TBD Meeting (3175-19)

MADRID – Psoriasis patients with a new prescription for oral apremilast were significantly less likely to switch to a different therapy within the next 12 months than were patients on their first tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, in a large retrospective national propensity score-matched study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This was surprising to us,” David L. Kaplan, MD, admitted in presenting the study findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The surprise came because apremilast, a phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4)-inhibitor, is less potent than the injectable biologics at driving down Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores.

“This is real-world data. And this is what patients are saying at 1 year: that they’re actually happier [with apremilast] and they’re not interested in changing,” said Dr. Kaplan, a dermatologist at the University of Kansas and in private practice in Overland Park, Kan.

He and his coinvestigators tapped the IBM Watson MarketScan health insurance claims database for 2015-2016 and identified 1,645 biologic-naive adults with psoriasis who started on apremilast therapy and an equal number of biologic-naive psoriasis patients who initiated treatment with a biologic, of whom 1,207 started on an TNF inhibitor and 438 began on an interleukin inhibitor, which was ustekinumab in 81% of cases. The TNF inhibitor cohort was split 80/20 between adalimumab and etanercept. The three groups – new users of apremilast, a TNF inhibitor, or an interleukin inhibitor – were propensity-matched based upon age, prior usage of systemic psoriasis therapies, Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, and other potential confounders.

The primary endpoint was the switch rate to a different psoriasis treatment within 12 months. The switch rate was significantly lower in patients who had started on apremilast than in those on a TNF inhibitor by a margin of 14% to 25%, while the 11% switch rate among patients on an interleukin inhibitor was not significantly different from the rate in the apremilast group.

“I think this data kind of gives us pause,” the dermatologist said. “As a clinician myself, when patients come back in the first question I always ask is, ‘How’re you doing? Are you happy?’ And at the end of the day, the data in terms of switch rates shows where patients are at. And that doesn’t really follow what we see with PASI scores.”

A secondary endpoint was the switch rate through 24 months. The same pattern held true: 24.9% in the apremilast starters, which was similar to the 22.9% in patients initiated on an interleukin inhibitor, and significantly less than the 39.1% rate in the TNF inhibitor group.

Among patients who switched medications within the first 12 months, the mean number of days to the switch was similar across all three groups.

The study had several limitations. Propensity score–matching is not a cure-all that can eradicate all potential biases. And the claims database didn’t include information on why patients switched, nor what their PASI scores were. “This is real-world data, and clinicians don’t do PASI scores in the real world,” he noted.

Audience member Andrew Blauvelt, MD, a dermatologist and president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, rose to challenge Dr. Kaplan’s conclusion that patients on apremilast were happier with their care.

“How can you rule out that it’s just practices that don’t use biologics, and they’re keeping patients on apremilast regardless of whether they’re better or happy because they’re not using biologics?” inquired Dr. Blauvelt.

Dr. Kaplan conceded that might well be a partial explanation for the results.

“Reluctance to use biologics is out there,” he agreed.

Dr. Kaplan reported serving as a consultant and paid speaker for Celgene, the study sponsor, as well as several other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kaplan DL. EADV Abstract FC04.04.

MADRID – Psoriasis patients with a new prescription for oral apremilast were significantly less likely to switch to a different therapy within the next 12 months than were patients on their first tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, in a large retrospective national propensity score-matched study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This was surprising to us,” David L. Kaplan, MD, admitted in presenting the study findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The surprise came because apremilast, a phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4)-inhibitor, is less potent than the injectable biologics at driving down Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores.

“This is real-world data. And this is what patients are saying at 1 year: that they’re actually happier [with apremilast] and they’re not interested in changing,” said Dr. Kaplan, a dermatologist at the University of Kansas and in private practice in Overland Park, Kan.

He and his coinvestigators tapped the IBM Watson MarketScan health insurance claims database for 2015-2016 and identified 1,645 biologic-naive adults with psoriasis who started on apremilast therapy and an equal number of biologic-naive psoriasis patients who initiated treatment with a biologic, of whom 1,207 started on an TNF inhibitor and 438 began on an interleukin inhibitor, which was ustekinumab in 81% of cases. The TNF inhibitor cohort was split 80/20 between adalimumab and etanercept. The three groups – new users of apremilast, a TNF inhibitor, or an interleukin inhibitor – were propensity-matched based upon age, prior usage of systemic psoriasis therapies, Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, and other potential confounders.

The primary endpoint was the switch rate to a different psoriasis treatment within 12 months. The switch rate was significantly lower in patients who had started on apremilast than in those on a TNF inhibitor by a margin of 14% to 25%, while the 11% switch rate among patients on an interleukin inhibitor was not significantly different from the rate in the apremilast group.

“I think this data kind of gives us pause,” the dermatologist said. “As a clinician myself, when patients come back in the first question I always ask is, ‘How’re you doing? Are you happy?’ And at the end of the day, the data in terms of switch rates shows where patients are at. And that doesn’t really follow what we see with PASI scores.”

A secondary endpoint was the switch rate through 24 months. The same pattern held true: 24.9% in the apremilast starters, which was similar to the 22.9% in patients initiated on an interleukin inhibitor, and significantly less than the 39.1% rate in the TNF inhibitor group.

Among patients who switched medications within the first 12 months, the mean number of days to the switch was similar across all three groups.

The study had several limitations. Propensity score–matching is not a cure-all that can eradicate all potential biases. And the claims database didn’t include information on why patients switched, nor what their PASI scores were. “This is real-world data, and clinicians don’t do PASI scores in the real world,” he noted.

Audience member Andrew Blauvelt, MD, a dermatologist and president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, rose to challenge Dr. Kaplan’s conclusion that patients on apremilast were happier with their care.

“How can you rule out that it’s just practices that don’t use biologics, and they’re keeping patients on apremilast regardless of whether they’re better or happy because they’re not using biologics?” inquired Dr. Blauvelt.

Dr. Kaplan conceded that might well be a partial explanation for the results.

“Reluctance to use biologics is out there,” he agreed.

Dr. Kaplan reported serving as a consultant and paid speaker for Celgene, the study sponsor, as well as several other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kaplan DL. EADV Abstract FC04.04.

MADRID – Psoriasis patients with a new prescription for oral apremilast were significantly less likely to switch to a different therapy within the next 12 months than were patients on their first tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, in a large retrospective national propensity score-matched study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This was surprising to us,” David L. Kaplan, MD, admitted in presenting the study findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The surprise came because apremilast, a phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4)-inhibitor, is less potent than the injectable biologics at driving down Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores.

“This is real-world data. And this is what patients are saying at 1 year: that they’re actually happier [with apremilast] and they’re not interested in changing,” said Dr. Kaplan, a dermatologist at the University of Kansas and in private practice in Overland Park, Kan.

He and his coinvestigators tapped the IBM Watson MarketScan health insurance claims database for 2015-2016 and identified 1,645 biologic-naive adults with psoriasis who started on apremilast therapy and an equal number of biologic-naive psoriasis patients who initiated treatment with a biologic, of whom 1,207 started on an TNF inhibitor and 438 began on an interleukin inhibitor, which was ustekinumab in 81% of cases. The TNF inhibitor cohort was split 80/20 between adalimumab and etanercept. The three groups – new users of apremilast, a TNF inhibitor, or an interleukin inhibitor – were propensity-matched based upon age, prior usage of systemic psoriasis therapies, Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, and other potential confounders.

The primary endpoint was the switch rate to a different psoriasis treatment within 12 months. The switch rate was significantly lower in patients who had started on apremilast than in those on a TNF inhibitor by a margin of 14% to 25%, while the 11% switch rate among patients on an interleukin inhibitor was not significantly different from the rate in the apremilast group.

“I think this data kind of gives us pause,” the dermatologist said. “As a clinician myself, when patients come back in the first question I always ask is, ‘How’re you doing? Are you happy?’ And at the end of the day, the data in terms of switch rates shows where patients are at. And that doesn’t really follow what we see with PASI scores.”

A secondary endpoint was the switch rate through 24 months. The same pattern held true: 24.9% in the apremilast starters, which was similar to the 22.9% in patients initiated on an interleukin inhibitor, and significantly less than the 39.1% rate in the TNF inhibitor group.

Among patients who switched medications within the first 12 months, the mean number of days to the switch was similar across all three groups.

The study had several limitations. Propensity score–matching is not a cure-all that can eradicate all potential biases. And the claims database didn’t include information on why patients switched, nor what their PASI scores were. “This is real-world data, and clinicians don’t do PASI scores in the real world,” he noted.

Audience member Andrew Blauvelt, MD, a dermatologist and president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, rose to challenge Dr. Kaplan’s conclusion that patients on apremilast were happier with their care.

“How can you rule out that it’s just practices that don’t use biologics, and they’re keeping patients on apremilast regardless of whether they’re better or happy because they’re not using biologics?” inquired Dr. Blauvelt.

Dr. Kaplan conceded that might well be a partial explanation for the results.

“Reluctance to use biologics is out there,” he agreed.

Dr. Kaplan reported serving as a consultant and paid speaker for Celgene, the study sponsor, as well as several other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kaplan DL. EADV Abstract FC04.04.

MADRID – Oral apremilast’s beneficial effects on Behçet’s disease oral ulcer disease severity and patient quality of life were sustained through week 64 of the long-term extension phase of the pivotal RELIEF trial, Alfred Mahr, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“We now have strong evidence that apremilast is an effective and safe therapy to treat oral ulcers in patients with Behçet’s syndrome. I think this is a major advance in the field,” declared Dr. Mahr, a rheumatologist at St. Gallen (Switzerland) Cantonal Hospital.

Based largely upon the results of the 12-week, double-blind portion of the phase 3 RELIEF trial, the Food and Drug Administration approved apremilast (Otezla) for the treatment of oral ulcers in patients with Behçet’s disease in the summer of 2019.

The safety profile of the oral phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor was as seen in other studies, including in patients with psoriatic arthritis, an FDA-approved indication for the drug since 2014. The main side effects in the long-term extension of RELIEF were diarrhea and nausea, typically mild or moderate in nature and roughly twice as frequent as in placebo-treated controls in the double-blind study phase.

“At the end of the day, at week 64, only 12% of patients treated with apremilast during the entire 64 weeks discontinued the drug due to a treatment-emergent adverse event, which I believe is a good indicator of the safety of this medication,” the rheumatologist said. “The overall feeling is that the benefit-to-risk ratio is very good and it’s a safe drug to prescribe.”

At the close of the initial 12-week, double-blind phase of RELIEF, 178 of the original 207 participants elected to enter the long-term extension, either staying on apremilast at 30 mg twice a day for an additional 52 weeks or switching to that regimen from placebo.

The focus of the long-term extension was on disease activity and quality of life outcomes. The results in patients who had switched from placebo to apremilast after 12 weeks proved to be reassuringly similar to outcomes in patients on the drug for the full duration. For example, the mean improvement on the patient-reported Behçet’s Syndrome Activity Scale was 18.6 points after 12 weeks of double-blind apremilast, 16.9 points after 64 weeks of continuous apremilast, and 16.8 points with 12 weeks of placebo followed by 52 weeks of active therapy.

After 12 weeks of double-blind apremilast, patients averaged a 3.4-point improvement on the Behçet’s Disease Quality of Life measure. After 64 weeks on the drug, the improvement over baseline was 3.6 points, while in the switch group it was 3.4 points. Similarly, on all three components of the SF-36 quality of life metric, the continuous apremilast group showed maintenance of effect from week 12 to week 64, while the placebo-to-apremilast group caught up. The same was true with regards to the Behçet’s Disease Current Activity Index, which encompasses measures of both the patient’s and clinician’s perception of disease activity.

At the outset of the RELIEF trial, participants averaged four oral ulcers. At week 64, the continuous apremilast group averaged 1.4 and the switch group 0.8, a nonsignificant difference.

Asked if apremilast had a favorable impact upon other manifestations of Behçet’s disease besides the oral ulcers, Dr. Mahr replied, “This is a very good question. People often wonder about it. We do, too. But this trial was not designed to capture less common manifestations of Behçet’s syndrome, such as genital ulcers. There have been some analyses done, but the number of patients who had genital ulcers at 12 weeks were very few. The same was true for eye manifestations. There was sort of a signal that it works, but we can’t prove it in a placebo-controlled trial.”

