Atopic Dermatitis

Key clinical point: Environmental conditions characterized by the month of birth affect the risk of developing eczema and atopic dermatitis (AD) in infants until 1 year of age.

Major finding: With infants born in spring as a reference, those born in autumn had the highest risk for eczema at 6 months (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.19; 95% CI 2.10-2.30) and 1 year (aOR 1.08; 95% CI 1.02-1.14) of age and for physician-diagnosed AD up to 1 year of age (aOR 1.33; 95% CI 1.20-1.47), whereas those born in summer had the highest risk for eczema at the age of 1 month (aOR 1.19; 95% CI 1.14-1.24).

Study details: This study analyzed the data of 81,615 infants from a prospective birth cohort study, the Japan Environment and Children’s Study (JECS).

Disclosures: The JECS is supported by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Tsuchida A et al. Season of birth and atopic dermatitis in early infancy: Results from the Japan Environment and Children’s Study. BMC Pediatr. 2023;23(1):78 (Feb 15). Doi: 10.1186/s12887-023-03878-6

Key clinical point: Environmental conditions characterized by the month of birth affect the risk of developing eczema and atopic dermatitis (AD) in infants until 1 year of age.

Major finding: With infants born in spring as a reference, those born in autumn had the highest risk for eczema at 6 months (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.19; 95% CI 2.10-2.30) and 1 year (aOR 1.08; 95% CI 1.02-1.14) of age and for physician-diagnosed AD up to 1 year of age (aOR 1.33; 95% CI 1.20-1.47), whereas those born in summer had the highest risk for eczema at the age of 1 month (aOR 1.19; 95% CI 1.14-1.24).

Study details: This study analyzed the data of 81,615 infants from a prospective birth cohort study, the Japan Environment and Children’s Study (JECS).

Disclosures: The JECS is supported by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Tsuchida A et al. Season of birth and atopic dermatitis in early infancy: Results from the Japan Environment and Children’s Study. BMC Pediatr. 2023;23(1):78 (Feb 15). Doi: 10.1186/s12887-023-03878-6

Key clinical point: Environmental conditions characterized by the month of birth affect the risk of developing eczema and atopic dermatitis (AD) in infants until 1 year of age.

Major finding: With infants born in spring as a reference, those born in autumn had the highest risk for eczema at 6 months (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.19; 95% CI 2.10-2.30) and 1 year (aOR 1.08; 95% CI 1.02-1.14) of age and for physician-diagnosed AD up to 1 year of age (aOR 1.33; 95% CI 1.20-1.47), whereas those born in summer had the highest risk for eczema at the age of 1 month (aOR 1.19; 95% CI 1.14-1.24).

Study details: This study analyzed the data of 81,615 infants from a prospective birth cohort study, the Japan Environment and Children’s Study (JECS).

Disclosures: The JECS is supported by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Tsuchida A et al. Season of birth and atopic dermatitis in early infancy: Results from the Japan Environment and Children’s Study. BMC Pediatr. 2023;23(1):78 (Feb 15). Doi: 10.1186/s12887-023-03878-6

Key clinical point: Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) who experienced greater pruritus reductions after nemolizumab treatment also showed clinically meaningful improvements in other pruritus and cutaneous symptoms.

Major finding: At week 16, a greater proportion of pruritus Visual Analogy Scale (VAS) responders (≥50% improvement) vs nonresponders achieved a pruritus VAS score of <30 mm (81.6% vs 0%), ≥50% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (65.3% vs 44.7%), ≥4-point improvement in pruritus numerical rating scale score (89.6% vs 2.1%), and 5-level itch score of ≤1 (42.9% vs 3.2%).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the Nemolizumab-JP01 study Part A included 215 patients with inadequately controlled AD who had been randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous 60 mg nemolizumab (n = 143) or placebo (n = 72) every 4 weeks for 16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Maruho. Some authors declared receiving grants or personal fees from various organizations, including Maruho. Two authors declared being employees of Maruho.

Source: Kabashima K et al for the Nemolizumab-JP01 Study Group. Clinically meaningful improvements in cutaneous lesions and quality of life measures in patients with atopic dermatitis with greater pruritus reductions after treatment with 60 mg nemolizumab subcutaneously every 4 weeks: Subgroup analysis from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial. J Dermatolog Treat. 2023;1-13 (Feb 13). Doi: 10.1080/09546634.2023.2177096

Key clinical point: Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) who experienced greater pruritus reductions after nemolizumab treatment also showed clinically meaningful improvements in other pruritus and cutaneous symptoms.

Major finding: At week 16, a greater proportion of pruritus Visual Analogy Scale (VAS) responders (≥50% improvement) vs nonresponders achieved a pruritus VAS score of <30 mm (81.6% vs 0%), ≥50% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (65.3% vs 44.7%), ≥4-point improvement in pruritus numerical rating scale score (89.6% vs 2.1%), and 5-level itch score of ≤1 (42.9% vs 3.2%).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the Nemolizumab-JP01 study Part A included 215 patients with inadequately controlled AD who had been randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous 60 mg nemolizumab (n = 143) or placebo (n = 72) every 4 weeks for 16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Maruho. Some authors declared receiving grants or personal fees from various organizations, including Maruho. Two authors declared being employees of Maruho.

Source: Kabashima K et al for the Nemolizumab-JP01 Study Group. Clinically meaningful improvements in cutaneous lesions and quality of life measures in patients with atopic dermatitis with greater pruritus reductions after treatment with 60 mg nemolizumab subcutaneously every 4 weeks: Subgroup analysis from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial. J Dermatolog Treat. 2023;1-13 (Feb 13). Doi: 10.1080/09546634.2023.2177096

Key clinical point: Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) who experienced greater pruritus reductions after nemolizumab treatment also showed clinically meaningful improvements in other pruritus and cutaneous symptoms.

Major finding: At week 16, a greater proportion of pruritus Visual Analogy Scale (VAS) responders (≥50% improvement) vs nonresponders achieved a pruritus VAS score of <30 mm (81.6% vs 0%), ≥50% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (65.3% vs 44.7%), ≥4-point improvement in pruritus numerical rating scale score (89.6% vs 2.1%), and 5-level itch score of ≤1 (42.9% vs 3.2%).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the Nemolizumab-JP01 study Part A included 215 patients with inadequately controlled AD who had been randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous 60 mg nemolizumab (n = 143) or placebo (n = 72) every 4 weeks for 16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Maruho. Some authors declared receiving grants or personal fees from various organizations, including Maruho. Two authors declared being employees of Maruho.

Source: Kabashima K et al for the Nemolizumab-JP01 Study Group. Clinically meaningful improvements in cutaneous lesions and quality of life measures in patients with atopic dermatitis with greater pruritus reductions after treatment with 60 mg nemolizumab subcutaneously every 4 weeks: Subgroup analysis from a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial. J Dermatolog Treat. 2023;1-13 (Feb 13). Doi: 10.1080/09546634.2023.2177096

Key clinical point: Use of e-cigarettes is significantly associated with the development of atopic dermatitis (AD) in the US adult population.

Major finding: E-cigarette use was significantly associated with AD (adjusted odds ratio 1.35; P < .001). The association was significant in women (P < .001) but not in men (P = .5).

Study details: This population-based study analyzed the data of 28,563 adults from the US National Health Interview Survey 2021.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Some authors declared serving as consultants, speakers, investigators, or advisors for or receiving speaking fees from various organizations.

Source: Smith B et al. Association between electronic cigarette use and atopic dermatitis among United States adults. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023 (Feb 24). Doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.02.027.

Key clinical point: Use of e-cigarettes is significantly associated with the development of atopic dermatitis (AD) in the US adult population.

Major finding: E-cigarette use was significantly associated with AD (adjusted odds ratio 1.35; P < .001). The association was significant in women (P < .001) but not in men (P = .5).

Study details: This population-based study analyzed the data of 28,563 adults from the US National Health Interview Survey 2021.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Some authors declared serving as consultants, speakers, investigators, or advisors for or receiving speaking fees from various organizations.

Source: Smith B et al. Association between electronic cigarette use and atopic dermatitis among United States adults. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023 (Feb 24). Doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.02.027.

Key clinical point: Use of e-cigarettes is significantly associated with the development of atopic dermatitis (AD) in the US adult population.

Major finding: E-cigarette use was significantly associated with AD (adjusted odds ratio 1.35; P < .001). The association was significant in women (P < .001) but not in men (P = .5).

Study details: This population-based study analyzed the data of 28,563 adults from the US National Health Interview Survey 2021.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. Some authors declared serving as consultants, speakers, investigators, or advisors for or receiving speaking fees from various organizations.

