MDedge Dermatology

Additional hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) treatments could be on the horizon with the news that both secukinumab and the investigational drug brepocitinib reduced the effects of the chronic and painful skin condition in separate trials.

Around 40%-50% of patients exhibited a clinical response to these agents at 16 weeks, a leading HS expert reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
 

Time in the spotlight for HS

Research into HS is “an incredibly active field at this moment,” said Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, and president and chief executive officer of Harvard Medical Faculty Physicians at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

It’s “been great for advancing our understanding of the biology and the treatments that we will be able to use,” she said.

During the late-breaking sessions at the annual EADV Congress, Dr. Kimball presented data from two trials – SUNSHINE and SUNRISE – that investigated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of the interleukin (IL) 17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) versus placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe HS.

“This is only the second phase 3 program we have ever seen in HS and the first one since 2016,” Dr. Kimball said of the trials. It’s also the largest trial program in HS conducted to date, she added, “so it really is a milestone.”

The last big development was when adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker, gained regulatory approval for HS in 2016, observed Neil Patel, PhD, MRCP, who leads the HS service at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in London.

“Adalimumab has been very helpful for many patients, but not all patients respond, and others may respond initially but then the treatment starts to fail after a year or 2,” Dr. Patel said in an interview with this news organization.

“There is definitely a huge need for alternative medication for this condition, which still has a lack of effective treatment options,” added Dr. Patel, who was not involved in either of the studies.

“One major upside for secukinumab is that its safety profile is generally very good and familiarity in the dermatologic community is already well established,” Christopher Sayed, MD, said in a separate interview.

“This will make most providers very comfortable offering it as a potential treatment option sooner rather than later given that its efficacy has now been demonstrated in phase 3 trials,” added Dr. Sayed, associate professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 

Two identically designed trials

Altogether, SUNSHINE and SUNRISE enrolled just over 1,000 patients at 219 sites in 33 countries. Both trials were identical in their design: A 4-week run-in phase before a randomized, double-blind treatment phase that tested two dosing regimens of secukinumab (300 mg administered subcutaneously) every 2 or 4 weeks vs. placebo for 16 weeks. The trial continued after this time, with patients in the placebo arm re–randomly assigned to treatment with one of the two secukinumab regimens out to a year.

The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) after 16 weeks of treatment, with key secondary endpoints, which were abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count, occurrence of flares, and at least a 30% reduction in Patient’s Global Assessment of Skin Pain assessed using a numeric rating scale (NPRS30).
 

Secukinumab superior to placebo

The HiSCR is defined as at least a 50% decrease in AN count with no increase in the number of abscesses or in the number of draining fistulas relative to baseline. This was achieved by about 42%-45% of patients who received secukinumab every 2 weeks, about 42%-46% of those who received secukinumab every 4 weeks, and about 31%-33% of those on placebo in both studies.

Of note, fewer patients treated with secukinumab (about 15%-20% among those treated every 2 weeks, and about 15% to 23% among those treated every 4 weeks) than those on placebo (27%-29%) experienced flares, defined as at least a 25% increase in AN count and at least a two-point increase relative to baseline values.

Improvement in HS pain can be a difficult parameter to meet, Dr. Kimball noted. “Pain is such an important feature of this disease as it so debilitating for the patients.” More than one-third (almost 36%-39%) of patients given secukinumab vs. just over a quarter (26.9%) given placebo achieved at least a 30% reduction in NPRS30 ratings, she reported. The difference between active and placebo treatment was significant only when secukinumab was given every 2 weeks, however.

“The placebo rates that we see in these studies are exactly parallel to what we saw in other studies, and other disease states when we had a 50% bar of improvement,” Dr. Kimball said when questioned about these results.

“HS is a highly variable disease; it’s maybe not so much the placebo rate or the scoring system used but maybe the 50% bar set for improvement is too low. It’s likely, as data start to mature and a 75% HiSCR can be calculated, that the placebo rates will drop,” she said.

There were no surprises when it came to the safety of secukinumab, being an old player in a new game, she noted. It was “well tolerated” and tolerability was “consistent with the known safety profile,” Dr. Kimball said, “so we expect it to be a new, safe, and effective add to our armamentarium in treating this disease.”

This research involves “basically borrowing drugs from other areas and trying them in HS to see what effect they may have,” Dr. Patel said, noting that drugs such as adalimumab and secukinumab already had a proven track record in other diseases, such as psoriasis. “These early data for secukinumab definitely are very exciting, but we would need to see real-life results” in patients with HS who are not enrolled in trials to see the benefits, he added.

‘Tipping point’ for HS research

“I think we will look back on this meeting and realize that it was an incredibly important tipping point for the treatment of this incredibly debilitating disease,” Dr. Kimball said.

Elsewhere at the meeting, she had presented findings from a phase 2a study that pitted three different kinase inhibitors with different modes of action against each other and compared them with placebo. 

The three agents evaluated are an IL-1 receptor–associated kinase 4 inhibitor known as PF-06650833, a tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) JAK1 inhibitor brepocitinib, and the TYK2 inhibitor PF-06826647.

“This technique has been used in oncology,” Dr. Kimball said, noting that the ability to test multiple drugs at the same time “means we can really much more efficiently test two different things at the same time, and also put fewer patients at risk for potential problems if drugs don’t work.”
 

Positive signs for brepocitinib, not the other kinases tested

The results showed that though brepocitinib worked in HS, the other two novel compounds did not appear to have beneficial effects. Just over half (52%) of the 52 patients treated with brepocitinib achieved an HiSCR at 16 weeks, compared with around one-third of those given placebo, PF-06650833, or PF-06826647.

A similar benefit was seen in terms of reduction in flares for brepocitinib but not the other agents, although there was no difference between them all in terms of NPRS30 pain reduction.

“We’ve been able to test three different modalities. This tells us some things about the pathophysiology for HS, which is a very profoundly intensive inflammatory process,” which, Dr. Kimball said, “may require multiple modalities of action to get it under control.” In addition, these “general modalities seem to safe and well tolerated,” she added.
 

Take-homes for practice and future research

“While it is disappointing that two of the drugs tested did not clearly demonstrate efficacy, it is very possible that these mechanisms of action may be successful targets in the future as new dosing strategies and drugs targeting these pathways are developed,” Dr. Sayed said.

A case in point, he added, was that “adalimumab did not meet treatment endpoints at a dose of 40 mg every other week, but clearly has made a major impact at 40 mg weekly.”

The bottom line is that “both secukinumab and beprocitinib demonstrated efficacy over placebo and are likely to be helpful for a significant number of patients with HS,” Dr. Sayed said. “Hopefully, we’ll see head-to-head trials and more data regarding proportions of patients with deeper responses using criteria such as HiSCR75 and HiSCR90.”

Moreover, “having a larger number of drugs with a range of mechanisms of action is extraordinarily helpful given how difficult the disease can be to manage. We will hopefully continue to see creative approaches and further successes in the current wave of phase 1, 2, and 3 trials that are already underway.”

The SUNSHINE and SUNRISE studies were funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. The phase 2A study Dr. Kimball presented was sponsored by Pfizer.

Dr. Kimball disclosed ties to both Novartis and Pfizer and acts as a consultant and investigator to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. She is an investigator for Incyte and AnaptysBio; acts as a consultant to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ventyz, Moonlake, Lily, Concert, EvoImmune, Sonoma Bio, and Sanofi; receives fellowship funding from Janssen, and serves on the Board of Directors for Almirall.

Dr. Patel had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Sayed is the director of the HS Foundation, a nonprofit organization, and has acted as an adviser or consultant to, speaker for, and received research funding from multiple drug companies including AbbVie, ChemoCentryx, Incyte, InflaRx, Novartis, and UCB.

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

Additional hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) treatments could be on the horizon with the news that both secukinumab and the investigational drug brepocitinib reduced the effects of the chronic and painful skin condition in separate trials.

Around 40%-50% of patients exhibited a clinical response to these agents at 16 weeks, a leading HS expert reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
 

Time in the spotlight for HS

Research into HS is “an incredibly active field at this moment,” said Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, and president and chief executive officer of Harvard Medical Faculty Physicians at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

It’s “been great for advancing our understanding of the biology and the treatments that we will be able to use,” she said.

During the late-breaking sessions at the annual EADV Congress, Dr. Kimball presented data from two trials – SUNSHINE and SUNRISE – that investigated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of the interleukin (IL) 17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) versus placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe HS.

“This is only the second phase 3 program we have ever seen in HS and the first one since 2016,” Dr. Kimball said of the trials. It’s also the largest trial program in HS conducted to date, she added, “so it really is a milestone.”

The last big development was when adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker, gained regulatory approval for HS in 2016, observed Neil Patel, PhD, MRCP, who leads the HS service at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in London.

“Adalimumab has been very helpful for many patients, but not all patients respond, and others may respond initially but then the treatment starts to fail after a year or 2,” Dr. Patel said in an interview with this news organization.

“There is definitely a huge need for alternative medication for this condition, which still has a lack of effective treatment options,” added Dr. Patel, who was not involved in either of the studies.

“One major upside for secukinumab is that its safety profile is generally very good and familiarity in the dermatologic community is already well established,” Christopher Sayed, MD, said in a separate interview.

“This will make most providers very comfortable offering it as a potential treatment option sooner rather than later given that its efficacy has now been demonstrated in phase 3 trials,” added Dr. Sayed, associate professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 

Two identically designed trials

Altogether, SUNSHINE and SUNRISE enrolled just over 1,000 patients at 219 sites in 33 countries. Both trials were identical in their design: A 4-week run-in phase before a randomized, double-blind treatment phase that tested two dosing regimens of secukinumab (300 mg administered subcutaneously) every 2 or 4 weeks vs. placebo for 16 weeks. The trial continued after this time, with patients in the placebo arm re–randomly assigned to treatment with one of the two secukinumab regimens out to a year.

The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) after 16 weeks of treatment, with key secondary endpoints, which were abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count, occurrence of flares, and at least a 30% reduction in Patient’s Global Assessment of Skin Pain assessed using a numeric rating scale (NPRS30).
 

Secukinumab superior to placebo

The HiSCR is defined as at least a 50% decrease in AN count with no increase in the number of abscesses or in the number of draining fistulas relative to baseline. This was achieved by about 42%-45% of patients who received secukinumab every 2 weeks, about 42%-46% of those who received secukinumab every 4 weeks, and about 31%-33% of those on placebo in both studies.

Of note, fewer patients treated with secukinumab (about 15%-20% among those treated every 2 weeks, and about 15% to 23% among those treated every 4 weeks) than those on placebo (27%-29%) experienced flares, defined as at least a 25% increase in AN count and at least a two-point increase relative to baseline values.

Improvement in HS pain can be a difficult parameter to meet, Dr. Kimball noted. “Pain is such an important feature of this disease as it so debilitating for the patients.” More than one-third (almost 36%-39%) of patients given secukinumab vs. just over a quarter (26.9%) given placebo achieved at least a 30% reduction in NPRS30 ratings, she reported. The difference between active and placebo treatment was significant only when secukinumab was given every 2 weeks, however.

“The placebo rates that we see in these studies are exactly parallel to what we saw in other studies, and other disease states when we had a 50% bar of improvement,” Dr. Kimball said when questioned about these results.

“HS is a highly variable disease; it’s maybe not so much the placebo rate or the scoring system used but maybe the 50% bar set for improvement is too low. It’s likely, as data start to mature and a 75% HiSCR can be calculated, that the placebo rates will drop,” she said.

There were no surprises when it came to the safety of secukinumab, being an old player in a new game, she noted. It was “well tolerated” and tolerability was “consistent with the known safety profile,” Dr. Kimball said, “so we expect it to be a new, safe, and effective add to our armamentarium in treating this disease.”

This research involves “basically borrowing drugs from other areas and trying them in HS to see what effect they may have,” Dr. Patel said, noting that drugs such as adalimumab and secukinumab already had a proven track record in other diseases, such as psoriasis. “These early data for secukinumab definitely are very exciting, but we would need to see real-life results” in patients with HS who are not enrolled in trials to see the benefits, he added.

‘Tipping point’ for HS research

“I think we will look back on this meeting and realize that it was an incredibly important tipping point for the treatment of this incredibly debilitating disease,” Dr. Kimball said.

Elsewhere at the meeting, she had presented findings from a phase 2a study that pitted three different kinase inhibitors with different modes of action against each other and compared them with placebo. 

The three agents evaluated are an IL-1 receptor–associated kinase 4 inhibitor known as PF-06650833, a tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) JAK1 inhibitor brepocitinib, and the TYK2 inhibitor PF-06826647.

“This technique has been used in oncology,” Dr. Kimball said, noting that the ability to test multiple drugs at the same time “means we can really much more efficiently test two different things at the same time, and also put fewer patients at risk for potential problems if drugs don’t work.”
 

Positive signs for brepocitinib, not the other kinases tested

The results showed that though brepocitinib worked in HS, the other two novel compounds did not appear to have beneficial effects. Just over half (52%) of the 52 patients treated with brepocitinib achieved an HiSCR at 16 weeks, compared with around one-third of those given placebo, PF-06650833, or PF-06826647.

A similar benefit was seen in terms of reduction in flares for brepocitinib but not the other agents, although there was no difference between them all in terms of NPRS30 pain reduction.

“We’ve been able to test three different modalities. This tells us some things about the pathophysiology for HS, which is a very profoundly intensive inflammatory process,” which, Dr. Kimball said, “may require multiple modalities of action to get it under control.” In addition, these “general modalities seem to safe and well tolerated,” she added.
 

Take-homes for practice and future research

“While it is disappointing that two of the drugs tested did not clearly demonstrate efficacy, it is very possible that these mechanisms of action may be successful targets in the future as new dosing strategies and drugs targeting these pathways are developed,” Dr. Sayed said.

A case in point, he added, was that “adalimumab did not meet treatment endpoints at a dose of 40 mg every other week, but clearly has made a major impact at 40 mg weekly.”

The bottom line is that “both secukinumab and beprocitinib demonstrated efficacy over placebo and are likely to be helpful for a significant number of patients with HS,” Dr. Sayed said. “Hopefully, we’ll see head-to-head trials and more data regarding proportions of patients with deeper responses using criteria such as HiSCR75 and HiSCR90.”

Moreover, “having a larger number of drugs with a range of mechanisms of action is extraordinarily helpful given how difficult the disease can be to manage. We will hopefully continue to see creative approaches and further successes in the current wave of phase 1, 2, and 3 trials that are already underway.”

The SUNSHINE and SUNRISE studies were funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. The phase 2A study Dr. Kimball presented was sponsored by Pfizer.

Dr. Kimball disclosed ties to both Novartis and Pfizer and acts as a consultant and investigator to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. She is an investigator for Incyte and AnaptysBio; acts as a consultant to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ventyz, Moonlake, Lily, Concert, EvoImmune, Sonoma Bio, and Sanofi; receives fellowship funding from Janssen, and serves on the Board of Directors for Almirall.

Dr. Patel had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Sayed is the director of the HS Foundation, a nonprofit organization, and has acted as an adviser or consultant to, speaker for, and received research funding from multiple drug companies including AbbVie, ChemoCentryx, Incyte, InflaRx, Novartis, and UCB.

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

Additional hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) treatments could be on the horizon with the news that both secukinumab and the investigational drug brepocitinib reduced the effects of the chronic and painful skin condition in separate trials.

Around 40%-50% of patients exhibited a clinical response to these agents at 16 weeks, a leading HS expert reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
 

Time in the spotlight for HS

Research into HS is “an incredibly active field at this moment,” said Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology, Harvard Medical School, and president and chief executive officer of Harvard Medical Faculty Physicians at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

It’s “been great for advancing our understanding of the biology and the treatments that we will be able to use,” she said.

During the late-breaking sessions at the annual EADV Congress, Dr. Kimball presented data from two trials – SUNSHINE and SUNRISE – that investigated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of the interleukin (IL) 17A inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) versus placebo in the treatment of moderate to severe HS.

“This is only the second phase 3 program we have ever seen in HS and the first one since 2016,” Dr. Kimball said of the trials. It’s also the largest trial program in HS conducted to date, she added, “so it really is a milestone.”

The last big development was when adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker, gained regulatory approval for HS in 2016, observed Neil Patel, PhD, MRCP, who leads the HS service at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in London.

“Adalimumab has been very helpful for many patients, but not all patients respond, and others may respond initially but then the treatment starts to fail after a year or 2,” Dr. Patel said in an interview with this news organization.

“There is definitely a huge need for alternative medication for this condition, which still has a lack of effective treatment options,” added Dr. Patel, who was not involved in either of the studies.

“One major upside for secukinumab is that its safety profile is generally very good and familiarity in the dermatologic community is already well established,” Christopher Sayed, MD, said in a separate interview.

“This will make most providers very comfortable offering it as a potential treatment option sooner rather than later given that its efficacy has now been demonstrated in phase 3 trials,” added Dr. Sayed, associate professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 

Two identically designed trials

Altogether, SUNSHINE and SUNRISE enrolled just over 1,000 patients at 219 sites in 33 countries. Both trials were identical in their design: A 4-week run-in phase before a randomized, double-blind treatment phase that tested two dosing regimens of secukinumab (300 mg administered subcutaneously) every 2 or 4 weeks vs. placebo for 16 weeks. The trial continued after this time, with patients in the placebo arm re–randomly assigned to treatment with one of the two secukinumab regimens out to a year.

The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) after 16 weeks of treatment, with key secondary endpoints, which were abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count, occurrence of flares, and at least a 30% reduction in Patient’s Global Assessment of Skin Pain assessed using a numeric rating scale (NPRS30).
 

