=0.75; P=.45).

Frequency of Treatments and Clearance Rates—Older adults more consistently completed the recommended frequency of treatments—3 times weekly—compared to younger adults (74.3% vs 58.5%). However, all patients who completed 3 treatments per week required a similar number of treatments to clear (older adults, mean [SD]: 35.7 [21.6]; younger adults, mean [SD]: 34.7 [19.0]; P=.85). Among patients completing 2 or fewer treatments per week, older adults required a mean (SD) of only 31 (9.0) treatments to clear vs 41.5 (21.3) treatments to clear for younger adults, but the difference was not statistically significant (P=.08). However, even those with suboptimal frequency ultimately achieved similar clearance levels.

Photosensitizing Medications and Erythema Rates—Many patients in both age groups took medications that listed photosensitivity as a potential side effect (77.1% of older adults and 60.8% of younger adults). Of them, most patients took only 1 or 2 photosensitizing medications. However, significantly more older patients took 3 or more photosensitizing medications (28.6% vs 12.7%; P=.01)(Table 3). Asymptomatic (grade 1) erythema was unrelated to medication use and quite common in all adults (48.6% of older adults and 60.8% of younger adults). Most patients had only a few episodes of grade 1 erythema (mean [SD], 1.2 [2.9] in older adults and 1.6 [2.2] in younger adults). More older adults had grade 2 erythema (28.6%) compared to younger adults (17.6%). Patients using 3 or more photosensitizing medications were twice as likely to experience grade 2 erythema. Grades 3 and 4 erythema were extremely rare; none of the patients stopped phototherapy because they experienced erythema.

Overall, phototherapy nurses adjusted the starting dose according to the phototype-based protocol an average of 69% of the time for patients on medications with photosensitivity listed as a potential side effect. However, the frequency depended significantly on the clinic (clinic A, 24%; clinic B, 92%; clinic C, 87%)(P≤.001). Nurses across all clinics consistently decreased the treatment dose when patients reported starting new photosensitizing medications. Patients with adjusted starting doses had slightly but not significantly higher clearance rates compared to those without (mean, 37.8 vs 35.5; t(104)=0.58; P=.56).

Comment

Comparisons to Prior Studies—This study confirmed that phototherapy is equally effective for older and younger adults, with approximately 90% reaching medium to high clearance levels with approximately 35 treatments in both groups. Prior studies of all age groups found that patients typically cleared with an average of 20 to 28 treatments.^7,8,14-16 In contrast, the findings in older adults from this study were similar to the older adult study from the United Kingdom that reported a 91% clear/near clear rate with an average of 30 treatments.¹⁷ The clearance level also was similar to the older adult study in Turkey¹⁸ that reported 73.7% (70/95) of patients with psoriasis achieved a minimum psoriasis area severity index of 75, indicating 75% improvement from baseline.

Impact of Photosensitizing Medications on Clearance—Photosensitizing medications and treatment frequency were 2 factors that might explain the slower clearance rates in younger adults. In this study, both groups of patients used similar numbers of photosensitizing medications, but more older adults were taking 3 or more medications (Table 3). We found no statistically significant relationship between taking photosensitizing medications and either the clearance rates or the level of clearance achieved in either age group.

Impact of Treatment Frequency—Weekly treatment frequency also was examined. One prior study demonstrated that treatments 3 times weekly led to a faster clearance time and higher clearance levels compared with twice-weekly treatment.⁷ When patients completed treatments twice weekly, it took an average of 1.5 times more days to clear, which impacted cost and clinical resource availability. The patients ranged in age from 17 to 80 years, but outcomes in older patients were not described separately.⁷ Interestingly, our study seemed to find a difference between age groups when the impact of treatment frequency was examined. Older adults completed nearly 4 fewer mean treatments to clear when treating less often, with more than 80% achieving high levels of clearance, whereas the younger adults required almost 7 more treatments to clear when they came in less frequently, with approximately 80% achieving a high level of clearance. As a result, our study found that in both age groups, slowing the treatment frequency extended the treatment time to clearance—more for the younger adults than the older adults—but did not significantly change the percentage of individuals reaching full clearance in either group.

Erythema Rates—There was no association between photosensitizing medications and erythema rates except when patients were taking at least 3 medications. Most medications that listed photosensitivity as a possible side effect did not specify their relevant range of UV radiation; therefore, all such medications were examined during this analysis. Prior research has shown UVB range photosensitizing medications include thiazides, quinidine, calcium channel antagonists, phenothiazines, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.¹⁹ A sensitivity analysis that focused only on these medications found no association between them and any particular grade of erythema. However, patients taking 3 or more of any medications listing photosensitivity as a side effect had an increased risk for grade 2 erythema.

Erythema rates in this study were consistent with a 2013 systematic review that reported 57% of patients with asymptomatic grade 1 erythema.²⁵ In the 2 other comparative older adult studies, erythema rates varied widely: 35% in a study from Turkey¹⁸compared to only1.89% in a study from the United Kingdom.¹⁷

The starting dose for NB-UVB may drive erythema rates. The current study’s protocols were based on an estimated MED that is subjectively determined by the dermatology provider’s assessment of the patient’s skin sensitivity via examination and questions to the patient about their response to environmental sun exposure (ie, burning and tanning)²⁶ and is frequently used to determine the starting dose and subsequent dose escalation. Certain medications have been found to increase photosensitivity and erythema,²⁰ which can change an individual’s MED. If photosensitizing medications are started prior to or during a course of NB-UVB without a pretreatment MED, they might increase the risk for erythema. This study did not identify specific erythema-inducing medications but did find that taking 3 or more photosensitizing medications was associated with increased episodes of grade 2 erythema. Similarly, Harrop et al⁸ found that patients who were taking photosensitizing medications were more likely to have grade 2 or higher erythema, despite baseline MED testing, which is an established safety mechanism to reduce the risk and severity of erythema.^14,20,27 The authors of a recent study of older adults in Taiwan specifically recommended MED testing due to the unpredictable influence of polypharmacy on MED calculations in this population.²⁸ Therefore, this study’s use of an estimated MED in older adults may have influenced the starting dose as well as the incidence and severity of erythemic events. Age-related skin changes likely are ruled out as a consideration for mild erythema by the similarity of grade 1 erythema rates in both older and younger adults. Other studies have identified differences between the age groups, where older patients experienced more intense erythema in the late phase of UVB treatments.^22,23 This phenomenon could increase the risk for a grade 2 erythema, which may correspond with this study’s findings.

Other potential causes of erythema were ruled out during our study, including erythema related to missed treatments and shielding mishaps. Other factors, however, may impact the level of sensitivity each patient has to phototherapy, including genetics, epigenetics, and cumulative sun damage. With NB-UVB, near-erythemogenic doses are optimal to achieve effective treatments but require a delicate balance to achieve, which may be more problematic for older adults, especially those taking several medications.

Study Limitations—Our study design made it difficult to draw conclusions about rarer dermatologic conditions. Some patients received treatments over years that were not included in the study period. Finally, power calculations suggested that our actual sample size was too small, with approximately one-third of the required sample missing.

Practical Implications—The goals of phototherapy are to achieve a high level of disease clearance with the fewest number of treatments possible and minimal side effects. Skin phototype–driven standardized doses based on estimated MED may be conservatively low to minimize the risk of side effects (eg, erythema), which could slow the treatment progression. Thus, basing the starting dose on individual MED assessments may improve clearance rates. This study also confirmed that phototherapy is safe with minimal erythema in adults of all ages. The erythema episodes that patients experienced were few and mild, but because of greater rates of grade 2 erythema in patients on 3 or more photosensitizing medications, consideration of MED testing in both age groups might optimize doses at baseline and prompt caution for subsequent dose titration in this subset of patients.

The extra staff training and patient monitoring required for MED testing likely is to add value and preserve resources if faster clearance rates could be achieved and may warrant further investigation. Phototherapy centers require standardized treatment protocols, diligent well-trained staff, and program monitoring to ensure consistent care to all patients. This study highlighted the ongoing opportunity for health care organizations to conduct evidence-based practice inquiries to continually optimize care for their patients.

Even with recent pharmacologic treatment advances, narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) phototherapy remains a versatile, safe, and efficacious adjunctive or exclusive treatment for multiple dermatologic conditions, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. ^1-9 Some providers choose NB-UVB phototherapy as a first-line treatment for older adult patients who frequently use multiple treatment modalities for more than 1 health condition. Older adults with atopic dermatitis and psoriasis are at higher risk for comorbidities such as autoimmune disorders, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, sleep disorders, neuropsychiatric disorders, and cardiovascular disease that can complicate treatment compared with their peers without these dermatologic diagnoses. ^10-12 Polypharmacy (ie, the use of 5 or more daily medications), frequently associated with these conditions, contributes to prescribers pursuing NB-UVB phototherapy as a nonpharmacologic treatment, but some providers wonder if it is as effective and safe for their older patients compared with younger patients.

In a prior study, Matthews et al¹³ reported that 96% (50/52) of patients older than 65 years achieved medium to high levels of clearance with NB-UVB phototherapy. Nonetheless, 2 other findings in this study related to the number of treatments required to achieve clearance (ie, clearance rates) and erythema rates prompted further investigation. The first finding was higher-than-expected clearance rates. Older adults had a clearance rate with a mean of 33 treatments compared to prior studies featuring mean clearance rates of 20 to 28 treatments.^7,8,14-16 This finding resembled a study in the United Kingdom¹⁷ with a median clearance rate in older adults of 30 treatments. In contrast, the median clearance rate from a study in Turkey¹⁸ was 42 treatments in older adults. We hypothesized that more photosensitizing medications used in older vs younger adults prompted more dose adjustments with NB-UVB phototherapy to avoid burning (ie, erythema) at baseline and throughout the treatment course. These dose adjustments may have increased the overall clearance rates. If true, we predicted that younger adults treated with the same protocol would have cleared more quickly, either because of age-related differences or because they likely had fewer comorbidities and therefore fewer medications.

The second finding from Matthews et al¹³ that warranted further investigation was a higher erythema rate compared to the older adult study from the United Kingdom.¹⁷ We hypothesized that potentially greater use of photosensitizing medications in the United States could explain the higher erythema rates. Although medication-induced photosensitivity is less likely with NB-UVB phototherapy than with UVA, certain medications can cause UVB photosensitivity, including thiazides, quinidine, calcium channel antagonists, phenothiazines, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.^8,19,20 Therefore, photosensitizing medication use either at baseline or during a course of NB-UVB phototherapy could increase the risk for erythema. Age-related skin changes also have been considered as a potential cause for erythema. One study found that the skin of older patients was more sensitive than younger patients, resulting in a lower minimal erythema dose (MED)¹⁴—the lowest UV dose that results in erythema.²¹ Others, however, found similar MEDs across age groups, but older adults experienced more intense erythema in the late phase of NB-UVB treatment.^22,23 Such conflicting findings indicate that questions remain regarding the risk for erythema in older patients and if photosensitizing medications are responsible for an increased risk.

This retrospective study aimed to determine if NB-UVB phototherapy is equally effective in both older and younger adults treated with the same protocol; to examine the association between the use of photosensitizing medications and clearance rates in both older and younger adults; and to examine the association between the use of photosensitizing medications and erythema rates in older vs younger adults.

Methods

Study Design and Patients—This retrospective cohort study used billing records to identify patients who received NB-UVB phototherapy at 3 different clinical sites within a large US health care system in Washington (Group Health Cooperative, now Kaiser Permanente Washington), serving more than 600,000 patients between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016. The institutional review board of Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute approved this study (IRB 1498087-4). Younger adults were classified as those 64 years or younger and older adults as those 65 years and older at the start of their phototherapy regimen. A power analysis determined that the optimal sample size for this study was 250 patients.