Source: Smith B et al. Association between electronic cigarette use and atopic dermatitis among United States adults. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023 (Feb 24). Doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.02.027.

Key clinical point: After patch testing, the frequency of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) diagnosis was higher among patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) than among individuals without AD.

Major finding: Among patients with AD vs individuals without AD, the diagnosis rate of ACD (54.8% vs 47.3%; P < .0001), particularly ACD to cosmetics (7.0% vs 5.7%; P = .0007), medicaments (2.3% vs 1.7%; P = .02), dyes (1.9% vs 1.4%; P = .036), and foods contacting the skin (0.4% vs 0.1%; P = .003), was significantly higher.

Study details: This retrospective study included 15,737 individuals who underwent patch testing, of which 5641 were diagnosed with AD.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Qian MF et al. Prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis following patch testing in patients with atopic dermatitis: A retrospective United States claims-based study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023 (Feb 10). Doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2022.12.051

Key clinical point: After patch testing, the frequency of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) diagnosis was higher among patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) than among individuals without AD.

Major finding: Among patients with AD vs individuals without AD, the diagnosis rate of ACD (54.8% vs 47.3%; P < .0001), particularly ACD to cosmetics (7.0% vs 5.7%; P = .0007), medicaments (2.3% vs 1.7%; P = .02), dyes (1.9% vs 1.4%; P = .036), and foods contacting the skin (0.4% vs 0.1%; P = .003), was significantly higher.

Study details: This retrospective study included 15,737 individuals who underwent patch testing, of which 5641 were diagnosed with AD.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Qian MF et al. Prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis following patch testing in patients with atopic dermatitis: A retrospective United States claims-based study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023 (Feb 10). Doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2022.12.051

Key clinical point: After patch testing, the frequency of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) diagnosis was higher among patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) than among individuals without AD.

Major finding: Among patients with AD vs individuals without AD, the diagnosis rate of ACD (54.8% vs 47.3%; P < .0001), particularly ACD to cosmetics (7.0% vs 5.7%; P = .0007), medicaments (2.3% vs 1.7%; P = .02), dyes (1.9% vs 1.4%; P = .036), and foods contacting the skin (0.4% vs 0.1%; P = .003), was significantly higher.

Study details: This retrospective study included 15,737 individuals who underwent patch testing, of which 5641 were diagnosed with AD.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Qian MF et al. Prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis following patch testing in patients with atopic dermatitis: A retrospective United States claims-based study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023 (Feb 10). Doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2022.12.051

Key clinical point: In real-life settings, upadacitinib was effective and safe in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), including those with prior inadequate response to dupilumab or baricitinib.

Major finding: At week 16, the mean Eczema Area and Severity Index and Numerical Rating Scale pruritus scores decreased significantly from 16.6 to 5.7 and 7.0 to 3.7, respectively (both P < .001), with rapid improvement being observed in the first 4 weeks. Adverse events were mostly mild in severity.

Study details: This prospective multicenter observational study included 47 adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD from the Dutch BioDay registry who received upadacitinib (15 or 30 mg once daily), of which 23 and 14 had not or inadequately responded to previous dupilumab and baricitinib therapies, respectively.

Disclosures: The BioDay registry is sponsored by Eli Lilly and others. Some authors reported ties with various sources, including the BioDay registry sponsors.

Source: Boesjes CM et al. Effectiveness of upadacitinib in patients with atopic dermatitis including those with inadequate response to dupilumab and/or baricitinib: Results from the BioDay Registry. Acta Derm Venereol. 2023;103:adv00872 (Feb 16). Doi: 10.2340/actadv.v103.5243

Key clinical point: In real-life settings, upadacitinib was effective and safe in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), including those with prior inadequate response to dupilumab or baricitinib.

Major finding: At week 16, the mean Eczema Area and Severity Index and Numerical Rating Scale pruritus scores decreased significantly from 16.6 to 5.7 and 7.0 to 3.7, respectively (both P < .001), with rapid improvement being observed in the first 4 weeks. Adverse events were mostly mild in severity.

Study details: This prospective multicenter observational study included 47 adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD from the Dutch BioDay registry who received upadacitinib (15 or 30 mg once daily), of which 23 and 14 had not or inadequately responded to previous dupilumab and baricitinib therapies, respectively.

Disclosures: The BioDay registry is sponsored by Eli Lilly and others. Some authors reported ties with various sources, including the BioDay registry sponsors.

Source: Boesjes CM et al. Effectiveness of upadacitinib in patients with atopic dermatitis including those with inadequate response to dupilumab and/or baricitinib: Results from the BioDay Registry. Acta Derm Venereol. 2023;103:adv00872 (Feb 16). Doi: 10.2340/actadv.v103.5243

Key clinical point: In real-life settings, upadacitinib was effective and safe in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), including those with prior inadequate response to dupilumab or baricitinib.

Major finding: At week 16, the mean Eczema Area and Severity Index and Numerical Rating Scale pruritus scores decreased significantly from 16.6 to 5.7 and 7.0 to 3.7, respectively (both P < .001), with rapid improvement being observed in the first 4 weeks. Adverse events were mostly mild in severity.

Study details: This prospective multicenter observational study included 47 adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD from the Dutch BioDay registry who received upadacitinib (15 or 30 mg once daily), of which 23 and 14 had not or inadequately responded to previous dupilumab and baricitinib therapies, respectively.

Disclosures: The BioDay registry is sponsored by Eli Lilly and others. Some authors reported ties with various sources, including the BioDay registry sponsors.

Source: Boesjes CM et al. Effectiveness of upadacitinib in patients with atopic dermatitis including those with inadequate response to dupilumab and/or baricitinib: Results from the BioDay Registry. Acta Derm Venereol. 2023;103:adv00872 (Feb 16). Doi: 10.2340/actadv.v103.5243

Key clinical point: Dupilumab is safe and improves atopic dermatitis (AD) signs and symptoms in patients aged ≥60 years with moderate-to-severe AD.

Major finding: At week 16, similar to the <60-year group, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving dupilumab (every 2 weeks or every week) vs placebo in the ≥60-year group achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (44.4% or 39.7% vs 7.1%, respectively; both P < .0001) and a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (63.0% or 61.6% vs 14.3%, respectively; both P < .0001). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were of mild-to-moderate severity.

Study details: This post hoc pooled analysis of four phase 3 trials included 2444 patients (≥60 years, n = 183; <60 years, n = 2261) with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive dupilumab or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sanofi-Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. Some authors reported various ties, including employment, with Sanofi, Regeneron, or others.

Source: Silverberg JI et al. Efficacy and safety of dupilumab maintained in adults ≥ 60 years of age with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Analysis of pooled data from four randomized clinical trials. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 (Feb 20). Doi: 10.1007/s40257-022-00754-4

Key clinical point: Dupilumab is safe and improves atopic dermatitis (AD) signs and symptoms in patients aged ≥60 years with moderate-to-severe AD.

Major finding: At week 16, similar to the <60-year group, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving dupilumab (every 2 weeks or every week) vs placebo in the ≥60-year group achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (44.4% or 39.7% vs 7.1%, respectively; both P < .0001) and a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (63.0% or 61.6% vs 14.3%, respectively; both P < .0001). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were of mild-to-moderate severity.

Study details: This post hoc pooled analysis of four phase 3 trials included 2444 patients (≥60 years, n = 183; <60 years, n = 2261) with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive dupilumab or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sanofi-Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. Some authors reported various ties, including employment, with Sanofi, Regeneron, or others.

Source: Silverberg JI et al. Efficacy and safety of dupilumab maintained in adults ≥ 60 years of age with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Analysis of pooled data from four randomized clinical trials. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 (Feb 20). Doi: 10.1007/s40257-022-00754-4

Key clinical point: Dupilumab is safe and improves atopic dermatitis (AD) signs and symptoms in patients aged ≥60 years with moderate-to-severe AD.

Major finding: At week 16, similar to the <60-year group, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving dupilumab (every 2 weeks or every week) vs placebo in the ≥60-year group achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (44.4% or 39.7% vs 7.1%, respectively; both P < .0001) and a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (63.0% or 61.6% vs 14.3%, respectively; both P < .0001). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were of mild-to-moderate severity.

Study details: This post hoc pooled analysis of four phase 3 trials included 2444 patients (≥60 years, n = 183; <60 years, n = 2261) with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive dupilumab or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sanofi-Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. Some authors reported various ties, including employment, with Sanofi, Regeneron, or others.