Secukinumab superior to placebo

The HiSCR is defined as at least a 50% decrease in AN count with no increase in the number of abscesses or in the number of draining fistulas relative to baseline. This was achieved by about 42%-45% of patients who received secukinumab every 2 weeks, about 42%-46% of those who received secukinumab every 4 weeks, and about 31%-33% of those on placebo in both studies.

Of note, fewer patients treated with secukinumab (about 15%-20% among those treated every 2 weeks, and about 15% to 23% among those treated every 4 weeks) than those on placebo (27%-29%) experienced flares, defined as at least a 25% increase in AN count and at least a two-point increase relative to baseline values.

Improvement in HS pain can be a difficult parameter to meet, Dr. Kimball noted. “Pain is such an important feature of this disease as it so debilitating for the patients.” More than one-third (almost 36%-39%) of patients given secukinumab vs. just over a quarter (26.9%) given placebo achieved at least a 30% reduction in NPRS30 ratings, she reported. The difference between active and placebo treatment was significant only when secukinumab was given every 2 weeks, however.

“The placebo rates that we see in these studies are exactly parallel to what we saw in other studies, and other disease states when we had a 50% bar of improvement,” Dr. Kimball said when questioned about these results.

“HS is a highly variable disease; it’s maybe not so much the placebo rate or the scoring system used but maybe the 50% bar set for improvement is too low. It’s likely, as data start to mature and a 75% HiSCR can be calculated, that the placebo rates will drop,” she said.

There were no surprises when it came to the safety of secukinumab, being an old player in a new game, she noted. It was “well tolerated” and tolerability was “consistent with the known safety profile,” Dr. Kimball said, “so we expect it to be a new, safe, and effective add to our armamentarium in treating this disease.”

This research involves “basically borrowing drugs from other areas and trying them in HS to see what effect they may have,” Dr. Patel said, noting that drugs such as adalimumab and secukinumab already had a proven track record in other diseases, such as psoriasis. “These early data for secukinumab definitely are very exciting, but we would need to see real-life results” in patients with HS who are not enrolled in trials to see the benefits, he added.

‘Tipping point’ for HS research

“I think we will look back on this meeting and realize that it was an incredibly important tipping point for the treatment of this incredibly debilitating disease,” Dr. Kimball said.

Elsewhere at the meeting, she had presented findings from a phase 2a study that pitted three different kinase inhibitors with different modes of action against each other and compared them with placebo. 

The three agents evaluated are an IL-1 receptor–associated kinase 4 inhibitor known as PF-06650833, a tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) JAK1 inhibitor brepocitinib, and the TYK2 inhibitor PF-06826647.

“This technique has been used in oncology,” Dr. Kimball said, noting that the ability to test multiple drugs at the same time “means we can really much more efficiently test two different things at the same time, and also put fewer patients at risk for potential problems if drugs don’t work.”
 

Positive signs for brepocitinib, not the other kinases tested

The results showed that though brepocitinib worked in HS, the other two novel compounds did not appear to have beneficial effects. Just over half (52%) of the 52 patients treated with brepocitinib achieved an HiSCR at 16 weeks, compared with around one-third of those given placebo, PF-06650833, or PF-06826647.

A similar benefit was seen in terms of reduction in flares for brepocitinib but not the other agents, although there was no difference between them all in terms of NPRS30 pain reduction.

“We’ve been able to test three different modalities. This tells us some things about the pathophysiology for HS, which is a very profoundly intensive inflammatory process,” which, Dr. Kimball said, “may require multiple modalities of action to get it under control.” In addition, these “general modalities seem to safe and well tolerated,” she added.
 

Take-homes for practice and future research

“While it is disappointing that two of the drugs tested did not clearly demonstrate efficacy, it is very possible that these mechanisms of action may be successful targets in the future as new dosing strategies and drugs targeting these pathways are developed,” Dr. Sayed said.

A case in point, he added, was that “adalimumab did not meet treatment endpoints at a dose of 40 mg every other week, but clearly has made a major impact at 40 mg weekly.”

The bottom line is that “both secukinumab and beprocitinib demonstrated efficacy over placebo and are likely to be helpful for a significant number of patients with HS,” Dr. Sayed said. “Hopefully, we’ll see head-to-head trials and more data regarding proportions of patients with deeper responses using criteria such as HiSCR75 and HiSCR90.”

Moreover, “having a larger number of drugs with a range of mechanisms of action is extraordinarily helpful given how difficult the disease can be to manage. We will hopefully continue to see creative approaches and further successes in the current wave of phase 1, 2, and 3 trials that are already underway.”

The SUNSHINE and SUNRISE studies were funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. The phase 2A study Dr. Kimball presented was sponsored by Pfizer.

Dr. Kimball disclosed ties to both Novartis and Pfizer and acts as a consultant and investigator to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. She is an investigator for Incyte and AnaptysBio; acts as a consultant to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ventyz, Moonlake, Lily, Concert, EvoImmune, Sonoma Bio, and Sanofi; receives fellowship funding from Janssen, and serves on the Board of Directors for Almirall.

Dr. Patel had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Sayed is the director of the HS Foundation, a nonprofit organization, and has acted as an adviser or consultant to, speaker for, and received research funding from multiple drug companies including AbbVie, ChemoCentryx, Incyte, InflaRx, Novartis, and UCB.

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

Maya Iyer, MD, MEd, experienced bullying as a faculty member, and she sensed that she wasn’t alone. “The best ideas for research often come from individual experiences, in both personal and the professional academic medicine setting,” she said in an interview.

“And I was correct. I was not the only one who experienced bullying. In fact, the most severe bullying experiences among ... women physician leaders occurred when they were in leadership positions,” said Dr. Iyer, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

She is a coauthor of a study that was published in JAMA Network Open in which investigators surveyed the existence of antibullying policies for faculty at almost 100 U.S. medical schools.

The researchers defined bullying as “a severe form of mistreatment [that] occurs in the medical setting when a power differential allows offenders to consciously target individuals through persistent negative actions to impede the education or career of the target.”

The study included 91 medical schools, of which 4 schools had antibullying policies that included the reporting of procedures. Of the 87 medical schools without antibullying policies, 60 had antiharrassment policies; of those schools, 10 of the schools’ websites cited bullying and antiharassment policies. Five schools required a login to access policies, and one school’s website had a broken webpage link, per the study.

“We need to bring the silent scourge of bullying to the forefront because bullying is causing a brain drain on the medical profession,” said Dr. Iyer. “Bullying has numerous downstream negative effects, including depression, anxiety, burnout stress, decreased patient care satisfaction, increased medical errors, and job attrition.”

She added: “Through bullying, we are losing voices in medicine just at that point in time where we are trying to diversify the workforce to improve representation of all physicians.”

Dr. Iyer’s team sampled the top 25 schools for research and the top 25 schools for primary care. They also took a random sampling from 25 schools for research and a random sampling from top 25 schools for primary care. They assessed antibullying policies, antiharassment policies that mentioned bullying, antiharrassment policies that did not mention bullying, and the absence of policies addressing these issues.

Policy comprehensiveness was another focus for the researchers. They evaluated whether the relevant policies included faculty members and articulated the institution’s commitment to providing a safe and healthy workplace. Other factors included defining bullying and the roles and responsibilities of employees and procedures for reporting bullying.
 

Physicians can’t be bystanders to bullying

Dr. Iyer called on physicians to “acknowledge that bullying in academic medicine exists and [to] speak up when they witness such events. This means transitioning from being a bystander to an upstander.”

She doesn’t let medical schools off the hook, however. Instead, she advocated having institutions “provide safe spaces and opportunities for near-peer mentoring so that targets of bullying can share stories.”

Regarding who is responsible for addressing bullying, Dr. Iyer is emphatic. “I do want to be clear that the onus of disrupting does not fall on the targets. Rather, we need to fix the systems in which such behavior is tolerated.”

Her advice to leaders in academic medicine is to create comprehensive, zero-retaliation bullying policies that include detailed reporting procedures. Dr. Iyer advised leaders to partner with colleagues in human resources, offices of equity, and ombudspersons to develop, implement, and enforce these policies.

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Maya Iyer, MD, MEd, experienced bullying as a faculty member, and she sensed that she wasn’t alone. “The best ideas for research often come from individual experiences, in both personal and the professional academic medicine setting,” she said in an interview.

“And I was correct. I was not the only one who experienced bullying. In fact, the most severe bullying experiences among ... women physician leaders occurred when they were in leadership positions,” said Dr. Iyer, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

She is a coauthor of a study that was published in JAMA Network Open in which investigators surveyed the existence of antibullying policies for faculty at almost 100 U.S. medical schools.

The researchers defined bullying as “a severe form of mistreatment [that] occurs in the medical setting when a power differential allows offenders to consciously target individuals through persistent negative actions to impede the education or career of the target.”

The study included 91 medical schools, of which 4 schools had antibullying policies that included the reporting of procedures. Of the 87 medical schools without antibullying policies, 60 had antiharrassment policies; of those schools, 10 of the schools’ websites cited bullying and antiharassment policies. Five schools required a login to access policies, and one school’s website had a broken webpage link, per the study.

“We need to bring the silent scourge of bullying to the forefront because bullying is causing a brain drain on the medical profession,” said Dr. Iyer. “Bullying has numerous downstream negative effects, including depression, anxiety, burnout stress, decreased patient care satisfaction, increased medical errors, and job attrition.”

She added: “Through bullying, we are losing voices in medicine just at that point in time where we are trying to diversify the workforce to improve representation of all physicians.”

Dr. Iyer’s team sampled the top 25 schools for research and the top 25 schools for primary care. They also took a random sampling from 25 schools for research and a random sampling from top 25 schools for primary care. They assessed antibullying policies, antiharassment policies that mentioned bullying, antiharrassment policies that did not mention bullying, and the absence of policies addressing these issues.

Policy comprehensiveness was another focus for the researchers. They evaluated whether the relevant policies included faculty members and articulated the institution’s commitment to providing a safe and healthy workplace. Other factors included defining bullying and the roles and responsibilities of employees and procedures for reporting bullying.
 

Physicians can’t be bystanders to bullying

Dr. Iyer called on physicians to “acknowledge that bullying in academic medicine exists and [to] speak up when they witness such events. This means transitioning from being a bystander to an upstander.”

She doesn’t let medical schools off the hook, however. Instead, she advocated having institutions “provide safe spaces and opportunities for near-peer mentoring so that targets of bullying can share stories.”

Regarding who is responsible for addressing bullying, Dr. Iyer is emphatic. “I do want to be clear that the onus of disrupting does not fall on the targets. Rather, we need to fix the systems in which such behavior is tolerated.”

Her advice to leaders in academic medicine is to create comprehensive, zero-retaliation bullying policies that include detailed reporting procedures. Dr. Iyer advised leaders to partner with colleagues in human resources, offices of equity, and ombudspersons to develop, implement, and enforce these policies.

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Maya Iyer, MD, MEd, experienced bullying as a faculty member, and she sensed that she wasn’t alone. “The best ideas for research often come from individual experiences, in both personal and the professional academic medicine setting,” she said in an interview.

“And I was correct. I was not the only one who experienced bullying. In fact, the most severe bullying experiences among ... women physician leaders occurred when they were in leadership positions,” said Dr. Iyer, a pediatric emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

She is a coauthor of a study that was published in JAMA Network Open in which investigators surveyed the existence of antibullying policies for faculty at almost 100 U.S. medical schools.

The researchers defined bullying as “a severe form of mistreatment [that] occurs in the medical setting when a power differential allows offenders to consciously target individuals through persistent negative actions to impede the education or career of the target.”

The study included 91 medical schools, of which 4 schools had antibullying policies that included the reporting of procedures. Of the 87 medical schools without antibullying policies, 60 had antiharrassment policies; of those schools, 10 of the schools’ websites cited bullying and antiharassment policies. Five schools required a login to access policies, and one school’s website had a broken webpage link, per the study.

“We need to bring the silent scourge of bullying to the forefront because bullying is causing a brain drain on the medical profession,” said Dr. Iyer. “Bullying has numerous downstream negative effects, including depression, anxiety, burnout stress, decreased patient care satisfaction, increased medical errors, and job attrition.”

She added: “Through bullying, we are losing voices in medicine just at that point in time where we are trying to diversify the workforce to improve representation of all physicians.”

Dr. Iyer’s team sampled the top 25 schools for research and the top 25 schools for primary care. They also took a random sampling from 25 schools for research and a random sampling from top 25 schools for primary care. They assessed antibullying policies, antiharassment policies that mentioned bullying, antiharrassment policies that did not mention bullying, and the absence of policies addressing these issues.

Policy comprehensiveness was another focus for the researchers. They evaluated whether the relevant policies included faculty members and articulated the institution’s commitment to providing a safe and healthy workplace. Other factors included defining bullying and the roles and responsibilities of employees and procedures for reporting bullying.
 

Physicians can’t be bystanders to bullying

Dr. Iyer called on physicians to “acknowledge that bullying in academic medicine exists and [to] speak up when they witness such events. This means transitioning from being a bystander to an upstander.”

She doesn’t let medical schools off the hook, however. Instead, she advocated having institutions “provide safe spaces and opportunities for near-peer mentoring so that targets of bullying can share stories.”

Regarding who is responsible for addressing bullying, Dr. Iyer is emphatic. “I do want to be clear that the onus of disrupting does not fall on the targets. Rather, we need to fix the systems in which such behavior is tolerated.”

Her advice to leaders in academic medicine is to create comprehensive, zero-retaliation bullying policies that include detailed reporting procedures. Dr. Iyer advised leaders to partner with colleagues in human resources, offices of equity, and ombudspersons to develop, implement, and enforce these policies.

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

I wrote my first column on electronic health records in the mid-1990s. At the time, it seemed like an idea whose time had come. After all, in an era when just about every essential process in medicine had already been computerized, we physicians continued to process clinical data – our key asset – with pen and paper. Most of us were reluctant to make the switch, and for good reason: choosing the right EHR system was difficult at best, and once the choice was made, conversion was a nightmare. Plus, there was no clear incentive to do it.

Then, the government stepped in. Shortly after his inauguration in 2000, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to ensure that most Americans had electronic health records within 10 years. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” The goal was to eliminate missing charts, duplication of lab testing, ineffective documentation, and inordinate amounts of time spent on paperwork, not to mention illegible handwriting, poor coordination of care between physicians, and many other problems. Studies were quoted, suggesting that EHR shortened inpatient stays, decreased risk of adverse drug interactions, improved the consistency and content of records, and improved continuity of care and follow-up.

The EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) was introduced to encourage physicians and hospitals “to adopt, implement, upgrade, and demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology.”

Nearly a quarter-century later, implementation is well behind schedule. According to a 2019 federal study, while nearly all hospitals (96%) have adopted a certified EHR, only 72% of office-based physicians have done so.

There are multiple reasons for this. For one thing, EHR is still by and large slower than pen and paper, because direct data entry is still primarily done by keyboard. Voice recognition, hand-held and wireless devices have been developed, but most work only on specialized tasks. Even the best systems take more clinician time per encounter than the manual processes they replace.

Physicians have been slow to warm to a system that slows them down and forces them to change the way they think and work. In addition, paper systems never crash; the prospect of a server malfunction or Internet failure bringing an entire clinic to a grinding halt is not particularly inviting.

The special needs of dermatology – high patient volumes, multiple diagnoses and prescriptions per patient, the wide variety of procedures we perform, and digital image storage – present further hurdles.

Nevertheless, the march toward electronic record keeping continues, and I continue to receive many questions about choosing a good EHR system. As always, I cannot recommend any specific products since every office has unique needs and requirements.

The key phrase to keep in mind is caveat emptor. Several regulatory bodies exist to test vendor claims and certify system behaviors, but different agencies use different criteria that may or may not be relevant to your requirements. Vaporware is still as common as real software; beware the “feature in the next release” that might never appear, particularly if you need it right now.

Avoid the temptation to buy a flashy new system and then try to adapt it to your office; figure out your needs first, then find a system that meets them.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way around doing the work of comparing one system with another. The most important information a vendor can give you is the names and addresses of two or more offices where you can go watch their system in action. Site visits are time-consuming, but they are only way to pick the best EHR the first time around.

Don’t be the first office using a new system. Let the vendor work out the bugs somewhere else.

Above all, if you have disorganized paper records, don’t count on EHR to automatically solve your problems. Well-designed paper systems usually lend themselves to effective automation, but automating a poorly designed system just increases the chaos. If your paper system is in disarray, solve that problem before considering EHR.

With all of its problems and hurdles, EHRs will inevitably be a part of most of our lives. And for those who take the time to do it right, it will ultimately be an improvement.

Think of information technologies as power tools: They can help you to do things better, but they can also amplify your errors. So choose carefully.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I wrote my first column on electronic health records in the mid-1990s. At the time, it seemed like an idea whose time had come. After all, in an era when just about every essential process in medicine had already been computerized, we physicians continued to process clinical data – our key asset – with pen and paper. Most of us were reluctant to make the switch, and for good reason: choosing the right EHR system was difficult at best, and once the choice was made, conversion was a nightmare. Plus, there was no clear incentive to do it.

Then, the government stepped in. Shortly after his inauguration in 2000, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to ensure that most Americans had electronic health records within 10 years. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” The goal was to eliminate missing charts, duplication of lab testing, ineffective documentation, and inordinate amounts of time spent on paperwork, not to mention illegible handwriting, poor coordination of care between physicians, and many other problems. Studies were quoted, suggesting that EHR shortened inpatient stays, decreased risk of adverse drug interactions, improved the consistency and content of records, and improved continuity of care and follow-up.

The EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) was introduced to encourage physicians and hospitals “to adopt, implement, upgrade, and demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology.”