Dr. Mahr reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Celgene, the study sponsor.

[email protected]

MADRID – Oral apremilast’s beneficial effects on Behçet’s disease oral ulcer disease severity and patient quality of life were sustained through week 64 of the long-term extension phase of the pivotal RELIEF trial, Alfred Mahr, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“We now have strong evidence that apremilast is an effective and safe therapy to treat oral ulcers in patients with Behçet’s syndrome. I think this is a major advance in the field,” declared Dr. Mahr, a rheumatologist at St. Gallen (Switzerland) Cantonal Hospital.

Based largely upon the results of the 12-week, double-blind portion of the phase 3 RELIEF trial, the Food and Drug Administration approved apremilast (Otezla) for the treatment of oral ulcers in patients with Behçet’s disease in the summer of 2019.

The safety profile of the oral phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor was as seen in other studies, including in patients with psoriatic arthritis, an FDA-approved indication for the drug since 2014. The main side effects in the long-term extension of RELIEF were diarrhea and nausea, typically mild or moderate in nature and roughly twice as frequent as in placebo-treated controls in the double-blind study phase.

“At the end of the day, at week 64, only 12% of patients treated with apremilast during the entire 64 weeks discontinued the drug due to a treatment-emergent adverse event, which I believe is a good indicator of the safety of this medication,” the rheumatologist said. “The overall feeling is that the benefit-to-risk ratio is very good and it’s a safe drug to prescribe.”

At the close of the initial 12-week, double-blind phase of RELIEF, 178 of the original 207 participants elected to enter the long-term extension, either staying on apremilast at 30 mg twice a day for an additional 52 weeks or switching to that regimen from placebo.

The focus of the long-term extension was on disease activity and quality of life outcomes. The results in patients who had switched from placebo to apremilast after 12 weeks proved to be reassuringly similar to outcomes in patients on the drug for the full duration. For example, the mean improvement on the patient-reported Behçet’s Syndrome Activity Scale was 18.6 points after 12 weeks of double-blind apremilast, 16.9 points after 64 weeks of continuous apremilast, and 16.8 points with 12 weeks of placebo followed by 52 weeks of active therapy.

After 12 weeks of double-blind apremilast, patients averaged a 3.4-point improvement on the Behçet’s Disease Quality of Life measure. After 64 weeks on the drug, the improvement over baseline was 3.6 points, while in the switch group it was 3.4 points. Similarly, on all three components of the SF-36 quality of life metric, the continuous apremilast group showed maintenance of effect from week 12 to week 64, while the placebo-to-apremilast group caught up. The same was true with regards to the Behçet’s Disease Current Activity Index, which encompasses measures of both the patient’s and clinician’s perception of disease activity.

At the outset of the RELIEF trial, participants averaged four oral ulcers. At week 64, the continuous apremilast group averaged 1.4 and the switch group 0.8, a nonsignificant difference.

Asked if apremilast had a favorable impact upon other manifestations of Behçet’s disease besides the oral ulcers, Dr. Mahr replied, “This is a very good question. People often wonder about it. We do, too. But this trial was not designed to capture less common manifestations of Behçet’s syndrome, such as genital ulcers. There have been some analyses done, but the number of patients who had genital ulcers at 12 weeks were very few. The same was true for eye manifestations. There was sort of a signal that it works, but we can’t prove it in a placebo-controlled trial.”

Dr. Mahr reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Celgene, the study sponsor.

[email protected]

MADRID – Oral apremilast’s beneficial effects on Behçet’s disease oral ulcer disease severity and patient quality of life were sustained through week 64 of the long-term extension phase of the pivotal RELIEF trial, Alfred Mahr, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“We now have strong evidence that apremilast is an effective and safe therapy to treat oral ulcers in patients with Behçet’s syndrome. I think this is a major advance in the field,” declared Dr. Mahr, a rheumatologist at St. Gallen (Switzerland) Cantonal Hospital.

Based largely upon the results of the 12-week, double-blind portion of the phase 3 RELIEF trial, the Food and Drug Administration approved apremilast (Otezla) for the treatment of oral ulcers in patients with Behçet’s disease in the summer of 2019.

The safety profile of the oral phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor was as seen in other studies, including in patients with psoriatic arthritis, an FDA-approved indication for the drug since 2014. The main side effects in the long-term extension of RELIEF were diarrhea and nausea, typically mild or moderate in nature and roughly twice as frequent as in placebo-treated controls in the double-blind study phase.

“At the end of the day, at week 64, only 12% of patients treated with apremilast during the entire 64 weeks discontinued the drug due to a treatment-emergent adverse event, which I believe is a good indicator of the safety of this medication,” the rheumatologist said. “The overall feeling is that the benefit-to-risk ratio is very good and it’s a safe drug to prescribe.”

At the close of the initial 12-week, double-blind phase of RELIEF, 178 of the original 207 participants elected to enter the long-term extension, either staying on apremilast at 30 mg twice a day for an additional 52 weeks or switching to that regimen from placebo.

The focus of the long-term extension was on disease activity and quality of life outcomes. The results in patients who had switched from placebo to apremilast after 12 weeks proved to be reassuringly similar to outcomes in patients on the drug for the full duration. For example, the mean improvement on the patient-reported Behçet’s Syndrome Activity Scale was 18.6 points after 12 weeks of double-blind apremilast, 16.9 points after 64 weeks of continuous apremilast, and 16.8 points with 12 weeks of placebo followed by 52 weeks of active therapy.

After 12 weeks of double-blind apremilast, patients averaged a 3.4-point improvement on the Behçet’s Disease Quality of Life measure. After 64 weeks on the drug, the improvement over baseline was 3.6 points, while in the switch group it was 3.4 points. Similarly, on all three components of the SF-36 quality of life metric, the continuous apremilast group showed maintenance of effect from week 12 to week 64, while the placebo-to-apremilast group caught up. The same was true with regards to the Behçet’s Disease Current Activity Index, which encompasses measures of both the patient’s and clinician’s perception of disease activity.

At the outset of the RELIEF trial, participants averaged four oral ulcers. At week 64, the continuous apremilast group averaged 1.4 and the switch group 0.8, a nonsignificant difference.

Asked if apremilast had a favorable impact upon other manifestations of Behçet’s disease besides the oral ulcers, Dr. Mahr replied, “This is a very good question. People often wonder about it. We do, too. But this trial was not designed to capture less common manifestations of Behçet’s syndrome, such as genital ulcers. There have been some analyses done, but the number of patients who had genital ulcers at 12 weeks were very few. The same was true for eye manifestations. There was sort of a signal that it works, but we can’t prove it in a placebo-controlled trial.”

Dr. Mahr reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Celgene, the study sponsor.

[email protected]

MADRID – In a phase 2, dose-ranging study, 78% of patients with long-standing moderate or severe alopecia areata rated their condition as “much improved” or “very much improved” after 24 weeks on the top dose of an investigational oral selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 (JAK1/2) inhibitor, compared with 21% of placebo-treated controls, James V. Cassella, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The primary study endpoint – at least a 50% reduction in the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score between baseline and 24 weeks – was achieved in 58% of patients on the JAK1/2 inhibitor (known for now as CTP-543) at 12 mg twice a day, 47% of those on CTP-543 at 8 mg twice a day, 21% on 4 mg twice a day, and in 9% of controls on placebo in the double-blind randomized trial. The 4-mg twice-daily dosing will not move on to phase 3 studies because of its demonstrated lack of efficacy, according to Dr. Cassella, chief development officer at Concert Pharmaceuticals, the study sponsor.

The study included 149 adults whose current episode of alopecia areata was of 3-6 years’ duration, with an average lifetime 15-year history of active disease. Their average baseline score on the 0-100 SALT scale was in the upper 80s, indicative of 80% or greater hair loss.

A SALT 75 response, meaning at least a 75% reduction in SALT score from baseline, was achieved in a dose-dependent fashion: In 42% of patients at the top dose of CTP-543, 29% of those on 8 mg twice a day, 14% with 4 mg twice a day, and in 7% of controls. An even more rigorous SALT 90 response was attained in 36%, 16%, 2%, and no controls, respectively.

The 12-mg twice-daily dosing produced faster onset and greater magnitude of response than did the 8-mg twice-daily dosing, but this dose-ranging study is not the final word on that score, according to Dr. Cassella.

“Week 24 is not a magic number,” he said. “The slope of the efficacy line for 8 mg [twice a day] looked like it was still going up at week 24, and the 12-mg BID curve hadn’t completely plateaued. Those are things we will consider for the future in terms of long-term trials.”

Changes in the eyebrows and lashes weren’t formally assessed in this study, although they will be in future trials. Anecdotally, however, patients with alopecia areata at those sites typically experienced complete or nearly complete regrowth in response to the higher doses of CTP-543, he said.

Safety-wise, there was no trend for increased adverse events with increasing doses of CTP-543. The observed treatment side effects were those typical of JAK inhibitors as a class effect, mainly headache, nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory infections, and new-onset acne. In terms of hematologic findings of special interest, there was one case of reversible neutropenia in the control group and another in the 8-mg twice-daily group, which resolved upon temporary suspension of treatment.

“Nothing surprising to us, and nothing very serious,” Dr. Cassella said.

Most patients in the 12-mg twice daily group have enrolled in an ongoing long-term extension study. In addition, two phase 2 studies are ongoing, with a focus on once-daily versus twice-daily dosing at 8 mg or 12 mg. Phase 3 studies are in the planning stage, he added.

The phase 2 dose-ranging study was sponsored by Concert Pharmaceuticals.

CTP-543 is one of an array of oral JAK inhibitors now in the developmental pipeline for alopecia areata, a severe, psychosocially devastating disease for which at present there is no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy.

[email protected]

MADRID – In a phase 2, dose-ranging study, 78% of patients with long-standing moderate or severe alopecia areata rated their condition as “much improved” or “very much improved” after 24 weeks on the top dose of an investigational oral selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 (JAK1/2) inhibitor, compared with 21% of placebo-treated controls, James V. Cassella, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The primary study endpoint – at least a 50% reduction in the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score between baseline and 24 weeks – was achieved in 58% of patients on the JAK1/2 inhibitor (known for now as CTP-543) at 12 mg twice a day, 47% of those on CTP-543 at 8 mg twice a day, 21% on 4 mg twice a day, and in 9% of controls on placebo in the double-blind randomized trial. The 4-mg twice-daily dosing will not move on to phase 3 studies because of its demonstrated lack of efficacy, according to Dr. Cassella, chief development officer at Concert Pharmaceuticals, the study sponsor.

The study included 149 adults whose current episode of alopecia areata was of 3-6 years’ duration, with an average lifetime 15-year history of active disease. Their average baseline score on the 0-100 SALT scale was in the upper 80s, indicative of 80% or greater hair loss.

A SALT 75 response, meaning at least a 75% reduction in SALT score from baseline, was achieved in a dose-dependent fashion: In 42% of patients at the top dose of CTP-543, 29% of those on 8 mg twice a day, 14% with 4 mg twice a day, and in 7% of controls. An even more rigorous SALT 90 response was attained in 36%, 16%, 2%, and no controls, respectively.

The 12-mg twice-daily dosing produced faster onset and greater magnitude of response than did the 8-mg twice-daily dosing, but this dose-ranging study is not the final word on that score, according to Dr. Cassella.

“Week 24 is not a magic number,” he said. “The slope of the efficacy line for 8 mg [twice a day] looked like it was still going up at week 24, and the 12-mg BID curve hadn’t completely plateaued. Those are things we will consider for the future in terms of long-term trials.”

Changes in the eyebrows and lashes weren’t formally assessed in this study, although they will be in future trials. Anecdotally, however, patients with alopecia areata at those sites typically experienced complete or nearly complete regrowth in response to the higher doses of CTP-543, he said.

Safety-wise, there was no trend for increased adverse events with increasing doses of CTP-543. The observed treatment side effects were those typical of JAK inhibitors as a class effect, mainly headache, nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory infections, and new-onset acne. In terms of hematologic findings of special interest, there was one case of reversible neutropenia in the control group and another in the 8-mg twice-daily group, which resolved upon temporary suspension of treatment.

“Nothing surprising to us, and nothing very serious,” Dr. Cassella said.