Source: Silverberg JI et al. Efficacy and safety of dupilumab maintained in adults ≥ 60 years of age with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Analysis of pooled data from four randomized clinical trials. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 (Feb 20). Doi: 10.1007/s40257-022-00754-4

NEW ORLEANS – All but one Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor with dermatologic indications carries a boxed warning that lists multiple risks for drugs in this class, including the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), even though the basis for all the risks is a rheumatoid arthritis study, according to a critical review at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.  

Given the fact that the postmarketing RA study was specifically enriched with high-risk patients by requiring an age at enrollment of at least 50 years and the presence of at least one cardiovascular risk factor, the extrapolation of these risks to dermatologic indications is “not necessarily data-driven,” said Brett A. King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The recently approved deucravacitinib is the only JAK inhibitor that has so far been exempt from these warnings. Instead, based on the ORAL Surveillance study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration requires a boxed warning in nearly identical language for all the other JAK inhibitors. Relative to tofacitinib, the JAK inhibitor tested in ORAL Surveillance, many of these drugs differ by JAK selectivity and other characteristics that are likely relevant to risk of adverse events, Dr. King said. The same language has even been applied to topical ruxolitinib cream. 
 

Basis of boxed warnings

In ORAL Surveillance, about 4,300 high-risk patients with RA were randomized to one of two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg or 10 mg) twice daily or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. All patients in the trial were taking methotrexate, and almost 60% were taking concomitant corticosteroids. The average body mass index of the study population was about 30 kg/m².

After a median 4 years of follow-up (about 5,000 patient-years), the incidence of many of the adverse events tracked in the study were higher in the tofacitinib groups, including serious infections, MACE, thromboembolic events, and cancer. Dr. King did not challenge the importance of these data, but he questioned whether they are reasonably extrapolated to dermatologic indications, particularly as many of those treated are younger than those common to an RA population.

In fact, despite a study enriched for a higher risk of many events tracked, most adverse events were only slightly elevated, Dr. King pointed out. For example, the incidence of MACE over the 4 years of follow-up was 3.4% among those taking any dose of tofacitinib versus 2.5% of those randomized to TNF inhibitor. Rates of cancer were 4.2% versus 2.9%, respectively. There were also absolute increases in the number of serious infections and thromboembolic events for tofacitinib relative to TNF inhibitor.

Dr. King acknowledged that the numbers in ORAL Surveillance associated tofacitinib with a higher risk of serious events than TNF inhibitor in patients with RA, but he believes that “JAK inhibitor safety is almost certainly not the same in dermatology as it is in rheumatology patients.”
 

Evidence of difference in dermatology

There is some evidence to back this up. Dr. King cited a recently published study in RMD Open that evaluated the safety profile of the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib in nearly 7,000 patients over 15,000 patient-years of follow-up. Drug safety data were evaluated with up to 5.5 years of follow-up from 12 clinical trials of the four diseases for which upadacitinib is now indicated. Three were rheumatologic (RA, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis), and the fourth was atopic dermatitis (AD). Fourteen outcomes, including numerous types of infection, MACE, hepatic complications, and malignancy, were compared with methotrexate and the TNF inhibitor adalimumab.

For the RA diseases, upadacitinib was associated with a greater risk than comparators for several outcomes, including serious infections. But in AD, there was a smaller increased risk of adverse outcomes for the JAK inhibitor relative to comparators.

When evaluated by risk of adverse events across indications, for MACE, the exposure-adjusted event rates for upadacitinib were less than 0.1 in patients treated for AD over the observation period versus 0.3 and 0.4 for RA and psoriatic arthritis, respectively. Similarly, for venous thromboembolism, the rates for upadacitinib were again less than 0.1 in patients with AD versus 0.4 and 0.2 in RA and psoriatic arthritis, respectively.

Referring back to the postmarketing study, Dr. King emphasized that it is essential to consider how the boxed warning for JAK inhibitors was generated before applying them to dermatologic indications.

“Is a 30-year-old patient with a dermatologic disorder possibly at the same risk as the patients in the study from which we got the boxed warning? The answer is simply no,” he said.

Like the tofacitinib data in the ORAL Surveillance study, the upadacitinib clinical trial data are not necessarily relevant to other JAK inhibitors. In fact, Dr. King pointed out that the safety profiles of the available JAK inhibitors are not identical, an observation that is consistent with differences in JAK inhibitor selectivity that has implications for off-target events.  

Dr. King does not dismiss the potential risks outlined in the current regulatory cautions about the use of JAK inhibitors, but he believes that dermatologists should be cognizant of “where the black box warning comes from.”

“We need to think carefully about the risk-to-benefit ratio in older patients or patients with risk factors, such as obesity and diabetes,” he said. But the safety profile of JAK inhibitors “is almost certainly better” than the profile suggested in boxed warnings applied to JAK inhibitors for dermatologic indications, he advised.
 

Risk-benefit considerations in dermatology

This position was supported by numerous other experts when asked for their perspectives. “I fully agree,” said Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, system chair of dermatology and immunology, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York.

Like Dr. King, Dr. Guttman-Yassky did not dismiss the potential risks of JAK inhibitors when treating dermatologic diseases.

“While JAK inhibitors need monitoring as advised, adopting a boxed warning from an RA study for patients who are older [is problematic],” she commented. A study with the nonselective tofacitinib in this population “cannot be compared to more selective inhibitors in a much younger population, such as those treated [for] alopecia areata or atopic dermatitis.”

George Z. Han, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology, Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra, Northwell Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, also agreed but added some caveats.

“The comments about the ORAL Surveillance study are salient,” he said in an interview. “This kind of data should not directly be extrapolated to other patient types or to other medications.” However, one of Dr. Han’s most important caveats involves long-term use.

“JAK inhibitors are still relatively narrow-therapeutic-window drugs that in a dose-dependent fashion could lead to negative effects, including thromboembolic events, abnormalities in red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and lipids,” he said. While doses used in dermatology “are generally below the level of any major concern,” Dr. Han cautioned that “we lack definitive data” on long-term use, and this is important for understanding “any potential small risk of rare events, such as malignancy or thromboembolism.”

Saakshi Khattri, MD, a colleague of Dr. Guttman-Yassky at Mount Sinai, said the risks of JAK inhibitors should not be underestimated, but she also agreed that risk “needs to be delivered in the right context.” Dr. Khattri, who is board certified in both dermatology and rheumatology, noted the safety profiles of available JAK inhibitors differ and that extrapolating safety from an RA study to dermatologic indications does not make sense. “Different diseases, different age groups,” she said.

Dr. King has reported financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Guttman-Yassky has reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Han reports financial relationships with Amgen, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bond Avillion, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, PellePharm, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Khattri has reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

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

NEW ORLEANS – All but one Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor with dermatologic indications carries a boxed warning that lists multiple risks for drugs in this class, including the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), even though the basis for all the risks is a rheumatoid arthritis study, according to a critical review at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.  

Given the fact that the postmarketing RA study was specifically enriched with high-risk patients by requiring an age at enrollment of at least 50 years and the presence of at least one cardiovascular risk factor, the extrapolation of these risks to dermatologic indications is “not necessarily data-driven,” said Brett A. King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The recently approved deucravacitinib is the only JAK inhibitor that has so far been exempt from these warnings. Instead, based on the ORAL Surveillance study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration requires a boxed warning in nearly identical language for all the other JAK inhibitors. Relative to tofacitinib, the JAK inhibitor tested in ORAL Surveillance, many of these drugs differ by JAK selectivity and other characteristics that are likely relevant to risk of adverse events, Dr. King said. The same language has even been applied to topical ruxolitinib cream. 
 

Basis of boxed warnings

In ORAL Surveillance, about 4,300 high-risk patients with RA were randomized to one of two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg or 10 mg) twice daily or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. All patients in the trial were taking methotrexate, and almost 60% were taking concomitant corticosteroids. The average body mass index of the study population was about 30 kg/m².

After a median 4 years of follow-up (about 5,000 patient-years), the incidence of many of the adverse events tracked in the study were higher in the tofacitinib groups, including serious infections, MACE, thromboembolic events, and cancer. Dr. King did not challenge the importance of these data, but he questioned whether they are reasonably extrapolated to dermatologic indications, particularly as many of those treated are younger than those common to an RA population.

In fact, despite a study enriched for a higher risk of many events tracked, most adverse events were only slightly elevated, Dr. King pointed out. For example, the incidence of MACE over the 4 years of follow-up was 3.4% among those taking any dose of tofacitinib versus 2.5% of those randomized to TNF inhibitor. Rates of cancer were 4.2% versus 2.9%, respectively. There were also absolute increases in the number of serious infections and thromboembolic events for tofacitinib relative to TNF inhibitor.