Nearly a quarter-century later, implementation is well behind schedule. According to a 2019 federal study, while nearly all hospitals (96%) have adopted a certified EHR, only 72% of office-based physicians have done so.

There are multiple reasons for this. For one thing, EHR is still by and large slower than pen and paper, because direct data entry is still primarily done by keyboard. Voice recognition, hand-held and wireless devices have been developed, but most work only on specialized tasks. Even the best systems take more clinician time per encounter than the manual processes they replace.

Physicians have been slow to warm to a system that slows them down and forces them to change the way they think and work. In addition, paper systems never crash; the prospect of a server malfunction or Internet failure bringing an entire clinic to a grinding halt is not particularly inviting.

The special needs of dermatology – high patient volumes, multiple diagnoses and prescriptions per patient, the wide variety of procedures we perform, and digital image storage – present further hurdles.

Nevertheless, the march toward electronic record keeping continues, and I continue to receive many questions about choosing a good EHR system. As always, I cannot recommend any specific products since every office has unique needs and requirements.

The key phrase to keep in mind is caveat emptor. Several regulatory bodies exist to test vendor claims and certify system behaviors, but different agencies use different criteria that may or may not be relevant to your requirements. Vaporware is still as common as real software; beware the “feature in the next release” that might never appear, particularly if you need it right now.

Avoid the temptation to buy a flashy new system and then try to adapt it to your office; figure out your needs first, then find a system that meets them.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way around doing the work of comparing one system with another. The most important information a vendor can give you is the names and addresses of two or more offices where you can go watch their system in action. Site visits are time-consuming, but they are only way to pick the best EHR the first time around.

Don’t be the first office using a new system. Let the vendor work out the bugs somewhere else.

Above all, if you have disorganized paper records, don’t count on EHR to automatically solve your problems. Well-designed paper systems usually lend themselves to effective automation, but automating a poorly designed system just increases the chaos. If your paper system is in disarray, solve that problem before considering EHR.

With all of its problems and hurdles, EHRs will inevitably be a part of most of our lives. And for those who take the time to do it right, it will ultimately be an improvement.

Think of information technologies as power tools: They can help you to do things better, but they can also amplify your errors. So choose carefully.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I wrote my first column on electronic health records in the mid-1990s. At the time, it seemed like an idea whose time had come. After all, in an era when just about every essential process in medicine had already been computerized, we physicians continued to process clinical data – our key asset – with pen and paper. Most of us were reluctant to make the switch, and for good reason: choosing the right EHR system was difficult at best, and once the choice was made, conversion was a nightmare. Plus, there was no clear incentive to do it.

Then, the government stepped in. Shortly after his inauguration in 2000, President George W. Bush outlined a plan to ensure that most Americans had electronic health records within 10 years. “By computerizing health records,” the president said, “we can avoid dangerous medical mistakes, reduce costs, and improve care.” The goal was to eliminate missing charts, duplication of lab testing, ineffective documentation, and inordinate amounts of time spent on paperwork, not to mention illegible handwriting, poor coordination of care between physicians, and many other problems. Studies were quoted, suggesting that EHR shortened inpatient stays, decreased risk of adverse drug interactions, improved the consistency and content of records, and improved continuity of care and follow-up.

The EHR Incentive Program (later renamed the Promoting Interoperability Program) was introduced to encourage physicians and hospitals “to adopt, implement, upgrade, and demonstrate meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology.”

Nearly a quarter-century later, implementation is well behind schedule. According to a 2019 federal study, while nearly all hospitals (96%) have adopted a certified EHR, only 72% of office-based physicians have done so.

There are multiple reasons for this. For one thing, EHR is still by and large slower than pen and paper, because direct data entry is still primarily done by keyboard. Voice recognition, hand-held and wireless devices have been developed, but most work only on specialized tasks. Even the best systems take more clinician time per encounter than the manual processes they replace.

Physicians have been slow to warm to a system that slows them down and forces them to change the way they think and work. In addition, paper systems never crash; the prospect of a server malfunction or Internet failure bringing an entire clinic to a grinding halt is not particularly inviting.

The special needs of dermatology – high patient volumes, multiple diagnoses and prescriptions per patient, the wide variety of procedures we perform, and digital image storage – present further hurdles.

Nevertheless, the march toward electronic record keeping continues, and I continue to receive many questions about choosing a good EHR system. As always, I cannot recommend any specific products since every office has unique needs and requirements.

The key phrase to keep in mind is caveat emptor. Several regulatory bodies exist to test vendor claims and certify system behaviors, but different agencies use different criteria that may or may not be relevant to your requirements. Vaporware is still as common as real software; beware the “feature in the next release” that might never appear, particularly if you need it right now.

Avoid the temptation to buy a flashy new system and then try to adapt it to your office; figure out your needs first, then find a system that meets them.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way around doing the work of comparing one system with another. The most important information a vendor can give you is the names and addresses of two or more offices where you can go watch their system in action. Site visits are time-consuming, but they are only way to pick the best EHR the first time around.

Don’t be the first office using a new system. Let the vendor work out the bugs somewhere else.

Above all, if you have disorganized paper records, don’t count on EHR to automatically solve your problems. Well-designed paper systems usually lend themselves to effective automation, but automating a poorly designed system just increases the chaos. If your paper system is in disarray, solve that problem before considering EHR.

With all of its problems and hurdles, EHRs will inevitably be a part of most of our lives. And for those who take the time to do it right, it will ultimately be an improvement.

Think of information technologies as power tools: They can help you to do things better, but they can also amplify your errors. So choose carefully.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

In the past few months, “quiet quitting” has garnered increasing traction across social media platforms. My morning review of social media revealed thousands of posts ranging from “Why doing less at work could be good for you – and your employer” to “After ‘quiet quitting’ here comes ‘quiet firing.’ ”

But quiet quitting is neither quiet nor quitting.

Quiet quitting is a misnomer. Individuals are not quitting their jobs; rather, they are quitting the idea of consistently going “above and beyond” in the workplace as normal and necessary. In addition, quiet quitters are firmer with their boundaries, do not take on work above and beyond clearly stated expectations, do not respond after hours, and do not feel like they are “not doing their job” when they are not immediately available.

Individuals who “quiet quit” continue to meet the demands of their job but reject the hustle-culture mentality that you must always be available for more work and, most importantly, that your value as person and self-worth are defined and determined by your work. Quiet quitters believe that it is possible to have good boundaries and yet remain productive, engaged, and active within the workplace.

Earlier this month, NPR’s posted tutorial on how to set better boundaries at work garnered 491,000 views, reflecting employees’ difficulties in communicating their needs, thoughts, and availability to their employers. Quiet quitting refers to not only rejecting the idea of going above and beyond in the workplace but also feeling confident that there will not be negative ramifications for not consistently working beyond the expected requirements.

A focus on balance, life, loves, and family is rarely addressed or emphasized by traditional employers; employees have little skill in addressing boundaries and clarifying their value and availability. For decades, “needing” flexibility of any kind or valuing activities as much as your job were viewed as negative attributes, making those individuals less-desired employees.

Data support the quiet quitting trend. Gallup data reveal that employee engagement has fallen for 2 consecutive years in the U.S. workforce. Across the first quarter of 2022, Generation Z and younger Millennials report the lowest engagement across populations at 31%. More than half of this cohort, 54%, classified as “not engaged” in their workplace.

Why is quiet quitting gaining prominence now? COVID may play a role.

Many suggest that self-evaluation and establishing firmer boundaries is a logical response to emotional sequelae caused by COVID. Quiet quitting appears to have been fueled by the pandemic. Employees were forced into crisis mode by COVID; the lines between work, life, and home evaporated, allowing or forcing workers to evaluate their efficacy and satisfaction. With the structural impact of COVID reducing and a return to more standard work practices, it is expected that the job “rules” once held as truths come under evaluation and scrutiny.

Perhaps COVID has forced, and provided, another opportunity for us to closely examine our routines and habits and take stock of what really matters. Generations expectedly differ in their values and definitions of success. COVID has set prior established rules on fire, by forcing patterns and expectations that were neither expected nor wanted, within the context of a global health crisis. Within this backdrop, should we really believe our worth is determined by our job?

The truth is, we are still grieving what we lost during COVID and we have expectedly not assimilated to “the new normal.” Psychology has long recognized that losing structures and supports, routines and habits, causes symptoms of significant discomfort.

The idea that we would return to prior workplace expectations is naive. The idea we would “return to life as it was” is naive. It seems expected, then, that both employers and employees should evaluate their goals and communicate more openly about how each can be met.

It is incumbent upon the employers to set up clear guidelines regarding expectations, including rewards for performance and expectations for time, both within and outside of the work schedule. Employers must recognize symptoms of detachment in their employees and engage in the process of continuing clarifying roles and expectations while providing necessities for employees to succeed at their highest level. Employees, in turn, must self-examine their goals, communicate their needs, meet their responsibilities fully, and take on the challenge of determining their own definition of balance.

Maybe instead of quiet quitting, we should call it this new movement “self-awareness, growth, and evolution.” Hmmm, there’s an intriguing thought.

Dr. Calvery is professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville (Ky.) She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In the past few months, “quiet quitting” has garnered increasing traction across social media platforms. My morning review of social media revealed thousands of posts ranging from “Why doing less at work could be good for you – and your employer” to “After ‘quiet quitting’ here comes ‘quiet firing.’ ”

But quiet quitting is neither quiet nor quitting.

Quiet quitting is a misnomer. Individuals are not quitting their jobs; rather, they are quitting the idea of consistently going “above and beyond” in the workplace as normal and necessary. In addition, quiet quitters are firmer with their boundaries, do not take on work above and beyond clearly stated expectations, do not respond after hours, and do not feel like they are “not doing their job” when they are not immediately available.

Individuals who “quiet quit” continue to meet the demands of their job but reject the hustle-culture mentality that you must always be available for more work and, most importantly, that your value as person and self-worth are defined and determined by your work. Quiet quitters believe that it is possible to have good boundaries and yet remain productive, engaged, and active within the workplace.

Earlier this month, NPR’s posted tutorial on how to set better boundaries at work garnered 491,000 views, reflecting employees’ difficulties in communicating their needs, thoughts, and availability to their employers. Quiet quitting refers to not only rejecting the idea of going above and beyond in the workplace but also feeling confident that there will not be negative ramifications for not consistently working beyond the expected requirements.

A focus on balance, life, loves, and family is rarely addressed or emphasized by traditional employers; employees have little skill in addressing boundaries and clarifying their value and availability. For decades, “needing” flexibility of any kind or valuing activities as much as your job were viewed as negative attributes, making those individuals less-desired employees.

Data support the quiet quitting trend. Gallup data reveal that employee engagement has fallen for 2 consecutive years in the U.S. workforce. Across the first quarter of 2022, Generation Z and younger Millennials report the lowest engagement across populations at 31%. More than half of this cohort, 54%, classified as “not engaged” in their workplace.

Why is quiet quitting gaining prominence now? COVID may play a role.

Many suggest that self-evaluation and establishing firmer boundaries is a logical response to emotional sequelae caused by COVID. Quiet quitting appears to have been fueled by the pandemic. Employees were forced into crisis mode by COVID; the lines between work, life, and home evaporated, allowing or forcing workers to evaluate their efficacy and satisfaction. With the structural impact of COVID reducing and a return to more standard work practices, it is expected that the job “rules” once held as truths come under evaluation and scrutiny.

Perhaps COVID has forced, and provided, another opportunity for us to closely examine our routines and habits and take stock of what really matters. Generations expectedly differ in their values and definitions of success. COVID has set prior established rules on fire, by forcing patterns and expectations that were neither expected nor wanted, within the context of a global health crisis. Within this backdrop, should we really believe our worth is determined by our job?

The truth is, we are still grieving what we lost during COVID and we have expectedly not assimilated to “the new normal.” Psychology has long recognized that losing structures and supports, routines and habits, causes symptoms of significant discomfort.

The idea that we would return to prior workplace expectations is naive. The idea we would “return to life as it was” is naive. It seems expected, then, that both employers and employees should evaluate their goals and communicate more openly about how each can be met.

It is incumbent upon the employers to set up clear guidelines regarding expectations, including rewards for performance and expectations for time, both within and outside of the work schedule. Employers must recognize symptoms of detachment in their employees and engage in the process of continuing clarifying roles and expectations while providing necessities for employees to succeed at their highest level. Employees, in turn, must self-examine their goals, communicate their needs, meet their responsibilities fully, and take on the challenge of determining their own definition of balance.

Maybe instead of quiet quitting, we should call it this new movement “self-awareness, growth, and evolution.” Hmmm, there’s an intriguing thought.

Dr. Calvery is professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville (Ky.) She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In the past few months, “quiet quitting” has garnered increasing traction across social media platforms. My morning review of social media revealed thousands of posts ranging from “Why doing less at work could be good for you – and your employer” to “After ‘quiet quitting’ here comes ‘quiet firing.’ ”

But quiet quitting is neither quiet nor quitting.

Quiet quitting is a misnomer. Individuals are not quitting their jobs; rather, they are quitting the idea of consistently going “above and beyond” in the workplace as normal and necessary. In addition, quiet quitters are firmer with their boundaries, do not take on work above and beyond clearly stated expectations, do not respond after hours, and do not feel like they are “not doing their job” when they are not immediately available.

Individuals who “quiet quit” continue to meet the demands of their job but reject the hustle-culture mentality that you must always be available for more work and, most importantly, that your value as person and self-worth are defined and determined by your work. Quiet quitters believe that it is possible to have good boundaries and yet remain productive, engaged, and active within the workplace.

Earlier this month, NPR’s posted tutorial on how to set better boundaries at work garnered 491,000 views, reflecting employees’ difficulties in communicating their needs, thoughts, and availability to their employers. Quiet quitting refers to not only rejecting the idea of going above and beyond in the workplace but also feeling confident that there will not be negative ramifications for not consistently working beyond the expected requirements.

A focus on balance, life, loves, and family is rarely addressed or emphasized by traditional employers; employees have little skill in addressing boundaries and clarifying their value and availability. For decades, “needing” flexibility of any kind or valuing activities as much as your job were viewed as negative attributes, making those individuals less-desired employees.

Data support the quiet quitting trend. Gallup data reveal that employee engagement has fallen for 2 consecutive years in the U.S. workforce. Across the first quarter of 2022, Generation Z and younger Millennials report the lowest engagement across populations at 31%. More than half of this cohort, 54%, classified as “not engaged” in their workplace.

Why is quiet quitting gaining prominence now? COVID may play a role.

Many suggest that self-evaluation and establishing firmer boundaries is a logical response to emotional sequelae caused by COVID. Quiet quitting appears to have been fueled by the pandemic. Employees were forced into crisis mode by COVID; the lines between work, life, and home evaporated, allowing or forcing workers to evaluate their efficacy and satisfaction. With the structural impact of COVID reducing and a return to more standard work practices, it is expected that the job “rules” once held as truths come under evaluation and scrutiny.

Perhaps COVID has forced, and provided, another opportunity for us to closely examine our routines and habits and take stock of what really matters. Generations expectedly differ in their values and definitions of success. COVID has set prior established rules on fire, by forcing patterns and expectations that were neither expected nor wanted, within the context of a global health crisis. Within this backdrop, should we really believe our worth is determined by our job?

The truth is, we are still grieving what we lost during COVID and we have expectedly not assimilated to “the new normal.” Psychology has long recognized that losing structures and supports, routines and habits, causes symptoms of significant discomfort.

The idea that we would return to prior workplace expectations is naive. The idea we would “return to life as it was” is naive. It seems expected, then, that both employers and employees should evaluate their goals and communicate more openly about how each can be met.

It is incumbent upon the employers to set up clear guidelines regarding expectations, including rewards for performance and expectations for time, both within and outside of the work schedule. Employers must recognize symptoms of detachment in their employees and engage in the process of continuing clarifying roles and expectations while providing necessities for employees to succeed at their highest level. Employees, in turn, must self-examine their goals, communicate their needs, meet their responsibilities fully, and take on the challenge of determining their own definition of balance.

Maybe instead of quiet quitting, we should call it this new movement “self-awareness, growth, and evolution.” Hmmm, there’s an intriguing thought.

Dr. Calvery is professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville (Ky.) She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In 2021, Tim Chevalier received the first of many coverage denials from his insurance company for the hair-removal procedure he needed as part of a phalloplasty, the creation of a penis.

Electrolysis is a common procedure among transgender people like Mr. Chevalier, a software developer in Oakland, Calif.. In some cases, it’s used to remove unwanted hair from the face or body. But it’s also required for a phalloplasty or a vaginoplasty, the creation of a vagina, because all hair must be removed from the tissue that will be relocated during surgery.

Mr. Chevalier’s insurer, Anthem Blue Cross, told him he needed what’s known as a prior authorization for the procedure. Even after Mr. Chevalier received the authorization, he said, his reimbursement claims kept getting denied. According to Mr. Chevalier, Anthem said the procedure was considered cosmetic.

Many trans patients have trouble getting their insurers to cover gender-affirming care. One reason is transphobia within the U.S. health care system, but another involves how medical diagnoses and procedures are coded for insurance companies. Nationwide, health care providers use a list of diagnostic codes provided by the ICD-10. And many of those, advocates for transgender people say, haven’t caught up to the needs of patients. Such diagnostic codes provide the basis for determining which procedures, such as electrolysis or surgery, insurance will cover.

“It’s widely regarded that the codes are very limited in ICD-10,” said Johanna Olson-Kennedy, MD, medical director of the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

She advocates for a move to the 11th edition of the coding system, which was endorsed by the World Health Organization in 2019 and began to be adopted around the globe in February. Today, more than 34 countries use ICD-11.