Most patients in the 12-mg twice daily group have enrolled in an ongoing long-term extension study. In addition, two phase 2 studies are ongoing, with a focus on once-daily versus twice-daily dosing at 8 mg or 12 mg. Phase 3 studies are in the planning stage, he added.

The phase 2 dose-ranging study was sponsored by Concert Pharmaceuticals.

CTP-543 is one of an array of oral JAK inhibitors now in the developmental pipeline for alopecia areata, a severe, psychosocially devastating disease for which at present there is no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy.

[email protected]

MADRID – In a phase 2, dose-ranging study, 78% of patients with long-standing moderate or severe alopecia areata rated their condition as “much improved” or “very much improved” after 24 weeks on the top dose of an investigational oral selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 (JAK1/2) inhibitor, compared with 21% of placebo-treated controls, James V. Cassella, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The primary study endpoint – at least a 50% reduction in the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score between baseline and 24 weeks – was achieved in 58% of patients on the JAK1/2 inhibitor (known for now as CTP-543) at 12 mg twice a day, 47% of those on CTP-543 at 8 mg twice a day, 21% on 4 mg twice a day, and in 9% of controls on placebo in the double-blind randomized trial. The 4-mg twice-daily dosing will not move on to phase 3 studies because of its demonstrated lack of efficacy, according to Dr. Cassella, chief development officer at Concert Pharmaceuticals, the study sponsor.

The study included 149 adults whose current episode of alopecia areata was of 3-6 years’ duration, with an average lifetime 15-year history of active disease. Their average baseline score on the 0-100 SALT scale was in the upper 80s, indicative of 80% or greater hair loss.

A SALT 75 response, meaning at least a 75% reduction in SALT score from baseline, was achieved in a dose-dependent fashion: In 42% of patients at the top dose of CTP-543, 29% of those on 8 mg twice a day, 14% with 4 mg twice a day, and in 7% of controls. An even more rigorous SALT 90 response was attained in 36%, 16%, 2%, and no controls, respectively.

The 12-mg twice-daily dosing produced faster onset and greater magnitude of response than did the 8-mg twice-daily dosing, but this dose-ranging study is not the final word on that score, according to Dr. Cassella.

“Week 24 is not a magic number,” he said. “The slope of the efficacy line for 8 mg [twice a day] looked like it was still going up at week 24, and the 12-mg BID curve hadn’t completely plateaued. Those are things we will consider for the future in terms of long-term trials.”

Changes in the eyebrows and lashes weren’t formally assessed in this study, although they will be in future trials. Anecdotally, however, patients with alopecia areata at those sites typically experienced complete or nearly complete regrowth in response to the higher doses of CTP-543, he said.

Safety-wise, there was no trend for increased adverse events with increasing doses of CTP-543. The observed treatment side effects were those typical of JAK inhibitors as a class effect, mainly headache, nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory infections, and new-onset acne. In terms of hematologic findings of special interest, there was one case of reversible neutropenia in the control group and another in the 8-mg twice-daily group, which resolved upon temporary suspension of treatment.

“Nothing surprising to us, and nothing very serious,” Dr. Cassella said.

Most patients in the 12-mg twice daily group have enrolled in an ongoing long-term extension study. In addition, two phase 2 studies are ongoing, with a focus on once-daily versus twice-daily dosing at 8 mg or 12 mg. Phase 3 studies are in the planning stage, he added.

The phase 2 dose-ranging study was sponsored by Concert Pharmaceuticals.

CTP-543 is one of an array of oral JAK inhibitors now in the developmental pipeline for alopecia areata, a severe, psychosocially devastating disease for which at present there is no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy.

[email protected]

MADRID – Nemolizumab, an investigational humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-31 receptor alpha subunit, achieved rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in both itch and skin lesions of severe prurigo nodularis in a phase 2b, randomized trial, Sonja Stander, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“We saw onset of pruritus improvement in week 1 and onset of lesion healing at week 4,” reported Dr. Stander, professor of dermatology and neurodermatology and head of the Center for Chronic Pruritus at the University of Münster (Germany).

The study results confirm IL-31 signaling as an important therapeutic target in prurigo nodularis and herald the arrival of nemolizumab as a promising potential therapy for severely affected patients, she added.

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic, highly pruritic disease that is difficult to treat and carries a high disease burden. While the disease’s pathogenesis is not completely understood, IL-31 is up-regulated in affected patients. And IL-31, a proinflammatory and immunomodulatory cytokine, is known to have a broad range of actions, including serving as a link between the immune and neural systems, as well as induction of itch and skin lesions.

Dr. Stander presented the results of a 20-center, double-blind, phase 2b clinical trial in which 70 patients with prurigo nodularis were randomized to subcutaneous nemolizumab at 0.5 mg/kg or placebo at weeks 0, 4, and 8, then followed off therapy out to week 18. These were severely affected patients: their mean weekly peak pruritus score on a 0-10 numeric rating scale was 8.4, with 7 being the accepted threshold for severe itch. The group had a mean Dermatologic Life Quality Index score of 16.4; 40% of patients had more than 100 nodules on their body, and the rest had 20-100.

The primary endpoint was the percentage decrease in the peak pruritus score from baseline to week 4, at which point they had only received one dose. The nemolizumab group averaged a 53.4% reduction, compared with 15.3% in placebo-treated controls. At week 12, a full month after the final injection, the split was 63.2% versus 20.2%. And at week 18, the nemolizumab group maintained a mean 58.2% reduction from baseline versus 20.9% in controls.

“The effect starts at week 1, with a 26% reduction in itch intensity in the nemolizumab group, compared to 6.7% with placebo,” the dermatologist observed.

The absolute decrease in weekly peak pruritus score at week 12 was 5.2 points with nemolizumab and 1.7 points with placebo.

Among the secondary endpoints was achievement of an Investigator Global Assessment score of 0-1, meaning clear or almost clear of skin lesions. The rate in the nemolizumab group climbed steadily from week 4 on, reaching 38.2% and still rising without a plateau at week 18, versus 5.6% in controls.

Another secondary endpoint was 75% or greater healing on the 7-item Prurigo Activity Scale. By week 4 there was already a statistically significant between-group difference: 23.5% versus 11.2%. Once again, in the nemolizumab group, this rate climbed without a plateau through the study’s end at week 18, by which point it was 44.1%, compared with 8.4% among those on placebo.

Scores on the Dermatologic Life Quality Index improved by an average of 10.2 points at week 4 in patients on nemolizumab, compared with 6 points among controls.

Self-reported sleep disturbance scores improved by 56% at week 4 in the nemolizumab group and 22.9% with placebo.

The safety profile of nemolizumab was similar to that of placebo, with roughly 5.7% of patients in each study arm withdrawing because of treatment-emergent adverse events. Unlike in the positive studies of the IL-31 inhibitor in patients with atopic dermatitis – another potential indication under active investigation – there was no signal of an increased risk of staphylococcal skin infections, conjunctivitis, or head and neck dermatitis in patients on nemolizumab for prurigo nodularis. Patients with comorbid atopic dermatitis were excluded from the prurigo nodularis trial in order to get a clearer picture of the biologic’s efficacy and safety specifically for that condition.

Dr. Stander reported serving as a consultant to Galderma, the study sponsor, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Nemolizumab, an investigational humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-31 receptor alpha subunit, achieved rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in both itch and skin lesions of severe prurigo nodularis in a phase 2b, randomized trial, Sonja Stander, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“We saw onset of pruritus improvement in week 1 and onset of lesion healing at week 4,” reported Dr. Stander, professor of dermatology and neurodermatology and head of the Center for Chronic Pruritus at the University of Münster (Germany).

The study results confirm IL-31 signaling as an important therapeutic target in prurigo nodularis and herald the arrival of nemolizumab as a promising potential therapy for severely affected patients, she added.

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic, highly pruritic disease that is difficult to treat and carries a high disease burden. While the disease’s pathogenesis is not completely understood, IL-31 is up-regulated in affected patients. And IL-31, a proinflammatory and immunomodulatory cytokine, is known to have a broad range of actions, including serving as a link between the immune and neural systems, as well as induction of itch and skin lesions.

Dr. Stander presented the results of a 20-center, double-blind, phase 2b clinical trial in which 70 patients with prurigo nodularis were randomized to subcutaneous nemolizumab at 0.5 mg/kg or placebo at weeks 0, 4, and 8, then followed off therapy out to week 18. These were severely affected patients: their mean weekly peak pruritus score on a 0-10 numeric rating scale was 8.4, with 7 being the accepted threshold for severe itch. The group had a mean Dermatologic Life Quality Index score of 16.4; 40% of patients had more than 100 nodules on their body, and the rest had 20-100.

The primary endpoint was the percentage decrease in the peak pruritus score from baseline to week 4, at which point they had only received one dose. The nemolizumab group averaged a 53.4% reduction, compared with 15.3% in placebo-treated controls. At week 12, a full month after the final injection, the split was 63.2% versus 20.2%. And at week 18, the nemolizumab group maintained a mean 58.2% reduction from baseline versus 20.9% in controls.

“The effect starts at week 1, with a 26% reduction in itch intensity in the nemolizumab group, compared to 6.7% with placebo,” the dermatologist observed.

The absolute decrease in weekly peak pruritus score at week 12 was 5.2 points with nemolizumab and 1.7 points with placebo.

Among the secondary endpoints was achievement of an Investigator Global Assessment score of 0-1, meaning clear or almost clear of skin lesions. The rate in the nemolizumab group climbed steadily from week 4 on, reaching 38.2% and still rising without a plateau at week 18, versus 5.6% in controls.

Another secondary endpoint was 75% or greater healing on the 7-item Prurigo Activity Scale. By week 4 there was already a statistically significant between-group difference: 23.5% versus 11.2%. Once again, in the nemolizumab group, this rate climbed without a plateau through the study’s end at week 18, by which point it was 44.1%, compared with 8.4% among those on placebo.

Scores on the Dermatologic Life Quality Index improved by an average of 10.2 points at week 4 in patients on nemolizumab, compared with 6 points among controls.

Self-reported sleep disturbance scores improved by 56% at week 4 in the nemolizumab group and 22.9% with placebo.

The safety profile of nemolizumab was similar to that of placebo, with roughly 5.7% of patients in each study arm withdrawing because of treatment-emergent adverse events. Unlike in the positive studies of the IL-31 inhibitor in patients with atopic dermatitis – another potential indication under active investigation – there was no signal of an increased risk of staphylococcal skin infections, conjunctivitis, or head and neck dermatitis in patients on nemolizumab for prurigo nodularis. Patients with comorbid atopic dermatitis were excluded from the prurigo nodularis trial in order to get a clearer picture of the biologic’s efficacy and safety specifically for that condition.

Dr. Stander reported serving as a consultant to Galderma, the study sponsor, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Nemolizumab, an investigational humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-31 receptor alpha subunit, achieved rapid and clinically meaningful improvement in both itch and skin lesions of severe prurigo nodularis in a phase 2b, randomized trial, Sonja Stander, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“We saw onset of pruritus improvement in week 1 and onset of lesion healing at week 4,” reported Dr. Stander, professor of dermatology and neurodermatology and head of the Center for Chronic Pruritus at the University of Münster (Germany).

The study results confirm IL-31 signaling as an important therapeutic target in prurigo nodularis and herald the arrival of nemolizumab as a promising potential therapy for severely affected patients, she added.

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic, highly pruritic disease that is difficult to treat and carries a high disease burden. While the disease’s pathogenesis is not completely understood, IL-31 is up-regulated in affected patients. And IL-31, a proinflammatory and immunomodulatory cytokine, is known to have a broad range of actions, including serving as a link between the immune and neural systems, as well as induction of itch and skin lesions.

Dr. Stander presented the results of a 20-center, double-blind, phase 2b clinical trial in which 70 patients with prurigo nodularis were randomized to subcutaneous nemolizumab at 0.5 mg/kg or placebo at weeks 0, 4, and 8, then followed off therapy out to week 18. These were severely affected patients: their mean weekly peak pruritus score on a 0-10 numeric rating scale was 8.4, with 7 being the accepted threshold for severe itch. The group had a mean Dermatologic Life Quality Index score of 16.4; 40% of patients had more than 100 nodules on their body, and the rest had 20-100.

