User login
Oral sarecycline promising for papulopustular rosacea
Linda Stein Gold, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.
The oral broad-spectrum second-generation tetracyclines doxycycline and minocycline have long been considered first-line therapy for papulopustular rosacea that isn’t cleared using topical agents. But the widespread use of these oral tetracyclines has encouraged the development of antimicrobial resistance. In contrast, sarecycline (Seysara) is a third-generation, narrow-spectrum tetracycline designed to minimize antibiotic resistance. The Food and Drug Administration approved the drug for treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris in 2018.
At the meeting, Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, highlighted a recent pilot study of oral sarecycline for papulopustular rosacea carried out by James Q. Del Rosso, DO, of Las Vegas and coinvestigators. Although she wasn’t involved in the study, she is a veteran clinical trialist with vast experience leading studies of new therapies for rosacea, acne, and other major dermatologic disorders.
The 12-week, prospective, investigator-blinded study included 97 adults with moderate to severe papulopustular rosacea; 72 were randomized to weight-based dosing of once-daily sarecycline, while the 25 controls took a daily oral vitamin.
One coprimary endpoint was achievement of an Investigator Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, meaning clear or almost clear skin, at week 12. The rates were 75% in the sarecycline group and 16% in controls. The other coprimary endpoint was the percent reduction from baseline to week 12 in inflammatory lesion count. Here again, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of the third-generation tetracycline derivative, which achieved an 80% reduction, compared with 50% in the control group.
Of note, the difference was already significant at the first evaluation at week 4, with a 58% reduction in inflammatory lesions in the sarecycline group versus 31% decrease in controls, Dr. Stein Gold observed at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.
Also at week 12, 96% of patients on sarecycline reported having no or only trace symptoms of facial burning, 63% had no or only trace facial erythema, and 94% had no or trace facial itch, compared with 76%, 12%, and 76% of controls, respectively. The sarecycline group was also significantly more likely to report no or trace skin dryness and oiliness.
The side-effect profile was favorable and the same as encountered with the use of sarecycline for acne: no major photosensitivity issues, no serious adverse events, and only 2 of the original 75 patients in the active-treatment arm discontinued sarecycline for treatment-emergent headache or gastroenteritis considered “probably” related to the study drug. The investigators deemed further studies of sarecycline for rosacea to be warranted as a potential expanded indication.
Aiming for clear skin rather than ‘almost clear’
Dr. Stein Gold shared her mantra for rosacea therapy: “Always aim for clear skin.”
She cited a study led by Guy Webster, MD, professor of dermatology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, in which he and his coinvestigators looked at the durability of treatment response in a pooled analysis of 1,366 rosacea patients in four clinical trials. If patients improved to “almost clear” after treatment, their median time to relapse was 3 months; if they reached “clear,” it was more than 8 months. Also, more clear patients rated their outcomes as excellent and reported that their skin disease no longer had any effect on their quality of life.
“That’s more than a 5-month difference,” Dr. Stein Gold noted. “It shows the importance of really striving to get that skin completely clear.”
The sarecycline study was funded by Almirall, which markets the antibiotic. Dr. Stein Gold, who has no financial relationship with Almirall, has received research funding from and/or served as a consultant to roughly a dozen other pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Linda Stein Gold, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.
The oral broad-spectrum second-generation tetracyclines doxycycline and minocycline have long been considered first-line therapy for papulopustular rosacea that isn’t cleared using topical agents. But the widespread use of these oral tetracyclines has encouraged the development of antimicrobial resistance. In contrast, sarecycline (Seysara) is a third-generation, narrow-spectrum tetracycline designed to minimize antibiotic resistance. The Food and Drug Administration approved the drug for treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris in 2018.
At the meeting, Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, highlighted a recent pilot study of oral sarecycline for papulopustular rosacea carried out by James Q. Del Rosso, DO, of Las Vegas and coinvestigators. Although she wasn’t involved in the study, she is a veteran clinical trialist with vast experience leading studies of new therapies for rosacea, acne, and other major dermatologic disorders.
The 12-week, prospective, investigator-blinded study included 97 adults with moderate to severe papulopustular rosacea; 72 were randomized to weight-based dosing of once-daily sarecycline, while the 25 controls took a daily oral vitamin.
One coprimary endpoint was achievement of an Investigator Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, meaning clear or almost clear skin, at week 12. The rates were 75% in the sarecycline group and 16% in controls. The other coprimary endpoint was the percent reduction from baseline to week 12 in inflammatory lesion count. Here again, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of the third-generation tetracycline derivative, which achieved an 80% reduction, compared with 50% in the control group.
Of note, the difference was already significant at the first evaluation at week 4, with a 58% reduction in inflammatory lesions in the sarecycline group versus 31% decrease in controls, Dr. Stein Gold observed at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.
Also at week 12, 96% of patients on sarecycline reported having no or only trace symptoms of facial burning, 63% had no or only trace facial erythema, and 94% had no or trace facial itch, compared with 76%, 12%, and 76% of controls, respectively. The sarecycline group was also significantly more likely to report no or trace skin dryness and oiliness.
The side-effect profile was favorable and the same as encountered with the use of sarecycline for acne: no major photosensitivity issues, no serious adverse events, and only 2 of the original 75 patients in the active-treatment arm discontinued sarecycline for treatment-emergent headache or gastroenteritis considered “probably” related to the study drug. The investigators deemed further studies of sarecycline for rosacea to be warranted as a potential expanded indication.
Aiming for clear skin rather than ‘almost clear’
Dr. Stein Gold shared her mantra for rosacea therapy: “Always aim for clear skin.”
She cited a study led by Guy Webster, MD, professor of dermatology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, in which he and his coinvestigators looked at the durability of treatment response in a pooled analysis of 1,366 rosacea patients in four clinical trials. If patients improved to “almost clear” after treatment, their median time to relapse was 3 months; if they reached “clear,” it was more than 8 months. Also, more clear patients rated their outcomes as excellent and reported that their skin disease no longer had any effect on their quality of life.
“That’s more than a 5-month difference,” Dr. Stein Gold noted. “It shows the importance of really striving to get that skin completely clear.”
The sarecycline study was funded by Almirall, which markets the antibiotic. Dr. Stein Gold, who has no financial relationship with Almirall, has received research funding from and/or served as a consultant to roughly a dozen other pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Linda Stein Gold, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.
The oral broad-spectrum second-generation tetracyclines doxycycline and minocycline have long been considered first-line therapy for papulopustular rosacea that isn’t cleared using topical agents. But the widespread use of these oral tetracyclines has encouraged the development of antimicrobial resistance. In contrast, sarecycline (Seysara) is a third-generation, narrow-spectrum tetracycline designed to minimize antibiotic resistance. The Food and Drug Administration approved the drug for treatment of moderate to severe acne vulgaris in 2018.
At the meeting, Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, highlighted a recent pilot study of oral sarecycline for papulopustular rosacea carried out by James Q. Del Rosso, DO, of Las Vegas and coinvestigators. Although she wasn’t involved in the study, she is a veteran clinical trialist with vast experience leading studies of new therapies for rosacea, acne, and other major dermatologic disorders.
The 12-week, prospective, investigator-blinded study included 97 adults with moderate to severe papulopustular rosacea; 72 were randomized to weight-based dosing of once-daily sarecycline, while the 25 controls took a daily oral vitamin.
One coprimary endpoint was achievement of an Investigator Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, meaning clear or almost clear skin, at week 12. The rates were 75% in the sarecycline group and 16% in controls. The other coprimary endpoint was the percent reduction from baseline to week 12 in inflammatory lesion count. Here again, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of the third-generation tetracycline derivative, which achieved an 80% reduction, compared with 50% in the control group.
Of note, the difference was already significant at the first evaluation at week 4, with a 58% reduction in inflammatory lesions in the sarecycline group versus 31% decrease in controls, Dr. Stein Gold observed at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.
Also at week 12, 96% of patients on sarecycline reported having no or only trace symptoms of facial burning, 63% had no or only trace facial erythema, and 94% had no or trace facial itch, compared with 76%, 12%, and 76% of controls, respectively. The sarecycline group was also significantly more likely to report no or trace skin dryness and oiliness.
The side-effect profile was favorable and the same as encountered with the use of sarecycline for acne: no major photosensitivity issues, no serious adverse events, and only 2 of the original 75 patients in the active-treatment arm discontinued sarecycline for treatment-emergent headache or gastroenteritis considered “probably” related to the study drug. The investigators deemed further studies of sarecycline for rosacea to be warranted as a potential expanded indication.
Aiming for clear skin rather than ‘almost clear’
Dr. Stein Gold shared her mantra for rosacea therapy: “Always aim for clear skin.”
She cited a study led by Guy Webster, MD, professor of dermatology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, in which he and his coinvestigators looked at the durability of treatment response in a pooled analysis of 1,366 rosacea patients in four clinical trials. If patients improved to “almost clear” after treatment, their median time to relapse was 3 months; if they reached “clear,” it was more than 8 months. Also, more clear patients rated their outcomes as excellent and reported that their skin disease no longer had any effect on their quality of life.
“That’s more than a 5-month difference,” Dr. Stein Gold noted. “It shows the importance of really striving to get that skin completely clear.”
The sarecycline study was funded by Almirall, which markets the antibiotic. Dr. Stein Gold, who has no financial relationship with Almirall, has received research funding from and/or served as a consultant to roughly a dozen other pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
FROM INNOVATIONS IN DERMATOLOGY
National Psoriasis Foundation recommends some stop methotrexate for 2 weeks after J&J vaccine
The , Joel M. Gelfand, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.
The new guidance states: “Patients 60 or older who have at least one comorbidity associated with an increased risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, and who are taking methotrexate with well-controlled psoriatic disease, may, in consultation with their prescriber, consider holding it for 2 weeks after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine in order to potentially improve vaccine response.”
The key word here is “potentially.” There is no hard evidence that a 2-week hold on methotrexate after receiving the killed adenovirus vaccine will actually provide a clinically meaningful benefit. But it’s a hypothetical possibility. The rationale stems from a small randomized trial conducted in South Korea several years ago in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis were assigned to hold or continue their methotrexate for the first 2 weeks after receiving an inactivated-virus influenza vaccine. The antibody response to the vaccine was better in those who temporarily halted their methotrexate, explained Dr. Gelfand, cochair of the NPF COVID-19 Task Force and professor of dermatology and of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
“If you have a patient on methotrexate who’s 60 or older and whose psoriasis is completely controlled and quiescent and the patient is concerned about how well the vaccine is going to work, this is a reasonable thing to consider in someone who’s at higher risk for poor outcomes if they get infected,” he said.
If the informed patient wants to continue on methotrexate without interruption, that’s fine, too, in light of the lack of compelling evidence on this issue, the dermatologist added at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.
The NPF task force does not extend the recommendation to consider holding methotrexate in recipients of the mRNA-based Moderna and Pfizer vaccines because of their very different mechanisms of action. Nor is it recommended to hold biologic agents after receiving any of the available COVID-19 vaccines. Studies have shown no altered immunologic response to influenza or pneumococcal vaccines in patients who continued on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or interleukin-17 inhibitors. The interleukin-23 inhibitors haven’t been studied in this regard.
The task force recommends that most psoriasis patients should continue on treatment throughout the pandemic, and newly diagnosed patients should commence appropriate therapy as if there was no pandemic.
“We’ve learned that many patients who stopped their treatment for psoriatic disease early in the pandemic came to regret that decision because their psoriasis flared and got worse and required reinstitution of therapy,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The current data is largely reassuring that if there is an effect of our therapies on the risk of COVID, it must be rather small and therefore unlikely to be clinically meaningful for our patients.”
Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant to and recipient of institutional research grants from Pfizer and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.
MedscapeLIVE and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
The , Joel M. Gelfand, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.
The new guidance states: “Patients 60 or older who have at least one comorbidity associated with an increased risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, and who are taking methotrexate with well-controlled psoriatic disease, may, in consultation with their prescriber, consider holding it for 2 weeks after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine in order to potentially improve vaccine response.”
The key word here is “potentially.” There is no hard evidence that a 2-week hold on methotrexate after receiving the killed adenovirus vaccine will actually provide a clinically meaningful benefit. But it’s a hypothetical possibility. The rationale stems from a small randomized trial conducted in South Korea several years ago in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis were assigned to hold or continue their methotrexate for the first 2 weeks after receiving an inactivated-virus influenza vaccine. The antibody response to the vaccine was better in those who temporarily halted their methotrexate, explained Dr. Gelfand, cochair of the NPF COVID-19 Task Force and professor of dermatology and of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
“If you have a patient on methotrexate who’s 60 or older and whose psoriasis is completely controlled and quiescent and the patient is concerned about how well the vaccine is going to work, this is a reasonable thing to consider in someone who’s at higher risk for poor outcomes if they get infected,” he said.