The new edition has replaced outdated terms like “transsexualism” and “gender identity disorder” with “gender incongruence,” which is no longer classified as a mental health condition, but as a sexual health one. This is crucial in reducing the stigmatization of trans people in health care, said Dr. Olson-Kennedy.

A move away from the mental health classification may also mean more coverage of gender-affirming care by insurance companies, which sometimes question mental health claims more rigorously than those for physical illnesses. WHO officials have said they hope that adding gender incongruence to a sexual health chapter will “help increase access to care for health interventions” and “destigmatize the condition,” according to the WHO website.

However, history suggests that ICD-11 likely won’t be implemented in the United States for years. The WHO first endorsed ICD-10 in 1990, but the United States didn’t implement it for 25 years.

Meanwhile, patients who identify as transgender and their doctors are spending hours trying to get coverage – or using crowdfunding to cover big out-of-pocket bills. Mr. Chevalier estimated he has received 78 hours of electrolysis at $140 per hour, costing $10,920.

Anthem spokesperson Michael Bowman wrote in an email that “there has been no medical denials or denial of coverage” because Anthem “preapproved coverage for these services.”

However, even after the preapproval was given, Anthem responded to Mr. Chevalier’s claims by stating the electrolysis would not be reimbursed because the procedure is considered cosmetic, rather than medically necessary. This is regardless of Mr. Chevalier’s diagnosis of gender dysphoria – the psychological distress felt when someone’s biological sex and gender identity don’t match – which many doctors consider a medically legitimate reason for hair removal.

Bowman wrote that “once this issue was identified, Anthem implemented an internal process which included a manual override in the billing system.”

Still, Mr. Chevalier filed a complaint with the California Department of Managed Health Care, and the state declared Anthem Blue Cross out of compliance. Additionally, after KHN started asking Anthem questions about Chevalier’s bills, two claims that had not been addressed since April were resolved in July. So far, Anthem has reimbursed Chevalier around $8,000.

Some procedures that trans patients receive can also be excluded from coverage because insurance companies consider them “sex specific.” For example, a transgender man’s gynecological visit may not be covered because his insurance plan covers those visits only for people enrolled as women.

“There is always this question of: What gender should you tell the insurance company?” said Nick Gorton, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Davis, Calif. Dr. Gorton, who is trans, recommends his patients with insurance plans that exclude trans care calculate the out-of-pocket costs that would be required for certain procedures based on whether the patient lists themselves as male or female on their insurance paperwork. For example, Dr. Gorton said, the question for a trans man becomes “what’s more expensive – paying for testosterone or paying for a Pap smear?” – since insurance likely won’t cover both.

For years, some physicians helped trans patients get coverage by finding other medical reasons for their trans-related care. Dr. Gorton said that if, for instance, a transgender man wanted a hysterectomy but his insurance didn’t cover gender-affirming care, Dr. Gorton would enter the ICD-10 code for pelvic pain, as opposed to gender dysphoria, into the patient’s billing record. Pelvic pain is a legitimate reason for the surgery and is commonly accepted by insurance providers, Dr. Gorton said. But some insurance companies pushed back, and he had to find other ways to help his patients.

In 2005, California passed a first-of-its-kind law that prohibits discrimination by health insurance on the basis of gender or gender identity. Now, 24 states and Washington, D.C., forbid private insurance from excluding transgender-related health care benefits.

Consequently, Dr. Gorton no longer needs to use different codes for patients seeking gender-affirming care at his practice in California. But physicians in other states are still struggling.

When Eric Meininger, MD, MPH, an internist and pediatrician at Indiana University Health’s gender health program in Indianapolis, treats a trans kid seeking hormone therapy, he commonly uses the ICD-10 code for “medication management” as the primary reason for the patient’s visit. That’s because Indiana has no law providing insurance protections for LGBTQ+ people, and when gender dysphoria is listed as the primary reason, insurance companies have denied coverage.

“It’s frustrating,” Dr. Meininger said. In a patient’s billing record, he sometimes provides multiple diagnoses, including gender dysphoria, to increase the likelihood that a procedure will be covered. “It’s not hard usually to come up with five or seven or eight diagnoses for someone because there’s lots of vague ones out there.”

Implementing ICD-11 won’t fix all the coding problems, as insurance companies may still refuse to cover procedures related to gender incongruence even though it is listed as a sexual health condition. It also won’t change the fact that many states still allow insurance to exclude gender-affirming care. But in terms of reducing stigma, it’s a step forward, Dr. Olson-Kennedy said.

One reason the United States took so long to switch to ICD-10 is that the American Medical Association strongly opposed the move. It argued the new system would put an incredible burden on doctors. Physicians would have to “contend with 68,000 diagnosis codes – a fivefold increase from the approximately 13,000 diagnosis codes in use today,” the AMA wrote in a 2014 letter. Implementing software to update providers’ coding systems would also be costly, dealing a financial blow to small medical practices, the association argued.

Unlike past coding systems, ICD-11 is fully electronic, with no physical manual of codes, and can be incorporated into a medical facility’s current coding system without requiring a new rollout, said Christian Lindmeier, a WHO spokesperson.

Whether these changes will make the adoption of the new edition easier in the United States is yet to be seen. For now, many trans patients in need of gender-affirming care must pay their bills out of pocket, fight their insurance company for coverage, or rely on the generosity of others.

“Even though I did get reimbursed eventually, the reimbursements were delayed, and it burned up a lot of my time,” Mr. Chevalier said. “Most people would have just given up.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In 2021, Tim Chevalier received the first of many coverage denials from his insurance company for the hair-removal procedure he needed as part of a phalloplasty, the creation of a penis.

Electrolysis is a common procedure among transgender people like Mr. Chevalier, a software developer in Oakland, Calif.. In some cases, it’s used to remove unwanted hair from the face or body. But it’s also required for a phalloplasty or a vaginoplasty, the creation of a vagina, because all hair must be removed from the tissue that will be relocated during surgery.

Mr. Chevalier’s insurer, Anthem Blue Cross, told him he needed what’s known as a prior authorization for the procedure. Even after Mr. Chevalier received the authorization, he said, his reimbursement claims kept getting denied. According to Mr. Chevalier, Anthem said the procedure was considered cosmetic.

Many trans patients have trouble getting their insurers to cover gender-affirming care. One reason is transphobia within the U.S. health care system, but another involves how medical diagnoses and procedures are coded for insurance companies. Nationwide, health care providers use a list of diagnostic codes provided by the ICD-10. And many of those, advocates for transgender people say, haven’t caught up to the needs of patients. Such diagnostic codes provide the basis for determining which procedures, such as electrolysis or surgery, insurance will cover.

“It’s widely regarded that the codes are very limited in ICD-10,” said Johanna Olson-Kennedy, MD, medical director of the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

She advocates for a move to the 11th edition of the coding system, which was endorsed by the World Health Organization in 2019 and began to be adopted around the globe in February. Today, more than 34 countries use ICD-11.

The new edition has replaced outdated terms like “transsexualism” and “gender identity disorder” with “gender incongruence,” which is no longer classified as a mental health condition, but as a sexual health one. This is crucial in reducing the stigmatization of trans people in health care, said Dr. Olson-Kennedy.

A move away from the mental health classification may also mean more coverage of gender-affirming care by insurance companies, which sometimes question mental health claims more rigorously than those for physical illnesses. WHO officials have said they hope that adding gender incongruence to a sexual health chapter will “help increase access to care for health interventions” and “destigmatize the condition,” according to the WHO website.

However, history suggests that ICD-11 likely won’t be implemented in the United States for years. The WHO first endorsed ICD-10 in 1990, but the United States didn’t implement it for 25 years.

Meanwhile, patients who identify as transgender and their doctors are spending hours trying to get coverage – or using crowdfunding to cover big out-of-pocket bills. Mr. Chevalier estimated he has received 78 hours of electrolysis at $140 per hour, costing $10,920.

Anthem spokesperson Michael Bowman wrote in an email that “there has been no medical denials or denial of coverage” because Anthem “preapproved coverage for these services.”

However, even after the preapproval was given, Anthem responded to Mr. Chevalier’s claims by stating the electrolysis would not be reimbursed because the procedure is considered cosmetic, rather than medically necessary. This is regardless of Mr. Chevalier’s diagnosis of gender dysphoria – the psychological distress felt when someone’s biological sex and gender identity don’t match – which many doctors consider a medically legitimate reason for hair removal.

Bowman wrote that “once this issue was identified, Anthem implemented an internal process which included a manual override in the billing system.”

Still, Mr. Chevalier filed a complaint with the California Department of Managed Health Care, and the state declared Anthem Blue Cross out of compliance. Additionally, after KHN started asking Anthem questions about Chevalier’s bills, two claims that had not been addressed since April were resolved in July. So far, Anthem has reimbursed Chevalier around $8,000.

Some procedures that trans patients receive can also be excluded from coverage because insurance companies consider them “sex specific.” For example, a transgender man’s gynecological visit may not be covered because his insurance plan covers those visits only for people enrolled as women.

“There is always this question of: What gender should you tell the insurance company?” said Nick Gorton, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Davis, Calif. Dr. Gorton, who is trans, recommends his patients with insurance plans that exclude trans care calculate the out-of-pocket costs that would be required for certain procedures based on whether the patient lists themselves as male or female on their insurance paperwork. For example, Dr. Gorton said, the question for a trans man becomes “what’s more expensive – paying for testosterone or paying for a Pap smear?” – since insurance likely won’t cover both.

For years, some physicians helped trans patients get coverage by finding other medical reasons for their trans-related care. Dr. Gorton said that if, for instance, a transgender man wanted a hysterectomy but his insurance didn’t cover gender-affirming care, Dr. Gorton would enter the ICD-10 code for pelvic pain, as opposed to gender dysphoria, into the patient’s billing record. Pelvic pain is a legitimate reason for the surgery and is commonly accepted by insurance providers, Dr. Gorton said. But some insurance companies pushed back, and he had to find other ways to help his patients.

In 2005, California passed a first-of-its-kind law that prohibits discrimination by health insurance on the basis of gender or gender identity. Now, 24 states and Washington, D.C., forbid private insurance from excluding transgender-related health care benefits.

Consequently, Dr. Gorton no longer needs to use different codes for patients seeking gender-affirming care at his practice in California. But physicians in other states are still struggling.

When Eric Meininger, MD, MPH, an internist and pediatrician at Indiana University Health’s gender health program in Indianapolis, treats a trans kid seeking hormone therapy, he commonly uses the ICD-10 code for “medication management” as the primary reason for the patient’s visit. That’s because Indiana has no law providing insurance protections for LGBTQ+ people, and when gender dysphoria is listed as the primary reason, insurance companies have denied coverage.

“It’s frustrating,” Dr. Meininger said. In a patient’s billing record, he sometimes provides multiple diagnoses, including gender dysphoria, to increase the likelihood that a procedure will be covered. “It’s not hard usually to come up with five or seven or eight diagnoses for someone because there’s lots of vague ones out there.”

Implementing ICD-11 won’t fix all the coding problems, as insurance companies may still refuse to cover procedures related to gender incongruence even though it is listed as a sexual health condition. It also won’t change the fact that many states still allow insurance to exclude gender-affirming care. But in terms of reducing stigma, it’s a step forward, Dr. Olson-Kennedy said.

One reason the United States took so long to switch to ICD-10 is that the American Medical Association strongly opposed the move. It argued the new system would put an incredible burden on doctors. Physicians would have to “contend with 68,000 diagnosis codes – a fivefold increase from the approximately 13,000 diagnosis codes in use today,” the AMA wrote in a 2014 letter. Implementing software to update providers’ coding systems would also be costly, dealing a financial blow to small medical practices, the association argued.

Unlike past coding systems, ICD-11 is fully electronic, with no physical manual of codes, and can be incorporated into a medical facility’s current coding system without requiring a new rollout, said Christian Lindmeier, a WHO spokesperson.

Whether these changes will make the adoption of the new edition easier in the United States is yet to be seen. For now, many trans patients in need of gender-affirming care must pay their bills out of pocket, fight their insurance company for coverage, or rely on the generosity of others.

“Even though I did get reimbursed eventually, the reimbursements were delayed, and it burned up a lot of my time,” Mr. Chevalier said. “Most people would have just given up.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In 2021, Tim Chevalier received the first of many coverage denials from his insurance company for the hair-removal procedure he needed as part of a phalloplasty, the creation of a penis.

Electrolysis is a common procedure among transgender people like Mr. Chevalier, a software developer in Oakland, Calif.. In some cases, it’s used to remove unwanted hair from the face or body. But it’s also required for a phalloplasty or a vaginoplasty, the creation of a vagina, because all hair must be removed from the tissue that will be relocated during surgery.

Mr. Chevalier’s insurer, Anthem Blue Cross, told him he needed what’s known as a prior authorization for the procedure. Even after Mr. Chevalier received the authorization, he said, his reimbursement claims kept getting denied. According to Mr. Chevalier, Anthem said the procedure was considered cosmetic.

Many trans patients have trouble getting their insurers to cover gender-affirming care. One reason is transphobia within the U.S. health care system, but another involves how medical diagnoses and procedures are coded for insurance companies. Nationwide, health care providers use a list of diagnostic codes provided by the ICD-10. And many of those, advocates for transgender people say, haven’t caught up to the needs of patients. Such diagnostic codes provide the basis for determining which procedures, such as electrolysis or surgery, insurance will cover.

“It’s widely regarded that the codes are very limited in ICD-10,” said Johanna Olson-Kennedy, MD, medical director of the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

She advocates for a move to the 11th edition of the coding system, which was endorsed by the World Health Organization in 2019 and began to be adopted around the globe in February. Today, more than 34 countries use ICD-11.

The new edition has replaced outdated terms like “transsexualism” and “gender identity disorder” with “gender incongruence,” which is no longer classified as a mental health condition, but as a sexual health one. This is crucial in reducing the stigmatization of trans people in health care, said Dr. Olson-Kennedy.

A move away from the mental health classification may also mean more coverage of gender-affirming care by insurance companies, which sometimes question mental health claims more rigorously than those for physical illnesses. WHO officials have said they hope that adding gender incongruence to a sexual health chapter will “help increase access to care for health interventions” and “destigmatize the condition,” according to the WHO website.

However, history suggests that ICD-11 likely won’t be implemented in the United States for years. The WHO first endorsed ICD-10 in 1990, but the United States didn’t implement it for 25 years.

Meanwhile, patients who identify as transgender and their doctors are spending hours trying to get coverage – or using crowdfunding to cover big out-of-pocket bills. Mr. Chevalier estimated he has received 78 hours of electrolysis at $140 per hour, costing $10,920.

Anthem spokesperson Michael Bowman wrote in an email that “there has been no medical denials or denial of coverage” because Anthem “preapproved coverage for these services.”

However, even after the preapproval was given, Anthem responded to Mr. Chevalier’s claims by stating the electrolysis would not be reimbursed because the procedure is considered cosmetic, rather than medically necessary. This is regardless of Mr. Chevalier’s diagnosis of gender dysphoria – the psychological distress felt when someone’s biological sex and gender identity don’t match – which many doctors consider a medically legitimate reason for hair removal.

Bowman wrote that “once this issue was identified, Anthem implemented an internal process which included a manual override in the billing system.”

Still, Mr. Chevalier filed a complaint with the California Department of Managed Health Care, and the state declared Anthem Blue Cross out of compliance. Additionally, after KHN started asking Anthem questions about Chevalier’s bills, two claims that had not been addressed since April were resolved in July. So far, Anthem has reimbursed Chevalier around $8,000.

Some procedures that trans patients receive can also be excluded from coverage because insurance companies consider them “sex specific.” For example, a transgender man’s gynecological visit may not be covered because his insurance plan covers those visits only for people enrolled as women.

“There is always this question of: What gender should you tell the insurance company?” said Nick Gorton, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Davis, Calif. Dr. Gorton, who is trans, recommends his patients with insurance plans that exclude trans care calculate the out-of-pocket costs that would be required for certain procedures based on whether the patient lists themselves as male or female on their insurance paperwork. For example, Dr. Gorton said, the question for a trans man becomes “what’s more expensive – paying for testosterone or paying for a Pap smear?” – since insurance likely won’t cover both.

For years, some physicians helped trans patients get coverage by finding other medical reasons for their trans-related care. Dr. Gorton said that if, for instance, a transgender man wanted a hysterectomy but his insurance didn’t cover gender-affirming care, Dr. Gorton would enter the ICD-10 code for pelvic pain, as opposed to gender dysphoria, into the patient’s billing record. Pelvic pain is a legitimate reason for the surgery and is commonly accepted by insurance providers, Dr. Gorton said. But some insurance companies pushed back, and he had to find other ways to help his patients.

In 2005, California passed a first-of-its-kind law that prohibits discrimination by health insurance on the basis of gender or gender identity. Now, 24 states and Washington, D.C., forbid private insurance from excluding transgender-related health care benefits.

Consequently, Dr. Gorton no longer needs to use different codes for patients seeking gender-affirming care at his practice in California. But physicians in other states are still struggling.

When Eric Meininger, MD, MPH, an internist and pediatrician at Indiana University Health’s gender health program in Indianapolis, treats a trans kid seeking hormone therapy, he commonly uses the ICD-10 code for “medication management” as the primary reason for the patient’s visit. That’s because Indiana has no law providing insurance protections for LGBTQ+ people, and when gender dysphoria is listed as the primary reason, insurance companies have denied coverage.

“It’s frustrating,” Dr. Meininger said. In a patient’s billing record, he sometimes provides multiple diagnoses, including gender dysphoria, to increase the likelihood that a procedure will be covered. “It’s not hard usually to come up with five or seven or eight diagnoses for someone because there’s lots of vague ones out there.”