The primary endpoint was the percentage decrease in the peak pruritus score from baseline to week 4, at which point they had only received one dose. The nemolizumab group averaged a 53.4% reduction, compared with 15.3% in placebo-treated controls. At week 12, a full month after the final injection, the split was 63.2% versus 20.2%. And at week 18, the nemolizumab group maintained a mean 58.2% reduction from baseline versus 20.9% in controls.

“The effect starts at week 1, with a 26% reduction in itch intensity in the nemolizumab group, compared to 6.7% with placebo,” the dermatologist observed.

The absolute decrease in weekly peak pruritus score at week 12 was 5.2 points with nemolizumab and 1.7 points with placebo.

Among the secondary endpoints was achievement of an Investigator Global Assessment score of 0-1, meaning clear or almost clear of skin lesions. The rate in the nemolizumab group climbed steadily from week 4 on, reaching 38.2% and still rising without a plateau at week 18, versus 5.6% in controls.

Another secondary endpoint was 75% or greater healing on the 7-item Prurigo Activity Scale. By week 4 there was already a statistically significant between-group difference: 23.5% versus 11.2%. Once again, in the nemolizumab group, this rate climbed without a plateau through the study’s end at week 18, by which point it was 44.1%, compared with 8.4% among those on placebo.

Scores on the Dermatologic Life Quality Index improved by an average of 10.2 points at week 4 in patients on nemolizumab, compared with 6 points among controls.

Self-reported sleep disturbance scores improved by 56% at week 4 in the nemolizumab group and 22.9% with placebo.

The safety profile of nemolizumab was similar to that of placebo, with roughly 5.7% of patients in each study arm withdrawing because of treatment-emergent adverse events. Unlike in the positive studies of the IL-31 inhibitor in patients with atopic dermatitis – another potential indication under active investigation – there was no signal of an increased risk of staphylococcal skin infections, conjunctivitis, or head and neck dermatitis in patients on nemolizumab for prurigo nodularis. Patients with comorbid atopic dermatitis were excluded from the prurigo nodularis trial in order to get a clearer picture of the biologic’s efficacy and safety specifically for that condition.

Dr. Stander reported serving as a consultant to Galderma, the study sponsor, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Repigmentation in patients with vitiligo documented at 24 weeks continued to increase up to 1 year, in a randomized clinical trial of ruxolitinib cream for the treatment of vitiligo, Amit G. Pandya, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I have been waiting 30 years for the first clinical trial for vitiligo. I know many of you dermatologists have been waiting for something for vitiligo, so I’m happy to present the results of the first randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, prospective trial of a topical agent in history for vitiligo,” said Dr. Pandya, who was clearly overjoyed to present the final results of the 52-week trial.

Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and 2 inhibitor. Topical ruxolitinib is under study for vitiligo because this chronic autoimmune disease targeting melanocytes is now recognized as being driven by signaling through the JAK 1/2 pathways.

The interim 24-week results of the phase 2 trial, presented earlier in the year at the World Congress of Dermatology in Milan, showed significant repigmentation with ruxolitinib cream. Dr. Pandya’s key message at EADV 2019 was that continued treatment out to a year brought substantial further improvement, and with a benign safety profile indistinguishable from vehicle control.

“We see a tremendous difference between 6 months and 1 year,” said Dr. Pandya, professor of dermatology at the University of Texas, Dallas. “For the first time, we dare talk about F-VASI75 [Facial Vitiligo Area Scoring Index] and F-VASI90 responses. We don’t usually tell patients that they can get 75% or 90% of their color back, and yet the week-52 F-VASI75 rate was 51.5%, up from 30.3% at week 24. And the F-VASI90 response was 33.3%, versus 12.1% at week 24.”

F-VASI is measured using the patient’s hand, which is typically equivalent to about 1% of body surface area. The mean baseline F-VASI was 1.26% in this study of 157 mostly middle-aged adults with longstanding vitiligo of a mean 14-year duration. That’s fairly severe vitiligo, since the total face occupies only about 4% of total body surface area.

The primary study endpoint was achievement of greater than 50% repigmentation in the F-VASI, or an F-VASI50 response. Under double-blind conditions at 52 weeks in the group randomized to 1.5% ruxolitinib cream twice a day, the highest dose used in the trial, the F-VASI50 rate was 57.6%. That’s up from a week-24 F-VASI50 of 45.5%, and a week-34 response rate of 51.5%.

A key secondary endpoint was T-VASI50, reflecting the total body response.

“Patients don’t just want their face to be better, they want their chest, arms, elbows, knees, hands, and feet to be better,” the dermatologist commented.

The week-52 T-VASI50 rate was 36.4%, up substantially from 12.1% at week 24. And that week-52 T-VASI50 rate probably underestimates the full potential benefit. That’s because a safety-based study rule prohibited patients from applying the cream to more than 20% of their body surface area. Adverse effects reported for oral ruxolitinib, approved for treatment of myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, and acute graft-versus-host disease, include thrombocytopenia and anemia.

“In this early study we didn’t want to take a chance of systemic absorption with serum levels that would potentially affect the bone marrow,” Dr. Pandya explained.

He noted that 57 study participants had a baseline T-VASI greater than 20% of their body surface area and thus weren’t able to treat all of their disease. In the 100 patients with a vitiligo-involved total body surface area of 20% or less, however, the week-52 T-VASI50 reached 45%, compared with 20% at week 24.

Another prespecified secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received a facial physician’s global assessment of clear or almost clear. About 21% of patients in the highest-dose group achieved this milestone at 52 weeks.

A phase 3, randomized, controlled trial of ruxolitinib cream is ongoing and should be completed next year. Dr. Pandya reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Incyte, the study sponsor. He has similar financial relationships with Pfizer, Aclaris Therapeutics, and the Immune Tolerance Network.

[email protected]

MADRID – Repigmentation in patients with vitiligo documented at 24 weeks continued to increase up to 1 year, in a randomized clinical trial of ruxolitinib cream for the treatment of vitiligo, Amit G. Pandya, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I have been waiting 30 years for the first clinical trial for vitiligo. I know many of you dermatologists have been waiting for something for vitiligo, so I’m happy to present the results of the first randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, prospective trial of a topical agent in history for vitiligo,” said Dr. Pandya, who was clearly overjoyed to present the final results of the 52-week trial.

Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and 2 inhibitor. Topical ruxolitinib is under study for vitiligo because this chronic autoimmune disease targeting melanocytes is now recognized as being driven by signaling through the JAK 1/2 pathways.

The interim 24-week results of the phase 2 trial, presented earlier in the year at the World Congress of Dermatology in Milan, showed significant repigmentation with ruxolitinib cream. Dr. Pandya’s key message at EADV 2019 was that continued treatment out to a year brought substantial further improvement, and with a benign safety profile indistinguishable from vehicle control.

“We see a tremendous difference between 6 months and 1 year,” said Dr. Pandya, professor of dermatology at the University of Texas, Dallas. “For the first time, we dare talk about F-VASI75 [Facial Vitiligo Area Scoring Index] and F-VASI90 responses. We don’t usually tell patients that they can get 75% or 90% of their color back, and yet the week-52 F-VASI75 rate was 51.5%, up from 30.3% at week 24. And the F-VASI90 response was 33.3%, versus 12.1% at week 24.”

F-VASI is measured using the patient’s hand, which is typically equivalent to about 1% of body surface area. The mean baseline F-VASI was 1.26% in this study of 157 mostly middle-aged adults with longstanding vitiligo of a mean 14-year duration. That’s fairly severe vitiligo, since the total face occupies only about 4% of total body surface area.

The primary study endpoint was achievement of greater than 50% repigmentation in the F-VASI, or an F-VASI50 response. Under double-blind conditions at 52 weeks in the group randomized to 1.5% ruxolitinib cream twice a day, the highest dose used in the trial, the F-VASI50 rate was 57.6%. That’s up from a week-24 F-VASI50 of 45.5%, and a week-34 response rate of 51.5%.

A key secondary endpoint was T-VASI50, reflecting the total body response.

“Patients don’t just want their face to be better, they want their chest, arms, elbows, knees, hands, and feet to be better,” the dermatologist commented.

The week-52 T-VASI50 rate was 36.4%, up substantially from 12.1% at week 24. And that week-52 T-VASI50 rate probably underestimates the full potential benefit. That’s because a safety-based study rule prohibited patients from applying the cream to more than 20% of their body surface area. Adverse effects reported for oral ruxolitinib, approved for treatment of myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, and acute graft-versus-host disease, include thrombocytopenia and anemia.

“In this early study we didn’t want to take a chance of systemic absorption with serum levels that would potentially affect the bone marrow,” Dr. Pandya explained.

He noted that 57 study participants had a baseline T-VASI greater than 20% of their body surface area and thus weren’t able to treat all of their disease. In the 100 patients with a vitiligo-involved total body surface area of 20% or less, however, the week-52 T-VASI50 reached 45%, compared with 20% at week 24.

Another prespecified secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received a facial physician’s global assessment of clear or almost clear. About 21% of patients in the highest-dose group achieved this milestone at 52 weeks.

A phase 3, randomized, controlled trial of ruxolitinib cream is ongoing and should be completed next year. Dr. Pandya reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Incyte, the study sponsor. He has similar financial relationships with Pfizer, Aclaris Therapeutics, and the Immune Tolerance Network.

[email protected]

MADRID – Repigmentation in patients with vitiligo documented at 24 weeks continued to increase up to 1 year, in a randomized clinical trial of ruxolitinib cream for the treatment of vitiligo, Amit G. Pandya, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I have been waiting 30 years for the first clinical trial for vitiligo. I know many of you dermatologists have been waiting for something for vitiligo, so I’m happy to present the results of the first randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, prospective trial of a topical agent in history for vitiligo,” said Dr. Pandya, who was clearly overjoyed to present the final results of the 52-week trial.

Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and 2 inhibitor. Topical ruxolitinib is under study for vitiligo because this chronic autoimmune disease targeting melanocytes is now recognized as being driven by signaling through the JAK 1/2 pathways.

The interim 24-week results of the phase 2 trial, presented earlier in the year at the World Congress of Dermatology in Milan, showed significant repigmentation with ruxolitinib cream. Dr. Pandya’s key message at EADV 2019 was that continued treatment out to a year brought substantial further improvement, and with a benign safety profile indistinguishable from vehicle control.

“We see a tremendous difference between 6 months and 1 year,” said Dr. Pandya, professor of dermatology at the University of Texas, Dallas. “For the first time, we dare talk about F-VASI75 [Facial Vitiligo Area Scoring Index] and F-VASI90 responses. We don’t usually tell patients that they can get 75% or 90% of their color back, and yet the week-52 F-VASI75 rate was 51.5%, up from 30.3% at week 24. And the F-VASI90 response was 33.3%, versus 12.1% at week 24.”

F-VASI is measured using the patient’s hand, which is typically equivalent to about 1% of body surface area. The mean baseline F-VASI was 1.26% in this study of 157 mostly middle-aged adults with longstanding vitiligo of a mean 14-year duration. That’s fairly severe vitiligo, since the total face occupies only about 4% of total body surface area.

The primary study endpoint was achievement of greater than 50% repigmentation in the F-VASI, or an F-VASI50 response. Under double-blind conditions at 52 weeks in the group randomized to 1.5% ruxolitinib cream twice a day, the highest dose used in the trial, the F-VASI50 rate was 57.6%. That’s up from a week-24 F-VASI50 of 45.5%, and a week-34 response rate of 51.5%.

A key secondary endpoint was T-VASI50, reflecting the total body response.

“Patients don’t just want their face to be better, they want their chest, arms, elbows, knees, hands, and feet to be better,” the dermatologist commented.

The week-52 T-VASI50 rate was 36.4%, up substantially from 12.1% at week 24. And that week-52 T-VASI50 rate probably underestimates the full potential benefit. That’s because a safety-based study rule prohibited patients from applying the cream to more than 20% of their body surface area. Adverse effects reported for oral ruxolitinib, approved for treatment of myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, and acute graft-versus-host disease, include thrombocytopenia and anemia.

“In this early study we didn’t want to take a chance of systemic absorption with serum levels that would potentially affect the bone marrow,” Dr. Pandya explained.