If the informed patient wants to continue on methotrexate without interruption, that’s fine, too, in light of the lack of compelling evidence on this issue, the dermatologist added at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.
The NPF task force does not extend the recommendation to consider holding methotrexate in recipients of the mRNA-based Moderna and Pfizer vaccines because of their very different mechanisms of action. Nor is it recommended to hold biologic agents after receiving any of the available COVID-19 vaccines. Studies have shown no altered immunologic response to influenza or pneumococcal vaccines in patients who continued on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or interleukin-17 inhibitors. The interleukin-23 inhibitors haven’t been studied in this regard.
The task force recommends that most psoriasis patients should continue on treatment throughout the pandemic, and newly diagnosed patients should commence appropriate therapy as if there was no pandemic.
“We’ve learned that many patients who stopped their treatment for psoriatic disease early in the pandemic came to regret that decision because their psoriasis flared and got worse and required reinstitution of therapy,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The current data is largely reassuring that if there is an effect of our therapies on the risk of COVID, it must be rather small and therefore unlikely to be clinically meaningful for our patients.”
Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant to and recipient of institutional research grants from Pfizer and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.
MedscapeLIVE and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
The , Joel M. Gelfand, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.
The new guidance states: “Patients 60 or older who have at least one comorbidity associated with an increased risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, and who are taking methotrexate with well-controlled psoriatic disease, may, in consultation with their prescriber, consider holding it for 2 weeks after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine in order to potentially improve vaccine response.”
The key word here is “potentially.” There is no hard evidence that a 2-week hold on methotrexate after receiving the killed adenovirus vaccine will actually provide a clinically meaningful benefit. But it’s a hypothetical possibility. The rationale stems from a small randomized trial conducted in South Korea several years ago in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis were assigned to hold or continue their methotrexate for the first 2 weeks after receiving an inactivated-virus influenza vaccine. The antibody response to the vaccine was better in those who temporarily halted their methotrexate, explained Dr. Gelfand, cochair of the NPF COVID-19 Task Force and professor of dermatology and of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
“If you have a patient on methotrexate who’s 60 or older and whose psoriasis is completely controlled and quiescent and the patient is concerned about how well the vaccine is going to work, this is a reasonable thing to consider in someone who’s at higher risk for poor outcomes if they get infected,” he said.
If the informed patient wants to continue on methotrexate without interruption, that’s fine, too, in light of the lack of compelling evidence on this issue, the dermatologist added at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.
The NPF task force does not extend the recommendation to consider holding methotrexate in recipients of the mRNA-based Moderna and Pfizer vaccines because of their very different mechanisms of action. Nor is it recommended to hold biologic agents after receiving any of the available COVID-19 vaccines. Studies have shown no altered immunologic response to influenza or pneumococcal vaccines in patients who continued on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or interleukin-17 inhibitors. The interleukin-23 inhibitors haven’t been studied in this regard.
The task force recommends that most psoriasis patients should continue on treatment throughout the pandemic, and newly diagnosed patients should commence appropriate therapy as if there was no pandemic.
“We’ve learned that many patients who stopped their treatment for psoriatic disease early in the pandemic came to regret that decision because their psoriasis flared and got worse and required reinstitution of therapy,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The current data is largely reassuring that if there is an effect of our therapies on the risk of COVID, it must be rather small and therefore unlikely to be clinically meaningful for our patients.”
Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant to and recipient of institutional research grants from Pfizer and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.
MedscapeLIVE and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
FROM INNOVATIONS IN DERMATOLOGY
Contact dermatitis content varies among social media sites
on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Google, Twitter, and Reddit.
Data on social media use suggest that approximately 65% of U.S. adults regularly use social media, and 40% of individuals use it in making medical decisions, Morgan Nguyen, a medical student at Northwestern University, Chicago, said at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society, held virtually this year.
“Dermatologists’ awareness of social media discussions can further their understanding of where patients go for information and what they might encounter,” she said. In particular, “contact dermatitis practitioners can tailor their counseling by knowing what their patients are seeing online.”
To characterize the social media landscape for content related to allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), Ms. Nguyen and colleagues assessed metrics on content and authorship on six different platforms.
For YouTube, the authors reviewed 15 videos related to ACD with views ranging from 24,262 to 232,300. Of these videos, two were produced as medical education, four were produced by patients, and nine were produced by physicians. The content of many videos was poor quality, with an average QUEST score of 7.4/28 overall and 8.7 for physician videos. Video quality was not associated with increased views. Video titles included “What to do if you have a rash on your face,” and “Contact dermatitis on lips!”
Overall, Instagram was more popular than Twitter, particularly among patients. The investigators searched using the hashtags #ContactDermatitis, #AllergicContactDermatitis, and #ContactDerm and reviewed the 100 most recent posts for authorship. The most recent 100 posts occurred over 16 days; physicians, patients, and companies each contributed approximately one-third of the content, but patient content was more focused on symptoms, treatment progress, and advice.
For Instagram, the hashtag search phrase made a notable difference in authorship, Ms. Nguyen said. Physicians were disproportionately more likely to use #AllergicContactDermatitis (43%) compared with patients (22%).
On Twitter, the most recent 100 posts were spread over 152 days, and professional organizations and companies generated approximately two-thirds of the posts. The #ContactDermatitis hashtag was the most common, and accounted for 94% of tweets.
Although patient support groups specific to ACD exist on Facebook, the researchers found none on Reddit. These two venues are designed for creating online communities, rather than simply providing information, and the researchers searched for support groups related to contact dermatitis. One of the main differences between the two is that Facebook allows for the creation of private groups, while Reddit is an open forum.
The largest contact dermatitis Facebook group, the “Eczema, Contact Dermatitis and Patch Testing Alliance,” had 4,665 members at the time of the study, and most groups were private. Although no support groups existed on Reddit, titles of Reddit forums discussing ACD included allergies, askdoctors, fragrance, haircarescience, legaladvice, skincareaddicts, beauty, dermatologyquestions, medical_advice, skincare_addiction, tretinoin, and vulvodynia.
For Google, the researchers used terms similar to “contact dermatitis” as generated by the Google Keyword Planner tool, and used Google Adwords data to estimate monthly searches. The top estimated term was “contact dermatitis,” with 8,322 searches, followed by “contact dermatitis pictures,” with 1,666 searches, and “contact dermatitis treatment” with 595 searches. By contrast, “allergic dermatitis” had an estimated 346 monthly searches, and “allergic contact dermatitis” had 194.
Overall, approximately 9,000 searches each month involve “contact dermatitis,” “allergic contact dermatitis,” or “allergic dermatitis,” said Ms. Nguyen. However, these estimated searches seemed comparatively low, given the high burden of ACD, she said. Although ACD ranks eighth among skin diseases based on health care costs, psoriasis (fourteenth based on health care costs) shows an estimated monthly Google search volume of 600,462, she pointed out.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social media use, and by the lack of specificity associated with the search term “contact dermatitis,” which is not unique to ACD, Ms. Nguyen said.
Although more research on quality assessment is needed, the results suggest that social media is a popular venue for ACD patients to seek and share information, Ms. Nguyen emphasized. There is an opportunity for patch testing physicians to create and disperse educational content for patients using these sites, she concluded.
Study highlights education opportunities
“Due to the pandemic, patients have been increasingly interacting with online resources in lieu of coming to a physician’s office,” corresponding author Walter J. Liszewski, MD, of the department of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “As social media is increasingly used by patients and physicians, it is important to get a sense of its footprint,” he said.
He and Ms. Nguyen were surprised by several of their findings: First, searches for ACD on Google were not particularly common given its relatively high prevalence and economic cost to society. In addition, they found that physicians often used different language than that of patients to describe ACD on Twitter and Instagram. They were also surprised at how often ACD appeared in Reddit posts, which they noted highlights that ACD impacts multiple sections of society.
The greatest challenge in studying social media and medicine is the quality of material available, Dr. Liszewski and Ms. Nguyen observed, emphasizing that while there are numerous videos on ACD on YouTube, the quality is highly variable, and there is a need for more patient-centered, educational materials. However, the results of their study highlight the opportunity for physicians and industry to create medically-accurate educational materials, they added.
Ms. Nguyen and Dr. Liszewski had no financial conflicts to disclose.
on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Google, Twitter, and Reddit.
Data on social media use suggest that approximately 65% of U.S. adults regularly use social media, and 40% of individuals use it in making medical decisions, Morgan Nguyen, a medical student at Northwestern University, Chicago, said at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society, held virtually this year.
“Dermatologists’ awareness of social media discussions can further their understanding of where patients go for information and what they might encounter,” she said. In particular, “contact dermatitis practitioners can tailor their counseling by knowing what their patients are seeing online.”
To characterize the social media landscape for content related to allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), Ms. Nguyen and colleagues assessed metrics on content and authorship on six different platforms.
For YouTube, the authors reviewed 15 videos related to ACD with views ranging from 24,262 to 232,300. Of these videos, two were produced as medical education, four were produced by patients, and nine were produced by physicians. The content of many videos was poor quality, with an average QUEST score of 7.4/28 overall and 8.7 for physician videos. Video quality was not associated with increased views. Video titles included “What to do if you have a rash on your face,” and “Contact dermatitis on lips!”
Overall, Instagram was more popular than Twitter, particularly among patients. The investigators searched using the hashtags #ContactDermatitis, #AllergicContactDermatitis, and #ContactDerm and reviewed the 100 most recent posts for authorship. The most recent 100 posts occurred over 16 days; physicians, patients, and companies each contributed approximately one-third of the content, but patient content was more focused on symptoms, treatment progress, and advice.
For Instagram, the hashtag search phrase made a notable difference in authorship, Ms. Nguyen said. Physicians were disproportionately more likely to use #AllergicContactDermatitis (43%) compared with patients (22%).
On Twitter, the most recent 100 posts were spread over 152 days, and professional organizations and companies generated approximately two-thirds of the posts. The #ContactDermatitis hashtag was the most common, and accounted for 94% of tweets.
Although patient support groups specific to ACD exist on Facebook, the researchers found none on Reddit. These two venues are designed for creating online communities, rather than simply providing information, and the researchers searched for support groups related to contact dermatitis. One of the main differences between the two is that Facebook allows for the creation of private groups, while Reddit is an open forum.
The largest contact dermatitis Facebook group, the “Eczema, Contact Dermatitis and Patch Testing Alliance,” had 4,665 members at the time of the study, and most groups were private. Although no support groups existed on Reddit, titles of Reddit forums discussing ACD included allergies, askdoctors, fragrance, haircarescience, legaladvice, skincareaddicts, beauty, dermatologyquestions, medical_advice, skincare_addiction, tretinoin, and vulvodynia.
For Google, the researchers used terms similar to “contact dermatitis” as generated by the Google Keyword Planner tool, and used Google Adwords data to estimate monthly searches. The top estimated term was “contact dermatitis,” with 8,322 searches, followed by “contact dermatitis pictures,” with 1,666 searches, and “contact dermatitis treatment” with 595 searches. By contrast, “allergic dermatitis” had an estimated 346 monthly searches, and “allergic contact dermatitis” had 194.
Overall, approximately 9,000 searches each month involve “contact dermatitis,” “allergic contact dermatitis,” or “allergic dermatitis,” said Ms. Nguyen. However, these estimated searches seemed comparatively low, given the high burden of ACD, she said. Although ACD ranks eighth among skin diseases based on health care costs, psoriasis (fourteenth based on health care costs) shows an estimated monthly Google search volume of 600,462, she pointed out.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social media use, and by the lack of specificity associated with the search term “contact dermatitis,” which is not unique to ACD, Ms. Nguyen said.
Although more research on quality assessment is needed, the results suggest that social media is a popular venue for ACD patients to seek and share information, Ms. Nguyen emphasized. There is an opportunity for patch testing physicians to create and disperse educational content for patients using these sites, she concluded.
Study highlights education opportunities
“Due to the pandemic, patients have been increasingly interacting with online resources in lieu of coming to a physician’s office,” corresponding author Walter J. Liszewski, MD, of the department of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “As social media is increasingly used by patients and physicians, it is important to get a sense of its footprint,” he said.