Implementing ICD-11 won’t fix all the coding problems, as insurance companies may still refuse to cover procedures related to gender incongruence even though it is listed as a sexual health condition. It also won’t change the fact that many states still allow insurance to exclude gender-affirming care. But in terms of reducing stigma, it’s a step forward, Dr. Olson-Kennedy said.

One reason the United States took so long to switch to ICD-10 is that the American Medical Association strongly opposed the move. It argued the new system would put an incredible burden on doctors. Physicians would have to “contend with 68,000 diagnosis codes – a fivefold increase from the approximately 13,000 diagnosis codes in use today,” the AMA wrote in a 2014 letter. Implementing software to update providers’ coding systems would also be costly, dealing a financial blow to small medical practices, the association argued.

Unlike past coding systems, ICD-11 is fully electronic, with no physical manual of codes, and can be incorporated into a medical facility’s current coding system without requiring a new rollout, said Christian Lindmeier, a WHO spokesperson.

Whether these changes will make the adoption of the new edition easier in the United States is yet to be seen. For now, many trans patients in need of gender-affirming care must pay their bills out of pocket, fight their insurance company for coverage, or rely on the generosity of others.

“Even though I did get reimbursed eventually, the reimbursements were delayed, and it burned up a lot of my time,” Mr. Chevalier said. “Most people would have just given up.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Melasma is a difficult disorder to treat. With the removal of hydroquinone from the cosmetic market and the prevalence of dyschromia, new skin lightening ingredients are being sought and many new discoveries are coming from Asia. Artemisia capillaris is a natural botanical ingredient already used in skin care products in Asia.

There are more than 500 species of the genus Artemisia (of the Astraceae or Compositae family) dispersed throughout the temperate areas of Asia, Europe, and North America.¹ Various parts of the shrub Artemisia capillaris, found abundantly in China, Japan, and Korea, have been used in traditional medicine in Asia for hundreds of years. A. capillaris (Yin-Chen in Chinese) has been deployed in traditional Chinese medicine as a diuretic, to protect the liver, and to treat skin inflammation.^2,3 Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antisteatotic, antitumor, and antiviral properties have been associated with this plant,³ and hydrating effects have been recently attributed to it. In Korean medicine, A. capillaris (InJin in Korean) has been used for its hepatoprotective, analgesic, and antipyretic activities.^4,5 In this column, the focus will be on recent evidence that suggests possible applications in skin care.
 

Chemical constituents

In 2008, Kim et al. studied the anticarcinogenic activity of A. capillaris, among other medicinal herbs, using the 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene (DMBA)-induced mouse skin carcinogenesis model. The researchers found that A. capillaris exhibited the most effective anticarcinogenic activity compared to the other herbs tested, with such properties ascribed to its constituent camphor, 1-borneol, coumarin, and achillin. Notably, the chloroform fraction of A. capillaris significantly lowered the number of tumors/mouse and tumor incidence compared with the other tested herbs.⁶

moxumbic/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The wide range of biological functions associated with A. capillaris, including anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antidiabetic, antisteatotic, and antitumor activities have, in various studies, been attributed to the bioactive constituents scoparone, scopoletin, capillarisin, capillin, and chlorogenic acids.³

Tyrosinase-related protein 1 (TYRP-1) and its role in skin pigmentation

Tyrosinase related protein 1 (TYRP-1) is structurally similar to tyrosinase, but its role is still being elucidated. Mutations in TYR-1 results in oculocutaneous albinism. TYRP-1 is involved in eumelanin synthesis, but not in pheomelanin synthesis. Mutations in TYRP-1 affect the quality of melanin synthesized rather than the quantity.⁴ TYRP-1 is being looked at as a target for treatment of hyperpigmentation disorders such as melasma.

Effects on melanin synthesis

A. capillaris reduces the expression of TYRP-1, making it attractive for use in skin lightening products. Although there are not a lot of data, this is a developing area of interest and the following will discuss what is known so far.

Kim et al. investigated the antimelanogenic activity of 10 essential oils, including A. capillaris, utilizing the B16F10 cell line model. A. capillaris was among four extracts found to hinder melanogenesis, and the only one that improved cell proliferation, displayed anti-H₂O₂ activity, and reduced tyrosinase-related protein (TRP)-1 expression. The researchers determined that A. capillaris extract suppressed melanin production through the downregulation of the TRP 1 translational level. They concluded that while investigations using in vivo models are necessary to buttress and validate these results, A. capillaris extract appears to be suitable as a natural therapeutic antimelanogenic agent as well as a skin-whitening ingredient in cosmeceutical products.⁷

Tabassum et al. screened A. capillaris for antipigmentary functions using murine cultured cells (B16-F10 malignant melanocytes). They found that the A. capillaris constituent 4,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid significantly and dose-dependently diminished melanin production and tyrosinase activity in the melanocytes. The expression of tyrosinase-related protein-1 was also decreased. Further, the researchers observed antipigmentary activity in a zebrafish model, with no toxicity demonstrated by either A. capillaris or its component 4,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid. They concluded that this compound could be included as an active ingredient in products intended to address pigmentation disorders.⁸
 

Anti-inflammatory activity

Inflammation is well known to trigger the production of melanin. This is why anti-inflammatory ingredients are often included in skin lighting products. A. capillaris displays anti-inflammatory activity and has shown some antioxidant activity.

In 2018, Lee et al. confirmed the therapeutic potential of A. capillaris extract to treat psoriasis in HaCaT cells and imiquimod-induced psoriasis-like mouse models. In the murine models, those treated with the ethanol extract of A. capillaris had a significantly lower Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score than that of the mice not given the topical application of the botanical. Epidermal thickness was noted to be significantly lower compared with the mice not treated with A. capillaris.⁹ Further studies in mice by the same team later that year supported the use of a cream formulation containing A. capillaris that they developed to treat psoriasis, warranting new investigations in human skin.¹⁰

Yeo et al. reported, earlier in 2018, on other anti-inflammatory activity of the herb, finding that the aqueous extract from A. capillaris blocked acute gastric mucosal injury by hindering reactive oxygen species and nuclear factor kappa B. They added that A. capillaris maintains oxidant/antioxidant homeostasis and displays potential as a nutraceutical agent for treating gastric ulcers and gastritis.⁵

In 2011, Kwon et al. studied the 5-lipoxygenase inhibitory action of a 70% ethanol extract of aerial parts of A. capillaris. They identified esculetin and quercetin as strong inhibitors of 5-lipoxygenase. The botanical agent, and esculetin in particular, robustly suppressed arachidonic acid-induced ear edema in mice as well as delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. Further, A. capillaris potently blocked 5-lipoxygenase-catalyzed leukotriene synthesis by ionophore-induced rat basophilic leukemia-1 cells. The researchers concluded that their findings may partially account for the use of A. capillaris as a traditional medical treatment for cutaneous inflammatory conditions.²

Atopic dermatitis and A. capillaris

In 2014, Ha et al. used in vitro and in vivo systems to assess the anti-inflammatory effects of A. capillaris as well as its activity against atopic dermatitis. The in vitro studies revealed that A. capillaris hampered NO and cellular histamine synthesis. In Nc/Nga mice sensitized by Dermatophagoides farinae, dermatitis scores as well as hemorrhage, hypertrophy, and hyperkeratosis of the epidermis in the dorsal skin and ear all declined after the topical application of A. capillaris. Plasma levels of histamine and IgE also significantly decreased after treatment with A. capillaris. The investigators concluded that further study of A. capillaris is warranted as a potential therapeutic option for atopic dermatitis.¹¹

Summary

Many botanical ingredients from Asia are making their way into skin care products in the USA. A. capillaris extract is an example and may have utility in treating hyperpigmentation-associated skin issues such as melasma. Its inhibitory effects on both inflammation and melanin production in addition to possible antioxidant activity make it an interesting compound worthy of more scrutiny.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Bora KS and Sharma A. Pharm Biol. 2011 Jan;49(1):101-9.

2. Kwon OS et al. Arch Pharm Res. 2011 Sep;34(9):1561-9.

3. Hsueh TP et al. Biomedicines. 2021 Oct 8;9(10):1412.

4. Dolinska MB et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Jan 3;21(1):331.

5. Yeo D et al. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018 Mar;99:681-7.

6. Kim YS et al. J Food Sci. 2008 Jan;73(1):T16-20.

7. Kim MJ et al. Mol Med Rep. 2022 Apr;25(4):113.

8. Tabassum N et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2016;2016:7823541.

9. Lee SY et al. Phytother Res. 2018 May;32(5):923-2.

10. Lee SY et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2018 Aug 19;2018:3610494.

11. Ha H et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014 Mar 14;14:100.

Melasma is a difficult disorder to treat. With the removal of hydroquinone from the cosmetic market and the prevalence of dyschromia, new skin lightening ingredients are being sought and many new discoveries are coming from Asia. Artemisia capillaris is a natural botanical ingredient already used in skin care products in Asia.

There are more than 500 species of the genus Artemisia (of the Astraceae or Compositae family) dispersed throughout the temperate areas of Asia, Europe, and North America.¹ Various parts of the shrub Artemisia capillaris, found abundantly in China, Japan, and Korea, have been used in traditional medicine in Asia for hundreds of years. A. capillaris (Yin-Chen in Chinese) has been deployed in traditional Chinese medicine as a diuretic, to protect the liver, and to treat skin inflammation.^2,3 Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antisteatotic, antitumor, and antiviral properties have been associated with this plant,³ and hydrating effects have been recently attributed to it. In Korean medicine, A. capillaris (InJin in Korean) has been used for its hepatoprotective, analgesic, and antipyretic activities.^4,5 In this column, the focus will be on recent evidence that suggests possible applications in skin care.
 

Chemical constituents

In 2008, Kim et al. studied the anticarcinogenic activity of A. capillaris, among other medicinal herbs, using the 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene (DMBA)-induced mouse skin carcinogenesis model. The researchers found that A. capillaris exhibited the most effective anticarcinogenic activity compared to the other herbs tested, with such properties ascribed to its constituent camphor, 1-borneol, coumarin, and achillin. Notably, the chloroform fraction of A. capillaris significantly lowered the number of tumors/mouse and tumor incidence compared with the other tested herbs.⁶

moxumbic/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The wide range of biological functions associated with A. capillaris, including anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antidiabetic, antisteatotic, and antitumor activities have, in various studies, been attributed to the bioactive constituents scoparone, scopoletin, capillarisin, capillin, and chlorogenic acids.³

Tyrosinase-related protein 1 (TYRP-1) and its role in skin pigmentation

Tyrosinase related protein 1 (TYRP-1) is structurally similar to tyrosinase, but its role is still being elucidated. Mutations in TYR-1 results in oculocutaneous albinism. TYRP-1 is involved in eumelanin synthesis, but not in pheomelanin synthesis. Mutations in TYRP-1 affect the quality of melanin synthesized rather than the quantity.⁴ TYRP-1 is being looked at as a target for treatment of hyperpigmentation disorders such as melasma.

Effects on melanin synthesis

A. capillaris reduces the expression of TYRP-1, making it attractive for use in skin lightening products. Although there are not a lot of data, this is a developing area of interest and the following will discuss what is known so far.

Kim et al. investigated the antimelanogenic activity of 10 essential oils, including A. capillaris, utilizing the B16F10 cell line model. A. capillaris was among four extracts found to hinder melanogenesis, and the only one that improved cell proliferation, displayed anti-H₂O₂ activity, and reduced tyrosinase-related protein (TRP)-1 expression. The researchers determined that A. capillaris extract suppressed melanin production through the downregulation of the TRP 1 translational level. They concluded that while investigations using in vivo models are necessary to buttress and validate these results, A. capillaris extract appears to be suitable as a natural therapeutic antimelanogenic agent as well as a skin-whitening ingredient in cosmeceutical products.⁷

Tabassum et al. screened A. capillaris for antipigmentary functions using murine cultured cells (B16-F10 malignant melanocytes). They found that the A. capillaris constituent 4,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid significantly and dose-dependently diminished melanin production and tyrosinase activity in the melanocytes. The expression of tyrosinase-related protein-1 was also decreased. Further, the researchers observed antipigmentary activity in a zebrafish model, with no toxicity demonstrated by either A. capillaris or its component 4,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid. They concluded that this compound could be included as an active ingredient in products intended to address pigmentation disorders.⁸
 

Anti-inflammatory activity

Inflammation is well known to trigger the production of melanin. This is why anti-inflammatory ingredients are often included in skin lighting products. A. capillaris displays anti-inflammatory activity and has shown some antioxidant activity.

In 2018, Lee et al. confirmed the therapeutic potential of A. capillaris extract to treat psoriasis in HaCaT cells and imiquimod-induced psoriasis-like mouse models. In the murine models, those treated with the ethanol extract of A. capillaris had a significantly lower Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score than that of the mice not given the topical application of the botanical. Epidermal thickness was noted to be significantly lower compared with the mice not treated with A. capillaris.⁹ Further studies in mice by the same team later that year supported the use of a cream formulation containing A. capillaris that they developed to treat psoriasis, warranting new investigations in human skin.¹⁰

Yeo et al. reported, earlier in 2018, on other anti-inflammatory activity of the herb, finding that the aqueous extract from A. capillaris blocked acute gastric mucosal injury by hindering reactive oxygen species and nuclear factor kappa B. They added that A. capillaris maintains oxidant/antioxidant homeostasis and displays potential as a nutraceutical agent for treating gastric ulcers and gastritis.⁵

In 2011, Kwon et al. studied the 5-lipoxygenase inhibitory action of a 70% ethanol extract of aerial parts of A. capillaris. They identified esculetin and quercetin as strong inhibitors of 5-lipoxygenase. The botanical agent, and esculetin in particular, robustly suppressed arachidonic acid-induced ear edema in mice as well as delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. Further, A. capillaris potently blocked 5-lipoxygenase-catalyzed leukotriene synthesis by ionophore-induced rat basophilic leukemia-1 cells. The researchers concluded that their findings may partially account for the use of A. capillaris as a traditional medical treatment for cutaneous inflammatory conditions.²

Atopic dermatitis and A. capillaris

In 2014, Ha et al. used in vitro and in vivo systems to assess the anti-inflammatory effects of A. capillaris as well as its activity against atopic dermatitis. The in vitro studies revealed that A. capillaris hampered NO and cellular histamine synthesis. In Nc/Nga mice sensitized by Dermatophagoides farinae, dermatitis scores as well as hemorrhage, hypertrophy, and hyperkeratosis of the epidermis in the dorsal skin and ear all declined after the topical application of A. capillaris. Plasma levels of histamine and IgE also significantly decreased after treatment with A. capillaris. The investigators concluded that further study of A. capillaris is warranted as a potential therapeutic option for atopic dermatitis.¹¹

Summary

Many botanical ingredients from Asia are making their way into skin care products in the USA. A. capillaris extract is an example and may have utility in treating hyperpigmentation-associated skin issues such as melasma. Its inhibitory effects on both inflammation and melanin production in addition to possible antioxidant activity make it an interesting compound worthy of more scrutiny.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Bora KS and Sharma A. Pharm Biol. 2011 Jan;49(1):101-9.

2. Kwon OS et al. Arch Pharm Res. 2011 Sep;34(9):1561-9.

3. Hsueh TP et al. Biomedicines. 2021 Oct 8;9(10):1412.

4. Dolinska MB et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Jan 3;21(1):331.

5. Yeo D et al. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018 Mar;99:681-7.

6. Kim YS et al. J Food Sci. 2008 Jan;73(1):T16-20.

7. Kim MJ et al. Mol Med Rep. 2022 Apr;25(4):113.

8. Tabassum N et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2016;2016:7823541.

9. Lee SY et al. Phytother Res. 2018 May;32(5):923-2.

10. Lee SY et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2018 Aug 19;2018:3610494.

11. Ha H et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014 Mar 14;14:100.

Melasma is a difficult disorder to treat. With the removal of hydroquinone from the cosmetic market and the prevalence of dyschromia, new skin lightening ingredients are being sought and many new discoveries are coming from Asia. Artemisia capillaris is a natural botanical ingredient already used in skin care products in Asia.

There are more than 500 species of the genus Artemisia (of the Astraceae or Compositae family) dispersed throughout the temperate areas of Asia, Europe, and North America.¹ Various parts of the shrub Artemisia capillaris, found abundantly in China, Japan, and Korea, have been used in traditional medicine in Asia for hundreds of years. A. capillaris (Yin-Chen in Chinese) has been deployed in traditional Chinese medicine as a diuretic, to protect the liver, and to treat skin inflammation.^2,3 Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antisteatotic, antitumor, and antiviral properties have been associated with this plant,³ and hydrating effects have been recently attributed to it. In Korean medicine, A. capillaris (InJin in Korean) has been used for its hepatoprotective, analgesic, and antipyretic activities.^4,5 In this column, the focus will be on recent evidence that suggests possible applications in skin care.
 

Chemical constituents

In 2008, Kim et al. studied the anticarcinogenic activity of A. capillaris, among other medicinal herbs, using the 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene (DMBA)-induced mouse skin carcinogenesis model. The researchers found that A. capillaris exhibited the most effective anticarcinogenic activity compared to the other herbs tested, with such properties ascribed to its constituent camphor, 1-borneol, coumarin, and achillin. Notably, the chloroform fraction of A. capillaris significantly lowered the number of tumors/mouse and tumor incidence compared with the other tested herbs.⁶

moxumbic/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The wide range of biological functions associated with A. capillaris, including anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antidiabetic, antisteatotic, and antitumor activities have, in various studies, been attributed to the bioactive constituents scoparone, scopoletin, capillarisin, capillin, and chlorogenic acids.³

Tyrosinase-related protein 1 (TYRP-1) and its role in skin pigmentation

Tyrosinase related protein 1 (TYRP-1) is structurally similar to tyrosinase, but its role is still being elucidated. Mutations in TYR-1 results in oculocutaneous albinism. TYRP-1 is involved in eumelanin synthesis, but not in pheomelanin synthesis. Mutations in TYRP-1 affect the quality of melanin synthesized rather than the quantity.⁴ TYRP-1 is being looked at as a target for treatment of hyperpigmentation disorders such as melasma.

