Dermatology News

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

Our dermatology department is composed of 25 doctors spread across 4 offices. It can be difficult to sustain cohesion so we have a few rituals to help hold us together. One is the morning huddle. This is a stand-up meeting lasting 3-5 minutes at 8:42 a.m. (just before the 8:45 a.m. patients). Led by our staff, huddle is a quick review of the priorities, issues, and celebrations across our department. While enthusiastically celebrating a staff member’s promotion one morning, a patient swung open the exam door and shouted, “What’s going on out here?! I’m sitting here waiting!” before slamming the door closed again. “Well, that was unnecessary,” our morning lead interjected as she went to reprimand him.

His behavior was easily recognizable to any doctor with children. It was an emotional outburst we call a tantrum. Although a graphic of tantrums by age would show a steep curve that drops precipitously after 4-years-old (please God, I hope), it persists throughout life. Even adults have tantrums. After? When I broke my pinky toe saving the family from flaming tornadoes a few weeks ago (I ran into the sofa), I flung the ice bag across the room in frustration. “You’ve a right to be mad,” my wife said returning the ice to where I was elevating my foot. She was spot on, it is understandable that I would be angry. It will be weeks before I can run again. And also my toe was broken. Both things were true.

Dr. Benabio

“Two things are true” is a technique for managing tantrums in toddlers. I first learned of it from Dr. Becky Kennedy, a clinical psychologist specializing in family therapy. She has a popular podcast called “Good Inside” based on her book of the same name. Her approach is to use positive psychology with an emphasis on connecting with children to not only shape behavior, but also to help them learn to manage their emotions. I read her book to level up dad skills and realized many of her principles are applicable to various types of relationships. Instead of viewing behaviors as an end, she instead recommends using them as an opportunity to probe for understanding. When someone exhibits poor behavior rather than assume they are being a jerk, try to find the most generous interpretation of what just happened. Assume they are doing the best they can. When my 4-year-old obstinately refused to go to bed despite the usual colored night lights and bedtime rituals, it seemed she was being a typical tantrum-y toddler. The more I insisted — lights-out! the more she resisted. It wasn’t until I asked why that I learned she was worried that the trash truck was going to come overnight. What seemed like just a behavioral problem, time for bed, was actually an opportunity for her to be seen and for us to connect.

I was finishing up with a patient last week when my medical assistant interrupted to advise my next patient was leaving. I walked out to see her storm into the corridor heading for the exit. “I am sorry, you must be quite frustrated having to wait for me.” “Yes, you don’t respect my time,” she said loudly enough for everyone pretending to not notice. I coaxed her back into the room and sat down. After apologizing for her wait and explaining it was because an urgent patient had been added to my schedule, she calmed down and allowed me to continue. At her previous visit, I had biopsied a firm dermal papule on her upper abdomen that turned out to be metastatic breast cancer. She was treated years ago and believed she was in complete remission. Now she was alone, terrified, and wanted her full appointment with me. Because I was running late, she assumed I wouldn’t have the time for her. It was an opportunity for me to connect with her and help her feel safe. I would have missed that opportunity if I had labeled her as just another angry “Karen” brassly asserting herself.

Dr. Kennedy talks a lot in her book about taking the “Most generous interpretation” of whatever behavioral issue arises. Take the time to validate what they are feeling and empathize as best as we can. Acknowledge that it’s normal to be angry and also these are the truths we have to work with. Two truths commonly appear in these emotional episodes. One, the immutable facts, for example, insurance doesn’t cover that drug, and two, your right to be frustrated by that. Above all, remember you, the doctor, are good inside as is your discourteous patient, disaffected staff member or sometimes mendacious teenager. “All good decisions start with feeling secure and nothing feels more secure than being recognized for the good people we are,” says Dr. Kennedy. True I believe even if we sometimes slam the door.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

Our dermatology department is composed of 25 doctors spread across 4 offices. It can be difficult to sustain cohesion so we have a few rituals to help hold us together. One is the morning huddle. This is a stand-up meeting lasting 3-5 minutes at 8:42 a.m. (just before the 8:45 a.m. patients). Led by our staff, huddle is a quick review of the priorities, issues, and celebrations across our department. While enthusiastically celebrating a staff member’s promotion one morning, a patient swung open the exam door and shouted, “What’s going on out here?! I’m sitting here waiting!” before slamming the door closed again. “Well, that was unnecessary,” our morning lead interjected as she went to reprimand him.

His behavior was easily recognizable to any doctor with children. It was an emotional outburst we call a tantrum. Although a graphic of tantrums by age would show a steep curve that drops precipitously after 4-years-old (please God, I hope), it persists throughout life. Even adults have tantrums. After? When I broke my pinky toe saving the family from flaming tornadoes a few weeks ago (I ran into the sofa), I flung the ice bag across the room in frustration. “You’ve a right to be mad,” my wife said returning the ice to where I was elevating my foot. She was spot on, it is understandable that I would be angry. It will be weeks before I can run again. And also my toe was broken. Both things were true.

Dr. Benabio

“Two things are true” is a technique for managing tantrums in toddlers. I first learned of it from Dr. Becky Kennedy, a clinical psychologist specializing in family therapy. She has a popular podcast called “Good Inside” based on her book of the same name. Her approach is to use positive psychology with an emphasis on connecting with children to not only shape behavior, but also to help them learn to manage their emotions. I read her book to level up dad skills and realized many of her principles are applicable to various types of relationships. Instead of viewing behaviors as an end, she instead recommends using them as an opportunity to probe for understanding. When someone exhibits poor behavior rather than assume they are being a jerk, try to find the most generous interpretation of what just happened. Assume they are doing the best they can. When my 4-year-old obstinately refused to go to bed despite the usual colored night lights and bedtime rituals, it seemed she was being a typical tantrum-y toddler. The more I insisted — lights-out! the more she resisted. It wasn’t until I asked why that I learned she was worried that the trash truck was going to come overnight. What seemed like just a behavioral problem, time for bed, was actually an opportunity for her to be seen and for us to connect.

I was finishing up with a patient last week when my medical assistant interrupted to advise my next patient was leaving. I walked out to see her storm into the corridor heading for the exit. “I am sorry, you must be quite frustrated having to wait for me.” “Yes, you don’t respect my time,” she said loudly enough for everyone pretending to not notice. I coaxed her back into the room and sat down. After apologizing for her wait and explaining it was because an urgent patient had been added to my schedule, she calmed down and allowed me to continue. At her previous visit, I had biopsied a firm dermal papule on her upper abdomen that turned out to be metastatic breast cancer. She was treated years ago and believed she was in complete remission. Now she was alone, terrified, and wanted her full appointment with me. Because I was running late, she assumed I wouldn’t have the time for her. It was an opportunity for me to connect with her and help her feel safe. I would have missed that opportunity if I had labeled her as just another angry “Karen” brassly asserting herself.

Dr. Kennedy talks a lot in her book about taking the “Most generous interpretation” of whatever behavioral issue arises. Take the time to validate what they are feeling and empathize as best as we can. Acknowledge that it’s normal to be angry and also these are the truths we have to work with. Two truths commonly appear in these emotional episodes. One, the immutable facts, for example, insurance doesn’t cover that drug, and two, your right to be frustrated by that. Above all, remember you, the doctor, are good inside as is your discourteous patient, disaffected staff member or sometimes mendacious teenager. “All good decisions start with feeling secure and nothing feels more secure than being recognized for the good people we are,” says Dr. Kennedy. True I believe even if we sometimes slam the door.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

Our dermatology department is composed of 25 doctors spread across 4 offices. It can be difficult to sustain cohesion so we have a few rituals to help hold us together. One is the morning huddle. This is a stand-up meeting lasting 3-5 minutes at 8:42 a.m. (just before the 8:45 a.m. patients). Led by our staff, huddle is a quick review of the priorities, issues, and celebrations across our department. While enthusiastically celebrating a staff member’s promotion one morning, a patient swung open the exam door and shouted, “What’s going on out here?! I’m sitting here waiting!” before slamming the door closed again. “Well, that was unnecessary,” our morning lead interjected as she went to reprimand him.

His behavior was easily recognizable to any doctor with children. It was an emotional outburst we call a tantrum. Although a graphic of tantrums by age would show a steep curve that drops precipitously after 4-years-old (please God, I hope), it persists throughout life. Even adults have tantrums. After? When I broke my pinky toe saving the family from flaming tornadoes a few weeks ago (I ran into the sofa), I flung the ice bag across the room in frustration. “You’ve a right to be mad,” my wife said returning the ice to where I was elevating my foot. She was spot on, it is understandable that I would be angry. It will be weeks before I can run again. And also my toe was broken. Both things were true.

Dr. Benabio

“Two things are true” is a technique for managing tantrums in toddlers. I first learned of it from Dr. Becky Kennedy, a clinical psychologist specializing in family therapy. She has a popular podcast called “Good Inside” based on her book of the same name. Her approach is to use positive psychology with an emphasis on connecting with children to not only shape behavior, but also to help them learn to manage their emotions. I read her book to level up dad skills and realized many of her principles are applicable to various types of relationships. Instead of viewing behaviors as an end, she instead recommends using them as an opportunity to probe for understanding. When someone exhibits poor behavior rather than assume they are being a jerk, try to find the most generous interpretation of what just happened. Assume they are doing the best they can. When my 4-year-old obstinately refused to go to bed despite the usual colored night lights and bedtime rituals, it seemed she was being a typical tantrum-y toddler. The more I insisted — lights-out! the more she resisted. It wasn’t until I asked why that I learned she was worried that the trash truck was going to come overnight. What seemed like just a behavioral problem, time for bed, was actually an opportunity for her to be seen and for us to connect.

I was finishing up with a patient last week when my medical assistant interrupted to advise my next patient was leaving. I walked out to see her storm into the corridor heading for the exit. “I am sorry, you must be quite frustrated having to wait for me.” “Yes, you don’t respect my time,” she said loudly enough for everyone pretending to not notice. I coaxed her back into the room and sat down. After apologizing for her wait and explaining it was because an urgent patient had been added to my schedule, she calmed down and allowed me to continue. At her previous visit, I had biopsied a firm dermal papule on her upper abdomen that turned out to be metastatic breast cancer. She was treated years ago and believed she was in complete remission. Now she was alone, terrified, and wanted her full appointment with me. Because I was running late, she assumed I wouldn’t have the time for her. It was an opportunity for me to connect with her and help her feel safe. I would have missed that opportunity if I had labeled her as just another angry “Karen” brassly asserting herself.

Dr. Kennedy talks a lot in her book about taking the “Most generous interpretation” of whatever behavioral issue arises. Take the time to validate what they are feeling and empathize as best as we can. Acknowledge that it’s normal to be angry and also these are the truths we have to work with. Two truths commonly appear in these emotional episodes. One, the immutable facts, for example, insurance doesn’t cover that drug, and two, your right to be frustrated by that. Above all, remember you, the doctor, are good inside as is your discourteous patient, disaffected staff member or sometimes mendacious teenager. “All good decisions start with feeling secure and nothing feels more secure than being recognized for the good people we are,” says Dr. Kennedy. True I believe even if we sometimes slam the door.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

TOPLINE:

Roflumilast cream 0.15% was well tolerated and significantly improved symptoms in adults and children with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) in two phase 3 trials.

METHODOLOGY:

• Two randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, vehicle-controlled phase 3 trials, INTEGUMENT-1 (n = 654) and INTEGUMENT-2 (n = 683), enrolled patients aged ≥ 6 years with mild to moderate AD who were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to roflumilast cream 0.15%, a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, or vehicle cream once daily for 4 weeks.
• The primary efficacy endpoint was the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD (vIGA-AD) success at week 4, defined as a score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) plus improvement of at least two grades from baseline.
• Secondary endpoints included vIGA-AD success at week 4 in patients with a baseline score of 3, at least a four-point reduction in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS), and at least a 75% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) at weeks 1, 2, and 4.

