User login
Despite An AI Assist, Imaging Study Shows Disparities in Diagnosing Different Skin Tones
When clinicians in a large-scale study viewed a series of digital images that showed skin diseases across skin tones and were asked to make a diagnosis, the accuracy was 38% among dermatologists and 19% among primary care physicians (PCPs). But when decision support from a deep learning system (DLS) was introduced, diagnostic accuracy increased by 33% among dermatologists and 69% among PCPs, results from a multicenter study showed.
However, the researchers found that across all images, diseases in dark skin (Fitzpatrick skin types 5 and 6) were diagnosed less accurately than diseases in light skin (Fitzpatrick skin types 1-4).
“,” researchers led by Matthew Groh, PhD, of Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, wrote in their study, published online in Nature Medicine.
For the study, 389 board-certified dermatologists and 450 PCPs in 39 countries were presented with 364 images to view spanning 46 skin diseases and asked to submit up to four differential diagnoses. Nearly 80% of the images were of 8 diseases: atopic dermatitis, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), dermatomyositis, lichen planus, Lyme disease, pityriasis rosea, pityriasis rubra pilaris, and secondary syphilis.
Dermatologists and PCPs achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 38% and 19%, respectively, but both groups of clinicians were 4 percentage points less accurate for diagnosis of images of dark skin as compared with light skin. With assistance from DLS decision support, diagnostic accuracy increased by 33% among dermatologists and 69% among primary care physicians. Among dermatologists, DLS support generally increased diagnostic accuracy evenly across skin tones. However, among PCPs, DLS support increased their diagnostic accuracy more in light skin tones than in dark ones.
In the survey component of the study, when the participants were asked, “Do you feel you received sufficient training for diagnosing skin diseases in patients with skin of color (non-white patients)?” 67% of all PCPs and 33% of all dermatologists responded no. “Furthermore, we have found differences in how often BCDs [board-certified dermatologists] and PCPs refer patients with light and dark skin for biopsy,” the authors wrote. “Specifically, for CTCL (a life-threatening disease), we found that both BCDs and PCPs report that they would refer patients for biopsy significantly more often in light skin than dark skin. Moreover, for the common skin diseases atopic dermatitis and pityriasis rosea, we found that BCDs report they would refer patients for biopsy more often in dark skin than light skin, which creates an unnecessary overburden on patients with dark skin.”
In a press release about the study, Dr. Groh emphasized that he and other scientists who investigate human-computer interaction “have to find a way to incorporate underrepresented demographics in our research. That way we will be ready to accurately implement these models in the real world and build AI systems that serve as tools that are designed to avoid the kind of systematic errors we know humans and machines are prone to. Then you can update curricula, you can change norms in different fields and hopefully everyone gets better.”
Ronald Moy, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Beverly Hills, Calif., who was asked to comment on the work, said that the study contributes insights into physician-AI interaction and highlights the need for further training on diagnosing skin diseases in people with darker skin tones. “The strengths of this study include its large sample size of dermatologists and primary care physicians, use of quality-controlled images across skin tones, and thorough evaluation of diagnostic accuracy with and without AI assistance,” said Dr. Moy, who is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, and the American Board of Facial Cosmetic Surgery.
“The study is limited to diagnosis and skin tone estimation based purely on a single image, which does not fully represent a clinical evaluation,” he added. However, “it does provide important benchmark data on diagnostic accuracy disparities across skin tones, but also demonstrates that while AI assistance can improve overall diagnostic accuracy, it may exacerbate disparities for non-specialists.”
Funding for the study was provided by MIT Media Lab consortium members and the Harold Horowitz Student Research Fund. One of the study authors, P. Murali Doraiswamy, MBBS, disclosed that he has received grants, advisory fees, and/or stock from several biotechnology companies outside the scope of this work and that he is a co-inventor on several patents through Duke University. The remaining authors reported having no disclosures. Dr. Moy reported having no disclosures.
When clinicians in a large-scale study viewed a series of digital images that showed skin diseases across skin tones and were asked to make a diagnosis, the accuracy was 38% among dermatologists and 19% among primary care physicians (PCPs). But when decision support from a deep learning system (DLS) was introduced, diagnostic accuracy increased by 33% among dermatologists and 69% among PCPs, results from a multicenter study showed.
However, the researchers found that across all images, diseases in dark skin (Fitzpatrick skin types 5 and 6) were diagnosed less accurately than diseases in light skin (Fitzpatrick skin types 1-4).
“,” researchers led by Matthew Groh, PhD, of Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, wrote in their study, published online in Nature Medicine.
For the study, 389 board-certified dermatologists and 450 PCPs in 39 countries were presented with 364 images to view spanning 46 skin diseases and asked to submit up to four differential diagnoses. Nearly 80% of the images were of 8 diseases: atopic dermatitis, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), dermatomyositis, lichen planus, Lyme disease, pityriasis rosea, pityriasis rubra pilaris, and secondary syphilis.
Dermatologists and PCPs achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 38% and 19%, respectively, but both groups of clinicians were 4 percentage points less accurate for diagnosis of images of dark skin as compared with light skin. With assistance from DLS decision support, diagnostic accuracy increased by 33% among dermatologists and 69% among primary care physicians. Among dermatologists, DLS support generally increased diagnostic accuracy evenly across skin tones. However, among PCPs, DLS support increased their diagnostic accuracy more in light skin tones than in dark ones.