Effects on melanin synthesis

A. capillaris reduces the expression of TYRP-1, making it attractive for use in skin lightening products. Although there are not a lot of data, this is a developing area of interest and the following will discuss what is known so far.

Kim et al. investigated the antimelanogenic activity of 10 essential oils, including A. capillaris, utilizing the B16F10 cell line model. A. capillaris was among four extracts found to hinder melanogenesis, and the only one that improved cell proliferation, displayed anti-H₂O₂ activity, and reduced tyrosinase-related protein (TRP)-1 expression. The researchers determined that A. capillaris extract suppressed melanin production through the downregulation of the TRP 1 translational level. They concluded that while investigations using in vivo models are necessary to buttress and validate these results, A. capillaris extract appears to be suitable as a natural therapeutic antimelanogenic agent as well as a skin-whitening ingredient in cosmeceutical products.⁷

Tabassum et al. screened A. capillaris for antipigmentary functions using murine cultured cells (B16-F10 malignant melanocytes). They found that the A. capillaris constituent 4,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid significantly and dose-dependently diminished melanin production and tyrosinase activity in the melanocytes. The expression of tyrosinase-related protein-1 was also decreased. Further, the researchers observed antipigmentary activity in a zebrafish model, with no toxicity demonstrated by either A. capillaris or its component 4,5-O-dicaffeoylquinic acid. They concluded that this compound could be included as an active ingredient in products intended to address pigmentation disorders.⁸
 

Anti-inflammatory activity

Inflammation is well known to trigger the production of melanin. This is why anti-inflammatory ingredients are often included in skin lighting products. A. capillaris displays anti-inflammatory activity and has shown some antioxidant activity.

In 2018, Lee et al. confirmed the therapeutic potential of A. capillaris extract to treat psoriasis in HaCaT cells and imiquimod-induced psoriasis-like mouse models. In the murine models, those treated with the ethanol extract of A. capillaris had a significantly lower Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score than that of the mice not given the topical application of the botanical. Epidermal thickness was noted to be significantly lower compared with the mice not treated with A. capillaris.⁹ Further studies in mice by the same team later that year supported the use of a cream formulation containing A. capillaris that they developed to treat psoriasis, warranting new investigations in human skin.¹⁰

Yeo et al. reported, earlier in 2018, on other anti-inflammatory activity of the herb, finding that the aqueous extract from A. capillaris blocked acute gastric mucosal injury by hindering reactive oxygen species and nuclear factor kappa B. They added that A. capillaris maintains oxidant/antioxidant homeostasis and displays potential as a nutraceutical agent for treating gastric ulcers and gastritis.⁵

In 2011, Kwon et al. studied the 5-lipoxygenase inhibitory action of a 70% ethanol extract of aerial parts of A. capillaris. They identified esculetin and quercetin as strong inhibitors of 5-lipoxygenase. The botanical agent, and esculetin in particular, robustly suppressed arachidonic acid-induced ear edema in mice as well as delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. Further, A. capillaris potently blocked 5-lipoxygenase-catalyzed leukotriene synthesis by ionophore-induced rat basophilic leukemia-1 cells. The researchers concluded that their findings may partially account for the use of A. capillaris as a traditional medical treatment for cutaneous inflammatory conditions.²

Atopic dermatitis and A. capillaris

In 2014, Ha et al. used in vitro and in vivo systems to assess the anti-inflammatory effects of A. capillaris as well as its activity against atopic dermatitis. The in vitro studies revealed that A. capillaris hampered NO and cellular histamine synthesis. In Nc/Nga mice sensitized by Dermatophagoides farinae, dermatitis scores as well as hemorrhage, hypertrophy, and hyperkeratosis of the epidermis in the dorsal skin and ear all declined after the topical application of A. capillaris. Plasma levels of histamine and IgE also significantly decreased after treatment with A. capillaris. The investigators concluded that further study of A. capillaris is warranted as a potential therapeutic option for atopic dermatitis.¹¹

Summary

Many botanical ingredients from Asia are making their way into skin care products in the USA. A. capillaris extract is an example and may have utility in treating hyperpigmentation-associated skin issues such as melasma. Its inhibitory effects on both inflammation and melanin production in addition to possible antioxidant activity make it an interesting compound worthy of more scrutiny.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Bora KS and Sharma A. Pharm Biol. 2011 Jan;49(1):101-9.

2. Kwon OS et al. Arch Pharm Res. 2011 Sep;34(9):1561-9.

3. Hsueh TP et al. Biomedicines. 2021 Oct 8;9(10):1412.

4. Dolinska MB et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Jan 3;21(1):331.

5. Yeo D et al. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018 Mar;99:681-7.

6. Kim YS et al. J Food Sci. 2008 Jan;73(1):T16-20.

7. Kim MJ et al. Mol Med Rep. 2022 Apr;25(4):113.

8. Tabassum N et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2016;2016:7823541.

9. Lee SY et al. Phytother Res. 2018 May;32(5):923-2.

10. Lee SY et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2018 Aug 19;2018:3610494.

11. Ha H et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014 Mar 14;14:100.

PORTLAND, ORE. – Some pernio-like/chilblains-like lesions on the toes – which became widely known as “COVID toes” – and other acral sites that have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic are related to COVID-19 infection, while others are not, according to Lindy P. Fox, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the hospital consultation service at the University of California, San Francisco.

“We’re learning a lot about pernio because of COVID,” Dr. Fox, a member of the American Academy of Dermatology’s Ad Hoc Task Force on COVID-19, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “Patients with pernio tend to either have bright red or purple individual lesions or an erythromelalgia-like presentation, often waking up in the middle of the night saying ‘my feet hurt. I can’t put sheets over my feet.’ In my experience, the patients with an erythromelalgia-like presentation tend to be a lot harder to treat.”

courtesy UCSF

Establishing terminology to describe pernio-like lesions was a challenge in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fox added, with clinicians using terms like erythema multiforme-like, coxsackie-like, or even necrotic to describe the lesions. “I don’t think pernio is truly necrotic; I think it’s really inflammatory and purpuric,” she said.

Early in the pandemic, studies suggesting a link with these cases and COVID-19 infection include a case series of 318 patients with pernio-like skin lesions who had confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Most of these patients were generally young and healthy and most had relatively mild COVID-19; 7% were laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 positive, and 6% were close contacts of patients with confirmed COVID-19. Pernio-like lesions were the only symptoms in 55% of the patients.

In another study, researchers in France evaluated the clinical, laboratory, and pathologic characteristics of 40 patients who developed chilblain-like lesions (mostly involving the toes) during the COVID-19 pandemic and were seen as outpatients in April 2020 . All were polymerase chain reaction (PCR) negative, 30% were SARS-CoV-2 serology positive, and 60% had elevated D-dimers. Histology obtained from 19 of the patients revealed lymphocytic inflammation and vascular damage, and 8 had IgA positivity.

In a retrospective analysis of seven pediatric chilblains cases during the pandemic, researchers examined the skin biopsies to evaluate histopathological features and explored the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the tissue. All patients were PCR negative. The authors observed cytoplasmic granular positivity for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in endothelial cells, a feature that they said showed coronavirus-like particles, consistent with SARS-CoV-2.

Not all studies in the medical literature have demonstrated an association between pernio-like/chilblains-like lesions and COVID-19, though. An analysis of 23 patients, with skin eruptions considered associated with SARS-CoV-2 infections (including 21 cases of chilblains) during the first wave of the pandemic found that the antibody and T-cell response in patients with pandemic chilblains was the same as in negative controls.

“What’s remarkably interesting about this study is that they did autopsies of samples from patients who had died prepandemic, so there was no such thing as COVID-19,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the study. “They stained for viral particles in those patients, and they were positive in a subset of patients. This makes me wonder about what the significance of that staining positivity is.”

Yet another group of investigators looked at what was happening with pernio during the waves of COVID in a study of chilblains cases in children in Spain, and found a stronger association between lockdown and cold temperature, which argues against a direct association between pernio and COVID infection.

In Dr. Fox’s experience, COVID toes can recur, especially upon exposure to cold. “What taught me this in real life is a patient who I saw remotely by video,” she recalled. “It was early on in the pandemic. I could not prove he had COVID no matter how hard I tried, but I do think he had COVID toes at that time.” When he later was confirmed to have COVID, “he got pernio in the same exact location as his original suspected COVID toes.”

According to an analysis of long COVID in the skin, based on cases reported to the American Academy of Dermatology–International League of Dermatological Societies registry from April 8 to Oct. 8, 2020, pernio-like lesions lasted a median of 12 days in patients with lab-confirmed COVID-19 and a median of 15 days in those with suspected COVID-19. But almost 7% of the 103 pernio cases were long-haulers, defined as those with dermatologic signs of COVID that lasted beyond 60 days.

“There are some patients who are resistant to treatment,” Dr. Fox said. “In addition, recurrent lesions make me think that maybe all pernio is triggered by some viral cause. This causes an immunologic phenomenon that’s responding to a viral trigger you’re trying to deal with. That may be the better way to think about COVID toes.”

Different variants of COVID also appear to be changing the characteristics of dermatologic manifestations associated with infection. Results from a large retrospective analysis of nearly 350,000 users of a COVID study App in the United Kingdom found that skin lesions were more predictive of a positive test in the Delta wave, compared with the Omicron wave, while pernio-like lesions were predictive of infection in the Delta wave but not in the Omicron wave.

“And, whether you were vaccinated or unvaccinated really did not influence whether or not you were going to have a skin rash as a presenting sign of COVID, except for the burning rash, which was less in vaccinated patients,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the study.

Dr. Fox reported having no relevant disclosures.

PORTLAND, ORE. – Some pernio-like/chilblains-like lesions on the toes – which became widely known as “COVID toes” – and other acral sites that have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic are related to COVID-19 infection, while others are not, according to Lindy P. Fox, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the hospital consultation service at the University of California, San Francisco.

“We’re learning a lot about pernio because of COVID,” Dr. Fox, a member of the American Academy of Dermatology’s Ad Hoc Task Force on COVID-19, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “Patients with pernio tend to either have bright red or purple individual lesions or an erythromelalgia-like presentation, often waking up in the middle of the night saying ‘my feet hurt. I can’t put sheets over my feet.’ In my experience, the patients with an erythromelalgia-like presentation tend to be a lot harder to treat.”

courtesy UCSF

Establishing terminology to describe pernio-like lesions was a challenge in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fox added, with clinicians using terms like erythema multiforme-like, coxsackie-like, or even necrotic to describe the lesions. “I don’t think pernio is truly necrotic; I think it’s really inflammatory and purpuric,” she said.

Early in the pandemic, studies suggesting a link with these cases and COVID-19 infection include a case series of 318 patients with pernio-like skin lesions who had confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Most of these patients were generally young and healthy and most had relatively mild COVID-19; 7% were laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 positive, and 6% were close contacts of patients with confirmed COVID-19. Pernio-like lesions were the only symptoms in 55% of the patients.

In another study, researchers in France evaluated the clinical, laboratory, and pathologic characteristics of 40 patients who developed chilblain-like lesions (mostly involving the toes) during the COVID-19 pandemic and were seen as outpatients in April 2020 . All were polymerase chain reaction (PCR) negative, 30% were SARS-CoV-2 serology positive, and 60% had elevated D-dimers. Histology obtained from 19 of the patients revealed lymphocytic inflammation and vascular damage, and 8 had IgA positivity.

In a retrospective analysis of seven pediatric chilblains cases during the pandemic, researchers examined the skin biopsies to evaluate histopathological features and explored the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the tissue. All patients were PCR negative. The authors observed cytoplasmic granular positivity for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in endothelial cells, a feature that they said showed coronavirus-like particles, consistent with SARS-CoV-2.

Not all studies in the medical literature have demonstrated an association between pernio-like/chilblains-like lesions and COVID-19, though. An analysis of 23 patients, with skin eruptions considered associated with SARS-CoV-2 infections (including 21 cases of chilblains) during the first wave of the pandemic found that the antibody and T-cell response in patients with pandemic chilblains was the same as in negative controls.

“What’s remarkably interesting about this study is that they did autopsies of samples from patients who had died prepandemic, so there was no such thing as COVID-19,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the study. “They stained for viral particles in those patients, and they were positive in a subset of patients. This makes me wonder about what the significance of that staining positivity is.”

Yet another group of investigators looked at what was happening with pernio during the waves of COVID in a study of chilblains cases in children in Spain, and found a stronger association between lockdown and cold temperature, which argues against a direct association between pernio and COVID infection.

In Dr. Fox’s experience, COVID toes can recur, especially upon exposure to cold. “What taught me this in real life is a patient who I saw remotely by video,” she recalled. “It was early on in the pandemic. I could not prove he had COVID no matter how hard I tried, but I do think he had COVID toes at that time.” When he later was confirmed to have COVID, “he got pernio in the same exact location as his original suspected COVID toes.”

According to an analysis of long COVID in the skin, based on cases reported to the American Academy of Dermatology–International League of Dermatological Societies registry from April 8 to Oct. 8, 2020, pernio-like lesions lasted a median of 12 days in patients with lab-confirmed COVID-19 and a median of 15 days in those with suspected COVID-19. But almost 7% of the 103 pernio cases were long-haulers, defined as those with dermatologic signs of COVID that lasted beyond 60 days.

“There are some patients who are resistant to treatment,” Dr. Fox said. “In addition, recurrent lesions make me think that maybe all pernio is triggered by some viral cause. This causes an immunologic phenomenon that’s responding to a viral trigger you’re trying to deal with. That may be the better way to think about COVID toes.”

Different variants of COVID also appear to be changing the characteristics of dermatologic manifestations associated with infection. Results from a large retrospective analysis of nearly 350,000 users of a COVID study App in the United Kingdom found that skin lesions were more predictive of a positive test in the Delta wave, compared with the Omicron wave, while pernio-like lesions were predictive of infection in the Delta wave but not in the Omicron wave.

“And, whether you were vaccinated or unvaccinated really did not influence whether or not you were going to have a skin rash as a presenting sign of COVID, except for the burning rash, which was less in vaccinated patients,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the study.

Dr. Fox reported having no relevant disclosures.

PORTLAND, ORE. – Some pernio-like/chilblains-like lesions on the toes – which became widely known as “COVID toes” – and other acral sites that have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic are related to COVID-19 infection, while others are not, according to Lindy P. Fox, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the hospital consultation service at the University of California, San Francisco.

“We’re learning a lot about pernio because of COVID,” Dr. Fox, a member of the American Academy of Dermatology’s Ad Hoc Task Force on COVID-19, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “Patients with pernio tend to either have bright red or purple individual lesions or an erythromelalgia-like presentation, often waking up in the middle of the night saying ‘my feet hurt. I can’t put sheets over my feet.’ In my experience, the patients with an erythromelalgia-like presentation tend to be a lot harder to treat.”

courtesy UCSF

Establishing terminology to describe pernio-like lesions was a challenge in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fox added, with clinicians using terms like erythema multiforme-like, coxsackie-like, or even necrotic to describe the lesions. “I don’t think pernio is truly necrotic; I think it’s really inflammatory and purpuric,” she said.

Early in the pandemic, studies suggesting a link with these cases and COVID-19 infection include a case series of 318 patients with pernio-like skin lesions who had confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Most of these patients were generally young and healthy and most had relatively mild COVID-19; 7% were laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 positive, and 6% were close contacts of patients with confirmed COVID-19. Pernio-like lesions were the only symptoms in 55% of the patients.

In another study, researchers in France evaluated the clinical, laboratory, and pathologic characteristics of 40 patients who developed chilblain-like lesions (mostly involving the toes) during the COVID-19 pandemic and were seen as outpatients in April 2020 . All were polymerase chain reaction (PCR) negative, 30% were SARS-CoV-2 serology positive, and 60% had elevated D-dimers. Histology obtained from 19 of the patients revealed lymphocytic inflammation and vascular damage, and 8 had IgA positivity.

In a retrospective analysis of seven pediatric chilblains cases during the pandemic, researchers examined the skin biopsies to evaluate histopathological features and explored the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the tissue. All patients were PCR negative. The authors observed cytoplasmic granular positivity for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in endothelial cells, a feature that they said showed coronavirus-like particles, consistent with SARS-CoV-2.

Not all studies in the medical literature have demonstrated an association between pernio-like/chilblains-like lesions and COVID-19, though. An analysis of 23 patients, with skin eruptions considered associated with SARS-CoV-2 infections (including 21 cases of chilblains) during the first wave of the pandemic found that the antibody and T-cell response in patients with pandemic chilblains was the same as in negative controls.

“What’s remarkably interesting about this study is that they did autopsies of samples from patients who had died prepandemic, so there was no such thing as COVID-19,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the study. “They stained for viral particles in those patients, and they were positive in a subset of patients. This makes me wonder about what the significance of that staining positivity is.”

Yet another group of investigators looked at what was happening with pernio during the waves of COVID in a study of chilblains cases in children in Spain, and found a stronger association between lockdown and cold temperature, which argues against a direct association between pernio and COVID infection.