TAKEAWAY:

• Significantly more patients receiving roflumilast achieved vIGA-AD success at week 4 vs those in the vehicle group in INTEGUMENT-1 (32.0% vs 15.2%; P < .001) and INTEGUMENT-2 (28.9% vs 12.0%; P < .001), which was consistent across all age groups and in those with a baseline score of 3.
• Similarly, a greater proportion of patients treated with roflumilast vs vehicle achieved at least a four-point reduction in WI-NRS at weeks 1, 2, and 4, with improvements noted as early as 24 hours after the first application (P < .05 at all subsequent timepoints).
• The number of patients achieving EASI-75 and vIGA-AD scores of 0 or 1 was significantly higher with roflumilast than with vehicle at weeks 1, 2, and 4.
• Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate, with only 0.9% of the patients experiencing serious TEAEs in each trial. More than 95% of the patients showed no signs of irritation, and over 90% reported no or mild sensation at the application site.

IN PRACTICE:

The two phase 3 randomized clinical trials of patients with AD treated with roflumilast cream 0.15% “demonstrated improvement across multiple efficacy endpoints, including reducing pruritus within 24 hours after application, with favorable safety and tolerability,” the authors wrote. “Additional research, including subgroup analyses, will provide more data regarding the efficacy and safety of roflumilast cream 0.15%, in patients with AD,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric L. Simpson, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, and was published online on September 18 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A short duration, a minimum age limit of 6 years, and the lack of an active comparator may influence the interpretation and generalizability of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was sponsored by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Simpson received grants and personal fees from Arcutis during this study. Three authors reported being employees and/or stockholders of Arcutis, two other authors reported patents for Arcutis, and several authors declared having various ties with various sources, including Arcutis.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Roflumilast cream 0.15% was well tolerated and significantly improved symptoms in adults and children with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) in two phase 3 trials.

METHODOLOGY:

• Two randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, vehicle-controlled phase 3 trials, INTEGUMENT-1 (n = 654) and INTEGUMENT-2 (n = 683), enrolled patients aged ≥ 6 years with mild to moderate AD who were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to roflumilast cream 0.15%, a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, or vehicle cream once daily for 4 weeks.
• The primary efficacy endpoint was the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD (vIGA-AD) success at week 4, defined as a score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) plus improvement of at least two grades from baseline.
• Secondary endpoints included vIGA-AD success at week 4 in patients with a baseline score of 3, at least a four-point reduction in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS), and at least a 75% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) at weeks 1, 2, and 4.

TAKEAWAY:

• Significantly more patients receiving roflumilast achieved vIGA-AD success at week 4 vs those in the vehicle group in INTEGUMENT-1 (32.0% vs 15.2%; P < .001) and INTEGUMENT-2 (28.9% vs 12.0%; P < .001), which was consistent across all age groups and in those with a baseline score of 3.
• Similarly, a greater proportion of patients treated with roflumilast vs vehicle achieved at least a four-point reduction in WI-NRS at weeks 1, 2, and 4, with improvements noted as early as 24 hours after the first application (P < .05 at all subsequent timepoints).
• The number of patients achieving EASI-75 and vIGA-AD scores of 0 or 1 was significantly higher with roflumilast than with vehicle at weeks 1, 2, and 4.
• Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate, with only 0.9% of the patients experiencing serious TEAEs in each trial. More than 95% of the patients showed no signs of irritation, and over 90% reported no or mild sensation at the application site.

IN PRACTICE:

The two phase 3 randomized clinical trials of patients with AD treated with roflumilast cream 0.15% “demonstrated improvement across multiple efficacy endpoints, including reducing pruritus within 24 hours after application, with favorable safety and tolerability,” the authors wrote. “Additional research, including subgroup analyses, will provide more data regarding the efficacy and safety of roflumilast cream 0.15%, in patients with AD,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric L. Simpson, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, and was published online on September 18 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A short duration, a minimum age limit of 6 years, and the lack of an active comparator may influence the interpretation and generalizability of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was sponsored by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Simpson received grants and personal fees from Arcutis during this study. Three authors reported being employees and/or stockholders of Arcutis, two other authors reported patents for Arcutis, and several authors declared having various ties with various sources, including Arcutis.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Roflumilast cream 0.15% was well tolerated and significantly improved symptoms in adults and children with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) in two phase 3 trials.

METHODOLOGY:

• Two randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, vehicle-controlled phase 3 trials, INTEGUMENT-1 (n = 654) and INTEGUMENT-2 (n = 683), enrolled patients aged ≥ 6 years with mild to moderate AD who were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to roflumilast cream 0.15%, a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, or vehicle cream once daily for 4 weeks.
• The primary efficacy endpoint was the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD (vIGA-AD) success at week 4, defined as a score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) plus improvement of at least two grades from baseline.
• Secondary endpoints included vIGA-AD success at week 4 in patients with a baseline score of 3, at least a four-point reduction in the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS), and at least a 75% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) at weeks 1, 2, and 4.

TAKEAWAY:

• Significantly more patients receiving roflumilast achieved vIGA-AD success at week 4 vs those in the vehicle group in INTEGUMENT-1 (32.0% vs 15.2%; P < .001) and INTEGUMENT-2 (28.9% vs 12.0%; P < .001), which was consistent across all age groups and in those with a baseline score of 3.
• Similarly, a greater proportion of patients treated with roflumilast vs vehicle achieved at least a four-point reduction in WI-NRS at weeks 1, 2, and 4, with improvements noted as early as 24 hours after the first application (P < .05 at all subsequent timepoints).
• The number of patients achieving EASI-75 and vIGA-AD scores of 0 or 1 was significantly higher with roflumilast than with vehicle at weeks 1, 2, and 4.
• Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate, with only 0.9% of the patients experiencing serious TEAEs in each trial. More than 95% of the patients showed no signs of irritation, and over 90% reported no or mild sensation at the application site.

IN PRACTICE:

The two phase 3 randomized clinical trials of patients with AD treated with roflumilast cream 0.15% “demonstrated improvement across multiple efficacy endpoints, including reducing pruritus within 24 hours after application, with favorable safety and tolerability,” the authors wrote. “Additional research, including subgroup analyses, will provide more data regarding the efficacy and safety of roflumilast cream 0.15%, in patients with AD,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric L. Simpson, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, and was published online on September 18 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A short duration, a minimum age limit of 6 years, and the lack of an active comparator may influence the interpretation and generalizability of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was sponsored by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Simpson received grants and personal fees from Arcutis during this study. Three authors reported being employees and/or stockholders of Arcutis, two other authors reported patents for Arcutis, and several authors declared having various ties with various sources, including Arcutis.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It may not have an aesthetic-sounding appeal to most people, but salmon sperm is indeed one of the novel ingredients featured in products for human skin. Used topically after procedures like skin tightening and in fillers, polydeoxyribonucleotides (PDRNs) and purified polynucleotides (PNs) derived from salmon sperm are on the market. These products also reportedly enhance and promote skin regeneration.¹ This column will focus on the innovative approach to skin care involving purified polynucleotides derived from salmon sperm.

The Properties and Activities of PDRNs, PNs

PDRNs contain DNA fragments primarily derived from Pacific or chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), and salmon trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) sperm cells.² Through preclinical and clinical trials, PDRN has demonstrated a wide range of salutary functions, including antiallodynic, antiapoptotic, anti-inflammatory, antimelanogenetic, antiosteonecrotic, antiosteoporotic, antiulcerative, bone-regenerative, tissue damage–preventive, and wound-healing activities through adenosine A2A receptor and salvage pathways activation. Indeed, PDRNs have been shown in vitro to spur the proliferation of preadipocytes and, in vivo, to be effective in treating wounds and ulcers.^3,4 In particular, atrophic, hypertrophic, surgical, and various acne scars have been treated with such injections.^2,5,6 PDRN is thought to affect cutaneous health more directly by facilitating angiogenesis, cellular functions, especially fibroblast stimulation, collagen production, soft-tissue regeneration, and skin revitalization. Further, it has been used successfully to treat hyperpigmentation.⁷

Dave Steers Photo/Moment Open/Getty Images

PNs, derived from the same fish species as PDRNs, have been used effectively to ameliorate skin elasticity, hydration, pore size, thickness, wrinkles, as well as pigmentation and, specifically, in treating periorbital rhytides and postsurgical scars.^5,6,8 Beyond skin rejuvenation, PNs have been recognized for effectiveness in treating stretch marks and achieving vulvovaginal revitalization; guidelines for its use have been established and implemented in recent years.^6,9,10 In South Korea, PNs have become a popular treatment for facial erythema even though preclinical and clinical data are sparse.¹¹ Nevertheless, the use of these novel substances is thought to foster tissue regeneration and a more natural rejuvenation than achieved through more traditional fillers.⁶

Skin Rejuvenation

Park and colleagues conducted a small study with five patients in 2016 in which long-chain polynucleotide filler was used for skin rejuvenation. Over a 2-week period, five Korean women received four injections of the filler (0.05 mL) on one side of the face. No adverse side effects were reported. In the patients in their 30s, pore and skin thickness significantly improved with treatment. For patients in their 40s, observable improvements were noted in melanin, sagging, skin tone, and wrinkles. Despite the small study size, the investigators concluded that this intradermal injection material is a safe and effective product for skin rejuvenation therapy.¹ The product is also available in Europe and reportedly spurs the regeneration of damaged tissues and yields a more natural appearance.¹

A Hybrid HA-PN Filler

Given that the most common filling agent, hyaluronic acid (HA), is associated with multiple side effects, JH Kim and colleagues set out in 2020 to compare HA with a new HA-PN dermal filler that has displayed notable biocompatibility and promoted tissue regeneration. The investigators observed that the combination filler provoked greater cell migration in a wound healing assay and was more effective in promoting collagen production in human and mouse fibroblasts. To their knowledge, this was the first study showing the efficacy, safety, and durability of a hybrid HA-PN filler. They concluded that fillers containing both HA and PN were more effective than HA alone in suppressing cutaneous aging and may represent the next step in the evolution of dermal filling agents.¹²

Most Recent Findings

In August 2023, MJ Kim and colleagues became the first to report on the successful use of PNs derived from fish sperm as a volumizing treatment for fat atrophy in vivo (in the temple in one case, and the cheek in the other). Injections were made into the subcutaneous layer to treat iatrogenic volume loss resulting from lipolysis injections. In one case, a depression in the left temple of a 53-year-old female lipolysis patient was treated with a series of 1 cc PN injections in a 20 mg/mL concentration. At 1 month after the final series of injections (four treatments), significant clinical improvement was observed, with the result (barely visible depression) maintained at 11 months and 21 months after the last treatment. The second patient, a 34-year-old female, presented with two depressed areas on the left cheek 2 months after steroid injections for two acne lesions. A series of PN filler injections also with a concentration of 20 mg/mL was administered (four treatments) at 1-month intervals. Significant improvement was seen 2 months after the last treatment, with maintenance of complete healing noted at 5 months and 12 months after the final treatment. No adverse effects were reported in either case. The investigators concluded that long-chain PN fillers appear to be effective in treating depressions in the skin, but more data, particularly from controlled studies, is necessary to determine the safety and efficacy as a lone therapeutic approach for soft-tissue depression.⁶

Baumann Cosmetic &amp; Research Institute

A month later, Lee and colleagues reported on the results of their survey of clinicians in South Korea who use PNs in clinical practice. The goal was to understand current practices and perceptions of effectiveness in treating facial erythema. Of the 557 physicians who participated, 84.4% used PNs for facial erythema provoked by inflammatory facial dermatosis, 66.4% for facial erythema induced by repeated laser/microneedle radiofrequency, and 47.4% for facial erythema caused by steroid overuse. In these same classifications, 88.1%, 90%, and 83.7%, respectively, found PNs to be “highly effective” or “effective.” Survey respondents also characterized PNs as imparting wound healing/regeneration (95.8%), skin barrier protection (92.2%), hydration (90.5%), vascular stabilization (81.0%), and anti-inflammatory activity (79.5%).¹¹

Conclusion

The use of salmon sperm cells is an example of the recent trend toward a cellular approach in which cutaneous components are activated with the intention of stimulating tissue regeneration. It is commonly used in Brazil and my Brazilian patients seem to know all about it. This innovative outlook is intriguing as are a spate of recently reported results. Nevertheless, much more evidence is required to ascertain safety and effectiveness in large sample sizes and, ideally, to establish maintenance of corrections over longer periods whether these ingredients are used in filling agents or topical formulations.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as a e-commerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Park KY et al. Dermatol Ther. 2016 Jan;29(1):37-40. .