Individuals were excluded if they had fewer than 6 phototherapy treatments; a diagnosis of vitiligo, photosensitivity dermatitis, morphea, or pityriasis rubra pilaris; and/or treatment of the hands or feet only.

Phototherapy Protocol—Using a 48-lamp NB-UVB unit, trained phototherapy nurses provided all treatments following standardized treatment protocols¹³ based on previously published phototherapy guidelines.²⁴ Nurses determined each patient’s disease clearance level using a 3-point clearance scale (high, medium, low).¹³ Each patient’s starting dose was determined based on the estimated MED for their skin phototype. If the patient was using photosensitizing medications, the protocol indicated a need for a decreased starting dose—down 25% to 50%—depending on the presumed level of photosensitivity. All clinical sites used the same protocol, but decisions about adjustments within this range were made by individual registered nurses and dermatologists, which could lead to variability across sites. Protocols also directed nurses to query patients about specific treatment responses, including erythema, tenderness, or itching; how their condition was responding; use of photosensitizing medications; missed treatments; and placement of shielding. Doses were adjusted accordingly.

Statistical Analysis—Data were analyzed using Stata statistical software (StataCorp LLC). Univariate analyses were used to examine the data and identify outliers, bad values, and missing data, as well as to calculate descriptive statistics. Pearson χ² and Fisher exact statistics were used to calculate differences in categorical variables. Linear multivariate regression models and logistic multivariate models were used to examine statistical relationships between variables. Statistical significance was defined as P≤.05.

Results

Patient Characteristics—Medical records were reviewed for 172 patients who received phototherapy between 2012 and 2016. Patients ranged in age from 23 to 91 years, with 102 patients 64 years and younger and 70 patients 65 years and older. Tables 1 and 2 outline the patient characteristics and conditions treated.

Phototherapy Effectiveness—Narrowband UVB phototherapy was found to be equally effective in older vs younger adults, with 82.9% of older adults (n=58) achieving a high level of clearance vs 80.4% (n=82) of younger adults, and 5.7% (n=4) of older adults achieved a medium level of clearance vs 10% (n=10) of younger adults (Table 3). Although older adults had slightly faster clearance rates on average (34.6 vs 37.2 treatments), these differences were not significant.

Photosensitizing Medications, Clearance Levels, and Clearance Rates—There was no significant association between clearance levels and number of photosensitizing medications in either younger (Figure 1) or older (Figure 2) adults. There was a wide range of clearance rates in both groups (Table 3), but no relationship was identified between clearance rates and photosensitizing medications or age (Figure 3). Clinic C had higher overall clearance rates for both age groups compared to the other clinics (Figure 4), but the clearance levels were still equivalent. No consistent pattern emerged indicating that age was a factor for the slower clearance at this site, and no relationship was identified between taking photosensitizing medications and clearance levels (Fisher exact test, P=.467) or clearance rates (t[149]=0.75; P=.45).

Frequency of Treatments and Clearance Rates—Older adults more consistently completed the recommended frequency of treatments—3 times weekly—compared to younger adults (74.3% vs 58.5%). However, all patients who completed 3 treatments per week required a similar number of treatments to clear (older adults, mean [SD]: 35.7 [21.6]; younger adults, mean [SD]: 34.7 [19.0]; P=.85). Among patients completing 2 or fewer treatments per week, older adults required a mean (SD) of only 31 (9.0) treatments to clear vs 41.5 (21.3) treatments to clear for younger adults, but the difference was not statistically significant (P=.08). However, even those with suboptimal frequency ultimately achieved similar clearance levels.

Photosensitizing Medications and Erythema Rates—Many patients in both age groups took medications that listed photosensitivity as a potential side effect (77.1% of older adults and 60.8% of younger adults). Of them, most patients took only 1 or 2 photosensitizing medications. However, significantly more older patients took 3 or more photosensitizing medications (28.6% vs 12.7%; P=.01)(Table 3). Asymptomatic (grade 1) erythema was unrelated to medication use and quite common in all adults (48.6% of older adults and 60.8% of younger adults). Most patients had only a few episodes of grade 1 erythema (mean [SD], 1.2 [2.9] in older adults and 1.6 [2.2] in younger adults). More older adults had grade 2 erythema (28.6%) compared to younger adults (17.6%). Patients using 3 or more photosensitizing medications were twice as likely to experience grade 2 erythema. Grades 3 and 4 erythema were extremely rare; none of the patients stopped phototherapy because they experienced erythema.

Overall, phototherapy nurses adjusted the starting dose according to the phototype-based protocol an average of 69% of the time for patients on medications with photosensitivity listed as a potential side effect. However, the frequency depended significantly on the clinic (clinic A, 24%; clinic B, 92%; clinic C, 87%)(P≤.001). Nurses across all clinics consistently decreased the treatment dose when patients reported starting new photosensitizing medications. Patients with adjusted starting doses had slightly but not significantly higher clearance rates compared to those without (mean, 37.8 vs 35.5; t(104)=0.58; P=.56).

Comment

Comparisons to Prior Studies—This study confirmed that phototherapy is equally effective for older and younger adults, with approximately 90% reaching medium to high clearance levels with approximately 35 treatments in both groups. Prior studies of all age groups found that patients typically cleared with an average of 20 to 28 treatments.^7,8,14-16 In contrast, the findings in older adults from this study were similar to the older adult study from the United Kingdom that reported a 91% clear/near clear rate with an average of 30 treatments.¹⁷ The clearance level also was similar to the older adult study in Turkey¹⁸ that reported 73.7% (70/95) of patients with psoriasis achieved a minimum psoriasis area severity index of 75, indicating 75% improvement from baseline.

Impact of Photosensitizing Medications on Clearance—Photosensitizing medications and treatment frequency were 2 factors that might explain the slower clearance rates in younger adults. In this study, both groups of patients used similar numbers of photosensitizing medications, but more older adults were taking 3 or more medications (Table 3). We found no statistically significant relationship between taking photosensitizing medications and either the clearance rates or the level of clearance achieved in either age group.

Impact of Treatment Frequency—Weekly treatment frequency also was examined. One prior study demonstrated that treatments 3 times weekly led to a faster clearance time and higher clearance levels compared with twice-weekly treatment.⁷ When patients completed treatments twice weekly, it took an average of 1.5 times more days to clear, which impacted cost and clinical resource availability. The patients ranged in age from 17 to 80 years, but outcomes in older patients were not described separately.⁷ Interestingly, our study seemed to find a difference between age groups when the impact of treatment frequency was examined. Older adults completed nearly 4 fewer mean treatments to clear when treating less often, with more than 80% achieving high levels of clearance, whereas the younger adults required almost 7 more treatments to clear when they came in less frequently, with approximately 80% achieving a high level of clearance. As a result, our study found that in both age groups, slowing the treatment frequency extended the treatment time to clearance—more for the younger adults than the older adults—but did not significantly change the percentage of individuals reaching full clearance in either group.

Erythema Rates—There was no association between photosensitizing medications and erythema rates except when patients were taking at least 3 medications. Most medications that listed photosensitivity as a possible side effect did not specify their relevant range of UV radiation; therefore, all such medications were examined during this analysis. Prior research has shown UVB range photosensitizing medications include thiazides, quinidine, calcium channel antagonists, phenothiazines, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.¹⁹ A sensitivity analysis that focused only on these medications found no association between them and any particular grade of erythema. However, patients taking 3 or more of any medications listing photosensitivity as a side effect had an increased risk for grade 2 erythema.

Erythema rates in this study were consistent with a 2013 systematic review that reported 57% of patients with asymptomatic grade 1 erythema.²⁵ In the 2 other comparative older adult studies, erythema rates varied widely: 35% in a study from Turkey¹⁸compared to only1.89% in a study from the United Kingdom.¹⁷

The starting dose for NB-UVB may drive erythema rates. The current study’s protocols were based on an estimated MED that is subjectively determined by the dermatology provider’s assessment of the patient’s skin sensitivity via examination and questions to the patient about their response to environmental sun exposure (ie, burning and tanning)²⁶ and is frequently used to determine the starting dose and subsequent dose escalation. Certain medications have been found to increase photosensitivity and erythema,²⁰ which can change an individual’s MED. If photosensitizing medications are started prior to or during a course of NB-UVB without a pretreatment MED, they might increase the risk for erythema. This study did not identify specific erythema-inducing medications but did find that taking 3 or more photosensitizing medications was associated with increased episodes of grade 2 erythema. Similarly, Harrop et al⁸ found that patients who were taking photosensitizing medications were more likely to have grade 2 or higher erythema, despite baseline MED testing, which is an established safety mechanism to reduce the risk and severity of erythema.^14,20,27 The authors of a recent study of older adults in Taiwan specifically recommended MED testing due to the unpredictable influence of polypharmacy on MED calculations in this population.²⁸ Therefore, this study’s use of an estimated MED in older adults may have influenced the starting dose as well as the incidence and severity of erythemic events. Age-related skin changes likely are ruled out as a consideration for mild erythema by the similarity of grade 1 erythema rates in both older and younger adults. Other studies have identified differences between the age groups, where older patients experienced more intense erythema in the late phase of UVB treatments.^22,23 This phenomenon could increase the risk for a grade 2 erythema, which may correspond with this study’s findings.

Other potential causes of erythema were ruled out during our study, including erythema related to missed treatments and shielding mishaps. Other factors, however, may impact the level of sensitivity each patient has to phototherapy, including genetics, epigenetics, and cumulative sun damage. With NB-UVB, near-erythemogenic doses are optimal to achieve effective treatments but require a delicate balance to achieve, which may be more problematic for older adults, especially those taking several medications.

Study Limitations—Our study design made it difficult to draw conclusions about rarer dermatologic conditions. Some patients received treatments over years that were not included in the study period. Finally, power calculations suggested that our actual sample size was too small, with approximately one-third of the required sample missing.

Practical Implications—The goals of phototherapy are to achieve a high level of disease clearance with the fewest number of treatments possible and minimal side effects. Skin phototype–driven standardized doses based on estimated MED may be conservatively low to minimize the risk of side effects (eg, erythema), which could slow the treatment progression. Thus, basing the starting dose on individual MED assessments may improve clearance rates. This study also confirmed that phototherapy is safe with minimal erythema in adults of all ages. The erythema episodes that patients experienced were few and mild, but because of greater rates of grade 2 erythema in patients on 3 or more photosensitizing medications, consideration of MED testing in both age groups might optimize doses at baseline and prompt caution for subsequent dose titration in this subset of patients.

The extra staff training and patient monitoring required for MED testing likely is to add value and preserve resources if faster clearance rates could be achieved and may warrant further investigation. Phototherapy centers require standardized treatment protocols, diligent well-trained staff, and program monitoring to ensure consistent care to all patients. This study highlighted the ongoing opportunity for health care organizations to conduct evidence-based practice inquiries to continually optimize care for their patients.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert, warning of a rare but concerning potential risk of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and various lymphomas in the scar tissue around breast implants.

The FDA safety communication is based on several dozen reports of these cancers occurring in the capsule or scar tissue around breast implants. This issue differs from breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) – a known risk among implant recipients.

“After preliminary review of published literature as part of our ongoing monitoring of the safety of breast implants, the FDA is aware of less than 20 cases of SCC and less than 30 cases of various lymphomas in the capsule around the breast implant,” the agency’s alert explains.