In Dr. Fox’s experience, COVID toes can recur, especially upon exposure to cold. “What taught me this in real life is a patient who I saw remotely by video,” she recalled. “It was early on in the pandemic. I could not prove he had COVID no matter how hard I tried, but I do think he had COVID toes at that time.” When he later was confirmed to have COVID, “he got pernio in the same exact location as his original suspected COVID toes.”

According to an analysis of long COVID in the skin, based on cases reported to the American Academy of Dermatology–International League of Dermatological Societies registry from April 8 to Oct. 8, 2020, pernio-like lesions lasted a median of 12 days in patients with lab-confirmed COVID-19 and a median of 15 days in those with suspected COVID-19. But almost 7% of the 103 pernio cases were long-haulers, defined as those with dermatologic signs of COVID that lasted beyond 60 days.

“There are some patients who are resistant to treatment,” Dr. Fox said. “In addition, recurrent lesions make me think that maybe all pernio is triggered by some viral cause. This causes an immunologic phenomenon that’s responding to a viral trigger you’re trying to deal with. That may be the better way to think about COVID toes.”

Different variants of COVID also appear to be changing the characteristics of dermatologic manifestations associated with infection. Results from a large retrospective analysis of nearly 350,000 users of a COVID study App in the United Kingdom found that skin lesions were more predictive of a positive test in the Delta wave, compared with the Omicron wave, while pernio-like lesions were predictive of infection in the Delta wave but not in the Omicron wave.

“And, whether you were vaccinated or unvaccinated really did not influence whether or not you were going to have a skin rash as a presenting sign of COVID, except for the burning rash, which was less in vaccinated patients,” said Dr. Fox, who was not involved with the study.

Dr. Fox reported having no relevant disclosures.

In melanoma patients with the BRAFV600 mutation, a combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors are highly effective over the long term, according to 5-year follow-up data from the COLUMBUS trial. Among patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease who were untreated or who had progressed following immunotherapy, the regimen of encorafenib plus binimetinib produced impressive gains in progression-free and overall survival, compared with historical controls, and are in line with other BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations. It also outperformed encorafenib and vemurafenib monotherapy regimens.

The findings present good news, but the combination still doesn’t represent the best first-line option, according to Ryan Sullivan, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. He pointed out that the previously published DREAMSeq trial showed that a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab produced a 2-year survival of 72%, compared with 52% for a BRAF inhibitor combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (P = .0095).

There are three combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors that are approved for BRAF mutant melanoma, and any of the seven individual agents and six combinations that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration- for melanoma can be used in BRAFV600 patients. “The standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed BRAF mutant melanoma is ... immune checkpoint inhibition, either with anti–PD-1 inhibitor or a combination of immunotherapy with an anti–PD-1 inhibitor. The optimal use of BRAF targeted therapy is unknown but some data supports its use earlier in the disease course (adjuvant setting) or after progression following anti–PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting,” wrote Dr. Sullivan in an email. He is associate director of the melanoma program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In his editorial, Dr. Sullivan wrote that anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 receptor therapies is likely the best front-line therapy for BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma, with long-term survival ranging from 40% to 50%.

Still, the efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy makes it important to explore ways to strengthen it further. One possibility is to use it in the front-line setting when a patient is at high risk of rapid progression and death, since analysis from DREAMSeq showed that BRAF-targeted therapy had a better overall survival than immunotherapy during the first 10 months after random assignment. It was only after this time point that the curves reversed and pointed to greater efficacy for immunotherapy. An option would be to treat to maximum tumor regression with BRAF-targeted therapy and then switch to immunotherapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. That point was echoed by study author Paolo Ascierto, MD, in an email exchange. “For patients with symptomatic disease or very high tumor burden, BRAF/MEK inhibitor should be used first,” said Dr. Ascierto, who is director of the melanoma cancer immunotherapy innovative therapy unit of the National Tumor Institute in Naples, Italy.
 

BRAF inhibitors as second- or later-line therapy

Aside from that exception, BRAF inhibitors should generally be reserved for second- or later-line therapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. Retrospective data indicate that response to BRAF inhibitors is preserved following immunotherapy, although the duration of benefit is reduced. Unfortunately, that strategy limits BRAF inhibitors to a setting in which they’re less likely to be maximally effective.

To improve matters, Dr. Sullivan suggested that they could be used in the adjuvant setting, where disease burden is lower. He noted that dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for resected stage 3 melanoma and showed similar efficacy to immunotherapy in that setting. Immunotherapy retains efficacy after BRAF-targeted therapy.

Another potential strategy is to come up with 3- or even 4-drug combinations employing BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the second-line setting. A few trials have already begun to investigate this possibility.

The COLUMBUS trial included 192 patients who received encorafenib plus binimetinib (E+B), 191 who received vemurafenib and 194 who received encorafenib. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 23% in the E+B group, and 31% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year PFS was 10% with vemurafenib alone (12% with normal lactate dehydrogenase). Progression free survival (PFS) was 19% in the encorafenib group. Five-year overall survival (OS) followed a similar trend: 35% (45% with normal lactate dehydrogenase) in the E+B group, and 21% (28%) in the vemurafenib group. E+B had a median duration of response of 18.6 months, and a disease control rate of 92.2%, compared with 12.3 months and 81.2% with vemurafenib. Median duration of response was 15.5 months in the encorafenib monotherapy group.

The COLUMBUS trial was sponsored by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019.

Dr. Sullivan has consulted or advised Novartis, Merck, Replimune, Asana Biosciences, Alkermes, Eisai, Pfizer, Iovance Biotherapeutics, OncoSec, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Ascierto has stock or an ownership position in PrimeVax. He has consulted or advised for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, and Bio-Al Health.

In melanoma patients with the BRAFV600 mutation, a combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors are highly effective over the long term, according to 5-year follow-up data from the COLUMBUS trial. Among patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease who were untreated or who had progressed following immunotherapy, the regimen of encorafenib plus binimetinib produced impressive gains in progression-free and overall survival, compared with historical controls, and are in line with other BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations. It also outperformed encorafenib and vemurafenib monotherapy regimens.

The findings present good news, but the combination still doesn’t represent the best first-line option, according to Ryan Sullivan, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. He pointed out that the previously published DREAMSeq trial showed that a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab produced a 2-year survival of 72%, compared with 52% for a BRAF inhibitor combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (P = .0095).

There are three combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors that are approved for BRAF mutant melanoma, and any of the seven individual agents and six combinations that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration- for melanoma can be used in BRAFV600 patients. “The standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed BRAF mutant melanoma is ... immune checkpoint inhibition, either with anti–PD-1 inhibitor or a combination of immunotherapy with an anti–PD-1 inhibitor. The optimal use of BRAF targeted therapy is unknown but some data supports its use earlier in the disease course (adjuvant setting) or after progression following anti–PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting,” wrote Dr. Sullivan in an email. He is associate director of the melanoma program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In his editorial, Dr. Sullivan wrote that anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 receptor therapies is likely the best front-line therapy for BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma, with long-term survival ranging from 40% to 50%.

Still, the efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy makes it important to explore ways to strengthen it further. One possibility is to use it in the front-line setting when a patient is at high risk of rapid progression and death, since analysis from DREAMSeq showed that BRAF-targeted therapy had a better overall survival than immunotherapy during the first 10 months after random assignment. It was only after this time point that the curves reversed and pointed to greater efficacy for immunotherapy. An option would be to treat to maximum tumor regression with BRAF-targeted therapy and then switch to immunotherapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. That point was echoed by study author Paolo Ascierto, MD, in an email exchange. “For patients with symptomatic disease or very high tumor burden, BRAF/MEK inhibitor should be used first,” said Dr. Ascierto, who is director of the melanoma cancer immunotherapy innovative therapy unit of the National Tumor Institute in Naples, Italy.
 

BRAF inhibitors as second- or later-line therapy

Aside from that exception, BRAF inhibitors should generally be reserved for second- or later-line therapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. Retrospective data indicate that response to BRAF inhibitors is preserved following immunotherapy, although the duration of benefit is reduced. Unfortunately, that strategy limits BRAF inhibitors to a setting in which they’re less likely to be maximally effective.

To improve matters, Dr. Sullivan suggested that they could be used in the adjuvant setting, where disease burden is lower. He noted that dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for resected stage 3 melanoma and showed similar efficacy to immunotherapy in that setting. Immunotherapy retains efficacy after BRAF-targeted therapy.

Another potential strategy is to come up with 3- or even 4-drug combinations employing BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the second-line setting. A few trials have already begun to investigate this possibility.

The COLUMBUS trial included 192 patients who received encorafenib plus binimetinib (E+B), 191 who received vemurafenib and 194 who received encorafenib. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 23% in the E+B group, and 31% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year PFS was 10% with vemurafenib alone (12% with normal lactate dehydrogenase). Progression free survival (PFS) was 19% in the encorafenib group. Five-year overall survival (OS) followed a similar trend: 35% (45% with normal lactate dehydrogenase) in the E+B group, and 21% (28%) in the vemurafenib group. E+B had a median duration of response of 18.6 months, and a disease control rate of 92.2%, compared with 12.3 months and 81.2% with vemurafenib. Median duration of response was 15.5 months in the encorafenib monotherapy group.

The COLUMBUS trial was sponsored by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019.

Dr. Sullivan has consulted or advised Novartis, Merck, Replimune, Asana Biosciences, Alkermes, Eisai, Pfizer, Iovance Biotherapeutics, OncoSec, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Ascierto has stock or an ownership position in PrimeVax. He has consulted or advised for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, and Bio-Al Health.

In melanoma patients with the BRAFV600 mutation, a combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors are highly effective over the long term, according to 5-year follow-up data from the COLUMBUS trial. Among patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease who were untreated or who had progressed following immunotherapy, the regimen of encorafenib plus binimetinib produced impressive gains in progression-free and overall survival, compared with historical controls, and are in line with other BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations. It also outperformed encorafenib and vemurafenib monotherapy regimens.

The findings present good news, but the combination still doesn’t represent the best first-line option, according to Ryan Sullivan, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. He pointed out that the previously published DREAMSeq trial showed that a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab produced a 2-year survival of 72%, compared with 52% for a BRAF inhibitor combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (P = .0095).

There are three combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors that are approved for BRAF mutant melanoma, and any of the seven individual agents and six combinations that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration- for melanoma can be used in BRAFV600 patients. “The standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed BRAF mutant melanoma is ... immune checkpoint inhibition, either with anti–PD-1 inhibitor or a combination of immunotherapy with an anti–PD-1 inhibitor. The optimal use of BRAF targeted therapy is unknown but some data supports its use earlier in the disease course (adjuvant setting) or after progression following anti–PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting,” wrote Dr. Sullivan in an email. He is associate director of the melanoma program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In his editorial, Dr. Sullivan wrote that anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 receptor therapies is likely the best front-line therapy for BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma, with long-term survival ranging from 40% to 50%.

Still, the efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy makes it important to explore ways to strengthen it further. One possibility is to use it in the front-line setting when a patient is at high risk of rapid progression and death, since analysis from DREAMSeq showed that BRAF-targeted therapy had a better overall survival than immunotherapy during the first 10 months after random assignment. It was only after this time point that the curves reversed and pointed to greater efficacy for immunotherapy. An option would be to treat to maximum tumor regression with BRAF-targeted therapy and then switch to immunotherapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. That point was echoed by study author Paolo Ascierto, MD, in an email exchange. “For patients with symptomatic disease or very high tumor burden, BRAF/MEK inhibitor should be used first,” said Dr. Ascierto, who is director of the melanoma cancer immunotherapy innovative therapy unit of the National Tumor Institute in Naples, Italy.
 

BRAF inhibitors as second- or later-line therapy

Aside from that exception, BRAF inhibitors should generally be reserved for second- or later-line therapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. Retrospective data indicate that response to BRAF inhibitors is preserved following immunotherapy, although the duration of benefit is reduced. Unfortunately, that strategy limits BRAF inhibitors to a setting in which they’re less likely to be maximally effective.

To improve matters, Dr. Sullivan suggested that they could be used in the adjuvant setting, where disease burden is lower. He noted that dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for resected stage 3 melanoma and showed similar efficacy to immunotherapy in that setting. Immunotherapy retains efficacy after BRAF-targeted therapy.

Another potential strategy is to come up with 3- or even 4-drug combinations employing BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the second-line setting. A few trials have already begun to investigate this possibility.

The COLUMBUS trial included 192 patients who received encorafenib plus binimetinib (E+B), 191 who received vemurafenib and 194 who received encorafenib. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 23% in the E+B group, and 31% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year PFS was 10% with vemurafenib alone (12% with normal lactate dehydrogenase). Progression free survival (PFS) was 19% in the encorafenib group. Five-year overall survival (OS) followed a similar trend: 35% (45% with normal lactate dehydrogenase) in the E+B group, and 21% (28%) in the vemurafenib group. E+B had a median duration of response of 18.6 months, and a disease control rate of 92.2%, compared with 12.3 months and 81.2% with vemurafenib. Median duration of response was 15.5 months in the encorafenib monotherapy group.

The COLUMBUS trial was sponsored by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019.

Dr. Sullivan has consulted or advised Novartis, Merck, Replimune, Asana Biosciences, Alkermes, Eisai, Pfizer, Iovance Biotherapeutics, OncoSec, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Ascierto has stock or an ownership position in PrimeVax. He has consulted or advised for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, and Bio-Al Health.

Therapeutic use of oral minoxidil in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is a lifeline for dermatologists who treat hair loss. Other than oral finasteride, vitamins, and topicals, there has been little advancement in the treatment of AGA leaving many (including me) desperate for anything remotely new.

Oral minoxidil is a peripheral vasodilator approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with hypertensive disease taken at doses ranging between 10 mg to 40 mg daily. Animal studies have shown that minoxidil affects the hair growth cycle by shortening the telogen phase and prolonging the anagen phase.

Recent case studies have also shown growing evidence for the off-label use of low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) for treating different types of alopecia. Topical minoxidil is metabolized into its active metabolite minoxidil sulfate, by sulfotransferase enzymes located in the outer root sheath of hair follicles. The expression of sulfotransferase varies greatly in the scalp of different individuals, and this difference is directly correlated to the wide range of responses to minoxidil treatment. LDOM is, however, more widely effective because it requires decreased follicular enzymatic activity to form its active metabolite as compared with its topical form.

In a retrospective series by Beach and colleagues evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of LDOM for treating AGA, there was increased scalp hair growth in 33 of 51 patients (65%) and decreased hair shedding in 14 of the 51 patients (27%) with LDOM. Patients with nonscarring alopecia were most likely to show improvement. Side effects were dose dependent and infrequent. The most frequent adverse effects were hypertrichosis, lightheadedness, edema, and tachycardia. No life-threatening adverse effects were observed. Although there has been a recently reported case report of severe pericardial effusion, edema, and anasarca in a woman with frontal fibrosing alopecia treated with LDOM, life threatening side effects are rare.3

To compare the efficacy of topical versus oral minoxidil, Ramos and colleagues performed a 24-week prospective study of low-dose (1 mg/day) oral minoxidil, compared with topical 5% minoxidil, in the treatment of 52 women with female pattern hair loss. Blinded analysis of trichoscopic images were evaluated to compare the change in total hair density in a target area from baseline to week 24 by three dermatologists.

Results after 24 weeks of treatment showed an increase in total hair density (12%) among the women taking oral minoxidil, compared with 7.2% in women who applied topical minoxidil (P =.09).

In the armamentarium of hair-loss treatments, dermatologists have limited choices. LDOM can be used in patients with both scarring and nonscarring alopecia if monitored regularly. Treatment doses I recommend are 1.25-5 mg daily titrated up slowly in properly selected patients without contraindications and those who are not taking other vasodilators. Self-reported dizziness, edema, and headache are common and treatments for facial hypertrichosis in women are always discussed. Clinical efficacy can be evaluated after 10-12 months of therapy and concomitant spironolactone can be given to mitigate the side effect of hypertrichosis.Patient selection is crucial as patients with severe scarring alopecia and those with active inflammatory diseases of the scalp may not see similar results. Similar to other hair loss treatments, treatment courses of 10-12 months are often needed to see visible signs of hair growth.

Dr. Talakoub and Naissan O. Wesley, MD, are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Write to them at [email protected]. Dr. Talakoub had no relevant disclosures.

References

Beach RA et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Mar;84(3):761-3.

Dlova et al. JAAD Case Reports. 2022 Oct;28:94-6.

Jimenez-Cauhe J et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Jan;84(1):222-3.

Ramos PM et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jan;34(1):e40-1.

Ramos PM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jan;82(1):252-3.

Randolph M and Tosti A. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Mar;84(3):737-46.

Vañó-Galván S et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Jun;84(6):1644-51.

Therapeutic use of oral minoxidil in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is a lifeline for dermatologists who treat hair loss. Other than oral finasteride, vitamins, and topicals, there has been little advancement in the treatment of AGA leaving many (including me) desperate for anything remotely new.

Oral minoxidil is a peripheral vasodilator approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with hypertensive disease taken at doses ranging between 10 mg to 40 mg daily. Animal studies have shown that minoxidil affects the hair growth cycle by shortening the telogen phase and prolonging the anagen phase.

Recent case studies have also shown growing evidence for the off-label use of low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) for treating different types of alopecia. Topical minoxidil is metabolized into its active metabolite minoxidil sulfate, by sulfotransferase enzymes located in the outer root sheath of hair follicles. The expression of sulfotransferase varies greatly in the scalp of different individuals, and this difference is directly correlated to the wide range of responses to minoxidil treatment. LDOM is, however, more widely effective because it requires decreased follicular enzymatic activity to form its active metabolite as compared with its topical form.