He and Ms. Nguyen were surprised by several of their findings: First, searches for ACD on Google were not particularly common given its relatively high prevalence and economic cost to society. In addition, they found that physicians often used different language than that of patients to describe ACD on Twitter and Instagram. They were also surprised at how often ACD appeared in Reddit posts, which they noted highlights that ACD impacts multiple sections of society.
The greatest challenge in studying social media and medicine is the quality of material available, Dr. Liszewski and Ms. Nguyen observed, emphasizing that while there are numerous videos on ACD on YouTube, the quality is highly variable, and there is a need for more patient-centered, educational materials. However, the results of their study highlight the opportunity for physicians and industry to create medically-accurate educational materials, they added.
Ms. Nguyen and Dr. Liszewski had no financial conflicts to disclose.
on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Google, Twitter, and Reddit.
Data on social media use suggest that approximately 65% of U.S. adults regularly use social media, and 40% of individuals use it in making medical decisions, Morgan Nguyen, a medical student at Northwestern University, Chicago, said at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society, held virtually this year.
“Dermatologists’ awareness of social media discussions can further their understanding of where patients go for information and what they might encounter,” she said. In particular, “contact dermatitis practitioners can tailor their counseling by knowing what their patients are seeing online.”
To characterize the social media landscape for content related to allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), Ms. Nguyen and colleagues assessed metrics on content and authorship on six different platforms.
For YouTube, the authors reviewed 15 videos related to ACD with views ranging from 24,262 to 232,300. Of these videos, two were produced as medical education, four were produced by patients, and nine were produced by physicians. The content of many videos was poor quality, with an average QUEST score of 7.4/28 overall and 8.7 for physician videos. Video quality was not associated with increased views. Video titles included “What to do if you have a rash on your face,” and “Contact dermatitis on lips!”
Overall, Instagram was more popular than Twitter, particularly among patients. The investigators searched using the hashtags #ContactDermatitis, #AllergicContactDermatitis, and #ContactDerm and reviewed the 100 most recent posts for authorship. The most recent 100 posts occurred over 16 days; physicians, patients, and companies each contributed approximately one-third of the content, but patient content was more focused on symptoms, treatment progress, and advice.
For Instagram, the hashtag search phrase made a notable difference in authorship, Ms. Nguyen said. Physicians were disproportionately more likely to use #AllergicContactDermatitis (43%) compared with patients (22%).
On Twitter, the most recent 100 posts were spread over 152 days, and professional organizations and companies generated approximately two-thirds of the posts. The #ContactDermatitis hashtag was the most common, and accounted for 94% of tweets.
Although patient support groups specific to ACD exist on Facebook, the researchers found none on Reddit. These two venues are designed for creating online communities, rather than simply providing information, and the researchers searched for support groups related to contact dermatitis. One of the main differences between the two is that Facebook allows for the creation of private groups, while Reddit is an open forum.
The largest contact dermatitis Facebook group, the “Eczema, Contact Dermatitis and Patch Testing Alliance,” had 4,665 members at the time of the study, and most groups were private. Although no support groups existed on Reddit, titles of Reddit forums discussing ACD included allergies, askdoctors, fragrance, haircarescience, legaladvice, skincareaddicts, beauty, dermatologyquestions, medical_advice, skincare_addiction, tretinoin, and vulvodynia.
For Google, the researchers used terms similar to “contact dermatitis” as generated by the Google Keyword Planner tool, and used Google Adwords data to estimate monthly searches. The top estimated term was “contact dermatitis,” with 8,322 searches, followed by “contact dermatitis pictures,” with 1,666 searches, and “contact dermatitis treatment” with 595 searches. By contrast, “allergic dermatitis” had an estimated 346 monthly searches, and “allergic contact dermatitis” had 194.
Overall, approximately 9,000 searches each month involve “contact dermatitis,” “allergic contact dermatitis,” or “allergic dermatitis,” said Ms. Nguyen. However, these estimated searches seemed comparatively low, given the high burden of ACD, she said. Although ACD ranks eighth among skin diseases based on health care costs, psoriasis (fourteenth based on health care costs) shows an estimated monthly Google search volume of 600,462, she pointed out.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social media use, and by the lack of specificity associated with the search term “contact dermatitis,” which is not unique to ACD, Ms. Nguyen said.
Although more research on quality assessment is needed, the results suggest that social media is a popular venue for ACD patients to seek and share information, Ms. Nguyen emphasized. There is an opportunity for patch testing physicians to create and disperse educational content for patients using these sites, she concluded.
Study highlights education opportunities
“Due to the pandemic, patients have been increasingly interacting with online resources in lieu of coming to a physician’s office,” corresponding author Walter J. Liszewski, MD, of the department of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “As social media is increasingly used by patients and physicians, it is important to get a sense of its footprint,” he said.
He and Ms. Nguyen were surprised by several of their findings: First, searches for ACD on Google were not particularly common given its relatively high prevalence and economic cost to society. In addition, they found that physicians often used different language than that of patients to describe ACD on Twitter and Instagram. They were also surprised at how often ACD appeared in Reddit posts, which they noted highlights that ACD impacts multiple sections of society.
The greatest challenge in studying social media and medicine is the quality of material available, Dr. Liszewski and Ms. Nguyen observed, emphasizing that while there are numerous videos on ACD on YouTube, the quality is highly variable, and there is a need for more patient-centered, educational materials. However, the results of their study highlight the opportunity for physicians and industry to create medically-accurate educational materials, they added.
Ms. Nguyen and Dr. Liszewski had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM ACDS 2021
Check all components in cases of suspected shoe allergy
according to a retrospective study of more than 30,000 patients.
Contact allergy to shoes remains a common but difficult problem for many reasons, including the limited information from shoe manufacturers, differences in shoe manufacturing processes, and changes in shoe trends, said Raina Bembry, MD, a dermatitis research fellow at Duke University, Durham, N.C., in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.
The North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) published data on shoe allergens from 2001-2004 in a 2007 review. To update this information to reflect changes in shoe manufacturing and trends, she and her coinvestigators characterized demographics, clinical characteristics, patch test results, and occupational data for NACDG patients with shoe contact allergy. They identified 33,661 patients who were patch tested with the standard series with or without a supplemental allergen between 2005 and 2018; over half were over aged 40.
The primary focus was individuals with a confirmed shoe (defined as shoes, boots, sandals, or slippers) as the source of a screening allergen or supplemental allergen, a positive patch test, and the foot as one of three sites of involvement. A total of 352 individuals met these criteria and had a confirmed final diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis, Dr. Bembry said. Compared with individuals who had positive patch tests without a confirmed diagnosis, those with confirmed allergic dermatitis were significantly more likely to be male (odds ratio, 3.36) and less likely to be over aged 40 years (OR, 0.49).
The most common NACDG screening allergen, potassium dichromate, was found in 29.8% of the study population, followed by p-tert-butylphenol formaldehyde resin in 20.1%, thiuram mix (13.3%), mixed dialkyl thioureas (12.6%) and carba mix (12%).
Notably, 29.8% of the patients showed positive patch test reactions to supplemental allergens, and 12.2% only reacted to supplemental allergens, Dr. Bembry said.
The results were limited by several factors, including referral selection bias, reliance on clinical judgment for patch test interpretations, and lack of data on the specifics of the supplemental allergens other than the source code, she said. In addition, the study does not identify nonshoe sources of foot contact allergy, and six screening allergens were not testing during this study period.
Overall, the findings were similar to those from previous studies in that patients affected with contact dermatitis from shoe allergens tended to be younger and male, with no occupational relevance to the reaction, said Dr. Bembry.
The finding that almost 20% of allergens were not found with the screening series emphasizes the value of testing not only relevant supplemental allergens, but also patient products and shoe components, she concluded.
Dr. Bembry had no financial conflicts to disclose. Coauthor Amber Atwater, MD, the immediate past president of the ACDS, and associate professor of dermatology at Duke University, disclosed receiving the Pfizer Independent Grant for Learning & Change and consulting for Henkel.
according to a retrospective study of more than 30,000 patients.
Contact allergy to shoes remains a common but difficult problem for many reasons, including the limited information from shoe manufacturers, differences in shoe manufacturing processes, and changes in shoe trends, said Raina Bembry, MD, a dermatitis research fellow at Duke University, Durham, N.C., in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.
The North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) published data on shoe allergens from 2001-2004 in a 2007 review. To update this information to reflect changes in shoe manufacturing and trends, she and her coinvestigators characterized demographics, clinical characteristics, patch test results, and occupational data for NACDG patients with shoe contact allergy. They identified 33,661 patients who were patch tested with the standard series with or without a supplemental allergen between 2005 and 2018; over half were over aged 40.
The primary focus was individuals with a confirmed shoe (defined as shoes, boots, sandals, or slippers) as the source of a screening allergen or supplemental allergen, a positive patch test, and the foot as one of three sites of involvement. A total of 352 individuals met these criteria and had a confirmed final diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis, Dr. Bembry said. Compared with individuals who had positive patch tests without a confirmed diagnosis, those with confirmed allergic dermatitis were significantly more likely to be male (odds ratio, 3.36) and less likely to be over aged 40 years (OR, 0.49).
The most common NACDG screening allergen, potassium dichromate, was found in 29.8% of the study population, followed by p-tert-butylphenol formaldehyde resin in 20.1%, thiuram mix (13.3%), mixed dialkyl thioureas (12.6%) and carba mix (12%).
Notably, 29.8% of the patients showed positive patch test reactions to supplemental allergens, and 12.2% only reacted to supplemental allergens, Dr. Bembry said.
The results were limited by several factors, including referral selection bias, reliance on clinical judgment for patch test interpretations, and lack of data on the specifics of the supplemental allergens other than the source code, she said. In addition, the study does not identify nonshoe sources of foot contact allergy, and six screening allergens were not testing during this study period.
Overall, the findings were similar to those from previous studies in that patients affected with contact dermatitis from shoe allergens tended to be younger and male, with no occupational relevance to the reaction, said Dr. Bembry.
The finding that almost 20% of allergens were not found with the screening series emphasizes the value of testing not only relevant supplemental allergens, but also patient products and shoe components, she concluded.
Dr. Bembry had no financial conflicts to disclose. Coauthor Amber Atwater, MD, the immediate past president of the ACDS, and associate professor of dermatology at Duke University, disclosed receiving the Pfizer Independent Grant for Learning & Change and consulting for Henkel.
according to a retrospective study of more than 30,000 patients.
Contact allergy to shoes remains a common but difficult problem for many reasons, including the limited information from shoe manufacturers, differences in shoe manufacturing processes, and changes in shoe trends, said Raina Bembry, MD, a dermatitis research fellow at Duke University, Durham, N.C., in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.
The North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) published data on shoe allergens from 2001-2004 in a 2007 review. To update this information to reflect changes in shoe manufacturing and trends, she and her coinvestigators characterized demographics, clinical characteristics, patch test results, and occupational data for NACDG patients with shoe contact allergy. They identified 33,661 patients who were patch tested with the standard series with or without a supplemental allergen between 2005 and 2018; over half were over aged 40.
The primary focus was individuals with a confirmed shoe (defined as shoes, boots, sandals, or slippers) as the source of a screening allergen or supplemental allergen, a positive patch test, and the foot as one of three sites of involvement. A total of 352 individuals met these criteria and had a confirmed final diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis, Dr. Bembry said. Compared with individuals who had positive patch tests without a confirmed diagnosis, those with confirmed allergic dermatitis were significantly more likely to be male (odds ratio, 3.36) and less likely to be over aged 40 years (OR, 0.49).
The most common NACDG screening allergen, potassium dichromate, was found in 29.8% of the study population, followed by p-tert-butylphenol formaldehyde resin in 20.1%, thiuram mix (13.3%), mixed dialkyl thioureas (12.6%) and carba mix (12%).
Notably, 29.8% of the patients showed positive patch test reactions to supplemental allergens, and 12.2% only reacted to supplemental allergens, Dr. Bembry said.
The results were limited by several factors, including referral selection bias, reliance on clinical judgment for patch test interpretations, and lack of data on the specifics of the supplemental allergens other than the source code, she said. In addition, the study does not identify nonshoe sources of foot contact allergy, and six screening allergens were not testing during this study period.
Overall, the findings were similar to those from previous studies in that patients affected with contact dermatitis from shoe allergens tended to be younger and male, with no occupational relevance to the reaction, said Dr. Bembry.