One avenue through which the FDA has identified cases is via medical device reports. As of Sept. 1, the FDA has received 10 medical device reports about SCC related to breast implants and 12 about various lymphomas.

The incidence rate and risk factors for these events are currently unknown, but reports of SCC and various lymphomas in the capsule around the breast implants have been reported for both textured and smooth breast implants, as well as for both saline and silicone breast implants. In some cases, the cancers were diagnosed years after breast implant surgery.

Reported signs and symptoms included swelling, pain, lumps, or skin changes. 

Although the risks of SCC and lymphomas in the tissue around breast implants appears rare, “when safety risks with medical devices are identified, we wanted to provide clear and understandable information to the public as quickly as possible,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices, FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health, explained in a press release.

Patients and providers are strongly encouraged to report breast implant–related problems and cases of SCC or lymphoma of the breast implant capsule to MedWatch, the FDA’s adverse event reporting program.

The FDA plans to complete “a thorough literature review” as well as “identify ways to collect more detailed information regarding patient cases.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert, warning of a rare but concerning potential risk of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and various lymphomas in the scar tissue around breast implants.

The FDA safety communication is based on several dozen reports of these cancers occurring in the capsule or scar tissue around breast implants. This issue differs from breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) – a known risk among implant recipients.

“After preliminary review of published literature as part of our ongoing monitoring of the safety of breast implants, the FDA is aware of less than 20 cases of SCC and less than 30 cases of various lymphomas in the capsule around the breast implant,” the agency’s alert explains.

One avenue through which the FDA has identified cases is via medical device reports. As of Sept. 1, the FDA has received 10 medical device reports about SCC related to breast implants and 12 about various lymphomas.

The incidence rate and risk factors for these events are currently unknown, but reports of SCC and various lymphomas in the capsule around the breast implants have been reported for both textured and smooth breast implants, as well as for both saline and silicone breast implants. In some cases, the cancers were diagnosed years after breast implant surgery.

Reported signs and symptoms included swelling, pain, lumps, or skin changes. 

Although the risks of SCC and lymphomas in the tissue around breast implants appears rare, “when safety risks with medical devices are identified, we wanted to provide clear and understandable information to the public as quickly as possible,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices, FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health, explained in a press release.

Patients and providers are strongly encouraged to report breast implant–related problems and cases of SCC or lymphoma of the breast implant capsule to MedWatch, the FDA’s adverse event reporting program.

The FDA plans to complete “a thorough literature review” as well as “identify ways to collect more detailed information regarding patient cases.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert, warning of a rare but concerning potential risk of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and various lymphomas in the scar tissue around breast implants.

The FDA safety communication is based on several dozen reports of these cancers occurring in the capsule or scar tissue around breast implants. This issue differs from breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) – a known risk among implant recipients.

“After preliminary review of published literature as part of our ongoing monitoring of the safety of breast implants, the FDA is aware of less than 20 cases of SCC and less than 30 cases of various lymphomas in the capsule around the breast implant,” the agency’s alert explains.

One avenue through which the FDA has identified cases is via medical device reports. As of Sept. 1, the FDA has received 10 medical device reports about SCC related to breast implants and 12 about various lymphomas.

The incidence rate and risk factors for these events are currently unknown, but reports of SCC and various lymphomas in the capsule around the breast implants have been reported for both textured and smooth breast implants, as well as for both saline and silicone breast implants. In some cases, the cancers were diagnosed years after breast implant surgery.

Reported signs and symptoms included swelling, pain, lumps, or skin changes. 

Although the risks of SCC and lymphomas in the tissue around breast implants appears rare, “when safety risks with medical devices are identified, we wanted to provide clear and understandable information to the public as quickly as possible,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices, FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health, explained in a press release.

Patients and providers are strongly encouraged to report breast implant–related problems and cases of SCC or lymphoma of the breast implant capsule to MedWatch, the FDA’s adverse event reporting program.

The FDA plans to complete “a thorough literature review” as well as “identify ways to collect more detailed information regarding patient cases.”

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

The Diagnosis: Netherton Syndrome

A punch biopsy from the right lower back supported the clinical diagnosis of ichthyosis linearis circumflexa. The patient underwent genetic testing and was found to have a heterozygous mutation in the serine protease inhibitor Kazal type 5 gene, SPINK5, that was consistent with a diagnosis of Netherton syndrome.

Netherton syndrome is an autosomal-recessive genodermatosis characterized by a triad of congenital ichthyosis, hair shaft abnormalities, and atopic diatheses.^1,2 It affects approximately 1 in 200,000 live births^2,3; however, it is considered by many to be underdiagnosed due to the variability in the clinical appearance. Therefore, the incidence of Netherton syndrome may actually be closer 1 in 50,000 live births.¹ The manifestations of the disease are caused by a germline mutation in the SPINK5 gene, which encodes the serine protease inhibitor LEKTI.^1,2 Dysfunctional LEKTI results in increased proteolytic activity of the lipid-processing enzymes in the stratum corneum, resulting in a disruption in the lipid bilayer.¹ Dysfunctional LEKTI also results in a loss of the antiinflammatory and antimicrobial function of the stratum corneum. Clinical features of Netherton syndrome usually present at birth or shortly thereafter.¹ Congenital ichthyosiform erythroderma, or the continuous peeling of the skin, is a common presentation seen at birth and in the neonatal period.² As the patient ages, the dermatologic manifestations evolve into serpiginous and circinate, erythematous plaques with a characteristic peripheral, double-edged scaling.^1,2 This distinctive finding is termed ichthyosis linearis circumflexa and is pathognomonic for the syndrome.² Lesions often affect the trunk and extremities and demonstrate an undulating course.¹ Because eczematous and lichenified plaques in flexural areas as well as pruritus are common clinical features, this disease often is misdiagnosed as atopic dermatitis,^1,3 as was the case in our patient.

Patients with Netherton syndrome can present with various hair abnormalities. Trichorrhexis invaginata, known as bamboo hair, is the intussusception of the hair shaft and is characteristic of the disease.³ It develops from a reduced number of disulfide bonds, which results in cortical softening.¹ Trichorrhexis invaginata may not be present at birth and often improves with age.^1,3 Other hair shaft abnormalities such as pili torti, trichorrhexis nodosa, and helical hair also may be observed in Netherton syndrome.¹ Extracutaneous manifestations also are typical. There is immune dysregulation of memory B cells and natural killer cells, which manifests as frequent respiratory and skin infections as well as sepsis.^1,2 Patients also may have increased levels of serum IgE and eosinophilia resulting in atopy and allergic reactions to various triggers such as foods.¹ The neonatal period also may be complicated by dehydration, electrolyte imbalances, inability to regulate body temperature, and failure to thrive.^1,3

When there is an extensive disruption of the skin barrier during the neonatal period, there may be severe electrolyte imbalances and thermoregulatory challenges necessitating treatment in the neonatal intensive care unit. Cutaneous disease can be treated with topical therapies with variable success.¹ Topical therapies for symptom management include emollients, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, calcipotriene, and retinoids; however, utmost caution must be employed with these therapies due to the increased risk for systemic absorption resulting from the disturbance of the skin barrier. When therapy with topical tacrolimus is implemented, monitoring of serum drug levels is required.¹ Pruritus may be treated symptomatically with oral antihistamines. Intravenous immunoglobulin has been shown to decrease the frequency of infections and improve skin inflammation. Systemic retinoids have unpredictable effects and result in improvement of disease in some patients but exacerbation in others. Phototherapy with narrowband UVB, psoralen plus UVA, UVA¹, and balneophototherapy also are effective treatments for cutaneous disease.1 Dupilumab has been shown to decrease pruritus, improve hair abnormalities, and improve skin disease, thereby demonstrating its effectiveness in treating the atopy and ichthyosis in Netherton syndrome.⁴

The differential diagnosis includes other figurate erythemas including erythema marginatum and erythrokeratodermia variabilis. Erythema marginatum is a cutaneous manifestation of acute rheumatic fever and is characterized by migratory polycyclic erythematous plaques without overlying scale, usually on the trunk and proximal extremities.⁵ Erythrokeratodermia variabilis is caused by heterozygous mutations in gap junction protein beta 3, GJB3, and gap junction protein beta 4, GJB4, and is characterized by transient geographic and erythematous patches and stable scaly plaques; however, double-edged scaling is not a feature.¹ Acrodermatitis enteropathica is an autosomal-recessive disorder caused by mutations in the zinc transporter SLC39A4. Cutaneous manifestations occur after weaning from breast milk and are characterized by erythematous plaques with erosions, vesicles, and scaling, which characteristically occur in the perioral and perianal locations.6 Neonatal lupus is a form of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Typical skin lesions are erythematous annular plaques with overlying scaling, which may be present at birth and have a predilection for the face and other sun-exposed areas. Lesions generally resolve after clearance of the pathogenic maternal antibodies.⁷

The Diagnosis: Netherton Syndrome

A punch biopsy from the right lower back supported the clinical diagnosis of ichthyosis linearis circumflexa. The patient underwent genetic testing and was found to have a heterozygous mutation in the serine protease inhibitor Kazal type 5 gene, SPINK5, that was consistent with a diagnosis of Netherton syndrome.

Netherton syndrome is an autosomal-recessive genodermatosis characterized by a triad of congenital ichthyosis, hair shaft abnormalities, and atopic diatheses.^1,2 It affects approximately 1 in 200,000 live births^2,3; however, it is considered by many to be underdiagnosed due to the variability in the clinical appearance. Therefore, the incidence of Netherton syndrome may actually be closer 1 in 50,000 live births.¹ The manifestations of the disease are caused by a germline mutation in the SPINK5 gene, which encodes the serine protease inhibitor LEKTI.^1,2 Dysfunctional LEKTI results in increased proteolytic activity of the lipid-processing enzymes in the stratum corneum, resulting in a disruption in the lipid bilayer.¹ Dysfunctional LEKTI also results in a loss of the antiinflammatory and antimicrobial function of the stratum corneum. Clinical features of Netherton syndrome usually present at birth or shortly thereafter.¹ Congenital ichthyosiform erythroderma, or the continuous peeling of the skin, is a common presentation seen at birth and in the neonatal period.² As the patient ages, the dermatologic manifestations evolve into serpiginous and circinate, erythematous plaques with a characteristic peripheral, double-edged scaling.^1,2 This distinctive finding is termed ichthyosis linearis circumflexa and is pathognomonic for the syndrome.² Lesions often affect the trunk and extremities and demonstrate an undulating course.¹ Because eczematous and lichenified plaques in flexural areas as well as pruritus are common clinical features, this disease often is misdiagnosed as atopic dermatitis,^1,3 as was the case in our patient.