2. Kim TH et al. Mar Drugs. 2021 May 22;19(6):296.

3. Raposio E et al. Cell Prolif. 2008 Oct;41(5):739-54.

4. Veronesi F et al. J Cell Physiol. 2017 Sep;232(9):2299-2307.

5. Kim JH et al. Lasers Surg Med. 2018 Mar 25.

6. Kim MJ et al. Skin Res Technol. 2023 Aug;29(8):e13439.

7. Khan A et al. Chinese Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2022 Dec;4(4):187-193.

8. Lee YJ et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022 Feb;33(1):254-260.

9. De Caridi G et al. Int Wound J. 2016 Oct;13(5):754-8.

10. Cavallini M et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021 Mar;20(3):922-928.

11. Lee D. Skin Res Technol. 2023 Sep;29(9):e13466. doi: 10.1111/srt.13466.

12. Kim JH et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 20;10(1):5127. .

It may not have an aesthetic-sounding appeal to most people, but salmon sperm is indeed one of the novel ingredients featured in products for human skin. Used topically after procedures like skin tightening and in fillers, polydeoxyribonucleotides (PDRNs) and purified polynucleotides (PNs) derived from salmon sperm are on the market. These products also reportedly enhance and promote skin regeneration.¹ This column will focus on the innovative approach to skin care involving purified polynucleotides derived from salmon sperm.

The Properties and Activities of PDRNs, PNs

PDRNs contain DNA fragments primarily derived from Pacific or chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), and salmon trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) sperm cells.² Through preclinical and clinical trials, PDRN has demonstrated a wide range of salutary functions, including antiallodynic, antiapoptotic, anti-inflammatory, antimelanogenetic, antiosteonecrotic, antiosteoporotic, antiulcerative, bone-regenerative, tissue damage–preventive, and wound-healing activities through adenosine A2A receptor and salvage pathways activation. Indeed, PDRNs have been shown in vitro to spur the proliferation of preadipocytes and, in vivo, to be effective in treating wounds and ulcers.^3,4 In particular, atrophic, hypertrophic, surgical, and various acne scars have been treated with such injections.^2,5,6 PDRN is thought to affect cutaneous health more directly by facilitating angiogenesis, cellular functions, especially fibroblast stimulation, collagen production, soft-tissue regeneration, and skin revitalization. Further, it has been used successfully to treat hyperpigmentation.⁷

Dave Steers Photo/Moment Open/Getty Images

PNs, derived from the same fish species as PDRNs, have been used effectively to ameliorate skin elasticity, hydration, pore size, thickness, wrinkles, as well as pigmentation and, specifically, in treating periorbital rhytides and postsurgical scars.^5,6,8 Beyond skin rejuvenation, PNs have been recognized for effectiveness in treating stretch marks and achieving vulvovaginal revitalization; guidelines for its use have been established and implemented in recent years.^6,9,10 In South Korea, PNs have become a popular treatment for facial erythema even though preclinical and clinical data are sparse.¹¹ Nevertheless, the use of these novel substances is thought to foster tissue regeneration and a more natural rejuvenation than achieved through more traditional fillers.⁶

Skin Rejuvenation

Park and colleagues conducted a small study with five patients in 2016 in which long-chain polynucleotide filler was used for skin rejuvenation. Over a 2-week period, five Korean women received four injections of the filler (0.05 mL) on one side of the face. No adverse side effects were reported. In the patients in their 30s, pore and skin thickness significantly improved with treatment. For patients in their 40s, observable improvements were noted in melanin, sagging, skin tone, and wrinkles. Despite the small study size, the investigators concluded that this intradermal injection material is a safe and effective product for skin rejuvenation therapy.¹ The product is also available in Europe and reportedly spurs the regeneration of damaged tissues and yields a more natural appearance.¹

A Hybrid HA-PN Filler

Given that the most common filling agent, hyaluronic acid (HA), is associated with multiple side effects, JH Kim and colleagues set out in 2020 to compare HA with a new HA-PN dermal filler that has displayed notable biocompatibility and promoted tissue regeneration. The investigators observed that the combination filler provoked greater cell migration in a wound healing assay and was more effective in promoting collagen production in human and mouse fibroblasts. To their knowledge, this was the first study showing the efficacy, safety, and durability of a hybrid HA-PN filler. They concluded that fillers containing both HA and PN were more effective than HA alone in suppressing cutaneous aging and may represent the next step in the evolution of dermal filling agents.¹²

Most Recent Findings

In August 2023, MJ Kim and colleagues became the first to report on the successful use of PNs derived from fish sperm as a volumizing treatment for fat atrophy in vivo (in the temple in one case, and the cheek in the other). Injections were made into the subcutaneous layer to treat iatrogenic volume loss resulting from lipolysis injections. In one case, a depression in the left temple of a 53-year-old female lipolysis patient was treated with a series of 1 cc PN injections in a 20 mg/mL concentration. At 1 month after the final series of injections (four treatments), significant clinical improvement was observed, with the result (barely visible depression) maintained at 11 months and 21 months after the last treatment. The second patient, a 34-year-old female, presented with two depressed areas on the left cheek 2 months after steroid injections for two acne lesions. A series of PN filler injections also with a concentration of 20 mg/mL was administered (four treatments) at 1-month intervals. Significant improvement was seen 2 months after the last treatment, with maintenance of complete healing noted at 5 months and 12 months after the final treatment. No adverse effects were reported in either case. The investigators concluded that long-chain PN fillers appear to be effective in treating depressions in the skin, but more data, particularly from controlled studies, is necessary to determine the safety and efficacy as a lone therapeutic approach for soft-tissue depression.⁶

Baumann Cosmetic &amp; Research Institute

A month later, Lee and colleagues reported on the results of their survey of clinicians in South Korea who use PNs in clinical practice. The goal was to understand current practices and perceptions of effectiveness in treating facial erythema. Of the 557 physicians who participated, 84.4% used PNs for facial erythema provoked by inflammatory facial dermatosis, 66.4% for facial erythema induced by repeated laser/microneedle radiofrequency, and 47.4% for facial erythema caused by steroid overuse. In these same classifications, 88.1%, 90%, and 83.7%, respectively, found PNs to be “highly effective” or “effective.” Survey respondents also characterized PNs as imparting wound healing/regeneration (95.8%), skin barrier protection (92.2%), hydration (90.5%), vascular stabilization (81.0%), and anti-inflammatory activity (79.5%).¹¹

Conclusion

The use of salmon sperm cells is an example of the recent trend toward a cellular approach in which cutaneous components are activated with the intention of stimulating tissue regeneration. It is commonly used in Brazil and my Brazilian patients seem to know all about it. This innovative outlook is intriguing as are a spate of recently reported results. Nevertheless, much more evidence is required to ascertain safety and effectiveness in large sample sizes and, ideally, to establish maintenance of corrections over longer periods whether these ingredients are used in filling agents or topical formulations.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as a e-commerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Park KY et al. Dermatol Ther. 2016 Jan;29(1):37-40. .

2. Kim TH et al. Mar Drugs. 2021 May 22;19(6):296.

3. Raposio E et al. Cell Prolif. 2008 Oct;41(5):739-54.

4. Veronesi F et al. J Cell Physiol. 2017 Sep;232(9):2299-2307.

5. Kim JH et al. Lasers Surg Med. 2018 Mar 25.

6. Kim MJ et al. Skin Res Technol. 2023 Aug;29(8):e13439.

7. Khan A et al. Chinese Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2022 Dec;4(4):187-193.

8. Lee YJ et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022 Feb;33(1):254-260.

9. De Caridi G et al. Int Wound J. 2016 Oct;13(5):754-8.

10. Cavallini M et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021 Mar;20(3):922-928.

11. Lee D. Skin Res Technol. 2023 Sep;29(9):e13466. doi: 10.1111/srt.13466.

12. Kim JH et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 20;10(1):5127. .

It may not have an aesthetic-sounding appeal to most people, but salmon sperm is indeed one of the novel ingredients featured in products for human skin. Used topically after procedures like skin tightening and in fillers, polydeoxyribonucleotides (PDRNs) and purified polynucleotides (PNs) derived from salmon sperm are on the market. These products also reportedly enhance and promote skin regeneration.¹ This column will focus on the innovative approach to skin care involving purified polynucleotides derived from salmon sperm.

The Properties and Activities of PDRNs, PNs

PDRNs contain DNA fragments primarily derived from Pacific or chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), and salmon trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) sperm cells.² Through preclinical and clinical trials, PDRN has demonstrated a wide range of salutary functions, including antiallodynic, antiapoptotic, anti-inflammatory, antimelanogenetic, antiosteonecrotic, antiosteoporotic, antiulcerative, bone-regenerative, tissue damage–preventive, and wound-healing activities through adenosine A2A receptor and salvage pathways activation. Indeed, PDRNs have been shown in vitro to spur the proliferation of preadipocytes and, in vivo, to be effective in treating wounds and ulcers.^3,4 In particular, atrophic, hypertrophic, surgical, and various acne scars have been treated with such injections.^2,5,6 PDRN is thought to affect cutaneous health more directly by facilitating angiogenesis, cellular functions, especially fibroblast stimulation, collagen production, soft-tissue regeneration, and skin revitalization. Further, it has been used successfully to treat hyperpigmentation.⁷

Dave Steers Photo/Moment Open/Getty Images

PNs, derived from the same fish species as PDRNs, have been used effectively to ameliorate skin elasticity, hydration, pore size, thickness, wrinkles, as well as pigmentation and, specifically, in treating periorbital rhytides and postsurgical scars.^5,6,8 Beyond skin rejuvenation, PNs have been recognized for effectiveness in treating stretch marks and achieving vulvovaginal revitalization; guidelines for its use have been established and implemented in recent years.^6,9,10 In South Korea, PNs have become a popular treatment for facial erythema even though preclinical and clinical data are sparse.¹¹ Nevertheless, the use of these novel substances is thought to foster tissue regeneration and a more natural rejuvenation than achieved through more traditional fillers.⁶

Skin Rejuvenation

Park and colleagues conducted a small study with five patients in 2016 in which long-chain polynucleotide filler was used for skin rejuvenation. Over a 2-week period, five Korean women received four injections of the filler (0.05 mL) on one side of the face. No adverse side effects were reported. In the patients in their 30s, pore and skin thickness significantly improved with treatment. For patients in their 40s, observable improvements were noted in melanin, sagging, skin tone, and wrinkles. Despite the small study size, the investigators concluded that this intradermal injection material is a safe and effective product for skin rejuvenation therapy.¹ The product is also available in Europe and reportedly spurs the regeneration of damaged tissues and yields a more natural appearance.¹

A Hybrid HA-PN Filler

Given that the most common filling agent, hyaluronic acid (HA), is associated with multiple side effects, JH Kim and colleagues set out in 2020 to compare HA with a new HA-PN dermal filler that has displayed notable biocompatibility and promoted tissue regeneration. The investigators observed that the combination filler provoked greater cell migration in a wound healing assay and was more effective in promoting collagen production in human and mouse fibroblasts. To their knowledge, this was the first study showing the efficacy, safety, and durability of a hybrid HA-PN filler. They concluded that fillers containing both HA and PN were more effective than HA alone in suppressing cutaneous aging and may represent the next step in the evolution of dermal filling agents.¹²