Dr. King acknowledged that the numbers in ORAL Surveillance associated tofacitinib with a higher risk of serious events than TNF inhibitor in patients with RA, but he believes that “JAK inhibitor safety is almost certainly not the same in dermatology as it is in rheumatology patients.”
 

Evidence of difference in dermatology

There is some evidence to back this up. Dr. King cited a recently published study in RMD Open that evaluated the safety profile of the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib in nearly 7,000 patients over 15,000 patient-years of follow-up. Drug safety data were evaluated with up to 5.5 years of follow-up from 12 clinical trials of the four diseases for which upadacitinib is now indicated. Three were rheumatologic (RA, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis), and the fourth was atopic dermatitis (AD). Fourteen outcomes, including numerous types of infection, MACE, hepatic complications, and malignancy, were compared with methotrexate and the TNF inhibitor adalimumab.

For the RA diseases, upadacitinib was associated with a greater risk than comparators for several outcomes, including serious infections. But in AD, there was a smaller increased risk of adverse outcomes for the JAK inhibitor relative to comparators.

When evaluated by risk of adverse events across indications, for MACE, the exposure-adjusted event rates for upadacitinib were less than 0.1 in patients treated for AD over the observation period versus 0.3 and 0.4 for RA and psoriatic arthritis, respectively. Similarly, for venous thromboembolism, the rates for upadacitinib were again less than 0.1 in patients with AD versus 0.4 and 0.2 in RA and psoriatic arthritis, respectively.

Referring back to the postmarketing study, Dr. King emphasized that it is essential to consider how the boxed warning for JAK inhibitors was generated before applying them to dermatologic indications.

“Is a 30-year-old patient with a dermatologic disorder possibly at the same risk as the patients in the study from which we got the boxed warning? The answer is simply no,” he said.

Like the tofacitinib data in the ORAL Surveillance study, the upadacitinib clinical trial data are not necessarily relevant to other JAK inhibitors. In fact, Dr. King pointed out that the safety profiles of the available JAK inhibitors are not identical, an observation that is consistent with differences in JAK inhibitor selectivity that has implications for off-target events.  

Dr. King does not dismiss the potential risks outlined in the current regulatory cautions about the use of JAK inhibitors, but he believes that dermatologists should be cognizant of “where the black box warning comes from.”

“We need to think carefully about the risk-to-benefit ratio in older patients or patients with risk factors, such as obesity and diabetes,” he said. But the safety profile of JAK inhibitors “is almost certainly better” than the profile suggested in boxed warnings applied to JAK inhibitors for dermatologic indications, he advised.
 

Risk-benefit considerations in dermatology

This position was supported by numerous other experts when asked for their perspectives. “I fully agree,” said Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, system chair of dermatology and immunology, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York.

Like Dr. King, Dr. Guttman-Yassky did not dismiss the potential risks of JAK inhibitors when treating dermatologic diseases.

“While JAK inhibitors need monitoring as advised, adopting a boxed warning from an RA study for patients who are older [is problematic],” she commented. A study with the nonselective tofacitinib in this population “cannot be compared to more selective inhibitors in a much younger population, such as those treated [for] alopecia areata or atopic dermatitis.”

George Z. Han, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology, Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra, Northwell Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, also agreed but added some caveats.

“The comments about the ORAL Surveillance study are salient,” he said in an interview. “This kind of data should not directly be extrapolated to other patient types or to other medications.” However, one of Dr. Han’s most important caveats involves long-term use.

“JAK inhibitors are still relatively narrow-therapeutic-window drugs that in a dose-dependent fashion could lead to negative effects, including thromboembolic events, abnormalities in red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and lipids,” he said. While doses used in dermatology “are generally below the level of any major concern,” Dr. Han cautioned that “we lack definitive data” on long-term use, and this is important for understanding “any potential small risk of rare events, such as malignancy or thromboembolism.”

Saakshi Khattri, MD, a colleague of Dr. Guttman-Yassky at Mount Sinai, said the risks of JAK inhibitors should not be underestimated, but she also agreed that risk “needs to be delivered in the right context.” Dr. Khattri, who is board certified in both dermatology and rheumatology, noted the safety profiles of available JAK inhibitors differ and that extrapolating safety from an RA study to dermatologic indications does not make sense. “Different diseases, different age groups,” she said.

Dr. King has reported financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Guttman-Yassky has reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Han reports financial relationships with Amgen, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bond Avillion, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, PellePharm, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Khattri has reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

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

NEW ORLEANS – All but one Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor with dermatologic indications carries a boxed warning that lists multiple risks for drugs in this class, including the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), even though the basis for all the risks is a rheumatoid arthritis study, according to a critical review at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.  

Given the fact that the postmarketing RA study was specifically enriched with high-risk patients by requiring an age at enrollment of at least 50 years and the presence of at least one cardiovascular risk factor, the extrapolation of these risks to dermatologic indications is “not necessarily data-driven,” said Brett A. King, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The recently approved deucravacitinib is the only JAK inhibitor that has so far been exempt from these warnings. Instead, based on the ORAL Surveillance study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration requires a boxed warning in nearly identical language for all the other JAK inhibitors. Relative to tofacitinib, the JAK inhibitor tested in ORAL Surveillance, many of these drugs differ by JAK selectivity and other characteristics that are likely relevant to risk of adverse events, Dr. King said. The same language has even been applied to topical ruxolitinib cream. 
 

Basis of boxed warnings

In ORAL Surveillance, about 4,300 high-risk patients with RA were randomized to one of two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg or 10 mg) twice daily or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. All patients in the trial were taking methotrexate, and almost 60% were taking concomitant corticosteroids. The average body mass index of the study population was about 30 kg/m².

After a median 4 years of follow-up (about 5,000 patient-years), the incidence of many of the adverse events tracked in the study were higher in the tofacitinib groups, including serious infections, MACE, thromboembolic events, and cancer. Dr. King did not challenge the importance of these data, but he questioned whether they are reasonably extrapolated to dermatologic indications, particularly as many of those treated are younger than those common to an RA population.

In fact, despite a study enriched for a higher risk of many events tracked, most adverse events were only slightly elevated, Dr. King pointed out. For example, the incidence of MACE over the 4 years of follow-up was 3.4% among those taking any dose of tofacitinib versus 2.5% of those randomized to TNF inhibitor. Rates of cancer were 4.2% versus 2.9%, respectively. There were also absolute increases in the number of serious infections and thromboembolic events for tofacitinib relative to TNF inhibitor.

Dr. King acknowledged that the numbers in ORAL Surveillance associated tofacitinib with a higher risk of serious events than TNF inhibitor in patients with RA, but he believes that “JAK inhibitor safety is almost certainly not the same in dermatology as it is in rheumatology patients.”
 

Evidence of difference in dermatology

There is some evidence to back this up. Dr. King cited a recently published study in RMD Open that evaluated the safety profile of the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib in nearly 7,000 patients over 15,000 patient-years of follow-up. Drug safety data were evaluated with up to 5.5 years of follow-up from 12 clinical trials of the four diseases for which upadacitinib is now indicated. Three were rheumatologic (RA, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis), and the fourth was atopic dermatitis (AD). Fourteen outcomes, including numerous types of infection, MACE, hepatic complications, and malignancy, were compared with methotrexate and the TNF inhibitor adalimumab.

For the RA diseases, upadacitinib was associated with a greater risk than comparators for several outcomes, including serious infections. But in AD, there was a smaller increased risk of adverse outcomes for the JAK inhibitor relative to comparators.

When evaluated by risk of adverse events across indications, for MACE, the exposure-adjusted event rates for upadacitinib were less than 0.1 in patients treated for AD over the observation period versus 0.3 and 0.4 for RA and psoriatic arthritis, respectively. Similarly, for venous thromboembolism, the rates for upadacitinib were again less than 0.1 in patients with AD versus 0.4 and 0.2 in RA and psoriatic arthritis, respectively.

Referring back to the postmarketing study, Dr. King emphasized that it is essential to consider how the boxed warning for JAK inhibitors was generated before applying them to dermatologic indications.

“Is a 30-year-old patient with a dermatologic disorder possibly at the same risk as the patients in the study from which we got the boxed warning? The answer is simply no,” he said.

Like the tofacitinib data in the ORAL Surveillance study, the upadacitinib clinical trial data are not necessarily relevant to other JAK inhibitors. In fact, Dr. King pointed out that the safety profiles of the available JAK inhibitors are not identical, an observation that is consistent with differences in JAK inhibitor selectivity that has implications for off-target events.  

Dr. King does not dismiss the potential risks outlined in the current regulatory cautions about the use of JAK inhibitors, but he believes that dermatologists should be cognizant of “where the black box warning comes from.”