Patients with Netherton syndrome can present with various hair abnormalities. Trichorrhexis invaginata, known as bamboo hair, is the intussusception of the hair shaft and is characteristic of the disease.³ It develops from a reduced number of disulfide bonds, which results in cortical softening.¹ Trichorrhexis invaginata may not be present at birth and often improves with age.^1,3 Other hair shaft abnormalities such as pili torti, trichorrhexis nodosa, and helical hair also may be observed in Netherton syndrome.¹ Extracutaneous manifestations also are typical. There is immune dysregulation of memory B cells and natural killer cells, which manifests as frequent respiratory and skin infections as well as sepsis.^1,2 Patients also may have increased levels of serum IgE and eosinophilia resulting in atopy and allergic reactions to various triggers such as foods.¹ The neonatal period also may be complicated by dehydration, electrolyte imbalances, inability to regulate body temperature, and failure to thrive.^1,3

When there is an extensive disruption of the skin barrier during the neonatal period, there may be severe electrolyte imbalances and thermoregulatory challenges necessitating treatment in the neonatal intensive care unit. Cutaneous disease can be treated with topical therapies with variable success.¹ Topical therapies for symptom management include emollients, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, calcipotriene, and retinoids; however, utmost caution must be employed with these therapies due to the increased risk for systemic absorption resulting from the disturbance of the skin barrier. When therapy with topical tacrolimus is implemented, monitoring of serum drug levels is required.¹ Pruritus may be treated symptomatically with oral antihistamines. Intravenous immunoglobulin has been shown to decrease the frequency of infections and improve skin inflammation. Systemic retinoids have unpredictable effects and result in improvement of disease in some patients but exacerbation in others. Phototherapy with narrowband UVB, psoralen plus UVA, UVA¹, and balneophototherapy also are effective treatments for cutaneous disease.1 Dupilumab has been shown to decrease pruritus, improve hair abnormalities, and improve skin disease, thereby demonstrating its effectiveness in treating the atopy and ichthyosis in Netherton syndrome.⁴

The differential diagnosis includes other figurate erythemas including erythema marginatum and erythrokeratodermia variabilis. Erythema marginatum is a cutaneous manifestation of acute rheumatic fever and is characterized by migratory polycyclic erythematous plaques without overlying scale, usually on the trunk and proximal extremities.⁵ Erythrokeratodermia variabilis is caused by heterozygous mutations in gap junction protein beta 3, GJB3, and gap junction protein beta 4, GJB4, and is characterized by transient geographic and erythematous patches and stable scaly plaques; however, double-edged scaling is not a feature.¹ Acrodermatitis enteropathica is an autosomal-recessive disorder caused by mutations in the zinc transporter SLC39A4. Cutaneous manifestations occur after weaning from breast milk and are characterized by erythematous plaques with erosions, vesicles, and scaling, which characteristically occur in the perioral and perianal locations.6 Neonatal lupus is a form of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Typical skin lesions are erythematous annular plaques with overlying scaling, which may be present at birth and have a predilection for the face and other sun-exposed areas. Lesions generally resolve after clearance of the pathogenic maternal antibodies.⁷

The Diagnosis: Netherton Syndrome

A punch biopsy from the right lower back supported the clinical diagnosis of ichthyosis linearis circumflexa. The patient underwent genetic testing and was found to have a heterozygous mutation in the serine protease inhibitor Kazal type 5 gene, SPINK5, that was consistent with a diagnosis of Netherton syndrome.

Netherton syndrome is an autosomal-recessive genodermatosis characterized by a triad of congenital ichthyosis, hair shaft abnormalities, and atopic diatheses.^1,2 It affects approximately 1 in 200,000 live births^2,3; however, it is considered by many to be underdiagnosed due to the variability in the clinical appearance. Therefore, the incidence of Netherton syndrome may actually be closer 1 in 50,000 live births.¹ The manifestations of the disease are caused by a germline mutation in the SPINK5 gene, which encodes the serine protease inhibitor LEKTI.^1,2 Dysfunctional LEKTI results in increased proteolytic activity of the lipid-processing enzymes in the stratum corneum, resulting in a disruption in the lipid bilayer.¹ Dysfunctional LEKTI also results in a loss of the antiinflammatory and antimicrobial function of the stratum corneum. Clinical features of Netherton syndrome usually present at birth or shortly thereafter.¹ Congenital ichthyosiform erythroderma, or the continuous peeling of the skin, is a common presentation seen at birth and in the neonatal period.² As the patient ages, the dermatologic manifestations evolve into serpiginous and circinate, erythematous plaques with a characteristic peripheral, double-edged scaling.^1,2 This distinctive finding is termed ichthyosis linearis circumflexa and is pathognomonic for the syndrome.² Lesions often affect the trunk and extremities and demonstrate an undulating course.¹ Because eczematous and lichenified plaques in flexural areas as well as pruritus are common clinical features, this disease often is misdiagnosed as atopic dermatitis,^1,3 as was the case in our patient.

Patients with Netherton syndrome can present with various hair abnormalities. Trichorrhexis invaginata, known as bamboo hair, is the intussusception of the hair shaft and is characteristic of the disease.³ It develops from a reduced number of disulfide bonds, which results in cortical softening.¹ Trichorrhexis invaginata may not be present at birth and often improves with age.^1,3 Other hair shaft abnormalities such as pili torti, trichorrhexis nodosa, and helical hair also may be observed in Netherton syndrome.¹ Extracutaneous manifestations also are typical. There is immune dysregulation of memory B cells and natural killer cells, which manifests as frequent respiratory and skin infections as well as sepsis.^1,2 Patients also may have increased levels of serum IgE and eosinophilia resulting in atopy and allergic reactions to various triggers such as foods.¹ The neonatal period also may be complicated by dehydration, electrolyte imbalances, inability to regulate body temperature, and failure to thrive.^1,3

When there is an extensive disruption of the skin barrier during the neonatal period, there may be severe electrolyte imbalances and thermoregulatory challenges necessitating treatment in the neonatal intensive care unit. Cutaneous disease can be treated with topical therapies with variable success.¹ Topical therapies for symptom management include emollients, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, calcipotriene, and retinoids; however, utmost caution must be employed with these therapies due to the increased risk for systemic absorption resulting from the disturbance of the skin barrier. When therapy with topical tacrolimus is implemented, monitoring of serum drug levels is required.¹ Pruritus may be treated symptomatically with oral antihistamines. Intravenous immunoglobulin has been shown to decrease the frequency of infections and improve skin inflammation. Systemic retinoids have unpredictable effects and result in improvement of disease in some patients but exacerbation in others. Phototherapy with narrowband UVB, psoralen plus UVA, UVA¹, and balneophototherapy also are effective treatments for cutaneous disease.1 Dupilumab has been shown to decrease pruritus, improve hair abnormalities, and improve skin disease, thereby demonstrating its effectiveness in treating the atopy and ichthyosis in Netherton syndrome.⁴

The differential diagnosis includes other figurate erythemas including erythema marginatum and erythrokeratodermia variabilis. Erythema marginatum is a cutaneous manifestation of acute rheumatic fever and is characterized by migratory polycyclic erythematous plaques without overlying scale, usually on the trunk and proximal extremities.⁵ Erythrokeratodermia variabilis is caused by heterozygous mutations in gap junction protein beta 3, GJB3, and gap junction protein beta 4, GJB4, and is characterized by transient geographic and erythematous patches and stable scaly plaques; however, double-edged scaling is not a feature.¹ Acrodermatitis enteropathica is an autosomal-recessive disorder caused by mutations in the zinc transporter SLC39A4. Cutaneous manifestations occur after weaning from breast milk and are characterized by erythematous plaques with erosions, vesicles, and scaling, which characteristically occur in the perioral and perianal locations.6 Neonatal lupus is a form of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus. Typical skin lesions are erythematous annular plaques with overlying scaling, which may be present at birth and have a predilection for the face and other sun-exposed areas. Lesions generally resolve after clearance of the pathogenic maternal antibodies.⁷

Treatment with the humanized monoclonal antibody litifilimab for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) led to greater improvements in joint manifestations than did placebo in an international phase 2 trial that reflects keen interest in targeting type 1 interferon and the innate immune system.

Litifilimab was associated with an approximately three-joint reduction in the number of swollen and tender joints, compared with placebo, over 24 weeks in the study, which was published  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The study was the first part of the LILAC trial, a two-part, phase 2 study. The second part involved cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) with or without systemic manifestations. Treatment led to improvements in skin disease, as measured by Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index–Activity (CLASI-A) scores. It was published  in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The investigational drug targets blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2). The antigen is expressed solely on plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs), which accumulate in skin lesions and organs of patients with SLE. When the antibody binds to BDCA2, “the synthesis of a variety of cytokines is shut down – type 1 interferons, type 3 interferons, TNF [tumor necrosis factor], and [other cytokines and chemokines] made by the pDCs,” Richard A. Furie, MD, lead author of the article, said in an interview.

In a phase 1 trial involving patients with SLE and CLE, the drug’s biologic activity was shown by a dampened interferon signature in blood and modulated type 1 interferon-induced proteins in the skin, he and his coinvestigators noted.

Dr. Furie is chief of rheumatology at Northwell Health and professor of medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell and at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Uniondale, New York.
 

Impact on the joints

The primary analysis in the SLE trial involved 102 patients who had SLE, arthritis, and active skin disease. The patients received litifilimab 450 mg or placebo, administered subcutaneously, at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20. The patients were required to have at least four tender joints and at least four swollen joints, and these active joints had to be those classically involved in lupus arthritis.

The mean (± standard deviation) baseline number of active joints was 19 ± 8.4 in the litifilimab group and 21.6 ± 8.5 in placebo group. From baseline to week 24, the least-squares mean (± standard deviation) change in the total number of active joints was –15.0 ± 1.2 with litifilimab and –11.6 ± 1.3 with placebo (mean difference, –3.4; 95% confidence interval, –6.7 to -0.2; P = .04).

Most of the secondary endpoints did not support the results of the primary analysis. However, improvement was seen in the SLE Responder Index (SRI-4) – a three-component global index that Dr. Furie and others developed in 2009 using data from the phase 2 SLE trial of belimumab (Benlysta).

The composite index, used in the phase 3 trial of belimumab, captures improvement in disease activity without a worsening of the condition overall or new significant disease activity in other domains. “It’s a dichotomous measure – either you’re a responder or not,” Dr. Furie said in the interview.

Response on the SRI-4 was defined as a reduction of at least 4 points from baseline in the SLEDAI-2K score (the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index), no new disease activity as measured by one score of A (severe) or more than one score of B (moderate) on the BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) index, and no increase of 0.3 points or more on the Physician’s Global Assessment.

A total of 56% of the patients in the litifilimab group showed responses on the SRI-4 at week 24, compared with 29% in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, 26.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.5-43.2). This is “a robust response” that is much greater than the effect size seen in the phase 3 trial of belimumab or in research on anifrolumab (Saphnelo). Both of those drugs are approved for SLE, Dr. Furie said. “We’ll need to see if it’s reproduced in phase 3.”

There’s “little question that litifilimab works for the skin,” Dr. Furie noted. In the second part of the LILAC study, which focused on CLE, litifilimab demonstrated efficacy, and the SLE trial lends more support. Among several secondary endpoints evaluating skin-related disease activity, a reduction of at least 7 points from baseline in the CLASI-A score (a clinically relevant threshold) occurred in 56% of the litifilimab group and 34% of the placebo group.

The trial was conducted at 55 centers in Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the United States. The SLE part of the study began as a dose-ranging study aimed at evaluating cutaneous lupus activity, but owing to “slow enrollment and to allow an assessment of the effect of litifilimab on arthritis in SLE,” the protocol and primary endpoint were amended before the trial data were unblinded to evaluate only the 450-mg dose among participants with active arthritis and skin disease (at least one active skin lesion), the investigators explained.

Background therapy for SLE was allowed if the therapy was initiated at least 12 weeks before randomization and if dose levels were stable through the trial period. Glucocorticoids had to be tapered to ≤ 10 mg/day according to a specified regimen.

Making progress for lupus

Jane E. Salmon, MD, director of the Lupus and APS Center of Excellence and codirector of the Mary Kirkland Center for Lupus Research at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, who was not involved in the research, said in an email that she is “cautiously optimistic, because in SLE, successful phase 2 trials too often are followed by unsuccessful phase 3 trials.”