Most Recent Findings

In August 2023, MJ Kim and colleagues became the first to report on the successful use of PNs derived from fish sperm as a volumizing treatment for fat atrophy in vivo (in the temple in one case, and the cheek in the other). Injections were made into the subcutaneous layer to treat iatrogenic volume loss resulting from lipolysis injections. In one case, a depression in the left temple of a 53-year-old female lipolysis patient was treated with a series of 1 cc PN injections in a 20 mg/mL concentration. At 1 month after the final series of injections (four treatments), significant clinical improvement was observed, with the result (barely visible depression) maintained at 11 months and 21 months after the last treatment. The second patient, a 34-year-old female, presented with two depressed areas on the left cheek 2 months after steroid injections for two acne lesions. A series of PN filler injections also with a concentration of 20 mg/mL was administered (four treatments) at 1-month intervals. Significant improvement was seen 2 months after the last treatment, with maintenance of complete healing noted at 5 months and 12 months after the final treatment. No adverse effects were reported in either case. The investigators concluded that long-chain PN fillers appear to be effective in treating depressions in the skin, but more data, particularly from controlled studies, is necessary to determine the safety and efficacy as a lone therapeutic approach for soft-tissue depression.⁶

Baumann Cosmetic &amp; Research Institute

A month later, Lee and colleagues reported on the results of their survey of clinicians in South Korea who use PNs in clinical practice. The goal was to understand current practices and perceptions of effectiveness in treating facial erythema. Of the 557 physicians who participated, 84.4% used PNs for facial erythema provoked by inflammatory facial dermatosis, 66.4% for facial erythema induced by repeated laser/microneedle radiofrequency, and 47.4% for facial erythema caused by steroid overuse. In these same classifications, 88.1%, 90%, and 83.7%, respectively, found PNs to be “highly effective” or “effective.” Survey respondents also characterized PNs as imparting wound healing/regeneration (95.8%), skin barrier protection (92.2%), hydration (90.5%), vascular stabilization (81.0%), and anti-inflammatory activity (79.5%).¹¹

Conclusion

The use of salmon sperm cells is an example of the recent trend toward a cellular approach in which cutaneous components are activated with the intention of stimulating tissue regeneration. It is commonly used in Brazil and my Brazilian patients seem to know all about it. This innovative outlook is intriguing as are a spate of recently reported results. Nevertheless, much more evidence is required to ascertain safety and effectiveness in large sample sizes and, ideally, to establish maintenance of corrections over longer periods whether these ingredients are used in filling agents or topical formulations.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as a e-commerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Park KY et al. Dermatol Ther. 2016 Jan;29(1):37-40. .

2. Kim TH et al. Mar Drugs. 2021 May 22;19(6):296.

3. Raposio E et al. Cell Prolif. 2008 Oct;41(5):739-54.

4. Veronesi F et al. J Cell Physiol. 2017 Sep;232(9):2299-2307.

5. Kim JH et al. Lasers Surg Med. 2018 Mar 25.

6. Kim MJ et al. Skin Res Technol. 2023 Aug;29(8):e13439.

7. Khan A et al. Chinese Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2022 Dec;4(4):187-193.

8. Lee YJ et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022 Feb;33(1):254-260.

9. De Caridi G et al. Int Wound J. 2016 Oct;13(5):754-8.

10. Cavallini M et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021 Mar;20(3):922-928.

11. Lee D. Skin Res Technol. 2023 Sep;29(9):e13466. doi: 10.1111/srt.13466.

12. Kim JH et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 20;10(1):5127. .

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to scrutinize the safety and efficacy of lab-developed tests — those designed, manufactured, and used in a single laboratory — far more thoroughly in the future.

Under a rule finalized in April, the FDA will treat facilities that develop and use lab tests as manufacturers and regulate tests as medical devices. That means that most lab tests will need an FDA review before going on sale.

The FDA will also impose new quality standards, requiring test manufacturers to report adverse events and create a registry of lab tests under the new rule, which will be phased in over 4 years.

FDA officials have been concerned for years about the reliability of commercial lab tests, which have ballooned into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Consumer groups have long urged the FDA to regulate lab tests more strictly, arguing that the lack of scrutiny allows doctors and patients to be exploited by bad actors such as Theranos, which falsely claimed that its tests could diagnose multiple diseases with a single drop of blood.

“When it comes to some of these tests that doctors are recommending for patients, many doctors are just crossing their fingers and relying on the representation of the company because nobody is checking” to verify a manufacturer’s claims, said Joshua Sharfstein, MD, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
 

Nearly 12,000 Labs Making Medical Tests

Although the FDA estimates there are nearly 12,000 labs manufacturing medical tests, agency officials said they don’t know how many tests are being marketed. The FDA already requires that home test kits marketed directly to consumers, such as those used to detect COVID-19, get clearance from the agency before being sold.

“There’s plenty of time for industry to get its act together to develop the data that it might need to make a premarket application,” said Peter Lurie, MD, PhD, a former associate commissioner at the FDA. In 2015, Dr. Lurie led a report outlining some of the dangers of unregulated lab tests.

For the average physician who orders lab tests, nothing is going to immediately change because of the final rule, said Dr. Lurie, now president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer watchdog.

“Tomorrow, this will look just the same as it does today,” Dr. Lurie said. “For the next 3 years, the companies will be scurrying behind the scenes to comply with the early stages of implementation. But most of that will be invisible to the average practitioner.”

Dr. Lurie predicted the FDA will focus its scrutiny on tests that pose the greatest potential risk to patients, such as ones used to diagnose serious diseases or guide treatment for life-threatening conditions. “The least significant tests will likely get very limited, if any, scrutiny,” said Dr. Lurie, adding that the FDA will likely issue guidance about how it plans to define low- and high-risk tests. “My suspicion is that it will be probably a small minority of products that are subject to full premarket approval.”
 

Lab Industry Groups Push Back

But imposing new rules with the potential to affect an industry’s bottom line is no easy task.

The American Clinical Laboratory Association, which represents the lab industry, said in a statement that the FDA rule will “limit access to scores of critical tests, increase healthcare costs, and undermine innovation in new diagnostics.” Another industry group, the Association for Molecular Pathology, has warned of “significant and harmful disruption to laboratory medicine.”

The two associations have filed separate lawsuits, charging that the FDA overstepped the authority granted by Congress. In their lawsuits, groups claim that lab tests are professional services, not manufactured products. The groups noted that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) already inspects lab facilities. CMS does not assess the tests’ quality or reliability.

A recent Supreme Court decision could make those lawsuits more likely to succeed, said David Simon, JD, LLM, PhD, an assistant professor of law at the Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

In the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, decided in June, justices overturned a long-standing precedent known as Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous laws. That means that courts no longer have to accept the FDA’s definition of a device, Dr. Simon said.

“Because judges may have more active roles in defining agency authority, federal agencies may have correspondingly less robust roles in policymaking,” Dr. Simon wrote in an editorial coauthored with Michael J. Young, MD, MPhil, of Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The Supreme Court ruling could pressure Congress to more clearly define FDA’s ruling in regulating lab tests, Dr. Simon and Dr. Young wrote.

Members of Congress first introduced a bill to clarify the FDA’s role in regulating lab tests, called the VALID Act, in 2020. The bill stalled and, despite efforts to revive it, still hasn’t passed.

FDA officials have said they remain “open to working with Congress,” noting that any future legislation about lab-developed tests would supersede their current policy.

In an interview, Dr. Simon noted the FDA significantly narrowed the scope of the final rule in response to comments from critics who objected to an earlier version of the policy proposed in 2023. The final rule carves out several categories of tests that won’t need to apply for “premarket review.”

Notably, a “grandfather clause” will allow some lab tests already on the market to continue being sold without undergoing FDA’s premarket review process. In explaining the exemption, FDA officials said they did not want doctors and patients to lose access to tests on which they rely. But Dr. Lurie noted that because the FDA views all these tests as under its jurisdiction, the agency could opt to take a closer look “at a very old device that is causing a problem today.”

The FDA also will exempt tests approved by New York State’s Clinical Laboratory Evaluation Program, which conducts its own stringent reviews. And the FDA will continue to allow hospitals to develop tests for patients within their healthcare system without going through the FDA approval process, if no FDA-approved tests are available.

Hospital-based tests play a critical role in treating infectious diseases, said Amesh Adalja, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. For example, a large research hospital treating a patient with cytomegalovirus may need to develop its own test to determine whether the infection is resistant to antiviral drugs, Dr. Adalja said.

“With novel infectious disease outbreaks, researchers are able to move quickly to make diagnostic tests months and months before commercial laboratories are able to get through regulatory processes,” Dr. Adalja said.

To help scientists respond quickly to emergencies, the FDA published special guidance for labs that develop unauthorized lab tests for disease outbreaks.

Medical groups such as the American Hospital Association and Infectious Diseases Society of America remain concerned about the burden of complying with new regulations.

“Many vital tests developed in hospitals and health systems may be subjected to unnecessary and costly paperwork,” said Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, in a statement.

Other groups, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology, praised the new FDA policy. In comments submitted to the FDA in 2023, the cancer group said it “emphatically supports” requiring lab tests to undergo FDA review.

“We appreciate FDA action to modernize oversight of these tests and are hopeful this rule will increase focus on the need to balance rapid diagnostic innovation with patient safety and access” Everett Vokes, MD, the group’s board chair, said in a statement released after the FDA’s final rule was published.

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

The patient had been diagnosed with pemphigus vulgaris (PV) 1 year prior to presentation with erosions on the axilla. Biopsy at that time revealed intraepithelial acantholytic blistering with areas of suprabasilar and subcorneal clefting. Direct immunofluorescence was positive for linear/granular IgG deposition throughout the epithelial cell surfaces, as well as linear/granular C3 deposits of the lower two thirds of the epithelial strata, consistent for pemphigus vulgaris.

PV is a rare autoimmune bullous disease in which antibodies are directed against desmoglein 1 and 3 and less commonly, plakoglobin. There is likely a genetic predisposition. Medications that may induce pemphigus include penicillamine, nifedipine, or captopril.

Clinically, PV presents with flaccid blistering lesions that may be cutaneous and/or mucosal. Bullae can progress to erosions and crusting, which then heal with pigment alteration but not scarring. The most commonly affected sites are the mouth, intertriginous areas, face, and neck. Mucosal lesions can involve the lips, esophagus, conjunctiva, and genitals.

Biopsy for histology and direct immunofluorescence is important in distinguishing between PV and other blistering disorders. Up to 75% of patients with active disease also have a positive indirect immunofluorescence with circulating IgG.

There are numerous reports in the literature of PV occurring in previous surgical scars, and areas of friction or trauma. This so-called Koebner’s phenomenon is seen more commonly in several dermatologic conditions, such as psoriasis, lichen planus, verruca vulgaris, and vitiligo.

Treatment for PV is generally immunosuppressive. Systemic therapy usually begins with prednisone and then is transitioned to a steroid sparing agent such as mycophenolate mofetil. Other steroid sparing agents include azathioprine, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, and intravenous immunoglobulin. Secondary infections are possible and should be treated. Topical therapies aimed at reducing pain, especially in mucosal lesions, can be beneficial.
 

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Florida. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

Cerottini JP et al. Eur J Dermatol. 2000 Oct-Nov;10(7):546-7.

Reichert-Penetrat S et al. Eur J Dermatol. 1998 Jan-Feb;8(1):60-2.

Saini P et al. Skinmed. 2020 Aug 1;18(4):252-253.