“We need to think carefully about the risk-to-benefit ratio in older patients or patients with risk factors, such as obesity and diabetes,” he said. But the safety profile of JAK inhibitors “is almost certainly better” than the profile suggested in boxed warnings applied to JAK inhibitors for dermatologic indications, he advised.
 

Risk-benefit considerations in dermatology

This position was supported by numerous other experts when asked for their perspectives. “I fully agree,” said Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, system chair of dermatology and immunology, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York.

Like Dr. King, Dr. Guttman-Yassky did not dismiss the potential risks of JAK inhibitors when treating dermatologic diseases.

“While JAK inhibitors need monitoring as advised, adopting a boxed warning from an RA study for patients who are older [is problematic],” she commented. A study with the nonselective tofacitinib in this population “cannot be compared to more selective inhibitors in a much younger population, such as those treated [for] alopecia areata or atopic dermatitis.”

George Z. Han, MD, PhD, an associate professor of dermatology, Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra, Northwell Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, also agreed but added some caveats.

“The comments about the ORAL Surveillance study are salient,” he said in an interview. “This kind of data should not directly be extrapolated to other patient types or to other medications.” However, one of Dr. Han’s most important caveats involves long-term use.

“JAK inhibitors are still relatively narrow-therapeutic-window drugs that in a dose-dependent fashion could lead to negative effects, including thromboembolic events, abnormalities in red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and lipids,” he said. While doses used in dermatology “are generally below the level of any major concern,” Dr. Han cautioned that “we lack definitive data” on long-term use, and this is important for understanding “any potential small risk of rare events, such as malignancy or thromboembolism.”

Saakshi Khattri, MD, a colleague of Dr. Guttman-Yassky at Mount Sinai, said the risks of JAK inhibitors should not be underestimated, but she also agreed that risk “needs to be delivered in the right context.” Dr. Khattri, who is board certified in both dermatology and rheumatology, noted the safety profiles of available JAK inhibitors differ and that extrapolating safety from an RA study to dermatologic indications does not make sense. “Different diseases, different age groups,” she said.

Dr. King has reported financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Guttman-Yassky has reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Han reports financial relationships with Amgen, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bond Avillion, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, PellePharm, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Khattri has reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Among the 10 most viewed YouTube videos regarding topical steroid withdrawal, patient testimonials had the poorest quality and reliability of all information sources, results from a novel analysis showed.

“Video-sharing platforms such as YouTube are a great place for patients to connect and find community with others dealing with the same conditions,” senior author Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during an e-poster session. “There is no doubt tremendous value in viewing the shared experience; however, it is important that medical advice be evidence based and validated. Seeking said advice from a medical professional such as a board-certified dermatologist will no doubt increase the likelihood that said guidance is supported by the literature and most importantly, will do no harm.”

Noting a trend of increased user-created content on social media and Internet sites about topical steroid withdrawal in recent years, Dr. Friedman, first author Erika McCormick, a fourth-year medical student at George Washington University, and colleagues used the keywords “topical steroid withdrawal” on YouTube to search for and analyze the top 10 most viewed videos on the subject.

Two independent reviewers used the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool and the Global Quality Scale (GQS) to assess reliability and quality/scientific accuracy of videos, respectively. Average scores were generated for each video and the researchers used one way ANOVA, unpaired t-tests, and linear regression to analyze the ratings. For mDISCERN criteria, a point is given per each of five criteria for a possible score between 0 and 5. Examples of criteria included “Are the aims clear and achieved?” and “Is the information presented both balanced and unbiased”? For GQS, a score from 1 to 5 is designated based on criteria ranging from “poor quality, poor flow, most information missing” to “excellent quality and flow, very useful for patients.”

The researchers found that the mean combined mDISCERN score of the 10 videos was a 2, which indicates poor reliability and shortcomings. Similarly, the combined mean GQS score was 2.5, which suggests poor to moderate quality of videos, missing discussion of important topics, and limited use to patients. The researchers found no correlation between mDISCERN or GQS scores and length of video, duration on YouTube, or number of views, subscribers, or likes.

“We were disheartened that patient testimonial videos had the poorest quality and reliability of the information sources,” Ms. McCormick said in an interview. “Videos that included medical research and information from dermatologists had significantly higher quality and reliability scores than the remainder of videos.” Accurate information online is essential to help patients recognize topical steroid withdrawal and seek medical care, she continued.

Conversely, wide viewership of unreliable information “may contribute to fear of topical corticosteroids and dissuade use in patients with primary skin diseases that may benefit from this common treatment,” Dr. Friedman said. “Dermatologists must be aware of the content patients are consuming online, should guide patients in appraising quality and reliability of online resources, and must provide valid sources of additional information for their patients.” One such resource he recommended is the National Eczema Association, which has created online content for patients about topical steroid withdrawal.

Doris Day, MD, a New York–based dermatologist who was asked to comment on the study, said that many patients rely on YouTube as a go-to resource, with videos that can be watched at times of their choosing. “Oftentimes, the person on the video is relatable and has some general knowledge but is lacking the information that would be relevant and important for the individual patient,” said Dr. Day, who was not involved with the study. “The downside of this is that the person who takes that advice may not use the prescription properly or for the correct amount of time, which can lead to either undertreating or, even worse, overtreatment, which can have permanent consequences.”

One possible solution is for more doctors to create videos for YouTube, she added, “but that doesn’t guarantee that those would be the ones patients would choose to watch.” Another solution “is to have YouTube add qualifiers indicating that the information being discussed is not medical,” she suggested. “Ideally, patients will get all the information they need while they are in the office and also have clear written instructions and even a video they can review at a later time, made by the office, to help them feel they are getting personalized care and the attention they need.”

Ms. McCormick’s research is funded by a grant from Galderma. Dr. Friedman and Dr. Day had no relevant disclosures to report.

NEW ORLEANS – Among the 10 most viewed YouTube videos regarding topical steroid withdrawal, patient testimonials had the poorest quality and reliability of all information sources, results from a novel analysis showed.

“Video-sharing platforms such as YouTube are a great place for patients to connect and find community with others dealing with the same conditions,” senior author Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during an e-poster session. “There is no doubt tremendous value in viewing the shared experience; however, it is important that medical advice be evidence based and validated. Seeking said advice from a medical professional such as a board-certified dermatologist will no doubt increase the likelihood that said guidance is supported by the literature and most importantly, will do no harm.”

Noting a trend of increased user-created content on social media and Internet sites about topical steroid withdrawal in recent years, Dr. Friedman, first author Erika McCormick, a fourth-year medical student at George Washington University, and colleagues used the keywords “topical steroid withdrawal” on YouTube to search for and analyze the top 10 most viewed videos on the subject.

Two independent reviewers used the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool and the Global Quality Scale (GQS) to assess reliability and quality/scientific accuracy of videos, respectively. Average scores were generated for each video and the researchers used one way ANOVA, unpaired t-tests, and linear regression to analyze the ratings. For mDISCERN criteria, a point is given per each of five criteria for a possible score between 0 and 5. Examples of criteria included “Are the aims clear and achieved?” and “Is the information presented both balanced and unbiased”? For GQS, a score from 1 to 5 is designated based on criteria ranging from “poor quality, poor flow, most information missing” to “excellent quality and flow, very useful for patients.”

The researchers found that the mean combined mDISCERN score of the 10 videos was a 2, which indicates poor reliability and shortcomings. Similarly, the combined mean GQS score was 2.5, which suggests poor to moderate quality of videos, missing discussion of important topics, and limited use to patients. The researchers found no correlation between mDISCERN or GQS scores and length of video, duration on YouTube, or number of views, subscribers, or likes.

“We were disheartened that patient testimonial videos had the poorest quality and reliability of the information sources,” Ms. McCormick said in an interview. “Videos that included medical research and information from dermatologists had significantly higher quality and reliability scores than the remainder of videos.” Accurate information online is essential to help patients recognize topical steroid withdrawal and seek medical care, she continued.

Conversely, wide viewership of unreliable information “may contribute to fear of topical corticosteroids and dissuade use in patients with primary skin diseases that may benefit from this common treatment,” Dr. Friedman said. “Dermatologists must be aware of the content patients are consuming online, should guide patients in appraising quality and reliability of online resources, and must provide valid sources of additional information for their patients.” One such resource he recommended is the National Eczema Association, which has created online content for patients about topical steroid withdrawal.

Doris Day, MD, a New York–based dermatologist who was asked to comment on the study, said that many patients rely on YouTube as a go-to resource, with videos that can be watched at times of their choosing. “Oftentimes, the person on the video is relatable and has some general knowledge but is lacking the information that would be relevant and important for the individual patient,” said Dr. Day, who was not involved with the study. “The downside of this is that the person who takes that advice may not use the prescription properly or for the correct amount of time, which can lead to either undertreating or, even worse, overtreatment, which can have permanent consequences.”