Courtesy Hospital for Special Surgery

Blocking the production of type 1 interferon by pDCs implicated in SLE pathogenesis has the theoretical advantage of preserving type 1 interferon critical to protection from viruses, she noted. Herpes infections were reported among patients who received litifilimab, but rates were not increased, compared with placebo.

Diversity is an important priority in further research, Dr. Salmon said.

Daniel J. Wallace, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, similarly pointed out in an editorial that accompanied the SLE phase 2 trial that while Black patients make up one-third of the U.S. population with lupus, only about 10% of study participants whose race and ethnicity was reported were Black). (Race was not reported by sites in Europe.)

The results of the LILAC trials “encourage further exploration of interventions that affect upstream lupus inflammatory pathways in the innate immune system in lupus,” Dr. Wallace wrote. He noted that lupus has “lagged behind its rheumatic cousins,” such as rheumatoid arthritis and vasculitis, in drug development.

Developing endpoints and study designs for SLE trials has been challenging, at least partly because it is a multisystem disease, Dr. Furie said. “But we’re making progress.”

Anifrolumab, a type 1 interferon receptor monoclonal antibody that was approved for SLE in July 2021, “may have a broader effect on type 1 interferons,” he noted, while litifilimab “may have a broader effect on proinflammatory cytokines, at least those expressed by pDCs.”

Biogen, the sponsor of the LILAC trial, is currently enrolling patients in phase 3 studies – TOPAZ-1 and TOPAZ-2 – to evaluate litifilimab in SLE over a 52-week period. The company also plans to start a pivotal study of the drug in CLE later this year, according to a press release.

Six coauthors are employees of Biogen; five, including Dr. Furie, reported serving as a consultant to the company; one served on a data and safety monitoring board for Biogen; and Dr. Salmon owns stock in the company.

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

Treatment with the humanized monoclonal antibody litifilimab for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) led to greater improvements in joint manifestations than did placebo in an international phase 2 trial that reflects keen interest in targeting type 1 interferon and the innate immune system.

Litifilimab was associated with an approximately three-joint reduction in the number of swollen and tender joints, compared with placebo, over 24 weeks in the study, which was published  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The study was the first part of the LILAC trial, a two-part, phase 2 study. The second part involved cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) with or without systemic manifestations. Treatment led to improvements in skin disease, as measured by Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index–Activity (CLASI-A) scores. It was published  in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The investigational drug targets blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2). The antigen is expressed solely on plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs), which accumulate in skin lesions and organs of patients with SLE. When the antibody binds to BDCA2, “the synthesis of a variety of cytokines is shut down – type 1 interferons, type 3 interferons, TNF [tumor necrosis factor], and [other cytokines and chemokines] made by the pDCs,” Richard A. Furie, MD, lead author of the article, said in an interview.

In a phase 1 trial involving patients with SLE and CLE, the drug’s biologic activity was shown by a dampened interferon signature in blood and modulated type 1 interferon-induced proteins in the skin, he and his coinvestigators noted.

Dr. Furie is chief of rheumatology at Northwell Health and professor of medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell and at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Uniondale, New York.
 

Impact on the joints

The primary analysis in the SLE trial involved 102 patients who had SLE, arthritis, and active skin disease. The patients received litifilimab 450 mg or placebo, administered subcutaneously, at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20. The patients were required to have at least four tender joints and at least four swollen joints, and these active joints had to be those classically involved in lupus arthritis.

The mean (± standard deviation) baseline number of active joints was 19 ± 8.4 in the litifilimab group and 21.6 ± 8.5 in placebo group. From baseline to week 24, the least-squares mean (± standard deviation) change in the total number of active joints was –15.0 ± 1.2 with litifilimab and –11.6 ± 1.3 with placebo (mean difference, –3.4; 95% confidence interval, –6.7 to -0.2; P = .04).

Most of the secondary endpoints did not support the results of the primary analysis. However, improvement was seen in the SLE Responder Index (SRI-4) – a three-component global index that Dr. Furie and others developed in 2009 using data from the phase 2 SLE trial of belimumab (Benlysta).

The composite index, used in the phase 3 trial of belimumab, captures improvement in disease activity without a worsening of the condition overall or new significant disease activity in other domains. “It’s a dichotomous measure – either you’re a responder or not,” Dr. Furie said in the interview.

Response on the SRI-4 was defined as a reduction of at least 4 points from baseline in the SLEDAI-2K score (the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index), no new disease activity as measured by one score of A (severe) or more than one score of B (moderate) on the BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) index, and no increase of 0.3 points or more on the Physician’s Global Assessment.

A total of 56% of the patients in the litifilimab group showed responses on the SRI-4 at week 24, compared with 29% in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, 26.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.5-43.2). This is “a robust response” that is much greater than the effect size seen in the phase 3 trial of belimumab or in research on anifrolumab (Saphnelo). Both of those drugs are approved for SLE, Dr. Furie said. “We’ll need to see if it’s reproduced in phase 3.”

There’s “little question that litifilimab works for the skin,” Dr. Furie noted. In the second part of the LILAC study, which focused on CLE, litifilimab demonstrated efficacy, and the SLE trial lends more support. Among several secondary endpoints evaluating skin-related disease activity, a reduction of at least 7 points from baseline in the CLASI-A score (a clinically relevant threshold) occurred in 56% of the litifilimab group and 34% of the placebo group.

The trial was conducted at 55 centers in Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the United States. The SLE part of the study began as a dose-ranging study aimed at evaluating cutaneous lupus activity, but owing to “slow enrollment and to allow an assessment of the effect of litifilimab on arthritis in SLE,” the protocol and primary endpoint were amended before the trial data were unblinded to evaluate only the 450-mg dose among participants with active arthritis and skin disease (at least one active skin lesion), the investigators explained.

Background therapy for SLE was allowed if the therapy was initiated at least 12 weeks before randomization and if dose levels were stable through the trial period. Glucocorticoids had to be tapered to ≤ 10 mg/day according to a specified regimen.

Making progress for lupus

Jane E. Salmon, MD, director of the Lupus and APS Center of Excellence and codirector of the Mary Kirkland Center for Lupus Research at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, who was not involved in the research, said in an email that she is “cautiously optimistic, because in SLE, successful phase 2 trials too often are followed by unsuccessful phase 3 trials.”

Courtesy Hospital for Special Surgery

Blocking the production of type 1 interferon by pDCs implicated in SLE pathogenesis has the theoretical advantage of preserving type 1 interferon critical to protection from viruses, she noted. Herpes infections were reported among patients who received litifilimab, but rates were not increased, compared with placebo.

Diversity is an important priority in further research, Dr. Salmon said.

Daniel J. Wallace, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, similarly pointed out in an editorial that accompanied the SLE phase 2 trial that while Black patients make up one-third of the U.S. population with lupus, only about 10% of study participants whose race and ethnicity was reported were Black). (Race was not reported by sites in Europe.)

The results of the LILAC trials “encourage further exploration of interventions that affect upstream lupus inflammatory pathways in the innate immune system in lupus,” Dr. Wallace wrote. He noted that lupus has “lagged behind its rheumatic cousins,” such as rheumatoid arthritis and vasculitis, in drug development.

Developing endpoints and study designs for SLE trials has been challenging, at least partly because it is a multisystem disease, Dr. Furie said. “But we’re making progress.”

Anifrolumab, a type 1 interferon receptor monoclonal antibody that was approved for SLE in July 2021, “may have a broader effect on type 1 interferons,” he noted, while litifilimab “may have a broader effect on proinflammatory cytokines, at least those expressed by pDCs.”

Biogen, the sponsor of the LILAC trial, is currently enrolling patients in phase 3 studies – TOPAZ-1 and TOPAZ-2 – to evaluate litifilimab in SLE over a 52-week period. The company also plans to start a pivotal study of the drug in CLE later this year, according to a press release.

Six coauthors are employees of Biogen; five, including Dr. Furie, reported serving as a consultant to the company; one served on a data and safety monitoring board for Biogen; and Dr. Salmon owns stock in the company.

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

Treatment with the humanized monoclonal antibody litifilimab for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) led to greater improvements in joint manifestations than did placebo in an international phase 2 trial that reflects keen interest in targeting type 1 interferon and the innate immune system.

Litifilimab was associated with an approximately three-joint reduction in the number of swollen and tender joints, compared with placebo, over 24 weeks in the study, which was published  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The study was the first part of the LILAC trial, a two-part, phase 2 study. The second part involved cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) with or without systemic manifestations. Treatment led to improvements in skin disease, as measured by Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index–Activity (CLASI-A) scores. It was published  in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The investigational drug targets blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2). The antigen is expressed solely on plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs), which accumulate in skin lesions and organs of patients with SLE. When the antibody binds to BDCA2, “the synthesis of a variety of cytokines is shut down – type 1 interferons, type 3 interferons, TNF [tumor necrosis factor], and [other cytokines and chemokines] made by the pDCs,” Richard A. Furie, MD, lead author of the article, said in an interview.

In a phase 1 trial involving patients with SLE and CLE, the drug’s biologic activity was shown by a dampened interferon signature in blood and modulated type 1 interferon-induced proteins in the skin, he and his coinvestigators noted.

Dr. Furie is chief of rheumatology at Northwell Health and professor of medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell and at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Uniondale, New York.
 

Impact on the joints

The primary analysis in the SLE trial involved 102 patients who had SLE, arthritis, and active skin disease. The patients received litifilimab 450 mg or placebo, administered subcutaneously, at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20. The patients were required to have at least four tender joints and at least four swollen joints, and these active joints had to be those classically involved in lupus arthritis.

The mean (± standard deviation) baseline number of active joints was 19 ± 8.4 in the litifilimab group and 21.6 ± 8.5 in placebo group. From baseline to week 24, the least-squares mean (± standard deviation) change in the total number of active joints was –15.0 ± 1.2 with litifilimab and –11.6 ± 1.3 with placebo (mean difference, –3.4; 95% confidence interval, –6.7 to -0.2; P = .04).

Most of the secondary endpoints did not support the results of the primary analysis. However, improvement was seen in the SLE Responder Index (SRI-4) – a three-component global index that Dr. Furie and others developed in 2009 using data from the phase 2 SLE trial of belimumab (Benlysta).

The composite index, used in the phase 3 trial of belimumab, captures improvement in disease activity without a worsening of the condition overall or new significant disease activity in other domains. “It’s a dichotomous measure – either you’re a responder or not,” Dr. Furie said in the interview.

Response on the SRI-4 was defined as a reduction of at least 4 points from baseline in the SLEDAI-2K score (the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index), no new disease activity as measured by one score of A (severe) or more than one score of B (moderate) on the BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) index, and no increase of 0.3 points or more on the Physician’s Global Assessment.

A total of 56% of the patients in the litifilimab group showed responses on the SRI-4 at week 24, compared with 29% in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, 26.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.5-43.2). This is “a robust response” that is much greater than the effect size seen in the phase 3 trial of belimumab or in research on anifrolumab (Saphnelo). Both of those drugs are approved for SLE, Dr. Furie said. “We’ll need to see if it’s reproduced in phase 3.”

There’s “little question that litifilimab works for the skin,” Dr. Furie noted. In the second part of the LILAC study, which focused on CLE, litifilimab demonstrated efficacy, and the SLE trial lends more support. Among several secondary endpoints evaluating skin-related disease activity, a reduction of at least 7 points from baseline in the CLASI-A score (a clinically relevant threshold) occurred in 56% of the litifilimab group and 34% of the placebo group.