The finding that almost 20% of allergens were not found with the screening series emphasizes the value of testing not only relevant supplemental allergens, but also patient products and shoe components, she concluded.
Dr. Bembry had no financial conflicts to disclose. Coauthor Amber Atwater, MD, the immediate past president of the ACDS, and associate professor of dermatology at Duke University, disclosed receiving the Pfizer Independent Grant for Learning & Change and consulting for Henkel.
FROM ACDS 2021
Will psoriasis patients embrace proactive topical therapy?
Long-term proactive topical management of plaque psoriasis with twice-weekly calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate foam has been shown in a high-quality randomized trial to be more effective than conventional reactive management – but will patients go for it?
Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, has his doubts, and he shared them with Linda Stein Gold, MD, after she presented updated results from the 52-week PSO-LONG trial at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.
. And while they did so in this study with an assist in the form of monthly office visits and nudging from investigators, in real-world clinical practice that’s unlikely to happen, according to Dr. Strober, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
“It makes sense to do what’s being done in this study, there’s no doubt, but I’m concerned about adherence and whether patients are really going to do it,” he said.
“Adherence is going to be everything here, and you know patients don’t like to apply topicals to their body. Once they’re clear they’re just going to walk away from the topical,” Dr. Strober predicted.
Dr. Stein Gold countered: “When a study goes on for a full year, it starts to reflect real life.”
Moreover, the PSO-LONG trial provides the first high-quality evidence physicians can share with patients demonstrating that proactive management pays off in terms of fewer relapses and more time in remission over the long haul, added Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.
PSO-LONG was a double-blind, international, phase 3 study including 545 adults with plaque psoriasis who had clear or almost-clear skin after 4 weeks of once-daily calcipotriene 0.005%/betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Cal/BD) foam (Enstilar), and were then randomized to twice-weekly proactive management or to a reactive approach involving application of vehicle on the same twice-weekly schedule. Relapses resulted in rescue therapy with 4 weeks of once-daily Cal/BD foam.
The primary endpoint was the median time to first relapse: 56 days with the proactive approach, a significant improvement over the 30 days with the reactive approach. Over the course of 52 weeks, the proactive group spent an additional 41 days in remission, compared with the reactive group. Patients randomized to twice-weekly Cal/BD foam averaged 3.1 relapses per year, compared with 4.8 with reactive management. The side-effect profiles in the two study arms were similar.
Mean Physician Global Assessment scores and Psoriasis Area and Activity Index scores for the proactive group clearly separated from the reactive group by week 4, with those differences maintained throughout the year. The area under the curve for distribution for the Physician Global Assessment score was 15% lower in the proactive group, and 20% lower for the modified PASI score.
“These results suggest that proactive management – a concept that’s been used for atopic dermatitis – could be applied to patients with psoriasis to prolong remission,” Dr. Stein Gold concluded at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.
Asked how confident she is that patients in the real world truly will do this, Dr. Stein Gold replied: “You know, I don’t know. We hope so. Now we can tell them we actually have some data that supports treating the cleared areas. And it’s only twice a week, separated on Mondays and Thursdays.”
“I take a much more reactive approach,” Dr. Strober said. “I advise patients to get back in there with their topical steroid as soon as they see any signs of recurrence.
He added that he’s eager to see if a proactive management approach such as the one that was successful in PSO-LONG is also beneficial using some of the promising topical agents with nonsteroidal mechanisms of action, which are advancing through the developmental pipeline.
Late in 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved an expanded indication for Cal/BD foam, which includes the PSO-LONG data on the efficacy and safety of long-term twice-weekly therapy in adults in product labeling. The combination spray/foam was previously approved by the FDA as once-daily therapy in psoriasis patients aged 12 years and older, but only for up to 4 weeks because of safety concerns regarding longer use of the potent topical steroid as daily therapy.
The PSO-LONG trial was funded by LEO Pharma. Dr. Stein Gold reported serving as a paid investigator and/or consultant to LEO and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Strober, reported serving as a consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Long-term proactive topical management of plaque psoriasis with twice-weekly calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate foam has been shown in a high-quality randomized trial to be more effective than conventional reactive management – but will patients go for it?
Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, has his doubts, and he shared them with Linda Stein Gold, MD, after she presented updated results from the 52-week PSO-LONG trial at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.
. And while they did so in this study with an assist in the form of monthly office visits and nudging from investigators, in real-world clinical practice that’s unlikely to happen, according to Dr. Strober, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
“It makes sense to do what’s being done in this study, there’s no doubt, but I’m concerned about adherence and whether patients are really going to do it,” he said.
“Adherence is going to be everything here, and you know patients don’t like to apply topicals to their body. Once they’re clear they’re just going to walk away from the topical,” Dr. Strober predicted.
Dr. Stein Gold countered: “When a study goes on for a full year, it starts to reflect real life.”
Moreover, the PSO-LONG trial provides the first high-quality evidence physicians can share with patients demonstrating that proactive management pays off in terms of fewer relapses and more time in remission over the long haul, added Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.
PSO-LONG was a double-blind, international, phase 3 study including 545 adults with plaque psoriasis who had clear or almost-clear skin after 4 weeks of once-daily calcipotriene 0.005%/betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Cal/BD) foam (Enstilar), and were then randomized to twice-weekly proactive management or to a reactive approach involving application of vehicle on the same twice-weekly schedule. Relapses resulted in rescue therapy with 4 weeks of once-daily Cal/BD foam.
The primary endpoint was the median time to first relapse: 56 days with the proactive approach, a significant improvement over the 30 days with the reactive approach. Over the course of 52 weeks, the proactive group spent an additional 41 days in remission, compared with the reactive group. Patients randomized to twice-weekly Cal/BD foam averaged 3.1 relapses per year, compared with 4.8 with reactive management. The side-effect profiles in the two study arms were similar.
Mean Physician Global Assessment scores and Psoriasis Area and Activity Index scores for the proactive group clearly separated from the reactive group by week 4, with those differences maintained throughout the year. The area under the curve for distribution for the Physician Global Assessment score was 15% lower in the proactive group, and 20% lower for the modified PASI score.
“These results suggest that proactive management – a concept that’s been used for atopic dermatitis – could be applied to patients with psoriasis to prolong remission,” Dr. Stein Gold concluded at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.
Asked how confident she is that patients in the real world truly will do this, Dr. Stein Gold replied: “You know, I don’t know. We hope so. Now we can tell them we actually have some data that supports treating the cleared areas. And it’s only twice a week, separated on Mondays and Thursdays.”
“I take a much more reactive approach,” Dr. Strober said. “I advise patients to get back in there with their topical steroid as soon as they see any signs of recurrence.
He added that he’s eager to see if a proactive management approach such as the one that was successful in PSO-LONG is also beneficial using some of the promising topical agents with nonsteroidal mechanisms of action, which are advancing through the developmental pipeline.
Late in 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved an expanded indication for Cal/BD foam, which includes the PSO-LONG data on the efficacy and safety of long-term twice-weekly therapy in adults in product labeling. The combination spray/foam was previously approved by the FDA as once-daily therapy in psoriasis patients aged 12 years and older, but only for up to 4 weeks because of safety concerns regarding longer use of the potent topical steroid as daily therapy.
The PSO-LONG trial was funded by LEO Pharma. Dr. Stein Gold reported serving as a paid investigator and/or consultant to LEO and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Strober, reported serving as a consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Long-term proactive topical management of plaque psoriasis with twice-weekly calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate foam has been shown in a high-quality randomized trial to be more effective than conventional reactive management – but will patients go for it?
Bruce E. Strober, MD, PhD, has his doubts, and he shared them with Linda Stein Gold, MD, after she presented updated results from the 52-week PSO-LONG trial at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.
. And while they did so in this study with an assist in the form of monthly office visits and nudging from investigators, in real-world clinical practice that’s unlikely to happen, according to Dr. Strober, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
“It makes sense to do what’s being done in this study, there’s no doubt, but I’m concerned about adherence and whether patients are really going to do it,” he said.
“Adherence is going to be everything here, and you know patients don’t like to apply topicals to their body. Once they’re clear they’re just going to walk away from the topical,” Dr. Strober predicted.
Dr. Stein Gold countered: “When a study goes on for a full year, it starts to reflect real life.”
Moreover, the PSO-LONG trial provides the first high-quality evidence physicians can share with patients demonstrating that proactive management pays off in terms of fewer relapses and more time in remission over the long haul, added Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.
PSO-LONG was a double-blind, international, phase 3 study including 545 adults with plaque psoriasis who had clear or almost-clear skin after 4 weeks of once-daily calcipotriene 0.005%/betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Cal/BD) foam (Enstilar), and were then randomized to twice-weekly proactive management or to a reactive approach involving application of vehicle on the same twice-weekly schedule. Relapses resulted in rescue therapy with 4 weeks of once-daily Cal/BD foam.
The primary endpoint was the median time to first relapse: 56 days with the proactive approach, a significant improvement over the 30 days with the reactive approach. Over the course of 52 weeks, the proactive group spent an additional 41 days in remission, compared with the reactive group. Patients randomized to twice-weekly Cal/BD foam averaged 3.1 relapses per year, compared with 4.8 with reactive management. The side-effect profiles in the two study arms were similar.
Mean Physician Global Assessment scores and Psoriasis Area and Activity Index scores for the proactive group clearly separated from the reactive group by week 4, with those differences maintained throughout the year. The area under the curve for distribution for the Physician Global Assessment score was 15% lower in the proactive group, and 20% lower for the modified PASI score.
“These results suggest that proactive management – a concept that’s been used for atopic dermatitis – could be applied to patients with psoriasis to prolong remission,” Dr. Stein Gold concluded at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.
Asked how confident she is that patients in the real world truly will do this, Dr. Stein Gold replied: “You know, I don’t know. We hope so. Now we can tell them we actually have some data that supports treating the cleared areas. And it’s only twice a week, separated on Mondays and Thursdays.”
“I take a much more reactive approach,” Dr. Strober said. “I advise patients to get back in there with their topical steroid as soon as they see any signs of recurrence.
He added that he’s eager to see if a proactive management approach such as the one that was successful in PSO-LONG is also beneficial using some of the promising topical agents with nonsteroidal mechanisms of action, which are advancing through the developmental pipeline.
Late in 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved an expanded indication for Cal/BD foam, which includes the PSO-LONG data on the efficacy and safety of long-term twice-weekly therapy in adults in product labeling. The combination spray/foam was previously approved by the FDA as once-daily therapy in psoriasis patients aged 12 years and older, but only for up to 4 weeks because of safety concerns regarding longer use of the potent topical steroid as daily therapy.
The PSO-LONG trial was funded by LEO Pharma. Dr. Stein Gold reported serving as a paid investigator and/or consultant to LEO and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Strober, reported serving as a consultant to more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLIVE! and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
FROM INNOVATIONS IN DERMATOLOGY
Contact allergen of the year found in foam in shin guards, footwear
.
The announcement was made by Donald V. Belsito, MD, professor of dermatology, Columbia University, New York, during a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society, held virtually this year. In his opinion, he said, the most exciting selections occur when international cooperation results in the identification of a new allergen that could become problematic, and acetophenone azine falls into this category.
The chemical formula of acetophenone azine is C16H16N2.
Acetophenone azine was highlighted as a contact allergen in a recent report in Dermatitis. The authors, Nadia Raison-Peyron, MD, from the department of dermatology at the University of Montpelier (France), and Denis Sasseville, MD, from the division of dermatology at McGill University Health Center, Quebec, described publications and reports of about 12 cases of severe allergic contact dermatitis secondary to shin pads or footwear, mainly in children and teens in Europe (one case was in Canada).
A common feature of these cases was the presence of a foam used for cushioning, made of ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) used in the relevant products.
In one case, a 13-year-old boy who wore shin pads for soccer developed contact dermatitis on both shins that spread, and was described as severe. Patch testing revealed the EVA foam in the shin pads as the only positive reaction. Similar cases have been reported after exposure to EVA-containing products, including shin pads, sneakers, flip-flops, ski boots, insoles, swimming goggles, and bicycle seats, according to the authors.
In some reports, cases related to footwear presented as dyshidrosiform, vesiculobullous eczema, with or without palmar lesions, or presented as plantar hyperkeratotic dermatitis, they wrote. In other cases, patients experienced scarring and postinflammatory hypopigmentation.