One possible solution is for more doctors to create videos for YouTube, she added, “but that doesn’t guarantee that those would be the ones patients would choose to watch.” Another solution “is to have YouTube add qualifiers indicating that the information being discussed is not medical,” she suggested. “Ideally, patients will get all the information they need while they are in the office and also have clear written instructions and even a video they can review at a later time, made by the office, to help them feel they are getting personalized care and the attention they need.”

Ms. McCormick’s research is funded by a grant from Galderma. Dr. Friedman and Dr. Day had no relevant disclosures to report.

NEW ORLEANS – Among the 10 most viewed YouTube videos regarding topical steroid withdrawal, patient testimonials had the poorest quality and reliability of all information sources, results from a novel analysis showed.

“Video-sharing platforms such as YouTube are a great place for patients to connect and find community with others dealing with the same conditions,” senior author Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during an e-poster session. “There is no doubt tremendous value in viewing the shared experience; however, it is important that medical advice be evidence based and validated. Seeking said advice from a medical professional such as a board-certified dermatologist will no doubt increase the likelihood that said guidance is supported by the literature and most importantly, will do no harm.”

Noting a trend of increased user-created content on social media and Internet sites about topical steroid withdrawal in recent years, Dr. Friedman, first author Erika McCormick, a fourth-year medical student at George Washington University, and colleagues used the keywords “topical steroid withdrawal” on YouTube to search for and analyze the top 10 most viewed videos on the subject.

Two independent reviewers used the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool and the Global Quality Scale (GQS) to assess reliability and quality/scientific accuracy of videos, respectively. Average scores were generated for each video and the researchers used one way ANOVA, unpaired t-tests, and linear regression to analyze the ratings. For mDISCERN criteria, a point is given per each of five criteria for a possible score between 0 and 5. Examples of criteria included “Are the aims clear and achieved?” and “Is the information presented both balanced and unbiased”? For GQS, a score from 1 to 5 is designated based on criteria ranging from “poor quality, poor flow, most information missing” to “excellent quality and flow, very useful for patients.”

The researchers found that the mean combined mDISCERN score of the 10 videos was a 2, which indicates poor reliability and shortcomings. Similarly, the combined mean GQS score was 2.5, which suggests poor to moderate quality of videos, missing discussion of important topics, and limited use to patients. The researchers found no correlation between mDISCERN or GQS scores and length of video, duration on YouTube, or number of views, subscribers, or likes.

“We were disheartened that patient testimonial videos had the poorest quality and reliability of the information sources,” Ms. McCormick said in an interview. “Videos that included medical research and information from dermatologists had significantly higher quality and reliability scores than the remainder of videos.” Accurate information online is essential to help patients recognize topical steroid withdrawal and seek medical care, she continued.

Conversely, wide viewership of unreliable information “may contribute to fear of topical corticosteroids and dissuade use in patients with primary skin diseases that may benefit from this common treatment,” Dr. Friedman said. “Dermatologists must be aware of the content patients are consuming online, should guide patients in appraising quality and reliability of online resources, and must provide valid sources of additional information for their patients.” One such resource he recommended is the National Eczema Association, which has created online content for patients about topical steroid withdrawal.

Doris Day, MD, a New York–based dermatologist who was asked to comment on the study, said that many patients rely on YouTube as a go-to resource, with videos that can be watched at times of their choosing. “Oftentimes, the person on the video is relatable and has some general knowledge but is lacking the information that would be relevant and important for the individual patient,” said Dr. Day, who was not involved with the study. “The downside of this is that the person who takes that advice may not use the prescription properly or for the correct amount of time, which can lead to either undertreating or, even worse, overtreatment, which can have permanent consequences.”

One possible solution is for more doctors to create videos for YouTube, she added, “but that doesn’t guarantee that those would be the ones patients would choose to watch.” Another solution “is to have YouTube add qualifiers indicating that the information being discussed is not medical,” she suggested. “Ideally, patients will get all the information they need while they are in the office and also have clear written instructions and even a video they can review at a later time, made by the office, to help them feel they are getting personalized care and the attention they need.”

Ms. McCormick’s research is funded by a grant from Galderma. Dr. Friedman and Dr. Day had no relevant disclosures to report.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) monotherapy with the lebrikizumab, an interleukin-13 inhibitor, was shown to be both effective and safe in the induction periods of the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The identically designed, 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials enrolled 851 adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD and included a 16-week induction period followed by a 36-week maintenance period. At week 16, the results “show a rapid onset of action in multiple domains of the disease, such as skin clearance and itch,” wrote lead author Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis, at George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues. “Although 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab is not sufficient to assess its long-term safety, the results from the induction period of these two trials suggest a safety profile that is consistent with findings in previous trials,” they added.

Results presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 2022 annual meeting, but not yet published, showed similar efficacy maintained through the end of the trial.

Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either lebrikizumab 250 mg (with a 500-mg loading dose given at baseline and at week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, with concomitant topical or systemic treatments prohibited through week 16 except when deemed appropriate as rescue therapy. In such cases, moderate-potency topical glucocorticoids were preferred as first-line rescue therapy, while the study drug was discontinued if systemic therapy was needed.

In both trials, the primary efficacy outcome – a score of 0 or 1 on the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) – and a reduction of at least 2 points from baseline at week 16, was met by more patients treated with lebrikizumab than with placebo: 43.1% vs. 12.7% respectively in trial 1 (P < .001); and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in trial 2 (P < .001).

Similarly, in both trials, a higher percentage of the lebrikizumab than placebo patients had an EASI-75 response (75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score): 58.8% vs. 16.2% (P < .001) in trial 1 and 52.1% vs. 18.1% (P < .001) in trial 2.

Improvement in itch was also significantly better in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo. This was measured by a reduction of at least 4 points in the Pruritus NRS from baseline to week 16 and a reduction in the Sleep-Loss Scale score of at least 2 points from baseline to week 16 (P < .001 for both measures in both trials).

A higher percentage of placebo vs. lebrikizumab patients discontinued the trials during the induction phases (14.9% vs. 7.1% in trial 1 and 11.0% vs. 7.8% in trial 2), and the use of rescue medication was approximately three times and two times higher in both placebo groups respectively.

Conjunctivitis was the most common adverse event, occurring consistently more frequently in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo (7.4% vs. 2.8% in trial 1 and 7.5% vs. 2.1% in trial 2).

“Although several theories have been proposed for the pathogenesis of conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis treated with this class of biologic agents, the mechanism remains unclear and warrants further study,” the investigators wrote.

Asked to comment on the new results, Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, who was not involved in the research, said they “continue to demonstrate the superior efficacy and favorable safety profile” of lebrikizumab in adolescents and adults and support the results of earlier phase 2 studies. “The results of these studies thus far continue to offer more hope and the possibility of a better future for our patients with atopic dermatitis who are still struggling to achieve control of their disease.”

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench from the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said she looks forward to reviewing the full study results in which patients who achieved the primary outcomes of interest were then rerandomized to either placebo, or lebrikizumab every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks for the 36-week maintenance period “because we know that there is data for other biologics in atopic dermatitis (such as tralokinumab) that demonstrate that a decrease in the frequency of injections may be possible for patients who achieve disease control after an initial 16 weeks of therapy every 2 weeks.”

The research was supported by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Dr. Silverberg disclosed he is a consultant for Dermira and Eli Lilly, as are other coauthors on the paper who additionally disclosed grants from Dermira and other relationships with Eli Lilly such as advisory board membership and having received lecture fees. Three authors are Eli Lilly employees. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she is a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Abbvie, and Incyte for which she has received honoraria for work related to AD. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench has also been a recipient of research grants from Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, Vanda, Menlo Therapeutics, Leo Pharma, and Eli Lilly for work related to AD as well as honoraria for continuing medical education work related to AD sponsored through educational grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) monotherapy with the lebrikizumab, an interleukin-13 inhibitor, was shown to be both effective and safe in the induction periods of the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The identically designed, 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials enrolled 851 adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD and included a 16-week induction period followed by a 36-week maintenance period. At week 16, the results “show a rapid onset of action in multiple domains of the disease, such as skin clearance and itch,” wrote lead author Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis, at George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues. “Although 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab is not sufficient to assess its long-term safety, the results from the induction period of these two trials suggest a safety profile that is consistent with findings in previous trials,” they added.

Results presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 2022 annual meeting, but not yet published, showed similar efficacy maintained through the end of the trial.

Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either lebrikizumab 250 mg (with a 500-mg loading dose given at baseline and at week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, with concomitant topical or systemic treatments prohibited through week 16 except when deemed appropriate as rescue therapy. In such cases, moderate-potency topical glucocorticoids were preferred as first-line rescue therapy, while the study drug was discontinued if systemic therapy was needed.

In both trials, the primary efficacy outcome – a score of 0 or 1 on the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) – and a reduction of at least 2 points from baseline at week 16, was met by more patients treated with lebrikizumab than with placebo: 43.1% vs. 12.7% respectively in trial 1 (P < .001); and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in trial 2 (P < .001).

Similarly, in both trials, a higher percentage of the lebrikizumab than placebo patients had an EASI-75 response (75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score): 58.8% vs. 16.2% (P < .001) in trial 1 and 52.1% vs. 18.1% (P < .001) in trial 2.

Improvement in itch was also significantly better in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo. This was measured by a reduction of at least 4 points in the Pruritus NRS from baseline to week 16 and a reduction in the Sleep-Loss Scale score of at least 2 points from baseline to week 16 (P < .001 for both measures in both trials).

A higher percentage of placebo vs. lebrikizumab patients discontinued the trials during the induction phases (14.9% vs. 7.1% in trial 1 and 11.0% vs. 7.8% in trial 2), and the use of rescue medication was approximately three times and two times higher in both placebo groups respectively.

Conjunctivitis was the most common adverse event, occurring consistently more frequently in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo (7.4% vs. 2.8% in trial 1 and 7.5% vs. 2.1% in trial 2).

“Although several theories have been proposed for the pathogenesis of conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis treated with this class of biologic agents, the mechanism remains unclear and warrants further study,” the investigators wrote.

Asked to comment on the new results, Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, who was not involved in the research, said they “continue to demonstrate the superior efficacy and favorable safety profile” of lebrikizumab in adolescents and adults and support the results of earlier phase 2 studies. “The results of these studies thus far continue to offer more hope and the possibility of a better future for our patients with atopic dermatitis who are still struggling to achieve control of their disease.”

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench from the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said she looks forward to reviewing the full study results in which patients who achieved the primary outcomes of interest were then rerandomized to either placebo, or lebrikizumab every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks for the 36-week maintenance period “because we know that there is data for other biologics in atopic dermatitis (such as tralokinumab) that demonstrate that a decrease in the frequency of injections may be possible for patients who achieve disease control after an initial 16 weeks of therapy every 2 weeks.”

The research was supported by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Dr. Silverberg disclosed he is a consultant for Dermira and Eli Lilly, as are other coauthors on the paper who additionally disclosed grants from Dermira and other relationships with Eli Lilly such as advisory board membership and having received lecture fees. Three authors are Eli Lilly employees. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she is a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Abbvie, and Incyte for which she has received honoraria for work related to AD. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench has also been a recipient of research grants from Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, Vanda, Menlo Therapeutics, Leo Pharma, and Eli Lilly for work related to AD as well as honoraria for continuing medical education work related to AD sponsored through educational grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) monotherapy with the lebrikizumab, an interleukin-13 inhibitor, was shown to be both effective and safe in the induction periods of the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The identically designed, 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials enrolled 851 adolescents and adults with moderate to severe AD and included a 16-week induction period followed by a 36-week maintenance period. At week 16, the results “show a rapid onset of action in multiple domains of the disease, such as skin clearance and itch,” wrote lead author Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis, at George Washington University, Washington, and colleagues. “Although 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab is not sufficient to assess its long-term safety, the results from the induction period of these two trials suggest a safety profile that is consistent with findings in previous trials,” they added.

Results presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 2022 annual meeting, but not yet published, showed similar efficacy maintained through the end of the trial.

Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either lebrikizumab 250 mg (with a 500-mg loading dose given at baseline and at week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, with concomitant topical or systemic treatments prohibited through week 16 except when deemed appropriate as rescue therapy. In such cases, moderate-potency topical glucocorticoids were preferred as first-line rescue therapy, while the study drug was discontinued if systemic therapy was needed.

In both trials, the primary efficacy outcome – a score of 0 or 1 on the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) – and a reduction of at least 2 points from baseline at week 16, was met by more patients treated with lebrikizumab than with placebo: 43.1% vs. 12.7% respectively in trial 1 (P < .001); and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in trial 2 (P < .001).

Similarly, in both trials, a higher percentage of the lebrikizumab than placebo patients had an EASI-75 response (75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score): 58.8% vs. 16.2% (P < .001) in trial 1 and 52.1% vs. 18.1% (P < .001) in trial 2.

Improvement in itch was also significantly better in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo. This was measured by a reduction of at least 4 points in the Pruritus NRS from baseline to week 16 and a reduction in the Sleep-Loss Scale score of at least 2 points from baseline to week 16 (P < .001 for both measures in both trials).

A higher percentage of placebo vs. lebrikizumab patients discontinued the trials during the induction phases (14.9% vs. 7.1% in trial 1 and 11.0% vs. 7.8% in trial 2), and the use of rescue medication was approximately three times and two times higher in both placebo groups respectively.

Conjunctivitis was the most common adverse event, occurring consistently more frequently in patients treated with lebrikizumab, compared with placebo (7.4% vs. 2.8% in trial 1 and 7.5% vs. 2.1% in trial 2).

“Although several theories have been proposed for the pathogenesis of conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis treated with this class of biologic agents, the mechanism remains unclear and warrants further study,” the investigators wrote.

Asked to comment on the new results, Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, who was not involved in the research, said they “continue to demonstrate the superior efficacy and favorable safety profile” of lebrikizumab in adolescents and adults and support the results of earlier phase 2 studies. “The results of these studies thus far continue to offer more hope and the possibility of a better future for our patients with atopic dermatitis who are still struggling to achieve control of their disease.”

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench from the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said she looks forward to reviewing the full study results in which patients who achieved the primary outcomes of interest were then rerandomized to either placebo, or lebrikizumab every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks for the 36-week maintenance period “because we know that there is data for other biologics in atopic dermatitis (such as tralokinumab) that demonstrate that a decrease in the frequency of injections may be possible for patients who achieve disease control after an initial 16 weeks of therapy every 2 weeks.”

The research was supported by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Dr. Silverberg disclosed he is a consultant for Dermira and Eli Lilly, as are other coauthors on the paper who additionally disclosed grants from Dermira and other relationships with Eli Lilly such as advisory board membership and having received lecture fees. Three authors are Eli Lilly employees. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she is a consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Abbvie, and Incyte for which she has received honoraria for work related to AD. Dr. Chiesa Fuxench has also been a recipient of research grants from Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, Vanda, Menlo Therapeutics, Leo Pharma, and Eli Lilly for work related to AD as well as honoraria for continuing medical education work related to AD sponsored through educational grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

To the Editor:

Cyclosporine is an immunomodulatory medication that impacts T-lymphocyte function through calcineurin inhibition and suppression of IL-2 expression. Oral cyclosporine at low doses (1–3 mg/kg/d) is one of the more common systemic treatment options for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. At these doses it has been shown to have therapeutic benefit in several skin conditions, including chronic spontaneous urticaria,¹ psoriasis,² and atopic dermatitis.³ When used at higher doses for conditions such as glomerulonephritis or transplantation, adverse effects may be notable, and close monitoring of drug metabolism as well as end-organ function is required. In contrast, severe adverse effects are uncommon with the lower doses of cyclosporine used for cutaneous conditions, and monitoring serum drug levels is not routinely practiced.⁴

A 58-year-old man was referred to clinic with severe atopic dermatitis refractory to maximal topical therapy prescribed by an outside physician. He was started on cyclosporine as an anticipated bridge to dupilumab biologic therapy. He had no history of hypertension, renal disease, or hepatic insufficiency prior to starting therapy. He demonstrated notable clinical improvement at a cyclosporine dosage of 300 mg/d (equating to 3.7 mg/kg/d). Three months after initiation of therapy, the patient presented to a local emergency department with new-onset seizurelike activity, confusion, and agitation. He was normotensive with clinical concern for status epilepticus. An initial laboratory assessment included a complete blood cell count, serum electrolyte panel, and urine toxicology screen, which were unremarkable. Computed tomography of the head showed confluent white-matter hypodensities in the left parietal-temporal-occipital lobes. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain showed innumerable peripherally distributed foci of microhemorrhage and vasogenic edema within the left parietal-temporal-occipital lobes (Figure).