The trial was conducted at 55 centers in Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the United States. The SLE part of the study began as a dose-ranging study aimed at evaluating cutaneous lupus activity, but owing to “slow enrollment and to allow an assessment of the effect of litifilimab on arthritis in SLE,” the protocol and primary endpoint were amended before the trial data were unblinded to evaluate only the 450-mg dose among participants with active arthritis and skin disease (at least one active skin lesion), the investigators explained.

Background therapy for SLE was allowed if the therapy was initiated at least 12 weeks before randomization and if dose levels were stable through the trial period. Glucocorticoids had to be tapered to ≤ 10 mg/day according to a specified regimen.

Making progress for lupus

Jane E. Salmon, MD, director of the Lupus and APS Center of Excellence and codirector of the Mary Kirkland Center for Lupus Research at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, who was not involved in the research, said in an email that she is “cautiously optimistic, because in SLE, successful phase 2 trials too often are followed by unsuccessful phase 3 trials.”

Courtesy Hospital for Special Surgery

Blocking the production of type 1 interferon by pDCs implicated in SLE pathogenesis has the theoretical advantage of preserving type 1 interferon critical to protection from viruses, she noted. Herpes infections were reported among patients who received litifilimab, but rates were not increased, compared with placebo.

Diversity is an important priority in further research, Dr. Salmon said.

Daniel J. Wallace, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, similarly pointed out in an editorial that accompanied the SLE phase 2 trial that while Black patients make up one-third of the U.S. population with lupus, only about 10% of study participants whose race and ethnicity was reported were Black). (Race was not reported by sites in Europe.)

The results of the LILAC trials “encourage further exploration of interventions that affect upstream lupus inflammatory pathways in the innate immune system in lupus,” Dr. Wallace wrote. He noted that lupus has “lagged behind its rheumatic cousins,” such as rheumatoid arthritis and vasculitis, in drug development.

Developing endpoints and study designs for SLE trials has been challenging, at least partly because it is a multisystem disease, Dr. Furie said. “But we’re making progress.”

Anifrolumab, a type 1 interferon receptor monoclonal antibody that was approved for SLE in July 2021, “may have a broader effect on type 1 interferons,” he noted, while litifilimab “may have a broader effect on proinflammatory cytokines, at least those expressed by pDCs.”

Biogen, the sponsor of the LILAC trial, is currently enrolling patients in phase 3 studies – TOPAZ-1 and TOPAZ-2 – to evaluate litifilimab in SLE over a 52-week period. The company also plans to start a pivotal study of the drug in CLE later this year, according to a press release.

Six coauthors are employees of Biogen; five, including Dr. Furie, reported serving as a consultant to the company; one served on a data and safety monitoring board for Biogen; and Dr. Salmon owns stock in the company.

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

After 8 weeks, eight out of ten people with seborrheic dermatitis saw their symptoms cleared or improved with once-daily treatment with roflumilast 0.3% foam, according to the results of the phase 3 STRATUM trial.

More than half experienced clearance of their symptoms, and three out of five achieved a significant improvement in pruritus, it was revealed during a late-breaking session at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
 

Common condition led to rapid recruitment

“Seborrheic dermatitis is a disease that’s very common, yet in my opinion, undertreated in dermatology,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, who presented the findings.

“It’s so common that when we did this trial, I was very surprised to see how easy it was to recruit,” said Dr. Blauvelt, a dermatologist who is president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland. “Patients came in rapidly, out of the woodwork – they were desperate.”

While there are several tried and tested treatments for the condition, such as topical steroids and antifungal agents, he noted that they have their limitations: “Sometimes efficacy, sometimes the ability to be used on hair-bearing areas.”

Roflumilast is a phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor that is available for topical use in a 0.3% cream formulation (Zoryve). This formulation gained FDA approval for plaque psoriasis for patients ages 12 and older this summer and is also under investigation as a treatment for atopic dermatitis.

It’s the same product in both preparations, Dr. Blauvelt said during the discussion period. “The only major difference between the cream and the foam is the propellant used to make it into a foam. Otherwise, they have the exact same list of ingredients.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported that just over 450 patients had been recruited at 53 U.S. centers into the 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.  

For inclusion, patients had to have moderate seborrheic dermatitis, defined as an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of three or more. Dr. Blauvelt noted that patients as young as 9 years old could be recruited, and there was no upper age limit. The average age of participating patients, however, was around 42 years. 

Multiple improvements seen in ‘happy trial’

The primary endpoint was an IGA score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-grade improvement (IGA success) after 8 weeks of treatment. This was achieved by 80% of patients who were treated with roflumilast 0.3% foam, compared with 60% of those who were treated with the vehicle (P less than .0001).

Dr. Blauvelt pointed out that significant improvements had also been seen after 2 weeks (about 42% vs. about 26%; P = .0003) and 4 weeks (about 72% vs. about 49%; P less than .0001) of treatment.

“Now if we raise the bar a little higher” and ask how many patients were completely clear of their seborrheic dermatitis, Dr. Blauvelt said, it was 50% at 8 weeks, more than a third at 4 weeks, over 15% at 2 weeks with the foam, and significantly lower at just under 30%, 15%, and 7% in the vehicle group.

A 4-point or more improvement in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) – accepted as the minimally clinically important difference – was achieved by more than 60% of patients treated with the foam at week 8, just under 50% at week 4, and just over 30% at week 2. Corresponding rates in the vehicle group were around 40%, 30%, and 15%.

“Many patients responded in this trial. So much so that when I was doing it, I called it the ‘happy trial.’ Every time I saw patients in this trial, they seemed to be happy,” Dr. Blauvelt said anecdotally.

“In terms of adverse events, the drug turned out to be very safe, and there didn’t seem to be any issues with any things that we see with, for example, oral phosphodiesterase inhibitors,” he added.

The tolerability findings suggest that the foam vehicle “was an excellent vehicle to be used for this particular drug,” with no signs of skin irritation, as rated by patients or investigators.
 

Lesson for practice: Advise patients to moisturize?

“It seems like the vehicle would be a good skincare product for patients,” observed the session’s cochair, Jo Lambert, MD, PhD, professor and academic head of the department of dermatology at Ghent University Hospital, Belgium.

It was “a pretty dramatic vehicle response, right?” Dr. Blauvelt responded. “We normally don’t think of telling seborrheic dermatitis patients to moisturize,” he added.

“I think one of the interesting findings is perhaps we should be telling them to moisturize their scalp or moisturize their face, or it could be something unique to this particular foam.”

The study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Blauvelt disclosed that he was an investigator for the trial and acted as consultant to the company, receiving grants/research funding and/or honoraria. Several of the study’s co-investigators are employees of Arcutis. Dr. Lambert was not involved in the study and cochaired the late-breaking session during which the STRATUM trial findings were reported.

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

After 8 weeks, eight out of ten people with seborrheic dermatitis saw their symptoms cleared or improved with once-daily treatment with roflumilast 0.3% foam, according to the results of the phase 3 STRATUM trial.

More than half experienced clearance of their symptoms, and three out of five achieved a significant improvement in pruritus, it was revealed during a late-breaking session at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
 

Common condition led to rapid recruitment

“Seborrheic dermatitis is a disease that’s very common, yet in my opinion, undertreated in dermatology,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, who presented the findings.

“It’s so common that when we did this trial, I was very surprised to see how easy it was to recruit,” said Dr. Blauvelt, a dermatologist who is president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland. “Patients came in rapidly, out of the woodwork – they were desperate.”

While there are several tried and tested treatments for the condition, such as topical steroids and antifungal agents, he noted that they have their limitations: “Sometimes efficacy, sometimes the ability to be used on hair-bearing areas.”

Roflumilast is a phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor that is available for topical use in a 0.3% cream formulation (Zoryve). This formulation gained FDA approval for plaque psoriasis for patients ages 12 and older this summer and is also under investigation as a treatment for atopic dermatitis.

It’s the same product in both preparations, Dr. Blauvelt said during the discussion period. “The only major difference between the cream and the foam is the propellant used to make it into a foam. Otherwise, they have the exact same list of ingredients.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported that just over 450 patients had been recruited at 53 U.S. centers into the 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.  

For inclusion, patients had to have moderate seborrheic dermatitis, defined as an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of three or more. Dr. Blauvelt noted that patients as young as 9 years old could be recruited, and there was no upper age limit. The average age of participating patients, however, was around 42 years. 

Multiple improvements seen in ‘happy trial’

The primary endpoint was an IGA score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-grade improvement (IGA success) after 8 weeks of treatment. This was achieved by 80% of patients who were treated with roflumilast 0.3% foam, compared with 60% of those who were treated with the vehicle (P less than .0001).

Dr. Blauvelt pointed out that significant improvements had also been seen after 2 weeks (about 42% vs. about 26%; P = .0003) and 4 weeks (about 72% vs. about 49%; P less than .0001) of treatment.

“Now if we raise the bar a little higher” and ask how many patients were completely clear of their seborrheic dermatitis, Dr. Blauvelt said, it was 50% at 8 weeks, more than a third at 4 weeks, over 15% at 2 weeks with the foam, and significantly lower at just under 30%, 15%, and 7% in the vehicle group.

A 4-point or more improvement in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) – accepted as the minimally clinically important difference – was achieved by more than 60% of patients treated with the foam at week 8, just under 50% at week 4, and just over 30% at week 2. Corresponding rates in the vehicle group were around 40%, 30%, and 15%.

“Many patients responded in this trial. So much so that when I was doing it, I called it the ‘happy trial.’ Every time I saw patients in this trial, they seemed to be happy,” Dr. Blauvelt said anecdotally.

“In terms of adverse events, the drug turned out to be very safe, and there didn’t seem to be any issues with any things that we see with, for example, oral phosphodiesterase inhibitors,” he added.

The tolerability findings suggest that the foam vehicle “was an excellent vehicle to be used for this particular drug,” with no signs of skin irritation, as rated by patients or investigators.
 

Lesson for practice: Advise patients to moisturize?

“It seems like the vehicle would be a good skincare product for patients,” observed the session’s cochair, Jo Lambert, MD, PhD, professor and academic head of the department of dermatology at Ghent University Hospital, Belgium.

It was “a pretty dramatic vehicle response, right?” Dr. Blauvelt responded. “We normally don’t think of telling seborrheic dermatitis patients to moisturize,” he added.

“I think one of the interesting findings is perhaps we should be telling them to moisturize their scalp or moisturize their face, or it could be something unique to this particular foam.”

The study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Blauvelt disclosed that he was an investigator for the trial and acted as consultant to the company, receiving grants/research funding and/or honoraria. Several of the study’s co-investigators are employees of Arcutis. Dr. Lambert was not involved in the study and cochaired the late-breaking session during which the STRATUM trial findings were reported.

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

After 8 weeks, eight out of ten people with seborrheic dermatitis saw their symptoms cleared or improved with once-daily treatment with roflumilast 0.3% foam, according to the results of the phase 3 STRATUM trial.

More than half experienced clearance of their symptoms, and three out of five achieved a significant improvement in pruritus, it was revealed during a late-breaking session at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
 

Common condition led to rapid recruitment

“Seborrheic dermatitis is a disease that’s very common, yet in my opinion, undertreated in dermatology,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, who presented the findings.

“It’s so common that when we did this trial, I was very surprised to see how easy it was to recruit,” said Dr. Blauvelt, a dermatologist who is president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland. “Patients came in rapidly, out of the woodwork – they were desperate.”

While there are several tried and tested treatments for the condition, such as topical steroids and antifungal agents, he noted that they have their limitations: “Sometimes efficacy, sometimes the ability to be used on hair-bearing areas.”