The compound is likely not added to EVA intentionally, they added, but instead is thought to result from reactions between additives during the manufacturing process. The presence of acetophenone azine is not well explained, but the current theory is that it results from a combination of “the degradation of the initiator dicumylperoxide and hydrazine from the foaming agent azodicarbonamide,” the authors said.
In the paper, Dr. Raison-Peyron and Dr. Sasseville recommended a patch testing concentration of 0.1% in acetone or petrolatum, as acetophenone azine is not currently available from path test suppliers, although it can be obtained from chemical product distributors.
“Given the recent discovery of this allergen, it is presumed that cases of allergic contact dermatitis would have been missed and labeled irritant contact dermatitis or dyshidrosis,” they noted. To avoid missing more cases, acetophenone azine should be added to the patch testing shoe series, as well as plastics and glues series, they emphasized.
Although no cases of allergic reactions to acetophenone azine have been reported in the United States to date, it is an emerging allergen that should be on the radar for U.S. dermatologists, Amber Atwater, MD, outgoing ACDS president, said in an interview. The lack of reported cases may be in part attributed to the fact that acetophenone azine is not yet available to purchase for testing in the United States, and the allergen could be present in shin guards and other products identified in reported cases, added Dr. Atwater, associate professor of dermatology, Duke University, Durham, N.C.
.
The announcement was made by Donald V. Belsito, MD, professor of dermatology, Columbia University, New York, during a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society, held virtually this year. In his opinion, he said, the most exciting selections occur when international cooperation results in the identification of a new allergen that could become problematic, and acetophenone azine falls into this category.
The chemical formula of acetophenone azine is C16H16N2.
Acetophenone azine was highlighted as a contact allergen in a recent report in Dermatitis. The authors, Nadia Raison-Peyron, MD, from the department of dermatology at the University of Montpelier (France), and Denis Sasseville, MD, from the division of dermatology at McGill University Health Center, Quebec, described publications and reports of about 12 cases of severe allergic contact dermatitis secondary to shin pads or footwear, mainly in children and teens in Europe (one case was in Canada).
A common feature of these cases was the presence of a foam used for cushioning, made of ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) used in the relevant products.
In one case, a 13-year-old boy who wore shin pads for soccer developed contact dermatitis on both shins that spread, and was described as severe. Patch testing revealed the EVA foam in the shin pads as the only positive reaction. Similar cases have been reported after exposure to EVA-containing products, including shin pads, sneakers, flip-flops, ski boots, insoles, swimming goggles, and bicycle seats, according to the authors.
In some reports, cases related to footwear presented as dyshidrosiform, vesiculobullous eczema, with or without palmar lesions, or presented as plantar hyperkeratotic dermatitis, they wrote. In other cases, patients experienced scarring and postinflammatory hypopigmentation.
The compound is likely not added to EVA intentionally, they added, but instead is thought to result from reactions between additives during the manufacturing process. The presence of acetophenone azine is not well explained, but the current theory is that it results from a combination of “the degradation of the initiator dicumylperoxide and hydrazine from the foaming agent azodicarbonamide,” the authors said.
In the paper, Dr. Raison-Peyron and Dr. Sasseville recommended a patch testing concentration of 0.1% in acetone or petrolatum, as acetophenone azine is not currently available from path test suppliers, although it can be obtained from chemical product distributors.
“Given the recent discovery of this allergen, it is presumed that cases of allergic contact dermatitis would have been missed and labeled irritant contact dermatitis or dyshidrosis,” they noted. To avoid missing more cases, acetophenone azine should be added to the patch testing shoe series, as well as plastics and glues series, they emphasized.
Although no cases of allergic reactions to acetophenone azine have been reported in the United States to date, it is an emerging allergen that should be on the radar for U.S. dermatologists, Amber Atwater, MD, outgoing ACDS president, said in an interview. The lack of reported cases may be in part attributed to the fact that acetophenone azine is not yet available to purchase for testing in the United States, and the allergen could be present in shin guards and other products identified in reported cases, added Dr. Atwater, associate professor of dermatology, Duke University, Durham, N.C.
.
The announcement was made by Donald V. Belsito, MD, professor of dermatology, Columbia University, New York, during a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society, held virtually this year. In his opinion, he said, the most exciting selections occur when international cooperation results in the identification of a new allergen that could become problematic, and acetophenone azine falls into this category.
The chemical formula of acetophenone azine is C16H16N2.
Acetophenone azine was highlighted as a contact allergen in a recent report in Dermatitis. The authors, Nadia Raison-Peyron, MD, from the department of dermatology at the University of Montpelier (France), and Denis Sasseville, MD, from the division of dermatology at McGill University Health Center, Quebec, described publications and reports of about 12 cases of severe allergic contact dermatitis secondary to shin pads or footwear, mainly in children and teens in Europe (one case was in Canada).
A common feature of these cases was the presence of a foam used for cushioning, made of ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) used in the relevant products.
In one case, a 13-year-old boy who wore shin pads for soccer developed contact dermatitis on both shins that spread, and was described as severe. Patch testing revealed the EVA foam in the shin pads as the only positive reaction. Similar cases have been reported after exposure to EVA-containing products, including shin pads, sneakers, flip-flops, ski boots, insoles, swimming goggles, and bicycle seats, according to the authors.
In some reports, cases related to footwear presented as dyshidrosiform, vesiculobullous eczema, with or without palmar lesions, or presented as plantar hyperkeratotic dermatitis, they wrote. In other cases, patients experienced scarring and postinflammatory hypopigmentation.
The compound is likely not added to EVA intentionally, they added, but instead is thought to result from reactions between additives during the manufacturing process. The presence of acetophenone azine is not well explained, but the current theory is that it results from a combination of “the degradation of the initiator dicumylperoxide and hydrazine from the foaming agent azodicarbonamide,” the authors said.
In the paper, Dr. Raison-Peyron and Dr. Sasseville recommended a patch testing concentration of 0.1% in acetone or petrolatum, as acetophenone azine is not currently available from path test suppliers, although it can be obtained from chemical product distributors.
“Given the recent discovery of this allergen, it is presumed that cases of allergic contact dermatitis would have been missed and labeled irritant contact dermatitis or dyshidrosis,” they noted. To avoid missing more cases, acetophenone azine should be added to the patch testing shoe series, as well as plastics and glues series, they emphasized.
Although no cases of allergic reactions to acetophenone azine have been reported in the United States to date, it is an emerging allergen that should be on the radar for U.S. dermatologists, Amber Atwater, MD, outgoing ACDS president, said in an interview. The lack of reported cases may be in part attributed to the fact that acetophenone azine is not yet available to purchase for testing in the United States, and the allergen could be present in shin guards and other products identified in reported cases, added Dr. Atwater, associate professor of dermatology, Duke University, Durham, N.C.
FROM ACDS 2021
Pink plaque on the ear
A 4-mm punch biopsy was performed and revealed B-cell lymphoma, consistent with extranodal marginal zone lymphoma. The plaque was palpated carefully and the location of branches of the superficial temporal artery, which usually course anterior to the helix, were mapped, and avoided as a biopsy site.
Marginal zone lymphoma is a relatively indolent B-cell lymphoma that occurs in adults in mucosal associated lymphoid tissue, most often in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Neoplasms also occur in the lungs, eyes, and skin. Initial symptoms vary according to the site of manifestation. Patients with GI tumors may present with GI bleeding, abdominal pain, and weight loss. Pulmonary lesions are often asymptomatic and picked up on chest imaging for other indications. Chronic gastritis associated with Helicobacter pylori contributes to cases and occasionally eradication of H. pylori may clear patients of disease. Autoimmune diseases, particularly Sjögren disease and Hashimoto thyroiditis, also have a causative association. Rarely, transformation into high-grade disease occurs.
On the skin, marginal zone lymphoma may be exhibited as soft salmon-colored patches with serpentine vascular markings, as seen here on dermoscopy.1 The differential diagnosis includes keloid scar, basal cell carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, arthropod bites, and amelanotic melanoma.
This patient had been under the care of Medical Oncology for surveillance and was offered observation as a potential treatment strategy because of the relatively indolent nature of the tumor. However, because the tumor was painful and growing, she opted for focal palliative radiation therapy.
Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).
1. Geller S, Marghoob AA, Scope A, et al. Dermoscopy and the diagnosis of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphoma. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018;32:53-56. doi:10.1111/jdv.14549
A 4-mm punch biopsy was performed and revealed B-cell lymphoma, consistent with extranodal marginal zone lymphoma. The plaque was palpated carefully and the location of branches of the superficial temporal artery, which usually course anterior to the helix, were mapped, and avoided as a biopsy site.
Marginal zone lymphoma is a relatively indolent B-cell lymphoma that occurs in adults in mucosal associated lymphoid tissue, most often in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Neoplasms also occur in the lungs, eyes, and skin. Initial symptoms vary according to the site of manifestation. Patients with GI tumors may present with GI bleeding, abdominal pain, and weight loss. Pulmonary lesions are often asymptomatic and picked up on chest imaging for other indications. Chronic gastritis associated with Helicobacter pylori contributes to cases and occasionally eradication of H. pylori may clear patients of disease. Autoimmune diseases, particularly Sjögren disease and Hashimoto thyroiditis, also have a causative association. Rarely, transformation into high-grade disease occurs.
On the skin, marginal zone lymphoma may be exhibited as soft salmon-colored patches with serpentine vascular markings, as seen here on dermoscopy.1 The differential diagnosis includes keloid scar, basal cell carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, arthropod bites, and amelanotic melanoma.
This patient had been under the care of Medical Oncology for surveillance and was offered observation as a potential treatment strategy because of the relatively indolent nature of the tumor. However, because the tumor was painful and growing, she opted for focal palliative radiation therapy.
Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).
A 4-mm punch biopsy was performed and revealed B-cell lymphoma, consistent with extranodal marginal zone lymphoma. The plaque was palpated carefully and the location of branches of the superficial temporal artery, which usually course anterior to the helix, were mapped, and avoided as a biopsy site.
Marginal zone lymphoma is a relatively indolent B-cell lymphoma that occurs in adults in mucosal associated lymphoid tissue, most often in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Neoplasms also occur in the lungs, eyes, and skin. Initial symptoms vary according to the site of manifestation. Patients with GI tumors may present with GI bleeding, abdominal pain, and weight loss. Pulmonary lesions are often asymptomatic and picked up on chest imaging for other indications. Chronic gastritis associated with Helicobacter pylori contributes to cases and occasionally eradication of H. pylori may clear patients of disease. Autoimmune diseases, particularly Sjögren disease and Hashimoto thyroiditis, also have a causative association. Rarely, transformation into high-grade disease occurs.
On the skin, marginal zone lymphoma may be exhibited as soft salmon-colored patches with serpentine vascular markings, as seen here on dermoscopy.1 The differential diagnosis includes keloid scar, basal cell carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, arthropod bites, and amelanotic melanoma.
This patient had been under the care of Medical Oncology for surveillance and was offered observation as a potential treatment strategy because of the relatively indolent nature of the tumor. However, because the tumor was painful and growing, she opted for focal palliative radiation therapy.
Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).
1. Geller S, Marghoob AA, Scope A, et al. Dermoscopy and the diagnosis of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphoma. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018;32:53-56. doi:10.1111/jdv.14549
1. Geller S, Marghoob AA, Scope A, et al. Dermoscopy and the diagnosis of primary cutaneous B-cell lymphoma. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018;32:53-56. doi:10.1111/jdv.14549
Itch response faster with abrocitinib in trial comparing JAK inhibitor to dupilumab
, in a multicenter, randomized trial.
In addition, in the study, those on 200-mg and 100-mg daily doses of abrocitinib experienced significantly greater reductions in signs and symptoms of AD at 12 and 16 weeks, than those on placebo, the authors reported.
The findings from the JADE COMPARE trial, published on March 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine, suggest abrocitinib will provide clinicians with another treatment option for patients who don’t get adequate relief from either topical medications or dupilumab. Abrocitinib is associated with a different set of adverse reactions than dupilumab, according to investigators.
In 2017, dupilumab (Dupixent) became the first systemic drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration specifically for AD, though systemic steroids and other immunosuppressant drugs are sometimes prescribed. A monoclonal antibody delivered by subcutaneous injection, dupilumab binds to interleukin-4 receptors to block signaling pathways involved in AD; it is now approved for treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD down to age 6 years.