He noted that 57 study participants had a baseline T-VASI greater than 20% of their body surface area and thus weren’t able to treat all of their disease. In the 100 patients with a vitiligo-involved total body surface area of 20% or less, however, the week-52 T-VASI50 reached 45%, compared with 20% at week 24.

Another prespecified secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received a facial physician’s global assessment of clear or almost clear. About 21% of patients in the highest-dose group achieved this milestone at 52 weeks.

A phase 3, randomized, controlled trial of ruxolitinib cream is ongoing and should be completed next year. Dr. Pandya reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Incyte, the study sponsor. He has similar financial relationships with Pfizer, Aclaris Therapeutics, and the Immune Tolerance Network.

[email protected]

MADRID – Psoriasis patients aged 65 years and older are at more than twice the risk of serious bacterial and opportunistic infections, compared with younger patients, but that risk is not further elevated by being on biologic agents, Joseph F. Merola, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

He presented a large, propensity score–matched comparative safety study, which demonstrated that the infection risk of older psoriasis patients on biologics was not significantly different from that of similar patients on nonbiologic systemic medications or phototherapy. The study implications, he said, are clear: When moderate to severe psoriasis warrants consideration of highly effective biologic therapies, that therapeutic option shouldn’t be taken off the table on the basis of a mistaken belief that biologics pose a greater infection risk just because the affected patient is over age 65 years.

“We really think that older patients should be offered treatments at the same level of disease control as all the rest of our psoriasis patients, in the context of shared decision making,” said Dr. Merola, a dermatologist and rheumatologist who is the director of the Center for Skin and Related Musculoskeletal Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The study utilized longitudinal claims data from a very large U.S. database covering the years 2003-2017. Among the 185 million covered lives were 1.1 million individuals with psoriasis, including 150,000 aged 65 years or older. After excluding older psoriasis patients with comorbid cancer or autoimmune disease, the investigators were left with 11,218 older psoriasis patients initiating systemic therapy for the first time and therefore eligible for propensity score matching using a highly accurate proprietary platform. The final study population consisted of 2,795 older psoriasis patients newly initiating biologic therapy, 2,795 others newly initiating nonbiologic systemic agents, and 2,529 seniors starting phototherapy. The matching was based upon factors including age, sex, prior infections, comorbid psoriatic arthritis, diabetes, and obesity.

The primary study endpoint was the rate of serious bacterial or opportunistic infections requiring hospitalization during the first 6 months of treatment. The bottom line: The rates were closely similar across all three groups, with the most common serious infections being pneumonia and cellulitis.

In contrast, among a population of 115,047 senior psoriasis patients who never used systemic therapy, the risk of serious infection was 12.2 events per 1,000 patients over 6 months, compared with 5.3 events in 120,174 matched controls without psoriasis. That translates to a 2.24-fold increased risk.

One audience member commented that a limitation of the study was that all biologics were lumped together. He would expect that the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, for example, would be associated with a significantly higher serious infection risk than biologics with other targets.

Dr. Merola conceded the point, adding that the investigators are trying to reanalyze the data in a more granular way to address that shortcoming. Other study limitations included an inability to access the specific doses of systemic treatments used or to stratify patients by disease severity.

Another audience member noted that dermatologists often reassure surgeons that there’s no increased risk of infection associated with psoriasis when in fact there is increased risk in older psoriasis patients, according to these new data.

“We’re not trying to send a message to surgeons to withhold a knee transplant because of a psoriasis plaque over the knee,” Dr. Merola replied. “I think we’ve all been there; we’ve all fought that battle.” Based on the data, he said, he would advise that “our patients who need to be on systemics should remain appropriately on systemics as we see fit.”

The study was entirely funded by Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Merola reported serving as a consultant to and/or recipient of research grants from nearly two dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Psoriasis patients aged 65 years and older are at more than twice the risk of serious bacterial and opportunistic infections, compared with younger patients, but that risk is not further elevated by being on biologic agents, Joseph F. Merola, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

He presented a large, propensity score–matched comparative safety study, which demonstrated that the infection risk of older psoriasis patients on biologics was not significantly different from that of similar patients on nonbiologic systemic medications or phototherapy. The study implications, he said, are clear: When moderate to severe psoriasis warrants consideration of highly effective biologic therapies, that therapeutic option shouldn’t be taken off the table on the basis of a mistaken belief that biologics pose a greater infection risk just because the affected patient is over age 65 years.

“We really think that older patients should be offered treatments at the same level of disease control as all the rest of our psoriasis patients, in the context of shared decision making,” said Dr. Merola, a dermatologist and rheumatologist who is the director of the Center for Skin and Related Musculoskeletal Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The study utilized longitudinal claims data from a very large U.S. database covering the years 2003-2017. Among the 185 million covered lives were 1.1 million individuals with psoriasis, including 150,000 aged 65 years or older. After excluding older psoriasis patients with comorbid cancer or autoimmune disease, the investigators were left with 11,218 older psoriasis patients initiating systemic therapy for the first time and therefore eligible for propensity score matching using a highly accurate proprietary platform. The final study population consisted of 2,795 older psoriasis patients newly initiating biologic therapy, 2,795 others newly initiating nonbiologic systemic agents, and 2,529 seniors starting phototherapy. The matching was based upon factors including age, sex, prior infections, comorbid psoriatic arthritis, diabetes, and obesity.

The primary study endpoint was the rate of serious bacterial or opportunistic infections requiring hospitalization during the first 6 months of treatment. The bottom line: The rates were closely similar across all three groups, with the most common serious infections being pneumonia and cellulitis.

In contrast, among a population of 115,047 senior psoriasis patients who never used systemic therapy, the risk of serious infection was 12.2 events per 1,000 patients over 6 months, compared with 5.3 events in 120,174 matched controls without psoriasis. That translates to a 2.24-fold increased risk.

One audience member commented that a limitation of the study was that all biologics were lumped together. He would expect that the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, for example, would be associated with a significantly higher serious infection risk than biologics with other targets.

Dr. Merola conceded the point, adding that the investigators are trying to reanalyze the data in a more granular way to address that shortcoming. Other study limitations included an inability to access the specific doses of systemic treatments used or to stratify patients by disease severity.

Another audience member noted that dermatologists often reassure surgeons that there’s no increased risk of infection associated with psoriasis when in fact there is increased risk in older psoriasis patients, according to these new data.

“We’re not trying to send a message to surgeons to withhold a knee transplant because of a psoriasis plaque over the knee,” Dr. Merola replied. “I think we’ve all been there; we’ve all fought that battle.” Based on the data, he said, he would advise that “our patients who need to be on systemics should remain appropriately on systemics as we see fit.”

The study was entirely funded by Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Merola reported serving as a consultant to and/or recipient of research grants from nearly two dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Psoriasis patients aged 65 years and older are at more than twice the risk of serious bacterial and opportunistic infections, compared with younger patients, but that risk is not further elevated by being on biologic agents, Joseph F. Merola, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

He presented a large, propensity score–matched comparative safety study, which demonstrated that the infection risk of older psoriasis patients on biologics was not significantly different from that of similar patients on nonbiologic systemic medications or phototherapy. The study implications, he said, are clear: When moderate to severe psoriasis warrants consideration of highly effective biologic therapies, that therapeutic option shouldn’t be taken off the table on the basis of a mistaken belief that biologics pose a greater infection risk just because the affected patient is over age 65 years.

“We really think that older patients should be offered treatments at the same level of disease control as all the rest of our psoriasis patients, in the context of shared decision making,” said Dr. Merola, a dermatologist and rheumatologist who is the director of the Center for Skin and Related Musculoskeletal Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The study utilized longitudinal claims data from a very large U.S. database covering the years 2003-2017. Among the 185 million covered lives were 1.1 million individuals with psoriasis, including 150,000 aged 65 years or older. After excluding older psoriasis patients with comorbid cancer or autoimmune disease, the investigators were left with 11,218 older psoriasis patients initiating systemic therapy for the first time and therefore eligible for propensity score matching using a highly accurate proprietary platform. The final study population consisted of 2,795 older psoriasis patients newly initiating biologic therapy, 2,795 others newly initiating nonbiologic systemic agents, and 2,529 seniors starting phototherapy. The matching was based upon factors including age, sex, prior infections, comorbid psoriatic arthritis, diabetes, and obesity.

The primary study endpoint was the rate of serious bacterial or opportunistic infections requiring hospitalization during the first 6 months of treatment. The bottom line: The rates were closely similar across all three groups, with the most common serious infections being pneumonia and cellulitis.

In contrast, among a population of 115,047 senior psoriasis patients who never used systemic therapy, the risk of serious infection was 12.2 events per 1,000 patients over 6 months, compared with 5.3 events in 120,174 matched controls without psoriasis. That translates to a 2.24-fold increased risk.

One audience member commented that a limitation of the study was that all biologics were lumped together. He would expect that the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, for example, would be associated with a significantly higher serious infection risk than biologics with other targets.

Dr. Merola conceded the point, adding that the investigators are trying to reanalyze the data in a more granular way to address that shortcoming. Other study limitations included an inability to access the specific doses of systemic treatments used or to stratify patients by disease severity.

Another audience member noted that dermatologists often reassure surgeons that there’s no increased risk of infection associated with psoriasis when in fact there is increased risk in older psoriasis patients, according to these new data.

“We’re not trying to send a message to surgeons to withhold a knee transplant because of a psoriasis plaque over the knee,” Dr. Merola replied. “I think we’ve all been there; we’ve all fought that battle.” Based on the data, he said, he would advise that “our patients who need to be on systemics should remain appropriately on systemics as we see fit.”

The study was entirely funded by Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Merola reported serving as a consultant to and/or recipient of research grants from nearly two dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – The interleukin-17A inhibitor ixekizumab met all primary and secondary endpoints in a phase 3 trial in 6- to 18-year-olds with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The results bode well for an underserved population.

“I think all of us know that there is still a vulnerable population that remains a high-risk population because of the limited number of therapies available for them, and that is children,” said Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and president of Probity Medical Research, Inc., of Waterloo, Ont.

At present, etanercept, one of the earliest biologics to become available, and a relatively less effective one, is the only biologic approved for treatment of pediatric psoriasis. However, Lilly, which sponsored the phase 3 ixekizumab study, has announced that based upon the highly positive findings the company plans to seek Food and Drug Administration approval for an expanded indication for the medication in pediatric psoriasis. The company now markets ixekizumab for the approved indications of treatment of adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, active psoriatic arthritis, or active ankylosing spondylitis.

The 12-week, double-blind, multicenter phase 3 trial known as IXORA-PEDS included 115 pediatric psoriasis patients randomized to weight-based ixekizumab, 30 on weight-based etanercept, and 58 on placebo. At the 12-week mark, everyone was switched to open-label ixekizumab in a long-term extension study. Children weighing less than 25 kg received a 40-mg loading dose of ixekizumab, followed by a maintenance dose of 20 mg by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. Patients weighing 25-50 kg got a starting dose of 80 mg, then 40 mg for maintenance therapy. Those who weighed more than 50 kg got the usual adult dosing: a 160-mg loading dose followed by 80 mg every 4 weeks. Etanercept was dosed at 0.8 mg/kg once weekly.

The coprimary endpoints were the proportion of subjects achieving a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear skin – at week 12, and the PASI 75 response rate.

An sPGA of 0 or 1 at week 12 was documented in 81% of the ixekizumab group, 11% on placebo, and 40% of etanercept-treated patients, who on average had more severe baseline disease than did the other two groups.

The PASI 75 rate was 89% with ixekizumab, 25% for placebo, and 63% on etanercept. But Dr. Papp indicated that’s too low a bar. “I don’t think PASI 75s are the standard any longer,” he said.

More revealing was the PASI 90 rate: 78% with the IL-17A inhibitor, 5% in placebo-treated controls, and 40% with etanercept.

And then there’s the PASI 100 response rate: 50% with ixekizumab, 2% for placebo, and 17% for etanercept.

“I think this is very telling. I’ll leave it as a tantalizing comment that if one looks at the slope of the curve, it doesn’t yet seem to have reached its plateau at week 12 – and this is very similar to the pattern that we see in the adult population. I don’t have the long-term extension efficacy data, but I am, like you, very interested in seeing where this PASI 100 response rate finally plateaus,” Dr. Papp said.