He was intubated and sedated with admission to the medical intensive care unit, where a random cyclosporine level drawn approximately 9 hours after the prior dose was noted to be 263 ng/mL. Although target therapeutic levels for cyclosporine vary based on indication, toxic supratherapeutic levels generally are considered to be greater than 400 ng/mL.⁵ He had no evidence of acute kidney injury, uremia, or hypertension throughout hospitalization. An electroencephalogram showed left parieto-occipital periodic epileptiform discharges with generalized slowing. Cyclosporine was discontinued, and he was started on levetiracetam. His clinical and neuroimaging findings improved over the course of the 1-week hospitalization without any further intervention. Four weeks after hospitalization, he had full neurologic, electroencephalogram, and imaging recovery. Based on the presenting symptoms, transient neuroimaging findings, and full recovery with discontinuation of cyclosporine, the patient was diagnosed with cyclosporine-induced posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES).

The diagnosis of PRES requires evidence of acute neurologic symptoms and radiographic findings of cortical/subcortical white-matter changes on computed tomography or MRI consistent with edema. The pathophysiology is not fully understood but appears to be related to vasogenic edema, primarily impacting the posterior aspect of the brain. There have been many reported offending agents, and symptoms typically resolve following cessation of these medications. Cases of cyclosporine-induced PRES have been reported, but most occurred at higher doses within weeks of medication initiation. Two cases of cyclosporine-induced PRES treated with cutaneous dosing have been reported; neither patient was taking it for atopic dermatitis.⁶

Cyclosporine-induced PRES remains a pathophysiologic conundrum. However, there is evidence to support direct endothelial damage causing cellular apoptosis in the brain of mouse models that is medication specific and not necessarily related to the dosages used.⁷ Our case highlights a rare but important adverse event associated with even low-dose cyclosporine use that should be considered in patients currently taking cyclosporine who present with acute neurologic changes.

To the Editor:

Cyclosporine is an immunomodulatory medication that impacts T-lymphocyte function through calcineurin inhibition and suppression of IL-2 expression. Oral cyclosporine at low doses (1–3 mg/kg/d) is one of the more common systemic treatment options for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. At these doses it has been shown to have therapeutic benefit in several skin conditions, including chronic spontaneous urticaria,¹ psoriasis,² and atopic dermatitis.³ When used at higher doses for conditions such as glomerulonephritis or transplantation, adverse effects may be notable, and close monitoring of drug metabolism as well as end-organ function is required. In contrast, severe adverse effects are uncommon with the lower doses of cyclosporine used for cutaneous conditions, and monitoring serum drug levels is not routinely practiced.⁴

A 58-year-old man was referred to clinic with severe atopic dermatitis refractory to maximal topical therapy prescribed by an outside physician. He was started on cyclosporine as an anticipated bridge to dupilumab biologic therapy. He had no history of hypertension, renal disease, or hepatic insufficiency prior to starting therapy. He demonstrated notable clinical improvement at a cyclosporine dosage of 300 mg/d (equating to 3.7 mg/kg/d). Three months after initiation of therapy, the patient presented to a local emergency department with new-onset seizurelike activity, confusion, and agitation. He was normotensive with clinical concern for status epilepticus. An initial laboratory assessment included a complete blood cell count, serum electrolyte panel, and urine toxicology screen, which were unremarkable. Computed tomography of the head showed confluent white-matter hypodensities in the left parietal-temporal-occipital lobes. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain showed innumerable peripherally distributed foci of microhemorrhage and vasogenic edema within the left parietal-temporal-occipital lobes (Figure).

He was intubated and sedated with admission to the medical intensive care unit, where a random cyclosporine level drawn approximately 9 hours after the prior dose was noted to be 263 ng/mL. Although target therapeutic levels for cyclosporine vary based on indication, toxic supratherapeutic levels generally are considered to be greater than 400 ng/mL.⁵ He had no evidence of acute kidney injury, uremia, or hypertension throughout hospitalization. An electroencephalogram showed left parieto-occipital periodic epileptiform discharges with generalized slowing. Cyclosporine was discontinued, and he was started on levetiracetam. His clinical and neuroimaging findings improved over the course of the 1-week hospitalization without any further intervention. Four weeks after hospitalization, he had full neurologic, electroencephalogram, and imaging recovery. Based on the presenting symptoms, transient neuroimaging findings, and full recovery with discontinuation of cyclosporine, the patient was diagnosed with cyclosporine-induced posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES).

The diagnosis of PRES requires evidence of acute neurologic symptoms and radiographic findings of cortical/subcortical white-matter changes on computed tomography or MRI consistent with edema. The pathophysiology is not fully understood but appears to be related to vasogenic edema, primarily impacting the posterior aspect of the brain. There have been many reported offending agents, and symptoms typically resolve following cessation of these medications. Cases of cyclosporine-induced PRES have been reported, but most occurred at higher doses within weeks of medication initiation. Two cases of cyclosporine-induced PRES treated with cutaneous dosing have been reported; neither patient was taking it for atopic dermatitis.⁶

Cyclosporine-induced PRES remains a pathophysiologic conundrum. However, there is evidence to support direct endothelial damage causing cellular apoptosis in the brain of mouse models that is medication specific and not necessarily related to the dosages used.⁷ Our case highlights a rare but important adverse event associated with even low-dose cyclosporine use that should be considered in patients currently taking cyclosporine who present with acute neurologic changes.

To the Editor:

Cyclosporine is an immunomodulatory medication that impacts T-lymphocyte function through calcineurin inhibition and suppression of IL-2 expression. Oral cyclosporine at low doses (1–3 mg/kg/d) is one of the more common systemic treatment options for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. At these doses it has been shown to have therapeutic benefit in several skin conditions, including chronic spontaneous urticaria,¹ psoriasis,² and atopic dermatitis.³ When used at higher doses for conditions such as glomerulonephritis or transplantation, adverse effects may be notable, and close monitoring of drug metabolism as well as end-organ function is required. In contrast, severe adverse effects are uncommon with the lower doses of cyclosporine used for cutaneous conditions, and monitoring serum drug levels is not routinely practiced.⁴

A 58-year-old man was referred to clinic with severe atopic dermatitis refractory to maximal topical therapy prescribed by an outside physician. He was started on cyclosporine as an anticipated bridge to dupilumab biologic therapy. He had no history of hypertension, renal disease, or hepatic insufficiency prior to starting therapy. He demonstrated notable clinical improvement at a cyclosporine dosage of 300 mg/d (equating to 3.7 mg/kg/d). Three months after initiation of therapy, the patient presented to a local emergency department with new-onset seizurelike activity, confusion, and agitation. He was normotensive with clinical concern for status epilepticus. An initial laboratory assessment included a complete blood cell count, serum electrolyte panel, and urine toxicology screen, which were unremarkable. Computed tomography of the head showed confluent white-matter hypodensities in the left parietal-temporal-occipital lobes. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain showed innumerable peripherally distributed foci of microhemorrhage and vasogenic edema within the left parietal-temporal-occipital lobes (Figure).

He was intubated and sedated with admission to the medical intensive care unit, where a random cyclosporine level drawn approximately 9 hours after the prior dose was noted to be 263 ng/mL. Although target therapeutic levels for cyclosporine vary based on indication, toxic supratherapeutic levels generally are considered to be greater than 400 ng/mL.⁵ He had no evidence of acute kidney injury, uremia, or hypertension throughout hospitalization. An electroencephalogram showed left parieto-occipital periodic epileptiform discharges with generalized slowing. Cyclosporine was discontinued, and he was started on levetiracetam. His clinical and neuroimaging findings improved over the course of the 1-week hospitalization without any further intervention. Four weeks after hospitalization, he had full neurologic, electroencephalogram, and imaging recovery. Based on the presenting symptoms, transient neuroimaging findings, and full recovery with discontinuation of cyclosporine, the patient was diagnosed with cyclosporine-induced posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES).

The diagnosis of PRES requires evidence of acute neurologic symptoms and radiographic findings of cortical/subcortical white-matter changes on computed tomography or MRI consistent with edema. The pathophysiology is not fully understood but appears to be related to vasogenic edema, primarily impacting the posterior aspect of the brain. There have been many reported offending agents, and symptoms typically resolve following cessation of these medications. Cases of cyclosporine-induced PRES have been reported, but most occurred at higher doses within weeks of medication initiation. Two cases of cyclosporine-induced PRES treated with cutaneous dosing have been reported; neither patient was taking it for atopic dermatitis.⁶

Cyclosporine-induced PRES remains a pathophysiologic conundrum. However, there is evidence to support direct endothelial damage causing cellular apoptosis in the brain of mouse models that is medication specific and not necessarily related to the dosages used.⁷ Our case highlights a rare but important adverse event associated with even low-dose cyclosporine use that should be considered in patients currently taking cyclosporine who present with acute neurologic changes.