The patient had been diagnosed with pemphigus vulgaris (PV) 1 year prior to presentation with erosions on the axilla. Biopsy at that time revealed intraepithelial acantholytic blistering with areas of suprabasilar and subcorneal clefting. Direct immunofluorescence was positive for linear/granular IgG deposition throughout the epithelial cell surfaces, as well as linear/granular C3 deposits of the lower two thirds of the epithelial strata, consistent for pemphigus vulgaris.

PV is a rare autoimmune bullous disease in which antibodies are directed against desmoglein 1 and 3 and less commonly, plakoglobin. There is likely a genetic predisposition. Medications that may induce pemphigus include penicillamine, nifedipine, or captopril.

Clinically, PV presents with flaccid blistering lesions that may be cutaneous and/or mucosal. Bullae can progress to erosions and crusting, which then heal with pigment alteration but not scarring. The most commonly affected sites are the mouth, intertriginous areas, face, and neck. Mucosal lesions can involve the lips, esophagus, conjunctiva, and genitals.

Biopsy for histology and direct immunofluorescence is important in distinguishing between PV and other blistering disorders. Up to 75% of patients with active disease also have a positive indirect immunofluorescence with circulating IgG.

There are numerous reports in the literature of PV occurring in previous surgical scars, and areas of friction or trauma. This so-called Koebner’s phenomenon is seen more commonly in several dermatologic conditions, such as psoriasis, lichen planus, verruca vulgaris, and vitiligo.

Treatment for PV is generally immunosuppressive. Systemic therapy usually begins with prednisone and then is transitioned to a steroid sparing agent such as mycophenolate mofetil. Other steroid sparing agents include azathioprine, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, and intravenous immunoglobulin. Secondary infections are possible and should be treated. Topical therapies aimed at reducing pain, especially in mucosal lesions, can be beneficial.
 

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Florida. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

Cerottini JP et al. Eur J Dermatol. 2000 Oct-Nov;10(7):546-7.

Reichert-Penetrat S et al. Eur J Dermatol. 1998 Jan-Feb;8(1):60-2.

Saini P et al. Skinmed. 2020 Aug 1;18(4):252-253.

The patient had been diagnosed with pemphigus vulgaris (PV) 1 year prior to presentation with erosions on the axilla. Biopsy at that time revealed intraepithelial acantholytic blistering with areas of suprabasilar and subcorneal clefting. Direct immunofluorescence was positive for linear/granular IgG deposition throughout the epithelial cell surfaces, as well as linear/granular C3 deposits of the lower two thirds of the epithelial strata, consistent for pemphigus vulgaris.

PV is a rare autoimmune bullous disease in which antibodies are directed against desmoglein 1 and 3 and less commonly, plakoglobin. There is likely a genetic predisposition. Medications that may induce pemphigus include penicillamine, nifedipine, or captopril.

Clinically, PV presents with flaccid blistering lesions that may be cutaneous and/or mucosal. Bullae can progress to erosions and crusting, which then heal with pigment alteration but not scarring. The most commonly affected sites are the mouth, intertriginous areas, face, and neck. Mucosal lesions can involve the lips, esophagus, conjunctiva, and genitals.

Biopsy for histology and direct immunofluorescence is important in distinguishing between PV and other blistering disorders. Up to 75% of patients with active disease also have a positive indirect immunofluorescence with circulating IgG.

There are numerous reports in the literature of PV occurring in previous surgical scars, and areas of friction or trauma. This so-called Koebner’s phenomenon is seen more commonly in several dermatologic conditions, such as psoriasis, lichen planus, verruca vulgaris, and vitiligo.

Treatment for PV is generally immunosuppressive. Systemic therapy usually begins with prednisone and then is transitioned to a steroid sparing agent such as mycophenolate mofetil. Other steroid sparing agents include azathioprine, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, and intravenous immunoglobulin. Secondary infections are possible and should be treated. Topical therapies aimed at reducing pain, especially in mucosal lesions, can be beneficial.
 

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Florida. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

Cerottini JP et al. Eur J Dermatol. 2000 Oct-Nov;10(7):546-7.

Reichert-Penetrat S et al. Eur J Dermatol. 1998 Jan-Feb;8(1):60-2.

Saini P et al. Skinmed. 2020 Aug 1;18(4):252-253.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bimekizumab-bkzx (Bimzelx; UCB) for adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) with objective signs of inflammation, and active ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

The drug, an interleukin (IL)–17A and IL-17F inhibitor, was first approved in October 2023 for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

“In psoriatic arthritis and across the spectrum of axSpA, clinical study results and real-world experience outside the US have highlighted that Bimzelx can help patients achieve high thresholds of clinical response that are rapid in onset and sustained up to 2 years,” said Emmanuel Caeymaex, executive vice president, head of patient impact, and chief commercial officer of UCB in a press release. 

The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for adult patients with active PsA, nr-axSpA, or AS is 160 mg by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. For patients with PsA and coexistent moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, the dosage is the same as for patients with plaque psoriasis. The dosing for plaque psoriasis is to administer 320 mg (two 160-mg injections) by subcutaneous injection at weeks 0, 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing ≥ 120 kg, consider a dose of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16.
 

PsA Clinical Trials

The approval for PsA was based on data from two phase 3 clinical trials, including 852 participants naive to biologics (BE OPTIMAL) and 400 participants with inadequate response to treatment with one or two tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (BE COMPLETE). Both studies met their primary endpoint, 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks, as well as ranked secondary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included minimal disease activity (MDA) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.

At 16 weeks:

• About 44% of both the biologic-naive (189 of 431) and TNF inhibitor–resistant (116 of 267) groups receiving bimekizumab achieved ACR50 response, compared with 10% (28 of 281) and 7% (9 of 133) receiving placebo, respectively.
• About 45% of all patients treated with bimekizumab achieved MDA.
• Nearly 60% of TNF inhibitor–resistant patients had complete skin clearance.

These responses generally were sustained for 1 year. The most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infections, oral candidiasis, headache, diarrhea, and urinary tract infection.
 

NR-axSpA and AS Clinical Trials

The approval for active nr-axSpA and active AS was based on data from two clinical studies, BE MOBILE 1 (nr-axSpA) and BE MOBILE 2 (AS). Both studies met their primary endpoint, 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS40) at 16 weeks.

Key findings included:

• In nr-axSpA patients, 47.7% (61 of 128) receiving bimekizumab achieved ASAS40 at week 16, compared with 21.4% (27 of 126) receiving placebo.
• In AS patients, 44.8% (99 of 221) in the bimekizumab group achieved ASAS40 response at week 16 vs 22.5% (25 of 111) receiving placebo.
• At 1 year in both groups, 60% treated with bimekizumab achieved an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score < 2.1.

In nr-axSpA, the most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infections, oral candidiasis, headache, diarrhea, cough, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, myalgia, tonsillitis, increase in transaminase, and urinary tract infection. In AS, the most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infections, oral candidiasis, headache, diarrhea, injection-site pain, rash, and vulvovaginal mycotic infection.

Bimekizumab was approved by the European Commission for the same rheumatologic indications in June 2023.

Bimekizumab is currently available to eligible patients in the United States, according to the press release.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bimekizumab-bkzx (Bimzelx; UCB) for adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) with objective signs of inflammation, and active ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

The drug, an interleukin (IL)–17A and IL-17F inhibitor, was first approved in October 2023 for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

“In psoriatic arthritis and across the spectrum of axSpA, clinical study results and real-world experience outside the US have highlighted that Bimzelx can help patients achieve high thresholds of clinical response that are rapid in onset and sustained up to 2 years,” said Emmanuel Caeymaex, executive vice president, head of patient impact, and chief commercial officer of UCB in a press release. 

The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for adult patients with active PsA, nr-axSpA, or AS is 160 mg by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. For patients with PsA and coexistent moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, the dosage is the same as for patients with plaque psoriasis. The dosing for plaque psoriasis is to administer 320 mg (two 160-mg injections) by subcutaneous injection at weeks 0, 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing ≥ 120 kg, consider a dose of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16.
 

PsA Clinical Trials

The approval for PsA was based on data from two phase 3 clinical trials, including 852 participants naive to biologics (BE OPTIMAL) and 400 participants with inadequate response to treatment with one or two tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (BE COMPLETE). Both studies met their primary endpoint, 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks, as well as ranked secondary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included minimal disease activity (MDA) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.

At 16 weeks:

• About 44% of both the biologic-naive (189 of 431) and TNF inhibitor–resistant (116 of 267) groups receiving bimekizumab achieved ACR50 response, compared with 10% (28 of 281) and 7% (9 of 133) receiving placebo, respectively.
• About 45% of all patients treated with bimekizumab achieved MDA.
• Nearly 60% of TNF inhibitor–resistant patients had complete skin clearance.

These responses generally were sustained for 1 year. The most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infections, oral candidiasis, headache, diarrhea, and urinary tract infection.
 

NR-axSpA and AS Clinical Trials

The approval for active nr-axSpA and active AS was based on data from two clinical studies, BE MOBILE 1 (nr-axSpA) and BE MOBILE 2 (AS). Both studies met their primary endpoint, 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS40) at 16 weeks.

Key findings included:

• In nr-axSpA patients, 47.7% (61 of 128) receiving bimekizumab achieved ASAS40 at week 16, compared with 21.4% (27 of 126) receiving placebo.
• In AS patients, 44.8% (99 of 221) in the bimekizumab group achieved ASAS40 response at week 16 vs 22.5% (25 of 111) receiving placebo.
• At 1 year in both groups, 60% treated with bimekizumab achieved an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score < 2.1.

In nr-axSpA, the most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infections, oral candidiasis, headache, diarrhea, cough, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, myalgia, tonsillitis, increase in transaminase, and urinary tract infection. In AS, the most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infections, oral candidiasis, headache, diarrhea, injection-site pain, rash, and vulvovaginal mycotic infection.

Bimekizumab was approved by the European Commission for the same rheumatologic indications in June 2023.

Bimekizumab is currently available to eligible patients in the United States, according to the press release.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bimekizumab-bkzx (Bimzelx; UCB) for adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) with objective signs of inflammation, and active ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

The drug, an interleukin (IL)–17A and IL-17F inhibitor, was first approved in October 2023 for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

“In psoriatic arthritis and across the spectrum of axSpA, clinical study results and real-world experience outside the US have highlighted that Bimzelx can help patients achieve high thresholds of clinical response that are rapid in onset and sustained up to 2 years,” said Emmanuel Caeymaex, executive vice president, head of patient impact, and chief commercial officer of UCB in a press release. 

The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for adult patients with active PsA, nr-axSpA, or AS is 160 mg by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. For patients with PsA and coexistent moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, the dosage is the same as for patients with plaque psoriasis. The dosing for plaque psoriasis is to administer 320 mg (two 160-mg injections) by subcutaneous injection at weeks 0, 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing ≥ 120 kg, consider a dose of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16.
 

PsA Clinical Trials

The approval for PsA was based on data from two phase 3 clinical trials, including 852 participants naive to biologics (BE OPTIMAL) and 400 participants with inadequate response to treatment with one or two tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (BE COMPLETE). Both studies met their primary endpoint, 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks, as well as ranked secondary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included minimal disease activity (MDA) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.

At 16 weeks:

• About 44% of both the biologic-naive (189 of 431) and TNF inhibitor–resistant (116 of 267) groups receiving bimekizumab achieved ACR50 response, compared with 10% (28 of 281) and 7% (9 of 133) receiving placebo, respectively.
• About 45% of all patients treated with bimekizumab achieved MDA.
• Nearly 60% of TNF inhibitor–resistant patients had complete skin clearance.

These responses generally were sustained for 1 year. The most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infections, oral candidiasis, headache, diarrhea, and urinary tract infection.
 

NR-axSpA and AS Clinical Trials

The approval for active nr-axSpA and active AS was based on data from two clinical studies, BE MOBILE 1 (nr-axSpA) and BE MOBILE 2 (AS). Both studies met their primary endpoint, 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS40) at 16 weeks.