Roflumilast is a phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor that is available for topical use in a 0.3% cream formulation (Zoryve). This formulation gained FDA approval for plaque psoriasis for patients ages 12 and older this summer and is also under investigation as a treatment for atopic dermatitis.

It’s the same product in both preparations, Dr. Blauvelt said during the discussion period. “The only major difference between the cream and the foam is the propellant used to make it into a foam. Otherwise, they have the exact same list of ingredients.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported that just over 450 patients had been recruited at 53 U.S. centers into the 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.  

For inclusion, patients had to have moderate seborrheic dermatitis, defined as an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of three or more. Dr. Blauvelt noted that patients as young as 9 years old could be recruited, and there was no upper age limit. The average age of participating patients, however, was around 42 years. 

Multiple improvements seen in ‘happy trial’

The primary endpoint was an IGA score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-grade improvement (IGA success) after 8 weeks of treatment. This was achieved by 80% of patients who were treated with roflumilast 0.3% foam, compared with 60% of those who were treated with the vehicle (P less than .0001).

Dr. Blauvelt pointed out that significant improvements had also been seen after 2 weeks (about 42% vs. about 26%; P = .0003) and 4 weeks (about 72% vs. about 49%; P less than .0001) of treatment.

“Now if we raise the bar a little higher” and ask how many patients were completely clear of their seborrheic dermatitis, Dr. Blauvelt said, it was 50% at 8 weeks, more than a third at 4 weeks, over 15% at 2 weeks with the foam, and significantly lower at just under 30%, 15%, and 7% in the vehicle group.

A 4-point or more improvement in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) – accepted as the minimally clinically important difference – was achieved by more than 60% of patients treated with the foam at week 8, just under 50% at week 4, and just over 30% at week 2. Corresponding rates in the vehicle group were around 40%, 30%, and 15%.

“Many patients responded in this trial. So much so that when I was doing it, I called it the ‘happy trial.’ Every time I saw patients in this trial, they seemed to be happy,” Dr. Blauvelt said anecdotally.

“In terms of adverse events, the drug turned out to be very safe, and there didn’t seem to be any issues with any things that we see with, for example, oral phosphodiesterase inhibitors,” he added.

The tolerability findings suggest that the foam vehicle “was an excellent vehicle to be used for this particular drug,” with no signs of skin irritation, as rated by patients or investigators.
 

Lesson for practice: Advise patients to moisturize?

“It seems like the vehicle would be a good skincare product for patients,” observed the session’s cochair, Jo Lambert, MD, PhD, professor and academic head of the department of dermatology at Ghent University Hospital, Belgium.

It was “a pretty dramatic vehicle response, right?” Dr. Blauvelt responded. “We normally don’t think of telling seborrheic dermatitis patients to moisturize,” he added.

“I think one of the interesting findings is perhaps we should be telling them to moisturize their scalp or moisturize their face, or it could be something unique to this particular foam.”

The study was funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Blauvelt disclosed that he was an investigator for the trial and acted as consultant to the company, receiving grants/research funding and/or honoraria. Several of the study’s co-investigators are employees of Arcutis. Dr. Lambert was not involved in the study and cochaired the late-breaking session during which the STRATUM trial findings were reported.

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

Patients with prurigo nodularis (PN) who had severe itch and high lesion counts and whose condition was inadequately controlled with prior therapies experienced significant improvements with dupilumab (Dupixent), indicate results from the phase 2 LIBERTY-PN PRIME trial.

The research was presented at the annual Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

More than 150 patients with severe PN whose quality of life was impaired were randomly assigned to receive dupilumab (Dupixent) or placebo for 24 weeks. Use of the monoclonal antibody was associated with significant improvements in itch scores.

The researchers also found that the percentage of patients who had no or few PN lesions increased substantially with use of dupilumab, and there were no new safety signals, confirming results from previous studies. Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist administered by injection, was initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating atopic dermatitis in 2022.

Study presenter Gil Yosipovitch, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Miami, emphasized that the improvements in itch and skin lesions seen in these patients were “clinically meaningful.”

Among 151 patients in the study, the mean age was 50.1 years, and 66.2% were women. The majority (53.0%) were White; 7.3% were Black; and 35.8% were Asian; 40.4% of patients had a history of atopy. The mean WI-NRS was 8.5, and the mean skin pain score on a 10-point scale was 7.2.

The Investigator’s Global Assessment for PN stage of disease (IGA PN-S) was also employed in the trial. That measure uses a 5-point scale to assess disease severity, with 0 indicating no lesions and 4 indicating more than 100 lesions. At baseline, 28.7% of patients had a score of 4, and the remainder had a score of 3, indicating the presence of 20-100 PN lesions.

Dr. Yosipovitch said that quality of life for these patients was “low” and that scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale indicated that the participants, many of whom had previously received topical and systemic medications for their PN, indicated they were depressed.

He showed that at week 24, the proportion of patients who had experienced an improvement in the WI-NRS score of greater than or equal to 4 (the study’s primary endpoint) was significantly greater with dupilumab, at 60.0% versus 18.4% among patients given placebo (P < .0001).

Moreover, the proportion of patients at week 24 with an IGA PN-S score of 0 or 1 (the secondary endpoint) was 48.0% in the active treatment group, versus 18.4% with placebo (P =.0004).

With regard to safety, rates of any treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the groups, at 70.7% for dupilumab and 62.7% for placebo, as were rates for severe treatment-emergent adverse events, at 6.7% and 10.7%, respectively.

Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events of interest, such as skin infections, conjunctivitis, herpes viral infections, and injection site reactions, also suggested that there was no increased risk with active treatment.

Dupilumab is currently under review at the FDA and in Europe for the treatment of PN, according to dupilumab manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi.

The study was sponsored by Sanofi in collaboration with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Yosipovitch has relationships with Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Bellus Health, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GSK, Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Trevi Therapeutics.

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

Patients with prurigo nodularis (PN) who had severe itch and high lesion counts and whose condition was inadequately controlled with prior therapies experienced significant improvements with dupilumab (Dupixent), indicate results from the phase 2 LIBERTY-PN PRIME trial.

The research was presented at the annual Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

More than 150 patients with severe PN whose quality of life was impaired were randomly assigned to receive dupilumab (Dupixent) or placebo for 24 weeks. Use of the monoclonal antibody was associated with significant improvements in itch scores.

The researchers also found that the percentage of patients who had no or few PN lesions increased substantially with use of dupilumab, and there were no new safety signals, confirming results from previous studies. Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist administered by injection, was initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating atopic dermatitis in 2022.

Study presenter Gil Yosipovitch, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Miami, emphasized that the improvements in itch and skin lesions seen in these patients were “clinically meaningful.”

Among 151 patients in the study, the mean age was 50.1 years, and 66.2% were women. The majority (53.0%) were White; 7.3% were Black; and 35.8% were Asian; 40.4% of patients had a history of atopy. The mean WI-NRS was 8.5, and the mean skin pain score on a 10-point scale was 7.2.

The Investigator’s Global Assessment for PN stage of disease (IGA PN-S) was also employed in the trial. That measure uses a 5-point scale to assess disease severity, with 0 indicating no lesions and 4 indicating more than 100 lesions. At baseline, 28.7% of patients had a score of 4, and the remainder had a score of 3, indicating the presence of 20-100 PN lesions.

Dr. Yosipovitch said that quality of life for these patients was “low” and that scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale indicated that the participants, many of whom had previously received topical and systemic medications for their PN, indicated they were depressed.

He showed that at week 24, the proportion of patients who had experienced an improvement in the WI-NRS score of greater than or equal to 4 (the study’s primary endpoint) was significantly greater with dupilumab, at 60.0% versus 18.4% among patients given placebo (P < .0001).

Moreover, the proportion of patients at week 24 with an IGA PN-S score of 0 or 1 (the secondary endpoint) was 48.0% in the active treatment group, versus 18.4% with placebo (P =.0004).

With regard to safety, rates of any treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the groups, at 70.7% for dupilumab and 62.7% for placebo, as were rates for severe treatment-emergent adverse events, at 6.7% and 10.7%, respectively.

Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events of interest, such as skin infections, conjunctivitis, herpes viral infections, and injection site reactions, also suggested that there was no increased risk with active treatment.

Dupilumab is currently under review at the FDA and in Europe for the treatment of PN, according to dupilumab manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi.

The study was sponsored by Sanofi in collaboration with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Yosipovitch has relationships with Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Bellus Health, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GSK, Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Trevi Therapeutics.

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

Patients with prurigo nodularis (PN) who had severe itch and high lesion counts and whose condition was inadequately controlled with prior therapies experienced significant improvements with dupilumab (Dupixent), indicate results from the phase 2 LIBERTY-PN PRIME trial.

The research was presented at the annual Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

More than 150 patients with severe PN whose quality of life was impaired were randomly assigned to receive dupilumab (Dupixent) or placebo for 24 weeks. Use of the monoclonal antibody was associated with significant improvements in itch scores.

The researchers also found that the percentage of patients who had no or few PN lesions increased substantially with use of dupilumab, and there were no new safety signals, confirming results from previous studies. Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist administered by injection, was initially approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating atopic dermatitis in 2022.

Study presenter Gil Yosipovitch, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Miami, emphasized that the improvements in itch and skin lesions seen in these patients were “clinically meaningful.”

Among 151 patients in the study, the mean age was 50.1 years, and 66.2% were women. The majority (53.0%) were White; 7.3% were Black; and 35.8% were Asian; 40.4% of patients had a history of atopy. The mean WI-NRS was 8.5, and the mean skin pain score on a 10-point scale was 7.2.

The Investigator’s Global Assessment for PN stage of disease (IGA PN-S) was also employed in the trial. That measure uses a 5-point scale to assess disease severity, with 0 indicating no lesions and 4 indicating more than 100 lesions. At baseline, 28.7% of patients had a score of 4, and the remainder had a score of 3, indicating the presence of 20-100 PN lesions.

Dr. Yosipovitch said that quality of life for these patients was “low” and that scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale indicated that the participants, many of whom had previously received topical and systemic medications for their PN, indicated they were depressed.

He showed that at week 24, the proportion of patients who had experienced an improvement in the WI-NRS score of greater than or equal to 4 (the study’s primary endpoint) was significantly greater with dupilumab, at 60.0% versus 18.4% among patients given placebo (P < .0001).

Moreover, the proportion of patients at week 24 with an IGA PN-S score of 0 or 1 (the secondary endpoint) was 48.0% in the active treatment group, versus 18.4% with placebo (P =.0004).

With regard to safety, rates of any treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the groups, at 70.7% for dupilumab and 62.7% for placebo, as were rates for severe treatment-emergent adverse events, at 6.7% and 10.7%, respectively.

Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events of interest, such as skin infections, conjunctivitis, herpes viral infections, and injection site reactions, also suggested that there was no increased risk with active treatment.

Dupilumab is currently under review at the FDA and in Europe for the treatment of PN, according to dupilumab manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi.

The study was sponsored by Sanofi in collaboration with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Yosipovitch has relationships with Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Bellus Health, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GSK, Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Trevi Therapeutics.

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

Around half the people who wear face masks may develop acne, facial dermatitis, itch, or pressure injuries, and the risk increases with the length of time the mask is worn, according to a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis.

“This report finds the most statistically significant risk factor for developing a facial dermatosis under a face mask is how long one wears the mask. Specifically, wearing a mask for more than 4 to 6 hours correlated most strongly with the development of a facial skin problem,” Jami L. Miller, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Miller was not involved in the study.