In a retrospective series by Beach and colleagues evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of LDOM for treating AGA, there was increased scalp hair growth in 33 of 51 patients (65%) and decreased hair shedding in 14 of the 51 patients (27%) with LDOM. Patients with nonscarring alopecia were most likely to show improvement. Side effects were dose dependent and infrequent. The most frequent adverse effects were hypertrichosis, lightheadedness, edema, and tachycardia. No life-threatening adverse effects were observed. Although there has been a recently reported case report of severe pericardial effusion, edema, and anasarca in a woman with frontal fibrosing alopecia treated with LDOM, life threatening side effects are rare.3

To compare the efficacy of topical versus oral minoxidil, Ramos and colleagues performed a 24-week prospective study of low-dose (1 mg/day) oral minoxidil, compared with topical 5% minoxidil, in the treatment of 52 women with female pattern hair loss. Blinded analysis of trichoscopic images were evaluated to compare the change in total hair density in a target area from baseline to week 24 by three dermatologists.

Results after 24 weeks of treatment showed an increase in total hair density (12%) among the women taking oral minoxidil, compared with 7.2% in women who applied topical minoxidil (P =.09).

In the armamentarium of hair-loss treatments, dermatologists have limited choices. LDOM can be used in patients with both scarring and nonscarring alopecia if monitored regularly. Treatment doses I recommend are 1.25-5 mg daily titrated up slowly in properly selected patients without contraindications and those who are not taking other vasodilators. Self-reported dizziness, edema, and headache are common and treatments for facial hypertrichosis in women are always discussed. Clinical efficacy can be evaluated after 10-12 months of therapy and concomitant spironolactone can be given to mitigate the side effect of hypertrichosis.Patient selection is crucial as patients with severe scarring alopecia and those with active inflammatory diseases of the scalp may not see similar results. Similar to other hair loss treatments, treatment courses of 10-12 months are often needed to see visible signs of hair growth.

Dr. Talakoub and Naissan O. Wesley, MD, are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Write to them at [email protected]. Dr. Talakoub had no relevant disclosures.

References

Beach RA et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Mar;84(3):761-3.

Dlova et al. JAAD Case Reports. 2022 Oct;28:94-6.

Jimenez-Cauhe J et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Jan;84(1):222-3.

Ramos PM et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jan;34(1):e40-1.

Ramos PM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jan;82(1):252-3.

Randolph M and Tosti A. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Mar;84(3):737-46.

Vañó-Galván S et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Jun;84(6):1644-51.

Therapeutic use of oral minoxidil in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is a lifeline for dermatologists who treat hair loss. Other than oral finasteride, vitamins, and topicals, there has been little advancement in the treatment of AGA leaving many (including me) desperate for anything remotely new.

Oral minoxidil is a peripheral vasodilator approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in patients with hypertensive disease taken at doses ranging between 10 mg to 40 mg daily. Animal studies have shown that minoxidil affects the hair growth cycle by shortening the telogen phase and prolonging the anagen phase.

Recent case studies have also shown growing evidence for the off-label use of low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) for treating different types of alopecia. Topical minoxidil is metabolized into its active metabolite minoxidil sulfate, by sulfotransferase enzymes located in the outer root sheath of hair follicles. The expression of sulfotransferase varies greatly in the scalp of different individuals, and this difference is directly correlated to the wide range of responses to minoxidil treatment. LDOM is, however, more widely effective because it requires decreased follicular enzymatic activity to form its active metabolite as compared with its topical form.

In a retrospective series by Beach and colleagues evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of LDOM for treating AGA, there was increased scalp hair growth in 33 of 51 patients (65%) and decreased hair shedding in 14 of the 51 patients (27%) with LDOM. Patients with nonscarring alopecia were most likely to show improvement. Side effects were dose dependent and infrequent. The most frequent adverse effects were hypertrichosis, lightheadedness, edema, and tachycardia. No life-threatening adverse effects were observed. Although there has been a recently reported case report of severe pericardial effusion, edema, and anasarca in a woman with frontal fibrosing alopecia treated with LDOM, life threatening side effects are rare.3

To compare the efficacy of topical versus oral minoxidil, Ramos and colleagues performed a 24-week prospective study of low-dose (1 mg/day) oral minoxidil, compared with topical 5% minoxidil, in the treatment of 52 women with female pattern hair loss. Blinded analysis of trichoscopic images were evaluated to compare the change in total hair density in a target area from baseline to week 24 by three dermatologists.

Results after 24 weeks of treatment showed an increase in total hair density (12%) among the women taking oral minoxidil, compared with 7.2% in women who applied topical minoxidil (P =.09).

In the armamentarium of hair-loss treatments, dermatologists have limited choices. LDOM can be used in patients with both scarring and nonscarring alopecia if monitored regularly. Treatment doses I recommend are 1.25-5 mg daily titrated up slowly in properly selected patients without contraindications and those who are not taking other vasodilators. Self-reported dizziness, edema, and headache are common and treatments for facial hypertrichosis in women are always discussed. Clinical efficacy can be evaluated after 10-12 months of therapy and concomitant spironolactone can be given to mitigate the side effect of hypertrichosis.Patient selection is crucial as patients with severe scarring alopecia and those with active inflammatory diseases of the scalp may not see similar results. Similar to other hair loss treatments, treatment courses of 10-12 months are often needed to see visible signs of hair growth.

Dr. Talakoub and Naissan O. Wesley, MD, are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Write to them at [email protected]. Dr. Talakoub had no relevant disclosures.

References

Beach RA et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Mar;84(3):761-3.

Dlova et al. JAAD Case Reports. 2022 Oct;28:94-6.

Jimenez-Cauhe J et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Jan;84(1):222-3.

Ramos PM et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jan;34(1):e40-1.

Ramos PM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jan;82(1):252-3.

Randolph M and Tosti A. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Mar;84(3):737-46.

Vañó-Galván S et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Jun;84(6):1644-51.

MILAN – The day after deucravacitinib became the first TYK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, long-term data were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, suggesting that a high degree of benefit persists for at least 2 years, making this oral drug a potential competitor for biologics.

As a once-daily drug, deucravacitinib has “the potential to be a treatment of choice and a new standard of care for patients who require systemic therapy for their moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean of clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Just 2 months after the 52-week data from the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, a long-term extension study found essentially no loss of benefit at 112 weeks, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

One of the two co-primary endpoints was a 75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index (PASI75) score. At 52 weeks, 80.2% of patients on deucravacitinib had met this criterion of benefit. At 112 weeks, the proportion was 84.4%.

The other primary endpoint was a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear or almost clear skin. The proportion of patients meeting this criterion at weeks 52 and 112 weeks were 65.6% and 67.6%, respectively.

When assessed by Treatment Failure Rule (TFR) or modified nonresponder imputation (mNRI), results were similar. For both, the primary endpoints at every time interval were just one or two percentage points lower but not clinically meaningfully different, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

The same type of sustained response out to 112 weeks was observed in multiple analyses. When the researchers isolated the subgroup of patients who had achieved a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks (100%), there was a modest decline in the PASI 75 rate at week 52 (90.2%) but then no additional decline at week 112 (91.3%).

There were essentially no changes in the PASI 90 rates at week 16 (63%), week 52 (65.3%), and week 112 (63.1%), Dr. Lebwohl reported. PASI 100 rates, once achieved, were sustained long term.

The target, TYK2, is one of four Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Until now, almost all JAK inhibitors have had greater relative specificity for JAK 1, JAK 2, and JAK 3, but several inhibitors of TYK2 inhibitors other than deucravacitinib are in development for inflammatory diseases. Deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 9, is the only TYK2 inhibitor with regulatory approval for plaque psoriasis.

In the POETYK PSO-1 trial, 666 patients were initially randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to 6 mg deucravacitinib (now the approved dose), placebo, or the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast. At week 16, patients on placebo were switched over to deucravacitinib. At week 24, patients who did not achieve a PASI 50 on apremilast (which had been titrated to 10 mg daily to 30 mg twice a day over the first 5 days of dosing) were switched to deucravacitinib.

In the previously reported data, deucravacitinib was superior for all efficacy endpoints at week 16, including an analysis of quality of life when compared with placebo (P < .0001) or apremilast (P = .0088). At week 52, after having been switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, patients on placebo achieved comparable responses on the efficacy measures in this study, including PASI75.

Relative to JAK inhibitors commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, the greater specificity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 appears to have meaningful safety advantages, according to Dr. Lebwohl. Targeted mostly on the TYK2 regulatory domain, deucravacitinib largely avoids inhibition of the JAK 1, 2, and 3 subtypes. Dr. Lebwohl said this explains why deucravacitinib labeling does not share the boxed warnings about off-target effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system, that can be found in the labeling of other JAK inhibitors.

In the published 52-week data, the discontinuation rate for adverse events was lower in the group randomized to deucravacitinib arm than in the placebo arm. In the extended follow-up, there were no new signals for adverse events, including those involving the CV system or immune function.

The key message so far from the long-term follow-up, which is ongoing, is that “continuous treatment with deucravacitinib is associated with durable efficacy,” Dr. Lebwohl said. It is this combination of sustained efficacy and safety that led Dr. Lebwohl to suggest it as a reasonable oral competitor to injectable biologics.

“Patients now have a choice,” he said.

Jashin J. Wu, MD, a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and an associate professor in the department of dermatology, University of Miami, has been following the development of deucravacitinib. He said that the recent FDA approval validates the clinical evidence of benefit and safety, while the long-term data presented at the EADV congress support its role in expanding treatment options.

“Deucravacitinib is a very effective oral agent for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with strong maintenance of effect through week 112,” he said. Differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors, the FDA approval “confirms the safety of this agent as there is no boxed warning,” he added.

Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of deucravacitinib. Dr. Wu has financial relationships with 14 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but he was not an investigator for the phase 3 trials of deucravacitinib.

MILAN – The day after deucravacitinib became the first TYK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, long-term data were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, suggesting that a high degree of benefit persists for at least 2 years, making this oral drug a potential competitor for biologics.

As a once-daily drug, deucravacitinib has “the potential to be a treatment of choice and a new standard of care for patients who require systemic therapy for their moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean of clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Just 2 months after the 52-week data from the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, a long-term extension study found essentially no loss of benefit at 112 weeks, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

One of the two co-primary endpoints was a 75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index (PASI75) score. At 52 weeks, 80.2% of patients on deucravacitinib had met this criterion of benefit. At 112 weeks, the proportion was 84.4%.

The other primary endpoint was a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear or almost clear skin. The proportion of patients meeting this criterion at weeks 52 and 112 weeks were 65.6% and 67.6%, respectively.

When assessed by Treatment Failure Rule (TFR) or modified nonresponder imputation (mNRI), results were similar. For both, the primary endpoints at every time interval were just one or two percentage points lower but not clinically meaningfully different, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

The same type of sustained response out to 112 weeks was observed in multiple analyses. When the researchers isolated the subgroup of patients who had achieved a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks (100%), there was a modest decline in the PASI 75 rate at week 52 (90.2%) but then no additional decline at week 112 (91.3%).

There were essentially no changes in the PASI 90 rates at week 16 (63%), week 52 (65.3%), and week 112 (63.1%), Dr. Lebwohl reported. PASI 100 rates, once achieved, were sustained long term.

The target, TYK2, is one of four Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Until now, almost all JAK inhibitors have had greater relative specificity for JAK 1, JAK 2, and JAK 3, but several inhibitors of TYK2 inhibitors other than deucravacitinib are in development for inflammatory diseases. Deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 9, is the only TYK2 inhibitor with regulatory approval for plaque psoriasis.

In the POETYK PSO-1 trial, 666 patients were initially randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to 6 mg deucravacitinib (now the approved dose), placebo, or the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast. At week 16, patients on placebo were switched over to deucravacitinib. At week 24, patients who did not achieve a PASI 50 on apremilast (which had been titrated to 10 mg daily to 30 mg twice a day over the first 5 days of dosing) were switched to deucravacitinib.

In the previously reported data, deucravacitinib was superior for all efficacy endpoints at week 16, including an analysis of quality of life when compared with placebo (P < .0001) or apremilast (P = .0088). At week 52, after having been switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, patients on placebo achieved comparable responses on the efficacy measures in this study, including PASI75.

Relative to JAK inhibitors commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, the greater specificity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 appears to have meaningful safety advantages, according to Dr. Lebwohl. Targeted mostly on the TYK2 regulatory domain, deucravacitinib largely avoids inhibition of the JAK 1, 2, and 3 subtypes. Dr. Lebwohl said this explains why deucravacitinib labeling does not share the boxed warnings about off-target effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system, that can be found in the labeling of other JAK inhibitors.

In the published 52-week data, the discontinuation rate for adverse events was lower in the group randomized to deucravacitinib arm than in the placebo arm. In the extended follow-up, there were no new signals for adverse events, including those involving the CV system or immune function.

The key message so far from the long-term follow-up, which is ongoing, is that “continuous treatment with deucravacitinib is associated with durable efficacy,” Dr. Lebwohl said. It is this combination of sustained efficacy and safety that led Dr. Lebwohl to suggest it as a reasonable oral competitor to injectable biologics.

“Patients now have a choice,” he said.

Jashin J. Wu, MD, a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and an associate professor in the department of dermatology, University of Miami, has been following the development of deucravacitinib. He said that the recent FDA approval validates the clinical evidence of benefit and safety, while the long-term data presented at the EADV congress support its role in expanding treatment options.

“Deucravacitinib is a very effective oral agent for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with strong maintenance of effect through week 112,” he said. Differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors, the FDA approval “confirms the safety of this agent as there is no boxed warning,” he added.

Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of deucravacitinib. Dr. Wu has financial relationships with 14 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but he was not an investigator for the phase 3 trials of deucravacitinib.

MILAN – The day after deucravacitinib became the first TYK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, long-term data were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, suggesting that a high degree of benefit persists for at least 2 years, making this oral drug a potential competitor for biologics.

As a once-daily drug, deucravacitinib has “the potential to be a treatment of choice and a new standard of care for patients who require systemic therapy for their moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean of clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Just 2 months after the 52-week data from the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, a long-term extension study found essentially no loss of benefit at 112 weeks, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

One of the two co-primary endpoints was a 75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index (PASI75) score. At 52 weeks, 80.2% of patients on deucravacitinib had met this criterion of benefit. At 112 weeks, the proportion was 84.4%.

The other primary endpoint was a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear or almost clear skin. The proportion of patients meeting this criterion at weeks 52 and 112 weeks were 65.6% and 67.6%, respectively.

When assessed by Treatment Failure Rule (TFR) or modified nonresponder imputation (mNRI), results were similar. For both, the primary endpoints at every time interval were just one or two percentage points lower but not clinically meaningfully different, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

The same type of sustained response out to 112 weeks was observed in multiple analyses. When the researchers isolated the subgroup of patients who had achieved a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks (100%), there was a modest decline in the PASI 75 rate at week 52 (90.2%) but then no additional decline at week 112 (91.3%).

There were essentially no changes in the PASI 90 rates at week 16 (63%), week 52 (65.3%), and week 112 (63.1%), Dr. Lebwohl reported. PASI 100 rates, once achieved, were sustained long term.

The target, TYK2, is one of four Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Until now, almost all JAK inhibitors have had greater relative specificity for JAK 1, JAK 2, and JAK 3, but several inhibitors of TYK2 inhibitors other than deucravacitinib are in development for inflammatory diseases. Deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 9, is the only TYK2 inhibitor with regulatory approval for plaque psoriasis.

In the POETYK PSO-1 trial, 666 patients were initially randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to 6 mg deucravacitinib (now the approved dose), placebo, or the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast. At week 16, patients on placebo were switched over to deucravacitinib. At week 24, patients who did not achieve a PASI 50 on apremilast (which had been titrated to 10 mg daily to 30 mg twice a day over the first 5 days of dosing) were switched to deucravacitinib.

In the previously reported data, deucravacitinib was superior for all efficacy endpoints at week 16, including an analysis of quality of life when compared with placebo (P < .0001) or apremilast (P = .0088). At week 52, after having been switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, patients on placebo achieved comparable responses on the efficacy measures in this study, including PASI75.

Relative to JAK inhibitors commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, the greater specificity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 appears to have meaningful safety advantages, according to Dr. Lebwohl. Targeted mostly on the TYK2 regulatory domain, deucravacitinib largely avoids inhibition of the JAK 1, 2, and 3 subtypes. Dr. Lebwohl said this explains why deucravacitinib labeling does not share the boxed warnings about off-target effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system, that can be found in the labeling of other JAK inhibitors.

In the published 52-week data, the discontinuation rate for adverse events was lower in the group randomized to deucravacitinib arm than in the placebo arm. In the extended follow-up, there were no new signals for adverse events, including those involving the CV system or immune function.

The key message so far from the long-term follow-up, which is ongoing, is that “continuous treatment with deucravacitinib is associated with durable efficacy,” Dr. Lebwohl said. It is this combination of sustained efficacy and safety that led Dr. Lebwohl to suggest it as a reasonable oral competitor to injectable biologics.

“Patients now have a choice,” he said.

Jashin J. Wu, MD, a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and an associate professor in the department of dermatology, University of Miami, has been following the development of deucravacitinib. He said that the recent FDA approval validates the clinical evidence of benefit and safety, while the long-term data presented at the EADV congress support its role in expanding treatment options.

“Deucravacitinib is a very effective oral agent for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with strong maintenance of effect through week 112,” he said. Differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors, the FDA approval “confirms the safety of this agent as there is no boxed warning,” he added.

Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of deucravacitinib. Dr. Wu has financial relationships with 14 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but he was not an investigator for the phase 3 trials of deucravacitinib.