Key findings included:

• In nr-axSpA patients, 47.7% (61 of 128) receiving bimekizumab achieved ASAS40 at week 16, compared with 21.4% (27 of 126) receiving placebo.
• In AS patients, 44.8% (99 of 221) in the bimekizumab group achieved ASAS40 response at week 16 vs 22.5% (25 of 111) receiving placebo.
• At 1 year in both groups, 60% treated with bimekizumab achieved an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score < 2.1.

In nr-axSpA, the most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infections, oral candidiasis, headache, diarrhea, cough, fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, myalgia, tonsillitis, increase in transaminase, and urinary tract infection. In AS, the most common adverse reactions are upper respiratory tract infections, oral candidiasis, headache, diarrhea, injection-site pain, rash, and vulvovaginal mycotic infection.

Bimekizumab was approved by the European Commission for the same rheumatologic indications in June 2023.

Bimekizumab is currently available to eligible patients in the United States, according to the press release.

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

TOPLINE:

Newborns who go on to develop atopic dermatitis (AD) show higher transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and cord blood serum levels of CCL17/thymus- and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC) and interleukin (IL) 31.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective study to evaluate the predictive role of serologic biomarkers and cutaneous markers and the development of AD in 40 full-term newborns from a university hospital in Italy.
• Cord blood was collected at birth and analyzed for serum biomarkers such as CCL17/TARC and IL-31.
• TEWL and skin hydration rates were measured at 1, 6, and 12 months, and dermatological features such as dryness, cradle cap, and eczematous lesions were also monitored during visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 6 months, 16 infants had symptoms of AD, which included dry skin, pruritus, and keratosis pilaris, which persisted at 12 months. Their mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score was 6.6 at 6 months and 2.9 at 12 months.
• Infants with signs of AD had significantly higher TEWL levels at the anterior cubital fossa at 1, 6, and 12 months than those without AD.
• Cord blood levels of CCL17/TARC and IL-31 were significantly higher in infants with AD.
• A correlation was found between TEWL values and CCL17 levels at 1, 6, and 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study highlights the potential of cord serum/TARC and IL-31 levels as predictive markers for AD onset in infancy, in combination with cutaneous markers,” the authors wrote. “Stratified interventions based on these variables, family history, FLG [filaggrin] variations, and other biomarkers could offer more targeted approaches to AD prevention and management, especially during the first year of life,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Angelo Massimiliano D’Erme, MD, PhD, of the Dermatology Unit, in the Department of Medical and Oncology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy, and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations included the observational design and small sample size, and it was a single-center study.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. One author disclosed receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies and serving as a founder and chairman of a nonprofit organization.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Newborns who go on to develop atopic dermatitis (AD) show higher transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and cord blood serum levels of CCL17/thymus- and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC) and interleukin (IL) 31.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective study to evaluate the predictive role of serologic biomarkers and cutaneous markers and the development of AD in 40 full-term newborns from a university hospital in Italy.
• Cord blood was collected at birth and analyzed for serum biomarkers such as CCL17/TARC and IL-31.
• TEWL and skin hydration rates were measured at 1, 6, and 12 months, and dermatological features such as dryness, cradle cap, and eczematous lesions were also monitored during visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 6 months, 16 infants had symptoms of AD, which included dry skin, pruritus, and keratosis pilaris, which persisted at 12 months. Their mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score was 6.6 at 6 months and 2.9 at 12 months.
• Infants with signs of AD had significantly higher TEWL levels at the anterior cubital fossa at 1, 6, and 12 months than those without AD.
• Cord blood levels of CCL17/TARC and IL-31 were significantly higher in infants with AD.
• A correlation was found between TEWL values and CCL17 levels at 1, 6, and 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study highlights the potential of cord serum/TARC and IL-31 levels as predictive markers for AD onset in infancy, in combination with cutaneous markers,” the authors wrote. “Stratified interventions based on these variables, family history, FLG [filaggrin] variations, and other biomarkers could offer more targeted approaches to AD prevention and management, especially during the first year of life,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Angelo Massimiliano D’Erme, MD, PhD, of the Dermatology Unit, in the Department of Medical and Oncology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy, and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations included the observational design and small sample size, and it was a single-center study.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. One author disclosed receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies and serving as a founder and chairman of a nonprofit organization.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Newborns who go on to develop atopic dermatitis (AD) show higher transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and cord blood serum levels of CCL17/thymus- and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC) and interleukin (IL) 31.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a prospective study to evaluate the predictive role of serologic biomarkers and cutaneous markers and the development of AD in 40 full-term newborns from a university hospital in Italy.
• Cord blood was collected at birth and analyzed for serum biomarkers such as CCL17/TARC and IL-31.
• TEWL and skin hydration rates were measured at 1, 6, and 12 months, and dermatological features such as dryness, cradle cap, and eczematous lesions were also monitored during visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 6 months, 16 infants had symptoms of AD, which included dry skin, pruritus, and keratosis pilaris, which persisted at 12 months. Their mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score was 6.6 at 6 months and 2.9 at 12 months.
• Infants with signs of AD had significantly higher TEWL levels at the anterior cubital fossa at 1, 6, and 12 months than those without AD.
• Cord blood levels of CCL17/TARC and IL-31 were significantly higher in infants with AD.
• A correlation was found between TEWL values and CCL17 levels at 1, 6, and 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study highlights the potential of cord serum/TARC and IL-31 levels as predictive markers for AD onset in infancy, in combination with cutaneous markers,” the authors wrote. “Stratified interventions based on these variables, family history, FLG [filaggrin] variations, and other biomarkers could offer more targeted approaches to AD prevention and management, especially during the first year of life,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Angelo Massimiliano D’Erme, MD, PhD, of the Dermatology Unit, in the Department of Medical and Oncology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy, and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The limitations included the observational design and small sample size, and it was a single-center study.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. One author disclosed receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies and serving as a founder and chairman of a nonprofit organization.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early use of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), a drug used to dampen the immune system in organ transplant recipients, may reduce the risk for severe flares in patients with newly diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), according to results from a randomized, open-label, observer-blinded clinical trial.

In interviews, two SLE specialists who were not involved with the study said the research is preliminary but promising. However, another specialist criticized the paper’s reliance on unusual doses of prednisone and MMF, saying it “puts people on a treatment regimen that nobody ever uses.”

The Lupus Foundation of America estimates that about 16,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with lupus each year. “Our current treatment paradigm is to go pretty slowly and start treatment for new-onset, mild SLE with glucocorticoids, if necessary, and hydroxychloroquine,” said Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

Stronger immunosuppressive agents may be added as patients progress, she said.

Off-label use of MMF, which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for patients with certain organ transplants, may be appropriate in some cases, she said. “There is a big push to start immunosuppressives earlier, but we currently would reserve mycophenolate for those with severe manifestations — lupus nephritis; vasculitis; or lung, brain, or heart inflammation.”

In the trial, adult patients who received oral prednisone (starting at 0.5 mg/kg per day) and hydroxychloroquine sulfate (5 mg/kg per day) plus MMF (500 mg twice daily) for 96 weeks were less likely to develop severe flares than those who took the regimen without MMF (relative risk [RR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.87; P = .01). Severe flares occurred in 10.8% of the MMF group (7 of 65 patients) and in 27.7% of the control group (18 of 65), Yijun You, MD, of Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open. 

Patients in the MMF group also had 89% lower risk for lupus nephritis than those in the control group (RR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.85; P = .008), with kidney involvement occurring in 1.5% (1 of 65) vs 13.8% (9 of 65).

During 2018-2021, researchers recruited 130 patients in China aged 18-65 years with newly diagnosed SLE, a high titer of anti–double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibodies, and no major organ involvement (mean age, 34.5 years; 86.2% women). Patients’ initial 0.5–mg/kg per day prednisone dose was maintained for 4 weeks, then tapered by 5.0 mg every 2 weeks, and when the dose had been reduced to 20.0 mg/day, it was tapered by 5 mg every month and then gradually to 0.1-0.2 mg/kg per day. If patients had severe flares, they stopped taking MMF. (The study authors did not respond to requests for comment on the study.) 
 

‘A Treatment Regimen That Nobody Ever Uses’

While Dr. Costenbader called the study “very interesting” and said “every person diagnosing or taking care of patients with lupus should be familiar” with it, she noted that the prednisone doses were high. “I am wondering why they used quite so much glucocorticoid for everyone. This may have masked some of the MMF effect and biased toward the null. They also used a low dose of MMF and did not ramp it up as we would normally to a full dose. That being said, it is remarkable that it was well-tolerated and resulted in better outcomes over the period of the trial.”

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Daniel J. Wallace, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, and the University of California, Los Angeles, also highlighted the high doses of prednisone and low doses of MMF. “It’s a useless paper that puts people on a treatment regimen that nobody ever uses,” he said.

The rates of mild to moderate flares were similar between the control and intervention groups (38.5% vs 36.9%, respectively; RR, 0.96; P = .90). This finding is surprising, said Judith A. James, MD, PhD, executive vice president, chief medical officer, and head of the rheumatology clinic and Arthritis and Clinical Immunology Research Program at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City and also the Associate Vice Provost of Clinical & Translational Science, professor of medicine, and George Lynn Cross Research Professor at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City. “It may be that mild flares have a different mechanism or are caused by noninflammatory endotypes that don’t respond to MMF.”

Dr. Costenbader noted that a risk-benefit analysis will need to be done to take the risks of MMF into account. “However, every time that a person flares or is not in lupus low-disease activity state, potentially permanent organ damage is done and the patient suffers,” she said. “Preventing lupus nephritis de novo was also seen — nine cases potentially prevented — and that is also really interesting. It would be amazing if we could completely avoid that life-threatening complication.”

MMF can cause miscarriage and boost the risk for birth defects, and the manufacturer says it can lower the effectiveness of birth control pills. It can also boost the risk for some cancers such as lymphoma and increase the risk for infections.

Surprisingly, the number of adverse events in the control and intervention groups were similar (35.4% vs 46.2%, respectively; RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.86-1.99; P = .20). They included infection (30.8% vs 33.8%, respectively; P = .70) and gastrointestinal tract events (16.9% for both; P > .99).

“There were overall pretty similar rates of side effects, but maybe this was because MMF dose was pretty low in the treated group, or the glucocorticoid dose was not so low in both groups,” Dr. Costenbader said. She also noted that “the risk of malignancy with MMF is longer term than this study. It may not show up for 5-10 or even more years, but we know it exists. Infections are also increased with MMF — some of which can be avoided with vaccines for COVID, pneumonia, influenza, shingles, etc. MMF also causes gastrointestinal intolerance, and people often are not able to take it because of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and elevated liver function tests.”

courtesy OMRF

Dr. James said the infection rates “may be due to the higher doses of steroids patients in both groups are on for several months at the beginning of the study.”

A total of 12 patients in the MMF group discontinued the intervention for various reasons, and 6 were lost to follow-up. In the control group, 20 discontinued the intervention and two were lost to follow-up. However, all 130 patients in the trial were included in the primary and secondary outcome analyses.

Should clinicians consider prescribing MMF to patients with new-onset SLE? “We usually wait until later when there are indications of more severe disease, but here they started it from the time of diagnosis if the patient was anti-dsDNA positive. Given insurance restrictions in this country, we would be unlikely to be able to do that for many patients,” Dr. Costenbader said. “They likely also overtreated a lot of patients who didn’t need it. Due to our lack of more specific biomarkers and precision medicine for lupus, we do currently undertreat a lot of patients, as this study highlights, as well as overtreat others.”
 

How Much Might Cost Factor Into Treatment Decisions?