“It is sort of the bar for efficacy and for safety in those patients, because that’s what we have right now,” said one of the JADE Compare investigators and study author, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology and director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. “For any new therapy coming to market, we really do want to understand how it compares to what’s out there.”
Abrocitinib is a small molecule that inhibits JAK1, which is thought to modulate multiple cytokines involved in AD, including interleukin (IL)–4, IL-13, IL-31, IL-22, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin. Two other JAK1 inhibitors, baricitinib and upadacitinib, are also being investigated as systemic treatments for AD.
In JADE COMPARE, people with moderate to severe AD from 18 countries on four continents, entered a 28-day screening period during which they discontinued treatments. They began using emollients twice a day at least 7 days before being randomly assigned to a treatment group, and continued on topical medication once daily. Topical treatments included low- or medium-potency topical glucocorticoids, calcineurin inhibitors, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors.
The researchers randomly assigned 838 to trial groups: 226 received 200 mg of abrocitinib orally once a day, 238 received 100 mg of abrocitinib once a day, 243 received a 300-mg dupilumab injection every other week, and 131 received placebo versions of both medications, for 16 weeks. The mean age of the patients overall was about 38 years; about two-thirds were White.
At 2 weeks, half of the patients on 200 mg of abrocitinib and 31.8% of those on the 100-mg dose had an itch response, defined as at least a 4-point improvement from baseline in the 0-10 Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale. This was compared with 26.4% of those on dupilumab and 13.8% of those on placebo.
And at 12 weeks, more of the patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group than in the other groups had an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) response (defined as clear or almost clear) and more had an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) response (defined as an improvement of at least 75%). (See Table) EASI-75 and IGA responses at week 12 were the primary outcomes of the study.
The differences between both abrocitinib groups and the placebo group were statistically significant by all these measures (P < .001). The difference between the 200-mg abrocitinib and the dupilumab group was only significant for itch at 2 weeks, and the difference in itch response between the 100-mg group and the dupilumab group at 2 weeks was not significant (P < .20).
At 16 weeks, the EASI-75 response (a secondary endpoint) among those on either dose of abrocitinib was not significantly different than among those on dupilumab (71% and 60.3% among those on 200 mg and 100 mg, respectively; and 65.5% among those on dupilumab, compared with 30.6% of those on placebo).
“The patients I have on this medicine [abrocitinib] are very happy,” said one of the study authors, Melinda Gooderham, MsC, MD, an assistant professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., an investigator in the trial. “It works very quickly for itch,” she said in an interview.
The study didn’t have sufficient statistical power to fully explore the comparison to dupilumab, and future trials will go deeper into the comparison, she added.
Still, in this trial, abrocitinib demonstrated a clear advantage in the speed and depth of efficacy, Dr. Silverberg noted. “The 100-mg dose of abrocitinib was about as effective as, or maybe slightly less effective than, dupilumab, and the 200-mg dose was more effective than dupilumab.”
The overall incidence of adverse events was higher in the 200-mg abrocitinib arm than in the other groups, but the incidence of serious or severe adverse events, and the incidence of adverse events that resulted in discontinuing the medication, were similar across the trial groups.
However, nausea affected 11.1% of the patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group and 4.2% of those in the 100-mg abrocitinib group. Acne was also reported in these groups (6.6% and 2.9%, among those on 200 mg and 100 mg, respectively, compared with 1.2% of those on dupilumab and none of those on placebo). In a few of those on abrocitinib, herpes zoster flared up. And median platelet counts decreased among the patients taking abrocitinib, although none dropped below 75,000/mm3. Serious infections were reported in two patients on abrocitinib, but resolved.
By contrast, only 2.9% of the patients on dupilumab had nausea. But 6.2% in the dupilumab group had conjunctivitis, compared with 1.3% of patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group and 0.8 in the 100-mg abrocitinib group.
As an oral medication, abrocitinib will appeal to patients who want to avoid injections, and dosing will be easier to adjust, Dr. Silverberg said. On the other hand, he added, dupilumab will have an advantage for patients who don’t want to take a daily medication, or who are concerned about the adverse events associated with abrocitinib, particularly those with blood-clotting disorders.
On the basis of two previous JADE phase 3 trials, Pfizer has submitted a new drug application for abrocitinib for treating moderate to severe AD in patients aged 12 and older to the FDA; a decision is expected in April, according to the company. The company has also applied to market the drug in Europe and the United Kingdom.
The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Silverberg’s disclosures included serving as a consultant to companies including AbbVie, Pfizer, and Regeneron. Several authors are Pfizer employees; other authors had disclosures related to Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies.
, in a multicenter, randomized trial.
In addition, in the study, those on 200-mg and 100-mg daily doses of abrocitinib experienced significantly greater reductions in signs and symptoms of AD at 12 and 16 weeks, than those on placebo, the authors reported.
The findings from the JADE COMPARE trial, published on March 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine, suggest abrocitinib will provide clinicians with another treatment option for patients who don’t get adequate relief from either topical medications or dupilumab. Abrocitinib is associated with a different set of adverse reactions than dupilumab, according to investigators.
In 2017, dupilumab (Dupixent) became the first systemic drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration specifically for AD, though systemic steroids and other immunosuppressant drugs are sometimes prescribed. A monoclonal antibody delivered by subcutaneous injection, dupilumab binds to interleukin-4 receptors to block signaling pathways involved in AD; it is now approved for treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD down to age 6 years.
“It is sort of the bar for efficacy and for safety in those patients, because that’s what we have right now,” said one of the JADE Compare investigators and study author, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology and director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. “For any new therapy coming to market, we really do want to understand how it compares to what’s out there.”
Abrocitinib is a small molecule that inhibits JAK1, which is thought to modulate multiple cytokines involved in AD, including interleukin (IL)–4, IL-13, IL-31, IL-22, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin. Two other JAK1 inhibitors, baricitinib and upadacitinib, are also being investigated as systemic treatments for AD.
In JADE COMPARE, people with moderate to severe AD from 18 countries on four continents, entered a 28-day screening period during which they discontinued treatments. They began using emollients twice a day at least 7 days before being randomly assigned to a treatment group, and continued on topical medication once daily. Topical treatments included low- or medium-potency topical glucocorticoids, calcineurin inhibitors, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors.
The researchers randomly assigned 838 to trial groups: 226 received 200 mg of abrocitinib orally once a day, 238 received 100 mg of abrocitinib once a day, 243 received a 300-mg dupilumab injection every other week, and 131 received placebo versions of both medications, for 16 weeks. The mean age of the patients overall was about 38 years; about two-thirds were White.
At 2 weeks, half of the patients on 200 mg of abrocitinib and 31.8% of those on the 100-mg dose had an itch response, defined as at least a 4-point improvement from baseline in the 0-10 Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale. This was compared with 26.4% of those on dupilumab and 13.8% of those on placebo.
And at 12 weeks, more of the patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group than in the other groups had an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) response (defined as clear or almost clear) and more had an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) response (defined as an improvement of at least 75%). (See Table) EASI-75 and IGA responses at week 12 were the primary outcomes of the study.
The differences between both abrocitinib groups and the placebo group were statistically significant by all these measures (P < .001). The difference between the 200-mg abrocitinib and the dupilumab group was only significant for itch at 2 weeks, and the difference in itch response between the 100-mg group and the dupilumab group at 2 weeks was not significant (P < .20).
At 16 weeks, the EASI-75 response (a secondary endpoint) among those on either dose of abrocitinib was not significantly different than among those on dupilumab (71% and 60.3% among those on 200 mg and 100 mg, respectively; and 65.5% among those on dupilumab, compared with 30.6% of those on placebo).
“The patients I have on this medicine [abrocitinib] are very happy,” said one of the study authors, Melinda Gooderham, MsC, MD, an assistant professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., an investigator in the trial. “It works very quickly for itch,” she said in an interview.
The study didn’t have sufficient statistical power to fully explore the comparison to dupilumab, and future trials will go deeper into the comparison, she added.
Still, in this trial, abrocitinib demonstrated a clear advantage in the speed and depth of efficacy, Dr. Silverberg noted. “The 100-mg dose of abrocitinib was about as effective as, or maybe slightly less effective than, dupilumab, and the 200-mg dose was more effective than dupilumab.”
The overall incidence of adverse events was higher in the 200-mg abrocitinib arm than in the other groups, but the incidence of serious or severe adverse events, and the incidence of adverse events that resulted in discontinuing the medication, were similar across the trial groups.
However, nausea affected 11.1% of the patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group and 4.2% of those in the 100-mg abrocitinib group. Acne was also reported in these groups (6.6% and 2.9%, among those on 200 mg and 100 mg, respectively, compared with 1.2% of those on dupilumab and none of those on placebo). In a few of those on abrocitinib, herpes zoster flared up. And median platelet counts decreased among the patients taking abrocitinib, although none dropped below 75,000/mm3. Serious infections were reported in two patients on abrocitinib, but resolved.
By contrast, only 2.9% of the patients on dupilumab had nausea. But 6.2% in the dupilumab group had conjunctivitis, compared with 1.3% of patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group and 0.8 in the 100-mg abrocitinib group.
As an oral medication, abrocitinib will appeal to patients who want to avoid injections, and dosing will be easier to adjust, Dr. Silverberg said. On the other hand, he added, dupilumab will have an advantage for patients who don’t want to take a daily medication, or who are concerned about the adverse events associated with abrocitinib, particularly those with blood-clotting disorders.
On the basis of two previous JADE phase 3 trials, Pfizer has submitted a new drug application for abrocitinib for treating moderate to severe AD in patients aged 12 and older to the FDA; a decision is expected in April, according to the company. The company has also applied to market the drug in Europe and the United Kingdom.
The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Silverberg’s disclosures included serving as a consultant to companies including AbbVie, Pfizer, and Regeneron. Several authors are Pfizer employees; other authors had disclosures related to Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies.
, in a multicenter, randomized trial.
In addition, in the study, those on 200-mg and 100-mg daily doses of abrocitinib experienced significantly greater reductions in signs and symptoms of AD at 12 and 16 weeks, than those on placebo, the authors reported.
The findings from the JADE COMPARE trial, published on March 25 in the New England Journal of Medicine, suggest abrocitinib will provide clinicians with another treatment option for patients who don’t get adequate relief from either topical medications or dupilumab. Abrocitinib is associated with a different set of adverse reactions than dupilumab, according to investigators.
In 2017, dupilumab (Dupixent) became the first systemic drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration specifically for AD, though systemic steroids and other immunosuppressant drugs are sometimes prescribed. A monoclonal antibody delivered by subcutaneous injection, dupilumab binds to interleukin-4 receptors to block signaling pathways involved in AD; it is now approved for treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD down to age 6 years.
“It is sort of the bar for efficacy and for safety in those patients, because that’s what we have right now,” said one of the JADE Compare investigators and study author, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology and director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview. “For any new therapy coming to market, we really do want to understand how it compares to what’s out there.”
Abrocitinib is a small molecule that inhibits JAK1, which is thought to modulate multiple cytokines involved in AD, including interleukin (IL)–4, IL-13, IL-31, IL-22, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin. Two other JAK1 inhibitors, baricitinib and upadacitinib, are also being investigated as systemic treatments for AD.
In JADE COMPARE, people with moderate to severe AD from 18 countries on four continents, entered a 28-day screening period during which they discontinued treatments. They began using emollients twice a day at least 7 days before being randomly assigned to a treatment group, and continued on topical medication once daily. Topical treatments included low- or medium-potency topical glucocorticoids, calcineurin inhibitors, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors.
The researchers randomly assigned 838 to trial groups: 226 received 200 mg of abrocitinib orally once a day, 238 received 100 mg of abrocitinib once a day, 243 received a 300-mg dupilumab injection every other week, and 131 received placebo versions of both medications, for 16 weeks. The mean age of the patients overall was about 38 years; about two-thirds were White.
At 2 weeks, half of the patients on 200 mg of abrocitinib and 31.8% of those on the 100-mg dose had an itch response, defined as at least a 4-point improvement from baseline in the 0-10 Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale. This was compared with 26.4% of those on dupilumab and 13.8% of those on placebo.
And at 12 weeks, more of the patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group than in the other groups had an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) response (defined as clear or almost clear) and more had an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) response (defined as an improvement of at least 75%). (See Table) EASI-75 and IGA responses at week 12 were the primary outcomes of the study.