He did, however, have the combined safety data for the 12-week double-blind phase plus the open-label extension, which he described as essentially the same as the adult experience. Injection-site reactions occurred in 19% of pediatric patients on ixekizumab, but they were generally mild and there were few if any treatment discontinuations for that reason. There was a 2% incidence of Crohn’s disease. Candidiasis and other infections were rare.

Seventy-one percent of the ixekizumab group had at least a 4-point improvement in itch on a 10-point self-rated scale by week 12, as did 20% of placebo-treated controls. A Dermatologic Life Quality Index score of 0 or 1 at week 12, indicative of no or minimal impact of psoriasis on quality of life, was documented in 64% of the ixekizumab group and 23% of controls.

Dr. Papp reported serving as a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for Lilly and more than three dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Papp KA. EADV Late breaker.

MADRID – The interleukin-17A inhibitor ixekizumab met all primary and secondary endpoints in a phase 3 trial in 6- to 18-year-olds with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The results bode well for an underserved population.

“I think all of us know that there is still a vulnerable population that remains a high-risk population because of the limited number of therapies available for them, and that is children,” said Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and president of Probity Medical Research, Inc., of Waterloo, Ont.

At present, etanercept, one of the earliest biologics to become available, and a relatively less effective one, is the only biologic approved for treatment of pediatric psoriasis. However, Lilly, which sponsored the phase 3 ixekizumab study, has announced that based upon the highly positive findings the company plans to seek Food and Drug Administration approval for an expanded indication for the medication in pediatric psoriasis. The company now markets ixekizumab for the approved indications of treatment of adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, active psoriatic arthritis, or active ankylosing spondylitis.

The 12-week, double-blind, multicenter phase 3 trial known as IXORA-PEDS included 115 pediatric psoriasis patients randomized to weight-based ixekizumab, 30 on weight-based etanercept, and 58 on placebo. At the 12-week mark, everyone was switched to open-label ixekizumab in a long-term extension study. Children weighing less than 25 kg received a 40-mg loading dose of ixekizumab, followed by a maintenance dose of 20 mg by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. Patients weighing 25-50 kg got a starting dose of 80 mg, then 40 mg for maintenance therapy. Those who weighed more than 50 kg got the usual adult dosing: a 160-mg loading dose followed by 80 mg every 4 weeks. Etanercept was dosed at 0.8 mg/kg once weekly.

The coprimary endpoints were the proportion of subjects achieving a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear skin – at week 12, and the PASI 75 response rate.

An sPGA of 0 or 1 at week 12 was documented in 81% of the ixekizumab group, 11% on placebo, and 40% of etanercept-treated patients, who on average had more severe baseline disease than did the other two groups.

The PASI 75 rate was 89% with ixekizumab, 25% for placebo, and 63% on etanercept. But Dr. Papp indicated that’s too low a bar. “I don’t think PASI 75s are the standard any longer,” he said.

More revealing was the PASI 90 rate: 78% with the IL-17A inhibitor, 5% in placebo-treated controls, and 40% with etanercept.

And then there’s the PASI 100 response rate: 50% with ixekizumab, 2% for placebo, and 17% for etanercept.

“I think this is very telling. I’ll leave it as a tantalizing comment that if one looks at the slope of the curve, it doesn’t yet seem to have reached its plateau at week 12 – and this is very similar to the pattern that we see in the adult population. I don’t have the long-term extension efficacy data, but I am, like you, very interested in seeing where this PASI 100 response rate finally plateaus,” Dr. Papp said.

He did, however, have the combined safety data for the 12-week double-blind phase plus the open-label extension, which he described as essentially the same as the adult experience. Injection-site reactions occurred in 19% of pediatric patients on ixekizumab, but they were generally mild and there were few if any treatment discontinuations for that reason. There was a 2% incidence of Crohn’s disease. Candidiasis and other infections were rare.

Seventy-one percent of the ixekizumab group had at least a 4-point improvement in itch on a 10-point self-rated scale by week 12, as did 20% of placebo-treated controls. A Dermatologic Life Quality Index score of 0 or 1 at week 12, indicative of no or minimal impact of psoriasis on quality of life, was documented in 64% of the ixekizumab group and 23% of controls.

Dr. Papp reported serving as a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for Lilly and more than three dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Papp KA. EADV Late breaker.

MADRID – The interleukin-17A inhibitor ixekizumab met all primary and secondary endpoints in a phase 3 trial in 6- to 18-year-olds with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The results bode well for an underserved population.

“I think all of us know that there is still a vulnerable population that remains a high-risk population because of the limited number of therapies available for them, and that is children,” said Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and president of Probity Medical Research, Inc., of Waterloo, Ont.

At present, etanercept, one of the earliest biologics to become available, and a relatively less effective one, is the only biologic approved for treatment of pediatric psoriasis. However, Lilly, which sponsored the phase 3 ixekizumab study, has announced that based upon the highly positive findings the company plans to seek Food and Drug Administration approval for an expanded indication for the medication in pediatric psoriasis. The company now markets ixekizumab for the approved indications of treatment of adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, active psoriatic arthritis, or active ankylosing spondylitis.

The 12-week, double-blind, multicenter phase 3 trial known as IXORA-PEDS included 115 pediatric psoriasis patients randomized to weight-based ixekizumab, 30 on weight-based etanercept, and 58 on placebo. At the 12-week mark, everyone was switched to open-label ixekizumab in a long-term extension study. Children weighing less than 25 kg received a 40-mg loading dose of ixekizumab, followed by a maintenance dose of 20 mg by subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. Patients weighing 25-50 kg got a starting dose of 80 mg, then 40 mg for maintenance therapy. Those who weighed more than 50 kg got the usual adult dosing: a 160-mg loading dose followed by 80 mg every 4 weeks. Etanercept was dosed at 0.8 mg/kg once weekly.

The coprimary endpoints were the proportion of subjects achieving a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear skin – at week 12, and the PASI 75 response rate.

An sPGA of 0 or 1 at week 12 was documented in 81% of the ixekizumab group, 11% on placebo, and 40% of etanercept-treated patients, who on average had more severe baseline disease than did the other two groups.

The PASI 75 rate was 89% with ixekizumab, 25% for placebo, and 63% on etanercept. But Dr. Papp indicated that’s too low a bar. “I don’t think PASI 75s are the standard any longer,” he said.

More revealing was the PASI 90 rate: 78% with the IL-17A inhibitor, 5% in placebo-treated controls, and 40% with etanercept.

And then there’s the PASI 100 response rate: 50% with ixekizumab, 2% for placebo, and 17% for etanercept.

“I think this is very telling. I’ll leave it as a tantalizing comment that if one looks at the slope of the curve, it doesn’t yet seem to have reached its plateau at week 12 – and this is very similar to the pattern that we see in the adult population. I don’t have the long-term extension efficacy data, but I am, like you, very interested in seeing where this PASI 100 response rate finally plateaus,” Dr. Papp said.

He did, however, have the combined safety data for the 12-week double-blind phase plus the open-label extension, which he described as essentially the same as the adult experience. Injection-site reactions occurred in 19% of pediatric patients on ixekizumab, but they were generally mild and there were few if any treatment discontinuations for that reason. There was a 2% incidence of Crohn’s disease. Candidiasis and other infections were rare.

Seventy-one percent of the ixekizumab group had at least a 4-point improvement in itch on a 10-point self-rated scale by week 12, as did 20% of placebo-treated controls. A Dermatologic Life Quality Index score of 0 or 1 at week 12, indicative of no or minimal impact of psoriasis on quality of life, was documented in 64% of the ixekizumab group and 23% of controls.

Dr. Papp reported serving as a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for Lilly and more than three dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Papp KA. EADV Late breaker.

MADRID – Serlopitant, an investigational once-daily oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in psoriatic itch in a phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial, David M. Pariser, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The drug is not an effective stand alone treatment for psoriasis, though.

“The psoriasis itself did not improve during the trial. It’s the itch that improved. This drug is not designed for psoriasis; it’s going to be used for itching. If this does materialize as a treatment for psoriasis, it would be as an adjunct,” according to Dr. Pariser, a dermatologist at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk.

Still, serlopitant addresses an unmet need for better treatment options for psoriatic itch. Up to 90% of psoriasis patients report experiencing pruritus, regardless of their disease severity.

“Although patients consider pruritus one of the most important, severe, and troublesome symptoms of psoriasis, clinicians have not historically recognized itch as a significant symptom, and treatments for psoriasis often don’t alleviate the associated pruritus,” he said.

Serlopitant has already shown efficacy and good tolerability in phase 2 studies in patients with prurigo nodularis and chronic pruritus.

The 8-week psoriatic itch trial included 204 adults with plaque psoriasis randomized to 5 mg of serlopitant once daily or placebo. Patients averaged 4.3% involved body surface area, and nearly two-thirds of them had moderate psoriasis by physician global assessment. The majority of patients rated their itch as severe; The average baseline score on the 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale was 8.2.

The primary study endpoint was achievement of at least a 4-point improvement on the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale. This was achieved in 33.9% of the serlopitant group and 21.1% of placebo-treated controls. The therapeutic benefit was consistent regardless of baseline body weight, gender, age, or extent of psoriasis-involved body surface area.

The safety data were consistent with what was seen in prior phase 2 studies for other dermatologic disorders. There were no serious adverse events, and the type and frequency of adverse events deemed related to treatment was similar in the two study arms.

“These results support the ongoing development of serlopitant across the spectrum of psoriatic disease,” Dr. Pariser declared.

The study was funded by Menlo Therapeutics. Dr. Pariser reported receiving research funding from and/or serving as a consultant to or advisory board member for roughly two dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Serlopitant, an investigational once-daily oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in psoriatic itch in a phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial, David M. Pariser, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The drug is not an effective stand alone treatment for psoriasis, though.

“The psoriasis itself did not improve during the trial. It’s the itch that improved. This drug is not designed for psoriasis; it’s going to be used for itching. If this does materialize as a treatment for psoriasis, it would be as an adjunct,” according to Dr. Pariser, a dermatologist at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk.

Still, serlopitant addresses an unmet need for better treatment options for psoriatic itch. Up to 90% of psoriasis patients report experiencing pruritus, regardless of their disease severity.

“Although patients consider pruritus one of the most important, severe, and troublesome symptoms of psoriasis, clinicians have not historically recognized itch as a significant symptom, and treatments for psoriasis often don’t alleviate the associated pruritus,” he said.

Serlopitant has already shown efficacy and good tolerability in phase 2 studies in patients with prurigo nodularis and chronic pruritus.

The 8-week psoriatic itch trial included 204 adults with plaque psoriasis randomized to 5 mg of serlopitant once daily or placebo. Patients averaged 4.3% involved body surface area, and nearly two-thirds of them had moderate psoriasis by physician global assessment. The majority of patients rated their itch as severe; The average baseline score on the 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale was 8.2.

The primary study endpoint was achievement of at least a 4-point improvement on the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale. This was achieved in 33.9% of the serlopitant group and 21.1% of placebo-treated controls. The therapeutic benefit was consistent regardless of baseline body weight, gender, age, or extent of psoriasis-involved body surface area.

The safety data were consistent with what was seen in prior phase 2 studies for other dermatologic disorders. There were no serious adverse events, and the type and frequency of adverse events deemed related to treatment was similar in the two study arms.

“These results support the ongoing development of serlopitant across the spectrum of psoriatic disease,” Dr. Pariser declared.

The study was funded by Menlo Therapeutics. Dr. Pariser reported receiving research funding from and/or serving as a consultant to or advisory board member for roughly two dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Serlopitant, an investigational once-daily oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in psoriatic itch in a phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial, David M. Pariser, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The drug is not an effective stand alone treatment for psoriasis, though.

“The psoriasis itself did not improve during the trial. It’s the itch that improved. This drug is not designed for psoriasis; it’s going to be used for itching. If this does materialize as a treatment for psoriasis, it would be as an adjunct,” according to Dr. Pariser, a dermatologist at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk.

Still, serlopitant addresses an unmet need for better treatment options for psoriatic itch. Up to 90% of psoriasis patients report experiencing pruritus, regardless of their disease severity.