The study did not examine cost. Prednisone and hydroxychloroquine sulfate are inexpensive, but Dr. James said MMF can cost about $450 a month at the study dosage. However, “the average hospitalization without an ICU [intensive care unit] visit for an SLE patient is about $15,000-$20,000. If you can avoid one hospitalization, you can pay for nearly 4 years of MMF. More importantly, from a financial perspective, if you can convert a severe lupus patient to a mild/moderate lupus patient, then the annual costs of lupus decrease nearly by half, from about $52,000 per year to $25,000 per year.”

The study authors noted various limitations such as the small number of subjects, the need for a longer trial “to determine the advantages and disadvantages of early application of MMF,” and the fact that all subjects were Asian. The authors also called for confirmation via a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

The study was funded by grants to the authors by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Rising-Star Program, Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai, Five-Year National Key R&D Program, and Ruijin–Zhongmei Huadong Lupus Funding. The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Costenbader disclosed consulting/research collaboration relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Merck, Gilead, and Cabaletta. Dr. James and Dr. Wallace had no disclosures.

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

Early use of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), a drug used to dampen the immune system in organ transplant recipients, may reduce the risk for severe flares in patients with newly diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), according to results from a randomized, open-label, observer-blinded clinical trial.

In interviews, two SLE specialists who were not involved with the study said the research is preliminary but promising. However, another specialist criticized the paper’s reliance on unusual doses of prednisone and MMF, saying it “puts people on a treatment regimen that nobody ever uses.”

The Lupus Foundation of America estimates that about 16,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with lupus each year. “Our current treatment paradigm is to go pretty slowly and start treatment for new-onset, mild SLE with glucocorticoids, if necessary, and hydroxychloroquine,” said Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

Stronger immunosuppressive agents may be added as patients progress, she said.

Off-label use of MMF, which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for patients with certain organ transplants, may be appropriate in some cases, she said. “There is a big push to start immunosuppressives earlier, but we currently would reserve mycophenolate for those with severe manifestations — lupus nephritis; vasculitis; or lung, brain, or heart inflammation.”

In the trial, adult patients who received oral prednisone (starting at 0.5 mg/kg per day) and hydroxychloroquine sulfate (5 mg/kg per day) plus MMF (500 mg twice daily) for 96 weeks were less likely to develop severe flares than those who took the regimen without MMF (relative risk [RR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.87; P = .01). Severe flares occurred in 10.8% of the MMF group (7 of 65 patients) and in 27.7% of the control group (18 of 65), Yijun You, MD, of Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open. 

Patients in the MMF group also had 89% lower risk for lupus nephritis than those in the control group (RR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.85; P = .008), with kidney involvement occurring in 1.5% (1 of 65) vs 13.8% (9 of 65).

During 2018-2021, researchers recruited 130 patients in China aged 18-65 years with newly diagnosed SLE, a high titer of anti–double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibodies, and no major organ involvement (mean age, 34.5 years; 86.2% women). Patients’ initial 0.5–mg/kg per day prednisone dose was maintained for 4 weeks, then tapered by 5.0 mg every 2 weeks, and when the dose had been reduced to 20.0 mg/day, it was tapered by 5 mg every month and then gradually to 0.1-0.2 mg/kg per day. If patients had severe flares, they stopped taking MMF. (The study authors did not respond to requests for comment on the study.) 
 

‘A Treatment Regimen That Nobody Ever Uses’

While Dr. Costenbader called the study “very interesting” and said “every person diagnosing or taking care of patients with lupus should be familiar” with it, she noted that the prednisone doses were high. “I am wondering why they used quite so much glucocorticoid for everyone. This may have masked some of the MMF effect and biased toward the null. They also used a low dose of MMF and did not ramp it up as we would normally to a full dose. That being said, it is remarkable that it was well-tolerated and resulted in better outcomes over the period of the trial.”

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Daniel J. Wallace, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, and the University of California, Los Angeles, also highlighted the high doses of prednisone and low doses of MMF. “It’s a useless paper that puts people on a treatment regimen that nobody ever uses,” he said.

The rates of mild to moderate flares were similar between the control and intervention groups (38.5% vs 36.9%, respectively; RR, 0.96; P = .90). This finding is surprising, said Judith A. James, MD, PhD, executive vice president, chief medical officer, and head of the rheumatology clinic and Arthritis and Clinical Immunology Research Program at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City and also the Associate Vice Provost of Clinical & Translational Science, professor of medicine, and George Lynn Cross Research Professor at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City. “It may be that mild flares have a different mechanism or are caused by noninflammatory endotypes that don’t respond to MMF.”

Dr. Costenbader noted that a risk-benefit analysis will need to be done to take the risks of MMF into account. “However, every time that a person flares or is not in lupus low-disease activity state, potentially permanent organ damage is done and the patient suffers,” she said. “Preventing lupus nephritis de novo was also seen — nine cases potentially prevented — and that is also really interesting. It would be amazing if we could completely avoid that life-threatening complication.”

MMF can cause miscarriage and boost the risk for birth defects, and the manufacturer says it can lower the effectiveness of birth control pills. It can also boost the risk for some cancers such as lymphoma and increase the risk for infections.

Surprisingly, the number of adverse events in the control and intervention groups were similar (35.4% vs 46.2%, respectively; RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.86-1.99; P = .20). They included infection (30.8% vs 33.8%, respectively; P = .70) and gastrointestinal tract events (16.9% for both; P > .99).

“There were overall pretty similar rates of side effects, but maybe this was because MMF dose was pretty low in the treated group, or the glucocorticoid dose was not so low in both groups,” Dr. Costenbader said. She also noted that “the risk of malignancy with MMF is longer term than this study. It may not show up for 5-10 or even more years, but we know it exists. Infections are also increased with MMF — some of which can be avoided with vaccines for COVID, pneumonia, influenza, shingles, etc. MMF also causes gastrointestinal intolerance, and people often are not able to take it because of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and elevated liver function tests.”

courtesy OMRF

Dr. James said the infection rates “may be due to the higher doses of steroids patients in both groups are on for several months at the beginning of the study.”

A total of 12 patients in the MMF group discontinued the intervention for various reasons, and 6 were lost to follow-up. In the control group, 20 discontinued the intervention and two were lost to follow-up. However, all 130 patients in the trial were included in the primary and secondary outcome analyses.

Should clinicians consider prescribing MMF to patients with new-onset SLE? “We usually wait until later when there are indications of more severe disease, but here they started it from the time of diagnosis if the patient was anti-dsDNA positive. Given insurance restrictions in this country, we would be unlikely to be able to do that for many patients,” Dr. Costenbader said. “They likely also overtreated a lot of patients who didn’t need it. Due to our lack of more specific biomarkers and precision medicine for lupus, we do currently undertreat a lot of patients, as this study highlights, as well as overtreat others.”
 

How Much Might Cost Factor Into Treatment Decisions?

The study did not examine cost. Prednisone and hydroxychloroquine sulfate are inexpensive, but Dr. James said MMF can cost about $450 a month at the study dosage. However, “the average hospitalization without an ICU [intensive care unit] visit for an SLE patient is about $15,000-$20,000. If you can avoid one hospitalization, you can pay for nearly 4 years of MMF. More importantly, from a financial perspective, if you can convert a severe lupus patient to a mild/moderate lupus patient, then the annual costs of lupus decrease nearly by half, from about $52,000 per year to $25,000 per year.”

The study authors noted various limitations such as the small number of subjects, the need for a longer trial “to determine the advantages and disadvantages of early application of MMF,” and the fact that all subjects were Asian. The authors also called for confirmation via a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

The study was funded by grants to the authors by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Rising-Star Program, Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai, Five-Year National Key R&D Program, and Ruijin–Zhongmei Huadong Lupus Funding. The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Costenbader disclosed consulting/research collaboration relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Merck, Gilead, and Cabaletta. Dr. James and Dr. Wallace had no disclosures.

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

Early use of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), a drug used to dampen the immune system in organ transplant recipients, may reduce the risk for severe flares in patients with newly diagnosed systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), according to results from a randomized, open-label, observer-blinded clinical trial.

In interviews, two SLE specialists who were not involved with the study said the research is preliminary but promising. However, another specialist criticized the paper’s reliance on unusual doses of prednisone and MMF, saying it “puts people on a treatment regimen that nobody ever uses.”

The Lupus Foundation of America estimates that about 16,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with lupus each year. “Our current treatment paradigm is to go pretty slowly and start treatment for new-onset, mild SLE with glucocorticoids, if necessary, and hydroxychloroquine,” said Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

Stronger immunosuppressive agents may be added as patients progress, she said.

Off-label use of MMF, which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for patients with certain organ transplants, may be appropriate in some cases, she said. “There is a big push to start immunosuppressives earlier, but we currently would reserve mycophenolate for those with severe manifestations — lupus nephritis; vasculitis; or lung, brain, or heart inflammation.”

In the trial, adult patients who received oral prednisone (starting at 0.5 mg/kg per day) and hydroxychloroquine sulfate (5 mg/kg per day) plus MMF (500 mg twice daily) for 96 weeks were less likely to develop severe flares than those who took the regimen without MMF (relative risk [RR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.87; P = .01). Severe flares occurred in 10.8% of the MMF group (7 of 65 patients) and in 27.7% of the control group (18 of 65), Yijun You, MD, of Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open. 

Patients in the MMF group also had 89% lower risk for lupus nephritis than those in the control group (RR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.85; P = .008), with kidney involvement occurring in 1.5% (1 of 65) vs 13.8% (9 of 65).

During 2018-2021, researchers recruited 130 patients in China aged 18-65 years with newly diagnosed SLE, a high titer of anti–double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibodies, and no major organ involvement (mean age, 34.5 years; 86.2% women). Patients’ initial 0.5–mg/kg per day prednisone dose was maintained for 4 weeks, then tapered by 5.0 mg every 2 weeks, and when the dose had been reduced to 20.0 mg/day, it was tapered by 5 mg every month and then gradually to 0.1-0.2 mg/kg per day. If patients had severe flares, they stopped taking MMF. (The study authors did not respond to requests for comment on the study.) 
 

‘A Treatment Regimen That Nobody Ever Uses’

While Dr. Costenbader called the study “very interesting” and said “every person diagnosing or taking care of patients with lupus should be familiar” with it, she noted that the prednisone doses were high. “I am wondering why they used quite so much glucocorticoid for everyone. This may have masked some of the MMF effect and biased toward the null. They also used a low dose of MMF and did not ramp it up as we would normally to a full dose. That being said, it is remarkable that it was well-tolerated and resulted in better outcomes over the period of the trial.”

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Daniel J. Wallace, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, and the University of California, Los Angeles, also highlighted the high doses of prednisone and low doses of MMF. “It’s a useless paper that puts people on a treatment regimen that nobody ever uses,” he said.

The rates of mild to moderate flares were similar between the control and intervention groups (38.5% vs 36.9%, respectively; RR, 0.96; P = .90). This finding is surprising, said Judith A. James, MD, PhD, executive vice president, chief medical officer, and head of the rheumatology clinic and Arthritis and Clinical Immunology Research Program at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City and also the Associate Vice Provost of Clinical & Translational Science, professor of medicine, and George Lynn Cross Research Professor at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City. “It may be that mild flares have a different mechanism or are caused by noninflammatory endotypes that don’t respond to MMF.”

Dr. Costenbader noted that a risk-benefit analysis will need to be done to take the risks of MMF into account. “However, every time that a person flares or is not in lupus low-disease activity state, potentially permanent organ damage is done and the patient suffers,” she said. “Preventing lupus nephritis de novo was also seen — nine cases potentially prevented — and that is also really interesting. It would be amazing if we could completely avoid that life-threatening complication.”

MMF can cause miscarriage and boost the risk for birth defects, and the manufacturer says it can lower the effectiveness of birth control pills. It can also boost the risk for some cancers such as lymphoma and increase the risk for infections.

Surprisingly, the number of adverse events in the control and intervention groups were similar (35.4% vs 46.2%, respectively; RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.86-1.99; P = .20). They included infection (30.8% vs 33.8%, respectively; P = .70) and gastrointestinal tract events (16.9% for both; P > .99).