The differences between both abrocitinib groups and the placebo group were statistically significant by all these measures (P < .001). The difference between the 200-mg abrocitinib and the dupilumab group was only significant for itch at 2 weeks, and the difference in itch response between the 100-mg group and the dupilumab group at 2 weeks was not significant (P < .20).
At 16 weeks, the EASI-75 response (a secondary endpoint) among those on either dose of abrocitinib was not significantly different than among those on dupilumab (71% and 60.3% among those on 200 mg and 100 mg, respectively; and 65.5% among those on dupilumab, compared with 30.6% of those on placebo).
“The patients I have on this medicine [abrocitinib] are very happy,” said one of the study authors, Melinda Gooderham, MsC, MD, an assistant professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., an investigator in the trial. “It works very quickly for itch,” she said in an interview.
The study didn’t have sufficient statistical power to fully explore the comparison to dupilumab, and future trials will go deeper into the comparison, she added.
Still, in this trial, abrocitinib demonstrated a clear advantage in the speed and depth of efficacy, Dr. Silverberg noted. “The 100-mg dose of abrocitinib was about as effective as, or maybe slightly less effective than, dupilumab, and the 200-mg dose was more effective than dupilumab.”
The overall incidence of adverse events was higher in the 200-mg abrocitinib arm than in the other groups, but the incidence of serious or severe adverse events, and the incidence of adverse events that resulted in discontinuing the medication, were similar across the trial groups.
However, nausea affected 11.1% of the patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group and 4.2% of those in the 100-mg abrocitinib group. Acne was also reported in these groups (6.6% and 2.9%, among those on 200 mg and 100 mg, respectively, compared with 1.2% of those on dupilumab and none of those on placebo). In a few of those on abrocitinib, herpes zoster flared up. And median platelet counts decreased among the patients taking abrocitinib, although none dropped below 75,000/mm3. Serious infections were reported in two patients on abrocitinib, but resolved.
By contrast, only 2.9% of the patients on dupilumab had nausea. But 6.2% in the dupilumab group had conjunctivitis, compared with 1.3% of patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group and 0.8 in the 100-mg abrocitinib group.
As an oral medication, abrocitinib will appeal to patients who want to avoid injections, and dosing will be easier to adjust, Dr. Silverberg said. On the other hand, he added, dupilumab will have an advantage for patients who don’t want to take a daily medication, or who are concerned about the adverse events associated with abrocitinib, particularly those with blood-clotting disorders.
On the basis of two previous JADE phase 3 trials, Pfizer has submitted a new drug application for abrocitinib for treating moderate to severe AD in patients aged 12 and older to the FDA; a decision is expected in April, according to the company. The company has also applied to market the drug in Europe and the United Kingdom.
The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Silverberg’s disclosures included serving as a consultant to companies including AbbVie, Pfizer, and Regeneron. Several authors are Pfizer employees; other authors had disclosures related to Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies.
Ruxolitinib cream for atopic dermatitis is in regulatory home stretch
, demonstrated a dual mechanism of action in two pivotal phase 3 trials: antipruritic and anti-inflammatory, Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021. He presented a pooled analysis of the TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 trials, in which 1,249 patients with AD affecting 3%-20% of the body surface area were randomized 2:2:1 double-blind to ruxolitinib cream 0.75%, 1.5%, or vehicle twice daily for 8 weeks.
Striking evidence of the drug’s antipruritic effect comes from the finding that patient-reported itch scores separated significantly from the vehicle controls within just 12 hours after the first application. The margin of difference grew over time such that at 4 weeks, 48.5% of patients on ruxolitinib 1.5% experienced a clinically meaningful reduction in itch – defined by at least a 4-point improvement on the itch numeric rating scale – as did 30.1% of those on ruxolitinib 0.75% and 6.1% of controls. By week 8, these figures had further improved to 51.5%, 41.5%, and 15.8%, respectively, noted Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and president of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.
Ruxolitinib’s anti-inflammatory mechanism of action was on display in the primary study endpoint, which was the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline at week 8. The rates were 52.6% with ruxolitinib 1.5% and 44.7% at the lower dose, both significantly better than the 11.5% rate with vehicle.
For the secondary endpoint of at least a 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index score at week 8, the rates were 62% with ruxolitinib 1.5% and 53.8% at the 0.75% concentration, compared with 19.7% with vehicle.
The topical JAK inhibitor also showed superior efficacy in terms of improvement on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance Score, with a clinically meaningful 6-point or greater improvement in 23.9% and 20.9% of patients in the high- and low-dose ruxolitinib groups, versus 14.2% in controls.
Plasma drug levels remained consistently low and near-flat throughout the study.
Session comoderator Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, was struck by what he termed the “incredibly low” rates of irritancy, burning, and stinging in the ruxolitinib-treated patients: 7 cases of application-site burning in 999 treated patients, compared with 11 cases in 250 vehicle-treated patients, and 4 cases of application-site pruritus in nearly 1,000 patients on ruxolitinib, versus 6 cases in one-fourth as many controls.
“If that’s really true in clinical practice, it would be tremendous to have a nonsteroid that doesn’t have stinging and burning and may have that efficacy,” said Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice-chair of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.
“I think the fast action is an exciting aspect of this,” said comoderator Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MBA, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis in the department of dermatology at George Washington University in Washington.
He noted that in an earlier phase 2 study, ruxolitinib cream was at least as efficacious as 0.1% triamcinolone cream, providing dermatologists with a rough yardstick as to where the topical JAK inhibitor lies on the potency spectrum for AD treatment.
The FDA is expected to issue a decision on the application for approval of ruxolitinib cream in June. Dr. Eichenfield expects the drug to easily win approval. The big unanswered question is whether the regulatory agency will require boxed safety warnings, as it does for the oral JAK inhibitors approved for various indications, even though safety issues haven’t arisen with the topical agent in the clinical trials.
Dr. Papp reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to Incyte Corp., which funded the ruxolitinib studies, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
, demonstrated a dual mechanism of action in two pivotal phase 3 trials: antipruritic and anti-inflammatory, Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021. He presented a pooled analysis of the TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 trials, in which 1,249 patients with AD affecting 3%-20% of the body surface area were randomized 2:2:1 double-blind to ruxolitinib cream 0.75%, 1.5%, or vehicle twice daily for 8 weeks.
Striking evidence of the drug’s antipruritic effect comes from the finding that patient-reported itch scores separated significantly from the vehicle controls within just 12 hours after the first application. The margin of difference grew over time such that at 4 weeks, 48.5% of patients on ruxolitinib 1.5% experienced a clinically meaningful reduction in itch – defined by at least a 4-point improvement on the itch numeric rating scale – as did 30.1% of those on ruxolitinib 0.75% and 6.1% of controls. By week 8, these figures had further improved to 51.5%, 41.5%, and 15.8%, respectively, noted Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and president of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.
Ruxolitinib’s anti-inflammatory mechanism of action was on display in the primary study endpoint, which was the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline at week 8. The rates were 52.6% with ruxolitinib 1.5% and 44.7% at the lower dose, both significantly better than the 11.5% rate with vehicle.
For the secondary endpoint of at least a 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index score at week 8, the rates were 62% with ruxolitinib 1.5% and 53.8% at the 0.75% concentration, compared with 19.7% with vehicle.
The topical JAK inhibitor also showed superior efficacy in terms of improvement on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance Score, with a clinically meaningful 6-point or greater improvement in 23.9% and 20.9% of patients in the high- and low-dose ruxolitinib groups, versus 14.2% in controls.
Plasma drug levels remained consistently low and near-flat throughout the study.
Session comoderator Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, was struck by what he termed the “incredibly low” rates of irritancy, burning, and stinging in the ruxolitinib-treated patients: 7 cases of application-site burning in 999 treated patients, compared with 11 cases in 250 vehicle-treated patients, and 4 cases of application-site pruritus in nearly 1,000 patients on ruxolitinib, versus 6 cases in one-fourth as many controls.
“If that’s really true in clinical practice, it would be tremendous to have a nonsteroid that doesn’t have stinging and burning and may have that efficacy,” said Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice-chair of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.
“I think the fast action is an exciting aspect of this,” said comoderator Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MBA, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis in the department of dermatology at George Washington University in Washington.
He noted that in an earlier phase 2 study, ruxolitinib cream was at least as efficacious as 0.1% triamcinolone cream, providing dermatologists with a rough yardstick as to where the topical JAK inhibitor lies on the potency spectrum for AD treatment.
The FDA is expected to issue a decision on the application for approval of ruxolitinib cream in June. Dr. Eichenfield expects the drug to easily win approval. The big unanswered question is whether the regulatory agency will require boxed safety warnings, as it does for the oral JAK inhibitors approved for various indications, even though safety issues haven’t arisen with the topical agent in the clinical trials.
Dr. Papp reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to Incyte Corp., which funded the ruxolitinib studies, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
, demonstrated a dual mechanism of action in two pivotal phase 3 trials: antipruritic and anti-inflammatory, Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021. He presented a pooled analysis of the TRuE-AD1 and TRuE-AD2 trials, in which 1,249 patients with AD affecting 3%-20% of the body surface area were randomized 2:2:1 double-blind to ruxolitinib cream 0.75%, 1.5%, or vehicle twice daily for 8 weeks.
Striking evidence of the drug’s antipruritic effect comes from the finding that patient-reported itch scores separated significantly from the vehicle controls within just 12 hours after the first application. The margin of difference grew over time such that at 4 weeks, 48.5% of patients on ruxolitinib 1.5% experienced a clinically meaningful reduction in itch – defined by at least a 4-point improvement on the itch numeric rating scale – as did 30.1% of those on ruxolitinib 0.75% and 6.1% of controls. By week 8, these figures had further improved to 51.5%, 41.5%, and 15.8%, respectively, noted Dr. Papp, a dermatologist and president of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.
Ruxolitinib’s anti-inflammatory mechanism of action was on display in the primary study endpoint, which was the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline at week 8. The rates were 52.6% with ruxolitinib 1.5% and 44.7% at the lower dose, both significantly better than the 11.5% rate with vehicle.
For the secondary endpoint of at least a 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index score at week 8, the rates were 62% with ruxolitinib 1.5% and 53.8% at the 0.75% concentration, compared with 19.7% with vehicle.
The topical JAK inhibitor also showed superior efficacy in terms of improvement on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sleep Disturbance Score, with a clinically meaningful 6-point or greater improvement in 23.9% and 20.9% of patients in the high- and low-dose ruxolitinib groups, versus 14.2% in controls.
Plasma drug levels remained consistently low and near-flat throughout the study.
Session comoderator Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, was struck by what he termed the “incredibly low” rates of irritancy, burning, and stinging in the ruxolitinib-treated patients: 7 cases of application-site burning in 999 treated patients, compared with 11 cases in 250 vehicle-treated patients, and 4 cases of application-site pruritus in nearly 1,000 patients on ruxolitinib, versus 6 cases in one-fourth as many controls.
“If that’s really true in clinical practice, it would be tremendous to have a nonsteroid that doesn’t have stinging and burning and may have that efficacy,” said Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice-chair of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.
“I think the fast action is an exciting aspect of this,” said comoderator Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MBA, director of clinical research and contact dermatitis in the department of dermatology at George Washington University in Washington.
He noted that in an earlier phase 2 study, ruxolitinib cream was at least as efficacious as 0.1% triamcinolone cream, providing dermatologists with a rough yardstick as to where the topical JAK inhibitor lies on the potency spectrum for AD treatment.
The FDA is expected to issue a decision on the application for approval of ruxolitinib cream in June. Dr. Eichenfield expects the drug to easily win approval. The big unanswered question is whether the regulatory agency will require boxed safety warnings, as it does for the oral JAK inhibitors approved for various indications, even though safety issues haven’t arisen with the topical agent in the clinical trials.
Dr. Papp reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant to Incyte Corp., which funded the ruxolitinib studies, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
FROM INNOVATIONS IN DERMATOLOGY
A young girl presents with ‘itchy, rashy’ hands
Given the presence of erythema, lichenification, fissuring, and scale of the hands over the course of more than 3 months with the absence of nail findings is most consistent with a diagnosis of chronic hand eczema.