“The type of mask and the environment were of less significance,” she added.

UerDomwet/PxHere

• The overall prevalence of facial dermatoses was 55%
• Individually, facial dermatitis, itch, acne, and pressure injuries were consistently reported as facial dermatoses, with pooled prevalence rates of 24%, 30%, 31%, and 31%, respectively
• The duration of mask wearing was the most significant risk factor for facial dermatoses (P < .001)
• Respirators, including N95 masks, were not more likely than surgical masks to be linked with facial dermatoses

“Understanding risk factors of mask wearing, including situation, duration, and type of mask, may allow for targeted interventions to mitigate problems,” Dr. Yew told this news organization.

He advised taking a break from mask wearing after 4 to 6 hours to improve outcomes.  

Dr. Yew acknowledged limitations, including that most of the reviewed studies relied on self-reported symptoms.

“Patient factors were not investigated in most studies; therefore, we were not able to ascertain their contributory role in the development of facial dermatoses from mask wearing,” he said. “We were also unable to prove causation between risk factors and outcome.” 

Four dermatologists welcome the findings

Dr. Miller called this an “interesting, and certainly relevant” study, now that mask wearing is common and facial skin problems are fairly common complaints in medical visits.

“As the authors say, irritants or contact allergens with longer exposures can be expected to cause a more severe dermatitis than short contact,” she said. “Longer duration also can cause occlusion of pores and hair follicles, which can be expected to worsen acne and folliculitis.”

“I was surprised that the type of mask did not seem to matter significantly,” she added. “Patients wearing N95 masks may be relieved to know N95s do not cause more skin problems than lighter masks.”

Still, Dr. Miller had several questions, including if the materials and chemical finishes that vary by manufacturer may affect skin conditions.

Olga Bunimovich, MD, assistant professor, department of dermatology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, called this study “an excellent step towards characterizing the role masks play in facial dermatoses.”

“The study provides a window into the prevalence of these conditions, as well as some understanding of the factors that may be contributing to it,” Dr. Bunimovich, who was not part of the study, added. But “we can also utilize this information to alter behavior in the work environment, allowing ‘mask-free’ breaks to decrease the risk of facial dermatoses.”

Elma Baron, MD, professor and director, Skin Study Center, department of dermatology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, expected skin problems to be linked with mask wearing but didn’t expect the prevalence to be as high as 55%, which she called “very significant.”

“Mask wearing is an important means to prevent transmission of communicable infections, and the practice will most likely continue,” she said.

“Given the data, it is reasonable to advise patients who are already prone to these specific dermatoses to be proactive,” she added. “Early intervention with proper topical medications, preferably prescribed by a dermatologist or other health care provider, and changing masks frequently before they get soaked with moisture, will hopefully lessen the severity of skin rashes and minimize the negative impact on quality of life.”

Also commenting on the study, Susan Massick, MD, dermatologist and clinical associate professor of internal medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Westerville, said in an interview that she urges people to wear masks, despite these risks.

“The majority of concerns are straightforward, manageable, and overall benign,” she said. “We have a multitude of treatments that can help control, address, or improve symptoms.”

“Masks are an effective and easy way to protect yourself from infection, and they remain one of the most reliable preventions we have,” Dr. Massick noted. “The findings in this article should not preclude anyone from wearing a mask, nor should facial dermatoses be a cause for people to stop wearing their masks.”

The study received no funding. The authors, as well as Dr. Baron, Dr. Miller, Dr. Bunimovich, and Dr. Massick, who were not involved in the study, reported no relevant financial relationships. All experts commented by email.

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

Correction, 9/22/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Dr. Yik Weng Yew.

Around half the people who wear face masks may develop acne, facial dermatitis, itch, or pressure injuries, and the risk increases with the length of time the mask is worn, according to a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis.

“This report finds the most statistically significant risk factor for developing a facial dermatosis under a face mask is how long one wears the mask. Specifically, wearing a mask for more than 4 to 6 hours correlated most strongly with the development of a facial skin problem,” Jami L. Miller, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Miller was not involved in the study.

“The type of mask and the environment were of less significance,” she added.

UerDomwet/PxHere

• The overall prevalence of facial dermatoses was 55%
• Individually, facial dermatitis, itch, acne, and pressure injuries were consistently reported as facial dermatoses, with pooled prevalence rates of 24%, 30%, 31%, and 31%, respectively
• The duration of mask wearing was the most significant risk factor for facial dermatoses (P < .001)
• Respirators, including N95 masks, were not more likely than surgical masks to be linked with facial dermatoses

“Understanding risk factors of mask wearing, including situation, duration, and type of mask, may allow for targeted interventions to mitigate problems,” Dr. Yew told this news organization.

He advised taking a break from mask wearing after 4 to 6 hours to improve outcomes.  

Dr. Yew acknowledged limitations, including that most of the reviewed studies relied on self-reported symptoms.

“Patient factors were not investigated in most studies; therefore, we were not able to ascertain their contributory role in the development of facial dermatoses from mask wearing,” he said. “We were also unable to prove causation between risk factors and outcome.” 

Four dermatologists welcome the findings

Dr. Miller called this an “interesting, and certainly relevant” study, now that mask wearing is common and facial skin problems are fairly common complaints in medical visits.

“As the authors say, irritants or contact allergens with longer exposures can be expected to cause a more severe dermatitis than short contact,” she said. “Longer duration also can cause occlusion of pores and hair follicles, which can be expected to worsen acne and folliculitis.”

“I was surprised that the type of mask did not seem to matter significantly,” she added. “Patients wearing N95 masks may be relieved to know N95s do not cause more skin problems than lighter masks.”

Still, Dr. Miller had several questions, including if the materials and chemical finishes that vary by manufacturer may affect skin conditions.

Olga Bunimovich, MD, assistant professor, department of dermatology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, called this study “an excellent step towards characterizing the role masks play in facial dermatoses.”

“The study provides a window into the prevalence of these conditions, as well as some understanding of the factors that may be contributing to it,” Dr. Bunimovich, who was not part of the study, added. But “we can also utilize this information to alter behavior in the work environment, allowing ‘mask-free’ breaks to decrease the risk of facial dermatoses.”

Elma Baron, MD, professor and director, Skin Study Center, department of dermatology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, expected skin problems to be linked with mask wearing but didn’t expect the prevalence to be as high as 55%, which she called “very significant.”

“Mask wearing is an important means to prevent transmission of communicable infections, and the practice will most likely continue,” she said.

“Given the data, it is reasonable to advise patients who are already prone to these specific dermatoses to be proactive,” she added. “Early intervention with proper topical medications, preferably prescribed by a dermatologist or other health care provider, and changing masks frequently before they get soaked with moisture, will hopefully lessen the severity of skin rashes and minimize the negative impact on quality of life.”

Also commenting on the study, Susan Massick, MD, dermatologist and clinical associate professor of internal medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Westerville, said in an interview that she urges people to wear masks, despite these risks.

“The majority of concerns are straightforward, manageable, and overall benign,” she said. “We have a multitude of treatments that can help control, address, or improve symptoms.”

“Masks are an effective and easy way to protect yourself from infection, and they remain one of the most reliable preventions we have,” Dr. Massick noted. “The findings in this article should not preclude anyone from wearing a mask, nor should facial dermatoses be a cause for people to stop wearing their masks.”

The study received no funding. The authors, as well as Dr. Baron, Dr. Miller, Dr. Bunimovich, and Dr. Massick, who were not involved in the study, reported no relevant financial relationships. All experts commented by email.

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

Correction, 9/22/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Dr. Yik Weng Yew.

Around half the people who wear face masks may develop acne, facial dermatitis, itch, or pressure injuries, and the risk increases with the length of time the mask is worn, according to a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis.

“This report finds the most statistically significant risk factor for developing a facial dermatosis under a face mask is how long one wears the mask. Specifically, wearing a mask for more than 4 to 6 hours correlated most strongly with the development of a facial skin problem,” Jami L. Miller, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization. Dr. Miller was not involved in the study.

“The type of mask and the environment were of less significance,” she added.

UerDomwet/PxHere

• The overall prevalence of facial dermatoses was 55%
• Individually, facial dermatitis, itch, acne, and pressure injuries were consistently reported as facial dermatoses, with pooled prevalence rates of 24%, 30%, 31%, and 31%, respectively
• The duration of mask wearing was the most significant risk factor for facial dermatoses (P < .001)
• Respirators, including N95 masks, were not more likely than surgical masks to be linked with facial dermatoses

“Understanding risk factors of mask wearing, including situation, duration, and type of mask, may allow for targeted interventions to mitigate problems,” Dr. Yew told this news organization.

He advised taking a break from mask wearing after 4 to 6 hours to improve outcomes.  

Dr. Yew acknowledged limitations, including that most of the reviewed studies relied on self-reported symptoms.

“Patient factors were not investigated in most studies; therefore, we were not able to ascertain their contributory role in the development of facial dermatoses from mask wearing,” he said. “We were also unable to prove causation between risk factors and outcome.” 

Four dermatologists welcome the findings

Dr. Miller called this an “interesting, and certainly relevant” study, now that mask wearing is common and facial skin problems are fairly common complaints in medical visits.

“As the authors say, irritants or contact allergens with longer exposures can be expected to cause a more severe dermatitis than short contact,” she said. “Longer duration also can cause occlusion of pores and hair follicles, which can be expected to worsen acne and folliculitis.”

“I was surprised that the type of mask did not seem to matter significantly,” she added. “Patients wearing N95 masks may be relieved to know N95s do not cause more skin problems than lighter masks.”

Still, Dr. Miller had several questions, including if the materials and chemical finishes that vary by manufacturer may affect skin conditions.

Olga Bunimovich, MD, assistant professor, department of dermatology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, called this study “an excellent step towards characterizing the role masks play in facial dermatoses.”

“The study provides a window into the prevalence of these conditions, as well as some understanding of the factors that may be contributing to it,” Dr. Bunimovich, who was not part of the study, added. But “we can also utilize this information to alter behavior in the work environment, allowing ‘mask-free’ breaks to decrease the risk of facial dermatoses.”

Elma Baron, MD, professor and director, Skin Study Center, department of dermatology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, expected skin problems to be linked with mask wearing but didn’t expect the prevalence to be as high as 55%, which she called “very significant.”

“Mask wearing is an important means to prevent transmission of communicable infections, and the practice will most likely continue,” she said.

“Given the data, it is reasonable to advise patients who are already prone to these specific dermatoses to be proactive,” she added. “Early intervention with proper topical medications, preferably prescribed by a dermatologist or other health care provider, and changing masks frequently before they get soaked with moisture, will hopefully lessen the severity of skin rashes and minimize the negative impact on quality of life.”

Also commenting on the study, Susan Massick, MD, dermatologist and clinical associate professor of internal medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Westerville, said in an interview that she urges people to wear masks, despite these risks.

“The majority of concerns are straightforward, manageable, and overall benign,” she said. “We have a multitude of treatments that can help control, address, or improve symptoms.”

“Masks are an effective and easy way to protect yourself from infection, and they remain one of the most reliable preventions we have,” Dr. Massick noted. “The findings in this article should not preclude anyone from wearing a mask, nor should facial dermatoses be a cause for people to stop wearing their masks.”

The study received no funding. The authors, as well as Dr. Baron, Dr. Miller, Dr. Bunimovich, and Dr. Massick, who were not involved in the study, reported no relevant financial relationships. All experts commented by email.

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

Correction, 9/22/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Dr. Yik Weng Yew.