“Although patients consider pruritus one of the most important, severe, and troublesome symptoms of psoriasis, clinicians have not historically recognized itch as a significant symptom, and treatments for psoriasis often don’t alleviate the associated pruritus,” he said.

Serlopitant has already shown efficacy and good tolerability in phase 2 studies in patients with prurigo nodularis and chronic pruritus.

The 8-week psoriatic itch trial included 204 adults with plaque psoriasis randomized to 5 mg of serlopitant once daily or placebo. Patients averaged 4.3% involved body surface area, and nearly two-thirds of them had moderate psoriasis by physician global assessment. The majority of patients rated their itch as severe; The average baseline score on the 0-10 Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale was 8.2.

The primary study endpoint was achievement of at least a 4-point improvement on the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale. This was achieved in 33.9% of the serlopitant group and 21.1% of placebo-treated controls. The therapeutic benefit was consistent regardless of baseline body weight, gender, age, or extent of psoriasis-involved body surface area.

The safety data were consistent with what was seen in prior phase 2 studies for other dermatologic disorders. There were no serious adverse events, and the type and frequency of adverse events deemed related to treatment was similar in the two study arms.

“These results support the ongoing development of serlopitant across the spectrum of psoriatic disease,” Dr. Pariser declared.

The study was funded by Menlo Therapeutics. Dr. Pariser reported receiving research funding from and/or serving as a consultant to or advisory board member for roughly two dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Do you ask your acne patients if they use cannabis? And if they say yes, do you suggest they consider giving it up? Dermatologist Delphine Kerob, MD, believes you should.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In a late-breaker session at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, she presented highlights of a massive international, industry-sponsored survey aimed at identifying novel external and internal factors that influence acne. One of the biggest surprises in this first-of-its-kind study was the finding of an association between cannabis use and acne: 21.1% of patients with physician-diagnosed acne were users, compared with 16.6% of controls without acne.

“I think as dermatologists we should ask these kinds of questions when we manage our patients because this may influence the course of their acne,” observed Dr. Kerob, who is the international medical director for Vichy Laboratories in Paris. The survey was sponsored by the company.

This was an Internet-based survey of 2,826 acne patients and 3,853 age- and sex-matched controls without acne. It was conducted in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Brazil, and Russia.

The survey comprehensively addressed for the first time what lead investigator Brigitte Dreno, MD, PhD, professor and head of dermatology at Nantes (France) University Hospital and EADV Scientific Programming Committee Chair, has previously called the “acne exposome.” The exposome is essentially everything in a patient’s external and internal environment – other than genetics – that influences the occurrence and severity of the disease (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018 May;32[5]:812-9).

The survey probed the six major categories of exposome factors as defined by Dr. Dreno and coauthors: nutrition, air pollution, lifestyle and psychological factors, medications, skin care products, and climate. Here are the highlights:
 

Lifestyle and psychological factors. While cannabis use emerged as a novel factor linked to increased likelihood of acne, tobacco use was not – a surprising finding because other investigators had previously identified it as an acne trigger.

Feeling burdened by psychological stress was reported by 51% of acne patients and 29% of controls, for an adjusted 1.79-fold increased risk of acne.

Air pollution. Acne patients were significantly more likely to report exposure to solvent vapors, crude oil, tars, frying oil vapors, and living near an airport or close to factories with chimneys. Dr. Kerob noted that these findings are consistent with other investigators’ study of 189 residents of heavily polluted Mexico City or more pristine Cuernavaca, Mexico, with less pollution. The Mexico City cohort demonstrated an increased sebum excretion rate, lower levels of the antioxidants vitamin E and squalene in their sebum, and a less cohesive stratum corneum, along with a higher prevalence of atopic skin and facial seborrheic changes (Int J Cosmet Sci. 2015 Jun;37[3]:329-38).

Nutrition. This is a hot topic that acne patients have many questions about. Myths abound, as detailed by an expert panel including Dr. Dreno in an article entitled, “Acne and Nutrition: Hypotheses, Myths and Facts” (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018 Oct;32[10]:1631-7).

Dr. Kerob reported that the survey showed consumption of dairy products, probiotics, chocolate, cakes and other sweets, soft drinks, fruit juice, and whey protein were each associated with a significantly increased likelihood of acne .

Fifty-seven percent of acne patients indicated they consumed high-alcohol distilled spirits, compared with 43% of controls.

“We know that on our sebaceous glands, as well as on keratinocytes, we have receptors that will be activated by the impact of some nutrients,” she commented.

Among these receptors on sebaceous glands are the insulin growth factor–1 receptor, the leptin receptor, histamine receptors, receptors for substance P, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors alpha, beta, and gamma, and androgen receptors, she added.

Medications. For Dr. Kerob, another surprise study finding was that 11.9% of acne patients had used an anabolic steroid- or testosterone-based hormonal drug within the previous 12 months, compared with 3.2% of controls without acne.

Cosmetic factors. The use of facial scrubs, harsh cleansers, and dermarollers was significantly more common among the acne patients.

Climate. Acne patients were more likely to live in hot and/or humid locations. For example, 24.6% of the acne group lived in a hot climate, versus 17.1% of controls.

“We think that identifying and reducing the impact of the exposome is very important for an adequate and holistic acne disease management,” the researcher concluded.

However, Eric Simpson, MD, rose from the audience to comment that he finds this plethora of associations to be of little use in advising his acne patients in clinical practice. For example, does cannabis use cause acne, or are acne patients more likely to be cannabis users as a means of coping with the social stigma surrounding their skin disease?

“I’d just caution about confounding association with causation. Let’s look at trials of removing that association to see if it actually improves acne before we make strong recommendations in the clinic,” urged Dr. Simpson, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“You’re perfectly right, there,” Dr. Kerob replied. “The methodology of our study can’t separate cause from effect. But as dermatologists, if we have patients with acne that’s resistant to treatment, we need to see if there are other factors that could worsen acne outcome. And we have patients asking us questions all the time about nutrition – now we have some answers that we can provide to those patients.”

The study was sponsored by Vichy Laboratories, and Dr. Kerob is an employee of the company.
 

[email protected]

MADRID – Do you ask your acne patients if they use cannabis? And if they say yes, do you suggest they consider giving it up? Dermatologist Delphine Kerob, MD, believes you should.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In a late-breaker session at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, she presented highlights of a massive international, industry-sponsored survey aimed at identifying novel external and internal factors that influence acne. One of the biggest surprises in this first-of-its-kind study was the finding of an association between cannabis use and acne: 21.1% of patients with physician-diagnosed acne were users, compared with 16.6% of controls without acne.

“I think as dermatologists we should ask these kinds of questions when we manage our patients because this may influence the course of their acne,” observed Dr. Kerob, who is the international medical director for Vichy Laboratories in Paris. The survey was sponsored by the company.

This was an Internet-based survey of 2,826 acne patients and 3,853 age- and sex-matched controls without acne. It was conducted in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Brazil, and Russia.

The survey comprehensively addressed for the first time what lead investigator Brigitte Dreno, MD, PhD, professor and head of dermatology at Nantes (France) University Hospital and EADV Scientific Programming Committee Chair, has previously called the “acne exposome.” The exposome is essentially everything in a patient’s external and internal environment – other than genetics – that influences the occurrence and severity of the disease (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018 May;32[5]:812-9).

The survey probed the six major categories of exposome factors as defined by Dr. Dreno and coauthors: nutrition, air pollution, lifestyle and psychological factors, medications, skin care products, and climate. Here are the highlights:
 

Lifestyle and psychological factors. While cannabis use emerged as a novel factor linked to increased likelihood of acne, tobacco use was not – a surprising finding because other investigators had previously identified it as an acne trigger.

Feeling burdened by psychological stress was reported by 51% of acne patients and 29% of controls, for an adjusted 1.79-fold increased risk of acne.

Air pollution. Acne patients were significantly more likely to report exposure to solvent vapors, crude oil, tars, frying oil vapors, and living near an airport or close to factories with chimneys. Dr. Kerob noted that these findings are consistent with other investigators’ study of 189 residents of heavily polluted Mexico City or more pristine Cuernavaca, Mexico, with less pollution. The Mexico City cohort demonstrated an increased sebum excretion rate, lower levels of the antioxidants vitamin E and squalene in their sebum, and a less cohesive stratum corneum, along with a higher prevalence of atopic skin and facial seborrheic changes (Int J Cosmet Sci. 2015 Jun;37[3]:329-38).

Nutrition. This is a hot topic that acne patients have many questions about. Myths abound, as detailed by an expert panel including Dr. Dreno in an article entitled, “Acne and Nutrition: Hypotheses, Myths and Facts” (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018 Oct;32[10]:1631-7).

Dr. Kerob reported that the survey showed consumption of dairy products, probiotics, chocolate, cakes and other sweets, soft drinks, fruit juice, and whey protein were each associated with a significantly increased likelihood of acne .

Fifty-seven percent of acne patients indicated they consumed high-alcohol distilled spirits, compared with 43% of controls.

“We know that on our sebaceous glands, as well as on keratinocytes, we have receptors that will be activated by the impact of some nutrients,” she commented.

Among these receptors on sebaceous glands are the insulin growth factor–1 receptor, the leptin receptor, histamine receptors, receptors for substance P, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors alpha, beta, and gamma, and androgen receptors, she added.

Medications. For Dr. Kerob, another surprise study finding was that 11.9% of acne patients had used an anabolic steroid- or testosterone-based hormonal drug within the previous 12 months, compared with 3.2% of controls without acne.

Cosmetic factors. The use of facial scrubs, harsh cleansers, and dermarollers was significantly more common among the acne patients.

Climate. Acne patients were more likely to live in hot and/or humid locations. For example, 24.6% of the acne group lived in a hot climate, versus 17.1% of controls.

“We think that identifying and reducing the impact of the exposome is very important for an adequate and holistic acne disease management,” the researcher concluded.

However, Eric Simpson, MD, rose from the audience to comment that he finds this plethora of associations to be of little use in advising his acne patients in clinical practice. For example, does cannabis use cause acne, or are acne patients more likely to be cannabis users as a means of coping with the social stigma surrounding their skin disease?

“I’d just caution about confounding association with causation. Let’s look at trials of removing that association to see if it actually improves acne before we make strong recommendations in the clinic,” urged Dr. Simpson, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“You’re perfectly right, there,” Dr. Kerob replied. “The methodology of our study can’t separate cause from effect. But as dermatologists, if we have patients with acne that’s resistant to treatment, we need to see if there are other factors that could worsen acne outcome. And we have patients asking us questions all the time about nutrition – now we have some answers that we can provide to those patients.”

The study was sponsored by Vichy Laboratories, and Dr. Kerob is an employee of the company.
 

[email protected]

MADRID – Do you ask your acne patients if they use cannabis? And if they say yes, do you suggest they consider giving it up? Dermatologist Delphine Kerob, MD, believes you should.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

In a late-breaker session at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, she presented highlights of a massive international, industry-sponsored survey aimed at identifying novel external and internal factors that influence acne. One of the biggest surprises in this first-of-its-kind study was the finding of an association between cannabis use and acne: 21.1% of patients with physician-diagnosed acne were users, compared with 16.6% of controls without acne.

“I think as dermatologists we should ask these kinds of questions when we manage our patients because this may influence the course of their acne,” observed Dr. Kerob, who is the international medical director for Vichy Laboratories in Paris. The survey was sponsored by the company.

This was an Internet-based survey of 2,826 acne patients and 3,853 age- and sex-matched controls without acne. It was conducted in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Brazil, and Russia.

The survey comprehensively addressed for the first time what lead investigator Brigitte Dreno, MD, PhD, professor and head of dermatology at Nantes (France) University Hospital and EADV Scientific Programming Committee Chair, has previously called the “acne exposome.” The exposome is essentially everything in a patient’s external and internal environment – other than genetics – that influences the occurrence and severity of the disease (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018 May;32[5]:812-9).

The survey probed the six major categories of exposome factors as defined by Dr. Dreno and coauthors: nutrition, air pollution, lifestyle and psychological factors, medications, skin care products, and climate. Here are the highlights:
 

Lifestyle and psychological factors. While cannabis use emerged as a novel factor linked to increased likelihood of acne, tobacco use was not – a surprising finding because other investigators had previously identified it as an acne trigger.