Chronic hand eczema (CHE) is an inflammatory dermatitis of the hands or wrists that persists for longer than 3 months or recurs twice or more in a 12-month timespan.1,2 Hand eczema can be a manifestation of atopic dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, or irritant contact dermatitis. Its multifactorial pathogenesis includes epidermal injury and disturbed epidermal barrier function from exogenous factors such as irritants or contact allergens, as well as endogenous factors including atopic dermatitis.3 In pediatrics, it often presents after an acute phase of hand dermatitis with chronic pruritus, erythema, and dry skin with scale.4 Examination findings vary widely with erythema, vesicles, scale, fissures, crusting, hyperkeratosis, and/or lichenification.3,5 Diagnosis is often achieved with careful history, asking about potential exposures that may induce lesions, and physical exam of the entire skin, including the feet. Based upon clinical history or persistent dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis patch testing should be considered.2
What’s the treatment plan?
Given that CHE is an inflammatory disease process, the goal of treatment is to reduce inflammation and allow for skin barrier repair. Unfortunately, only one study has investigated therapeutics for pediatric CHE,6 with the remainder of the literature based on adult CHE. Current CHE guidelines recommend avoidance of allergens, irritants, or other triggers of the disease as well as liberal and regular use of emollients. Because of the relative thickness of hand skin, higher-potency topical corticosteroids are often used as first-line therapy, with lower-strength topical steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, or crisaborole used as maintenance therapy. Other treatment options include phototherapy, and rarely, systemic therapies are utilized for atopic dermatitis.
What’s the differential diagnosis?
The differential diagnosis of CHE includes other scaling or hyperkeratotic skin conditions including psoriasis and tinea manuum. Other skin conditions that localize to extremities including scabies and hand-foot-and-mouth disease are discussed below.
Psoriasis can present on the hands with erythematous, well-demarcated, silver scaling plaques. However, additional plaques may be found on the elbows, knees, scalp, umbilicus, and sacrum. Nails can demonstrate pitting, oil drops, splinter hemorrhages, or onycholysis. First-line treatment includes a combination of topical steroids, topical vitamin D analogues, and keratolytics.
Tinea mannum is a dermatophyte infection of the skin of the hands. Typically, only one hand is affected with concomitant bilateral tinea pedis. It results in a white scaly plaque with dorsal hand involvement demonstrating an annular appearance, elevated edge, and central clearing. KOH prep will demonstrate septate hyphae, and cultures will grow dermatophyte colonies. Treatment includes topical antifungals or systemic antifungals for recalcitrant disease.
Scabies presents with short linear hypopigmented lesions with a black dot on one end as well as erythematous pruritic papules. These appear on the interdigital web spaces, wrists, axilla, buttocks, and genital region. Skin scraping prep with mineral oil can show mites and eggs. All individuals in an affected household should be treated with either topical permethrin or oral ivermectin to avoid reinfection or parasitic spread. All contacted linens must be cleaned with hot water and dried on high heat.
Hand-foot-and-mouth disease, classically caused by coxsackievirus, is an acute viral illness that results in an eruption of erythematous macules, papules, and vesicles on the ventral hands, soles of the feet, and oral mucosa. Diagnosis is achieved clinically and treatment is symptomatic as the lesions are self-limited.
Our patient underwent patch testing but did not return positive to any allergens. She was started on potent topical corticosteroids, educated on trigger avoidance, and gradually achieved good disease control.
Neither Mr. Haft nor Dr. Eichenfield have any relevant financial disclosures.
Michael Haft is a pediatric dermatology research associate in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. He is a 4th year medical student at the University of Rochester (N.Y.). Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital.
References
1. Diepgen TL et al. Br J Dermatol. 2009;160(2):353-8.
2. Diepgen TL et al. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2015;13(1):e1-22.
3. Agner T and Elsner P. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34 Suppl 1:4-12.
4. Mortz CG et al. Br J Dermatol. 2001;144(3):523-32.
5. Silvestre Salvador JF et al. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2020;111(1):26-40.
6. Luchsinger I et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(5):1037-42.
7. English J et al. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2009;34(7):761-9.
8. Elsner P and Agner T. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34 Suppl 1:13-21.
Given the presence of erythema, lichenification, fissuring, and scale of the hands over the course of more than 3 months with the absence of nail findings is most consistent with a diagnosis of chronic hand eczema.
Chronic hand eczema (CHE) is an inflammatory dermatitis of the hands or wrists that persists for longer than 3 months or recurs twice or more in a 12-month timespan.1,2 Hand eczema can be a manifestation of atopic dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, or irritant contact dermatitis. Its multifactorial pathogenesis includes epidermal injury and disturbed epidermal barrier function from exogenous factors such as irritants or contact allergens, as well as endogenous factors including atopic dermatitis.3 In pediatrics, it often presents after an acute phase of hand dermatitis with chronic pruritus, erythema, and dry skin with scale.4 Examination findings vary widely with erythema, vesicles, scale, fissures, crusting, hyperkeratosis, and/or lichenification.3,5 Diagnosis is often achieved with careful history, asking about potential exposures that may induce lesions, and physical exam of the entire skin, including the feet. Based upon clinical history or persistent dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis patch testing should be considered.2
What’s the treatment plan?
Given that CHE is an inflammatory disease process, the goal of treatment is to reduce inflammation and allow for skin barrier repair. Unfortunately, only one study has investigated therapeutics for pediatric CHE,6 with the remainder of the literature based on adult CHE. Current CHE guidelines recommend avoidance of allergens, irritants, or other triggers of the disease as well as liberal and regular use of emollients. Because of the relative thickness of hand skin, higher-potency topical corticosteroids are often used as first-line therapy, with lower-strength topical steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, or crisaborole used as maintenance therapy. Other treatment options include phototherapy, and rarely, systemic therapies are utilized for atopic dermatitis.
What’s the differential diagnosis?
The differential diagnosis of CHE includes other scaling or hyperkeratotic skin conditions including psoriasis and tinea manuum. Other skin conditions that localize to extremities including scabies and hand-foot-and-mouth disease are discussed below.
Psoriasis can present on the hands with erythematous, well-demarcated, silver scaling plaques. However, additional plaques may be found on the elbows, knees, scalp, umbilicus, and sacrum. Nails can demonstrate pitting, oil drops, splinter hemorrhages, or onycholysis. First-line treatment includes a combination of topical steroids, topical vitamin D analogues, and keratolytics.
Tinea mannum is a dermatophyte infection of the skin of the hands. Typically, only one hand is affected with concomitant bilateral tinea pedis. It results in a white scaly plaque with dorsal hand involvement demonstrating an annular appearance, elevated edge, and central clearing. KOH prep will demonstrate septate hyphae, and cultures will grow dermatophyte colonies. Treatment includes topical antifungals or systemic antifungals for recalcitrant disease.
Scabies presents with short linear hypopigmented lesions with a black dot on one end as well as erythematous pruritic papules. These appear on the interdigital web spaces, wrists, axilla, buttocks, and genital region. Skin scraping prep with mineral oil can show mites and eggs. All individuals in an affected household should be treated with either topical permethrin or oral ivermectin to avoid reinfection or parasitic spread. All contacted linens must be cleaned with hot water and dried on high heat.
Hand-foot-and-mouth disease, classically caused by coxsackievirus, is an acute viral illness that results in an eruption of erythematous macules, papules, and vesicles on the ventral hands, soles of the feet, and oral mucosa. Diagnosis is achieved clinically and treatment is symptomatic as the lesions are self-limited.
Our patient underwent patch testing but did not return positive to any allergens. She was started on potent topical corticosteroids, educated on trigger avoidance, and gradually achieved good disease control.
Neither Mr. Haft nor Dr. Eichenfield have any relevant financial disclosures.
Michael Haft is a pediatric dermatology research associate in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. He is a 4th year medical student at the University of Rochester (N.Y.). Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital.
References
1. Diepgen TL et al. Br J Dermatol. 2009;160(2):353-8.
2. Diepgen TL et al. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2015;13(1):e1-22.
3. Agner T and Elsner P. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34 Suppl 1:4-12.
4. Mortz CG et al. Br J Dermatol. 2001;144(3):523-32.
5. Silvestre Salvador JF et al. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2020;111(1):26-40.
6. Luchsinger I et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(5):1037-42.
7. English J et al. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2009;34(7):761-9.
8. Elsner P and Agner T. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34 Suppl 1:13-21.
Given the presence of erythema, lichenification, fissuring, and scale of the hands over the course of more than 3 months with the absence of nail findings is most consistent with a diagnosis of chronic hand eczema.
Chronic hand eczema (CHE) is an inflammatory dermatitis of the hands or wrists that persists for longer than 3 months or recurs twice or more in a 12-month timespan.1,2 Hand eczema can be a manifestation of atopic dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, or irritant contact dermatitis. Its multifactorial pathogenesis includes epidermal injury and disturbed epidermal barrier function from exogenous factors such as irritants or contact allergens, as well as endogenous factors including atopic dermatitis.3 In pediatrics, it often presents after an acute phase of hand dermatitis with chronic pruritus, erythema, and dry skin with scale.4 Examination findings vary widely with erythema, vesicles, scale, fissures, crusting, hyperkeratosis, and/or lichenification.3,5 Diagnosis is often achieved with careful history, asking about potential exposures that may induce lesions, and physical exam of the entire skin, including the feet. Based upon clinical history or persistent dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis patch testing should be considered.2
What’s the treatment plan?
Given that CHE is an inflammatory disease process, the goal of treatment is to reduce inflammation and allow for skin barrier repair. Unfortunately, only one study has investigated therapeutics for pediatric CHE,6 with the remainder of the literature based on adult CHE. Current CHE guidelines recommend avoidance of allergens, irritants, or other triggers of the disease as well as liberal and regular use of emollients. Because of the relative thickness of hand skin, higher-potency topical corticosteroids are often used as first-line therapy, with lower-strength topical steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, or crisaborole used as maintenance therapy. Other treatment options include phototherapy, and rarely, systemic therapies are utilized for atopic dermatitis.
What’s the differential diagnosis?
The differential diagnosis of CHE includes other scaling or hyperkeratotic skin conditions including psoriasis and tinea manuum. Other skin conditions that localize to extremities including scabies and hand-foot-and-mouth disease are discussed below.
Psoriasis can present on the hands with erythematous, well-demarcated, silver scaling plaques. However, additional plaques may be found on the elbows, knees, scalp, umbilicus, and sacrum. Nails can demonstrate pitting, oil drops, splinter hemorrhages, or onycholysis. First-line treatment includes a combination of topical steroids, topical vitamin D analogues, and keratolytics.
Tinea mannum is a dermatophyte infection of the skin of the hands. Typically, only one hand is affected with concomitant bilateral tinea pedis. It results in a white scaly plaque with dorsal hand involvement demonstrating an annular appearance, elevated edge, and central clearing. KOH prep will demonstrate septate hyphae, and cultures will grow dermatophyte colonies. Treatment includes topical antifungals or systemic antifungals for recalcitrant disease.
Scabies presents with short linear hypopigmented lesions with a black dot on one end as well as erythematous pruritic papules. These appear on the interdigital web spaces, wrists, axilla, buttocks, and genital region. Skin scraping prep with mineral oil can show mites and eggs. All individuals in an affected household should be treated with either topical permethrin or oral ivermectin to avoid reinfection or parasitic spread. All contacted linens must be cleaned with hot water and dried on high heat.
Hand-foot-and-mouth disease, classically caused by coxsackievirus, is an acute viral illness that results in an eruption of erythematous macules, papules, and vesicles on the ventral hands, soles of the feet, and oral mucosa. Diagnosis is achieved clinically and treatment is symptomatic as the lesions are self-limited.
Our patient underwent patch testing but did not return positive to any allergens. She was started on potent topical corticosteroids, educated on trigger avoidance, and gradually achieved good disease control.
Neither Mr. Haft nor Dr. Eichenfield have any relevant financial disclosures.
Michael Haft is a pediatric dermatology research associate in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. He is a 4th year medical student at the University of Rochester (N.Y.). Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital.
References
1. Diepgen TL et al. Br J Dermatol. 2009;160(2):353-8.
2. Diepgen TL et al. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2015;13(1):e1-22.
3. Agner T and Elsner P. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34 Suppl 1:4-12.
4. Mortz CG et al. Br J Dermatol. 2001;144(3):523-32.
5. Silvestre Salvador JF et al. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2020;111(1):26-40.
6. Luchsinger I et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(5):1037-42.
7. English J et al. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2009;34(7):761-9.
8. Elsner P and Agner T. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34 Suppl 1:13-21.
Examination findings of the bilateral hands and wrists demonstrate plaques of erythema, lichenification, and scale of the dorsal surfaces of the hands and digits. Closer inspection reveals fissuring and erythematous crust of the affected skin but normal nails. The rest of the skin exam is unremarkable.