“There were overall pretty similar rates of side effects, but maybe this was because MMF dose was pretty low in the treated group, or the glucocorticoid dose was not so low in both groups,” Dr. Costenbader said. She also noted that “the risk of malignancy with MMF is longer term than this study. It may not show up for 5-10 or even more years, but we know it exists. Infections are also increased with MMF — some of which can be avoided with vaccines for COVID, pneumonia, influenza, shingles, etc. MMF also causes gastrointestinal intolerance, and people often are not able to take it because of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and elevated liver function tests.”

courtesy OMRF

Dr. James said the infection rates “may be due to the higher doses of steroids patients in both groups are on for several months at the beginning of the study.”

A total of 12 patients in the MMF group discontinued the intervention for various reasons, and 6 were lost to follow-up. In the control group, 20 discontinued the intervention and two were lost to follow-up. However, all 130 patients in the trial were included in the primary and secondary outcome analyses.

Should clinicians consider prescribing MMF to patients with new-onset SLE? “We usually wait until later when there are indications of more severe disease, but here they started it from the time of diagnosis if the patient was anti-dsDNA positive. Given insurance restrictions in this country, we would be unlikely to be able to do that for many patients,” Dr. Costenbader said. “They likely also overtreated a lot of patients who didn’t need it. Due to our lack of more specific biomarkers and precision medicine for lupus, we do currently undertreat a lot of patients, as this study highlights, as well as overtreat others.”
 

How Much Might Cost Factor Into Treatment Decisions?

The study did not examine cost. Prednisone and hydroxychloroquine sulfate are inexpensive, but Dr. James said MMF can cost about $450 a month at the study dosage. However, “the average hospitalization without an ICU [intensive care unit] visit for an SLE patient is about $15,000-$20,000. If you can avoid one hospitalization, you can pay for nearly 4 years of MMF. More importantly, from a financial perspective, if you can convert a severe lupus patient to a mild/moderate lupus patient, then the annual costs of lupus decrease nearly by half, from about $52,000 per year to $25,000 per year.”

The study authors noted various limitations such as the small number of subjects, the need for a longer trial “to determine the advantages and disadvantages of early application of MMF,” and the fact that all subjects were Asian. The authors also called for confirmation via a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

The study was funded by grants to the authors by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Shanghai Rising-Star Program, Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai, Five-Year National Key R&D Program, and Ruijin–Zhongmei Huadong Lupus Funding. The authors had no disclosures. Dr. Costenbader disclosed consulting/research collaboration relationships with AstraZeneca, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Merck, Gilead, and Cabaletta. Dr. James and Dr. Wallace had no disclosures.

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

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA — If the number of recent drug approvals for atopic dermatitis (AD) is overwhelming, the future is unlikely to be any less challenging: According to the National Eczema Association, the current pipeline for AD includes 39 injectable medications, 21 oral agents, and 49 topicals, some with novel targets, like human umbilical cord blood derived stem cells.

“It’s amazing how many drugs are coming out for AD,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association (PDA). Dr. Sidbury, chief of the Division of Dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, highlighted two agents for AD: Lebrikizumab and nemolizumab. Lebrikizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin (IL)-13 and is approved in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients aged ≥ 12 years. (On September 13, after the PDA meeting, lebrikizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] for treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults and adolescents aged ≥ 12 years.)

In two identical phase 3 trials known as ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2, researchers randomly assigned 851 patients with moderate to severe AD in a 2:1 ratio to receive either lebrikizumab at a dose of 250 mg (loading dose of 500 mg at baseline and week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, through week 16. The primary outcome was an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, indicating clear or almost clear skin. The researchers reported that an IGA score of 0 or 1 was achieved by 43.1% of patients in the lebrikizumab arm compared with 12.7% of those in the placebo arm.

“Those are good numbers,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved with the study. Conjunctivitis occurred more often in those who received lebrikizumab compared with those who received placebo (7.4% vs 2.8%, respectively), “which is not surprising because it is an IL-13 agent,” he said.

In a subsequent study presented during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting in the fall of 2023, researchers presented data on Eczema Severity and Area Index (EASI)-90 responses in the ADvocate trial participants, showing EASI-90 responses were sustained up to 38 weeks after lebrikizumab withdrawal, while serum concentrations were negligible. They found that between week 14 and week 32, approximately five serum concentration half-lives of the medication had elapsed since patients randomized to the withdrawal arm received their last dose of lebrikizumab, extending to approximately 11 half-lives by week 52. “That durability of response with next to no blood levels of drug in many of the study participants is interesting,” said Dr. Sidbury, who cochairs the current iteration of the American Academy of Dermatology Atopic Dermatitis Guidelines.

Nemolizumab is a neuroimmune response modulator that inhibits the IL-31 receptor and is approved in Japan for the treatment of itch associated with AD in patients aged ≥ 13 years. Results from two identical phase 3, randomized, controlled trials known as ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 found that 36% of patients in ARCADIA 1 and 38% in ARCADIA 2 achieved clear skin, compared with 25% and 26% of patients in the placebo group, respectively. (Nemolizumab was recently approved by the FDA for treating prurigo nodularis and is under FDA review for AD.)

In terms of safety, Dr. Sidbury, who is a member of the steering committee for the ARCADIA trials, said that nemolizumab has been “generally well tolerated;” with 1%-3% of study participants experiencing at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event that included asthma exacerbation, facial edema, and peripheral edema. “The latest data are reassuring but we are watching these safety concerns carefully,” he said.

Dr. Sidbury disclosed that he is an investigator for Regeneron, Pfizer, Galderma, UCB, and Castle; a consultant for Lilly, Leo, Arcutis, and Dermavant; and a member of the speaker’s bureau for Beiersdorf.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA — If the number of recent drug approvals for atopic dermatitis (AD) is overwhelming, the future is unlikely to be any less challenging: According to the National Eczema Association, the current pipeline for AD includes 39 injectable medications, 21 oral agents, and 49 topicals, some with novel targets, like human umbilical cord blood derived stem cells.

“It’s amazing how many drugs are coming out for AD,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association (PDA). Dr. Sidbury, chief of the Division of Dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, highlighted two agents for AD: Lebrikizumab and nemolizumab. Lebrikizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin (IL)-13 and is approved in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients aged ≥ 12 years. (On September 13, after the PDA meeting, lebrikizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] for treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults and adolescents aged ≥ 12 years.)

In two identical phase 3 trials known as ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2, researchers randomly assigned 851 patients with moderate to severe AD in a 2:1 ratio to receive either lebrikizumab at a dose of 250 mg (loading dose of 500 mg at baseline and week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, through week 16. The primary outcome was an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, indicating clear or almost clear skin. The researchers reported that an IGA score of 0 or 1 was achieved by 43.1% of patients in the lebrikizumab arm compared with 12.7% of those in the placebo arm.

“Those are good numbers,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved with the study. Conjunctivitis occurred more often in those who received lebrikizumab compared with those who received placebo (7.4% vs 2.8%, respectively), “which is not surprising because it is an IL-13 agent,” he said.

In a subsequent study presented during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting in the fall of 2023, researchers presented data on Eczema Severity and Area Index (EASI)-90 responses in the ADvocate trial participants, showing EASI-90 responses were sustained up to 38 weeks after lebrikizumab withdrawal, while serum concentrations were negligible. They found that between week 14 and week 32, approximately five serum concentration half-lives of the medication had elapsed since patients randomized to the withdrawal arm received their last dose of lebrikizumab, extending to approximately 11 half-lives by week 52. “That durability of response with next to no blood levels of drug in many of the study participants is interesting,” said Dr. Sidbury, who cochairs the current iteration of the American Academy of Dermatology Atopic Dermatitis Guidelines.

Nemolizumab is a neuroimmune response modulator that inhibits the IL-31 receptor and is approved in Japan for the treatment of itch associated with AD in patients aged ≥ 13 years. Results from two identical phase 3, randomized, controlled trials known as ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 found that 36% of patients in ARCADIA 1 and 38% in ARCADIA 2 achieved clear skin, compared with 25% and 26% of patients in the placebo group, respectively. (Nemolizumab was recently approved by the FDA for treating prurigo nodularis and is under FDA review for AD.)

In terms of safety, Dr. Sidbury, who is a member of the steering committee for the ARCADIA trials, said that nemolizumab has been “generally well tolerated;” with 1%-3% of study participants experiencing at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event that included asthma exacerbation, facial edema, and peripheral edema. “The latest data are reassuring but we are watching these safety concerns carefully,” he said.

Dr. Sidbury disclosed that he is an investigator for Regeneron, Pfizer, Galderma, UCB, and Castle; a consultant for Lilly, Leo, Arcutis, and Dermavant; and a member of the speaker’s bureau for Beiersdorf.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA — If the number of recent drug approvals for atopic dermatitis (AD) is overwhelming, the future is unlikely to be any less challenging: According to the National Eczema Association, the current pipeline for AD includes 39 injectable medications, 21 oral agents, and 49 topicals, some with novel targets, like human umbilical cord blood derived stem cells.

“It’s amazing how many drugs are coming out for AD,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association (PDA). Dr. Sidbury, chief of the Division of Dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, highlighted two agents for AD: Lebrikizumab and nemolizumab. Lebrikizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to interleukin (IL)-13 and is approved in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients aged ≥ 12 years. (On September 13, after the PDA meeting, lebrikizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] for treatment of moderate to severe AD in adults and adolescents aged ≥ 12 years.)

In two identical phase 3 trials known as ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2, researchers randomly assigned 851 patients with moderate to severe AD in a 2:1 ratio to receive either lebrikizumab at a dose of 250 mg (loading dose of 500 mg at baseline and week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, through week 16. The primary outcome was an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, indicating clear or almost clear skin. The researchers reported that an IGA score of 0 or 1 was achieved by 43.1% of patients in the lebrikizumab arm compared with 12.7% of those in the placebo arm.

“Those are good numbers,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved with the study. Conjunctivitis occurred more often in those who received lebrikizumab compared with those who received placebo (7.4% vs 2.8%, respectively), “which is not surprising because it is an IL-13 agent,” he said.

In a subsequent study presented during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting in the fall of 2023, researchers presented data on Eczema Severity and Area Index (EASI)-90 responses in the ADvocate trial participants, showing EASI-90 responses were sustained up to 38 weeks after lebrikizumab withdrawal, while serum concentrations were negligible. They found that between week 14 and week 32, approximately five serum concentration half-lives of the medication had elapsed since patients randomized to the withdrawal arm received their last dose of lebrikizumab, extending to approximately 11 half-lives by week 52. “That durability of response with next to no blood levels of drug in many of the study participants is interesting,” said Dr. Sidbury, who cochairs the current iteration of the American Academy of Dermatology Atopic Dermatitis Guidelines.

Nemolizumab is a neuroimmune response modulator that inhibits the IL-31 receptor and is approved in Japan for the treatment of itch associated with AD in patients aged ≥ 13 years. Results from two identical phase 3, randomized, controlled trials known as ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 found that 36% of patients in ARCADIA 1 and 38% in ARCADIA 2 achieved clear skin, compared with 25% and 26% of patients in the placebo group, respectively. (Nemolizumab was recently approved by the FDA for treating prurigo nodularis and is under FDA review for AD.)

In terms of safety, Dr. Sidbury, who is a member of the steering committee for the ARCADIA trials, said that nemolizumab has been “generally well tolerated;” with 1%-3% of study participants experiencing at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event that included asthma exacerbation, facial edema, and peripheral edema. “The latest data are reassuring but we are watching these safety concerns carefully,” he said.

Dr. Sidbury disclosed that he is an investigator for Regeneron, Pfizer, Galderma, UCB, and Castle; a consultant for Lilly, Leo, Arcutis, and Dermavant; and a member of the speaker’s bureau for Beiersdorf.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.