Feeling burdened by psychological stress was reported by 51% of acne patients and 29% of controls, for an adjusted 1.79-fold increased risk of acne.

Air pollution. Acne patients were significantly more likely to report exposure to solvent vapors, crude oil, tars, frying oil vapors, and living near an airport or close to factories with chimneys. Dr. Kerob noted that these findings are consistent with other investigators’ study of 189 residents of heavily polluted Mexico City or more pristine Cuernavaca, Mexico, with less pollution. The Mexico City cohort demonstrated an increased sebum excretion rate, lower levels of the antioxidants vitamin E and squalene in their sebum, and a less cohesive stratum corneum, along with a higher prevalence of atopic skin and facial seborrheic changes (Int J Cosmet Sci. 2015 Jun;37[3]:329-38).

Nutrition. This is a hot topic that acne patients have many questions about. Myths abound, as detailed by an expert panel including Dr. Dreno in an article entitled, “Acne and Nutrition: Hypotheses, Myths and Facts” (J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018 Oct;32[10]:1631-7).

Dr. Kerob reported that the survey showed consumption of dairy products, probiotics, chocolate, cakes and other sweets, soft drinks, fruit juice, and whey protein were each associated with a significantly increased likelihood of acne .

Fifty-seven percent of acne patients indicated they consumed high-alcohol distilled spirits, compared with 43% of controls.

“We know that on our sebaceous glands, as well as on keratinocytes, we have receptors that will be activated by the impact of some nutrients,” she commented.

Among these receptors on sebaceous glands are the insulin growth factor–1 receptor, the leptin receptor, histamine receptors, receptors for substance P, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors alpha, beta, and gamma, and androgen receptors, she added.

Medications. For Dr. Kerob, another surprise study finding was that 11.9% of acne patients had used an anabolic steroid- or testosterone-based hormonal drug within the previous 12 months, compared with 3.2% of controls without acne.

Cosmetic factors. The use of facial scrubs, harsh cleansers, and dermarollers was significantly more common among the acne patients.

Climate. Acne patients were more likely to live in hot and/or humid locations. For example, 24.6% of the acne group lived in a hot climate, versus 17.1% of controls.

“We think that identifying and reducing the impact of the exposome is very important for an adequate and holistic acne disease management,” the researcher concluded.

However, Eric Simpson, MD, rose from the audience to comment that he finds this plethora of associations to be of little use in advising his acne patients in clinical practice. For example, does cannabis use cause acne, or are acne patients more likely to be cannabis users as a means of coping with the social stigma surrounding their skin disease?

“I’d just caution about confounding association with causation. Let’s look at trials of removing that association to see if it actually improves acne before we make strong recommendations in the clinic,” urged Dr. Simpson, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.

“You’re perfectly right, there,” Dr. Kerob replied. “The methodology of our study can’t separate cause from effect. But as dermatologists, if we have patients with acne that’s resistant to treatment, we need to see if there are other factors that could worsen acne outcome. And we have patients asking us questions all the time about nutrition – now we have some answers that we can provide to those patients.”

The study was sponsored by Vichy Laboratories, and Dr. Kerob is an employee of the company.
 

[email protected]

MADRID – No hint of increased cancer risk emerged with up to 10 years of topical tacrolimus use for treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children participating in the large, prospective, observational APPLES study, Regina Folster-Holst, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

With nearly 45,000 person-years of follow-up in APPLES (A Prospective Pediatric Longitudinal Evaluation Study), there were no lymphomas and just a single case of skin cancer. That’s highly reassuring, since those were the two types of malignancies singled out as being of particular concern in the boxed warnings for the topical calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and pimecrolimus mandated by U.S. and European regulatory agencies in 2005, noted Dr. Folster-Holst, professor of dermatology at Christian Albrechts University of Kiel (Germany).

APPLES included 7,954 children with moderate or severe AD who were a median of 6 years old at enrollment in the study, conducted at 314 sites in the United States, Canada, and seven European countries. This was a naturalistic study in which patients used the topical calcineurin inhibitor as needed, with no restrictions.

A total of six cancers were diagnosed in six individuals during 44,629 person-years of prospective follow-up: one case each of chronic myeloid leukemia, alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma, malignant paraganglioma, carcinoid tumor of the appendix, spinal cord neoplasm, and Spitzoid melanoma. None of those malignancies are classically associated with immunosuppressive therapy.

The primary outcome in APPLES was the standardized incidence ratio of observed cancers to the expected number based upon extrapolation from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, as well as national cancer registries in the other countries where the study was carried out. The expected number of cancers was 5.95, yielding a standardized incidence ratio of 1.01.

Only 27% of patients completed the study. Investigators had anticipated a substantial attrition rate and recalculated their statistics based upon a range of hypothetically increased cancer rates among the dropouts. Even if the cancer rate was 2.5-fold higher in dropouts than in those who remained in the study – a far-fetched possibility – the standardized incidence ratio would not be significantly affected, according to Dr. Folster-Holst.

The new APPLES findings were preceded by a favorable report on long-term use of topical pimecrolimus from the Pediatric Eczema Elective Registry (PEER). The study included 7,457 pimecrolimus-using children with AD followed for 26,792 person-years. The standardized incidence ratio for all cancers was not significantly increased at 1.2. The investigators concluded “it seems unlikely” that topical pimecrolimus as generally used for treatment of AD is associated with an increased risk of malignancy (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Jun;151[6]:594-9).

The boxed warnings for the topical calcineurin inhibitors have been the source of enormous frustration for dermatologists. The warnings were ordered because of regulatory concern about an increased risk of malignancy in organ transplant recipients on systemic calcineurin inhibitors for immunosuppression, even though the topical agents – unlike the systemic versions – are used intermittently, their systemic absorption is low to nil, and no plausible mechanism by which they could cause cancer has been put forth. Many physicians believe these drugs are probably safer than topical corticosteroids, so the first question put to Dr. Folster-Holst from the audience was, When will the boxed warnings be removed?

“That’s a good question,” she replied. “Patients and parents are afraid. But I think we have now a good argument to move forward with topically applied calcineurin inhibitors.”

Dr. Folster-Holst reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding the APPLES study, funded by LEO Pharma.

[email protected]

MADRID – No hint of increased cancer risk emerged with up to 10 years of topical tacrolimus use for treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children participating in the large, prospective, observational APPLES study, Regina Folster-Holst, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

With nearly 45,000 person-years of follow-up in APPLES (A Prospective Pediatric Longitudinal Evaluation Study), there were no lymphomas and just a single case of skin cancer. That’s highly reassuring, since those were the two types of malignancies singled out as being of particular concern in the boxed warnings for the topical calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and pimecrolimus mandated by U.S. and European regulatory agencies in 2005, noted Dr. Folster-Holst, professor of dermatology at Christian Albrechts University of Kiel (Germany).

APPLES included 7,954 children with moderate or severe AD who were a median of 6 years old at enrollment in the study, conducted at 314 sites in the United States, Canada, and seven European countries. This was a naturalistic study in which patients used the topical calcineurin inhibitor as needed, with no restrictions.

A total of six cancers were diagnosed in six individuals during 44,629 person-years of prospective follow-up: one case each of chronic myeloid leukemia, alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma, malignant paraganglioma, carcinoid tumor of the appendix, spinal cord neoplasm, and Spitzoid melanoma. None of those malignancies are classically associated with immunosuppressive therapy.

The primary outcome in APPLES was the standardized incidence ratio of observed cancers to the expected number based upon extrapolation from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, as well as national cancer registries in the other countries where the study was carried out. The expected number of cancers was 5.95, yielding a standardized incidence ratio of 1.01.

Only 27% of patients completed the study. Investigators had anticipated a substantial attrition rate and recalculated their statistics based upon a range of hypothetically increased cancer rates among the dropouts. Even if the cancer rate was 2.5-fold higher in dropouts than in those who remained in the study – a far-fetched possibility – the standardized incidence ratio would not be significantly affected, according to Dr. Folster-Holst.

The new APPLES findings were preceded by a favorable report on long-term use of topical pimecrolimus from the Pediatric Eczema Elective Registry (PEER). The study included 7,457 pimecrolimus-using children with AD followed for 26,792 person-years. The standardized incidence ratio for all cancers was not significantly increased at 1.2. The investigators concluded “it seems unlikely” that topical pimecrolimus as generally used for treatment of AD is associated with an increased risk of malignancy (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Jun;151[6]:594-9).

The boxed warnings for the topical calcineurin inhibitors have been the source of enormous frustration for dermatologists. The warnings were ordered because of regulatory concern about an increased risk of malignancy in organ transplant recipients on systemic calcineurin inhibitors for immunosuppression, even though the topical agents – unlike the systemic versions – are used intermittently, their systemic absorption is low to nil, and no plausible mechanism by which they could cause cancer has been put forth. Many physicians believe these drugs are probably safer than topical corticosteroids, so the first question put to Dr. Folster-Holst from the audience was, When will the boxed warnings be removed?

“That’s a good question,” she replied. “Patients and parents are afraid. But I think we have now a good argument to move forward with topically applied calcineurin inhibitors.”

Dr. Folster-Holst reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding the APPLES study, funded by LEO Pharma.

[email protected]

MADRID – No hint of increased cancer risk emerged with up to 10 years of topical tacrolimus use for treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children participating in the large, prospective, observational APPLES study, Regina Folster-Holst, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

With nearly 45,000 person-years of follow-up in APPLES (A Prospective Pediatric Longitudinal Evaluation Study), there were no lymphomas and just a single case of skin cancer. That’s highly reassuring, since those were the two types of malignancies singled out as being of particular concern in the boxed warnings for the topical calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and pimecrolimus mandated by U.S. and European regulatory agencies in 2005, noted Dr. Folster-Holst, professor of dermatology at Christian Albrechts University of Kiel (Germany).

APPLES included 7,954 children with moderate or severe AD who were a median of 6 years old at enrollment in the study, conducted at 314 sites in the United States, Canada, and seven European countries. This was a naturalistic study in which patients used the topical calcineurin inhibitor as needed, with no restrictions.

A total of six cancers were diagnosed in six individuals during 44,629 person-years of prospective follow-up: one case each of chronic myeloid leukemia, alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma, malignant paraganglioma, carcinoid tumor of the appendix, spinal cord neoplasm, and Spitzoid melanoma. None of those malignancies are classically associated with immunosuppressive therapy.

The primary outcome in APPLES was the standardized incidence ratio of observed cancers to the expected number based upon extrapolation from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, as well as national cancer registries in the other countries where the study was carried out. The expected number of cancers was 5.95, yielding a standardized incidence ratio of 1.01.

Only 27% of patients completed the study. Investigators had anticipated a substantial attrition rate and recalculated their statistics based upon a range of hypothetically increased cancer rates among the dropouts. Even if the cancer rate was 2.5-fold higher in dropouts than in those who remained in the study – a far-fetched possibility – the standardized incidence ratio would not be significantly affected, according to Dr. Folster-Holst.

The new APPLES findings were preceded by a favorable report on long-term use of topical pimecrolimus from the Pediatric Eczema Elective Registry (PEER). The study included 7,457 pimecrolimus-using children with AD followed for 26,792 person-years. The standardized incidence ratio for all cancers was not significantly increased at 1.2. The investigators concluded “it seems unlikely” that topical pimecrolimus as generally used for treatment of AD is associated with an increased risk of malignancy (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Jun;151[6]:594-9).

The boxed warnings for the topical calcineurin inhibitors have been the source of enormous frustration for dermatologists. The warnings were ordered because of regulatory concern about an increased risk of malignancy in organ transplant recipients on systemic calcineurin inhibitors for immunosuppression, even though the topical agents – unlike the systemic versions – are used intermittently, their systemic absorption is low to nil, and no plausible mechanism by which they could cause cancer has been put forth. Many physicians believe these drugs are probably safer than topical corticosteroids, so the first question put to Dr. Folster-Holst from the audience was, When will the boxed warnings be removed?

“That’s a good question,” she replied. “Patients and parents are afraid. But I think we have now a good argument to move forward with topically applied calcineurin inhibitors.”

Dr. Folster-Holst reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding the APPLES study, funded by LEO Pharma.

[email protected]