In the survey component of the study, when the participants were asked, “Do you feel you received sufficient training for diagnosing skin diseases in patients with skin of color (non-white patients)?” 67% of all PCPs and 33% of all dermatologists responded no. “Furthermore, we have found differences in how often BCDs [board-certified dermatologists] and PCPs refer patients with light and dark skin for biopsy,” the authors wrote. “Specifically, for CTCL (a life-threatening disease), we found that both BCDs and PCPs report that they would refer patients for biopsy significantly more often in light skin than dark skin. Moreover, for the common skin diseases atopic dermatitis and pityriasis rosea, we found that BCDs report they would refer patients for biopsy more often in dark skin than light skin, which creates an unnecessary overburden on patients with dark skin.”
In a press release about the study, Dr. Groh emphasized that he and other scientists who investigate human-computer interaction “have to find a way to incorporate underrepresented demographics in our research. That way we will be ready to accurately implement these models in the real world and build AI systems that serve as tools that are designed to avoid the kind of systematic errors we know humans and machines are prone to. Then you can update curricula, you can change norms in different fields and hopefully everyone gets better.”
Ronald Moy, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Beverly Hills, Calif., who was asked to comment on the work, said that the study contributes insights into physician-AI interaction and highlights the need for further training on diagnosing skin diseases in people with darker skin tones. “The strengths of this study include its large sample size of dermatologists and primary care physicians, use of quality-controlled images across skin tones, and thorough evaluation of diagnostic accuracy with and without AI assistance,” said Dr. Moy, who is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, and the American Board of Facial Cosmetic Surgery.
“The study is limited to diagnosis and skin tone estimation based purely on a single image, which does not fully represent a clinical evaluation,” he added. However, “it does provide important benchmark data on diagnostic accuracy disparities across skin tones, but also demonstrates that while AI assistance can improve overall diagnostic accuracy, it may exacerbate disparities for non-specialists.”
Funding for the study was provided by MIT Media Lab consortium members and the Harold Horowitz Student Research Fund. One of the study authors, P. Murali Doraiswamy, MBBS, disclosed that he has received grants, advisory fees, and/or stock from several biotechnology companies outside the scope of this work and that he is a co-inventor on several patents through Duke University. The remaining authors reported having no disclosures. Dr. Moy reported having no disclosures.
When clinicians in a large-scale study viewed a series of digital images that showed skin diseases across skin tones and were asked to make a diagnosis, the accuracy was 38% among dermatologists and 19% among primary care physicians (PCPs). But when decision support from a deep learning system (DLS) was introduced, diagnostic accuracy increased by 33% among dermatologists and 69% among PCPs, results from a multicenter study showed.
However, the researchers found that across all images, diseases in dark skin (Fitzpatrick skin types 5 and 6) were diagnosed less accurately than diseases in light skin (Fitzpatrick skin types 1-4).
“,” researchers led by Matthew Groh, PhD, of Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, wrote in their study, published online in Nature Medicine.
For the study, 389 board-certified dermatologists and 450 PCPs in 39 countries were presented with 364 images to view spanning 46 skin diseases and asked to submit up to four differential diagnoses. Nearly 80% of the images were of 8 diseases: atopic dermatitis, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), dermatomyositis, lichen planus, Lyme disease, pityriasis rosea, pityriasis rubra pilaris, and secondary syphilis.
Dermatologists and PCPs achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 38% and 19%, respectively, but both groups of clinicians were 4 percentage points less accurate for diagnosis of images of dark skin as compared with light skin. With assistance from DLS decision support, diagnostic accuracy increased by 33% among dermatologists and 69% among primary care physicians. Among dermatologists, DLS support generally increased diagnostic accuracy evenly across skin tones. However, among PCPs, DLS support increased their diagnostic accuracy more in light skin tones than in dark ones.
In the survey component of the study, when the participants were asked, “Do you feel you received sufficient training for diagnosing skin diseases in patients with skin of color (non-white patients)?” 67% of all PCPs and 33% of all dermatologists responded no. “Furthermore, we have found differences in how often BCDs [board-certified dermatologists] and PCPs refer patients with light and dark skin for biopsy,” the authors wrote. “Specifically, for CTCL (a life-threatening disease), we found that both BCDs and PCPs report that they would refer patients for biopsy significantly more often in light skin than dark skin. Moreover, for the common skin diseases atopic dermatitis and pityriasis rosea, we found that BCDs report they would refer patients for biopsy more often in dark skin than light skin, which creates an unnecessary overburden on patients with dark skin.”
In a press release about the study, Dr. Groh emphasized that he and other scientists who investigate human-computer interaction “have to find a way to incorporate underrepresented demographics in our research. That way we will be ready to accurately implement these models in the real world and build AI systems that serve as tools that are designed to avoid the kind of systematic errors we know humans and machines are prone to. Then you can update curricula, you can change norms in different fields and hopefully everyone gets better.”
Ronald Moy, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Beverly Hills, Calif., who was asked to comment on the work, said that the study contributes insights into physician-AI interaction and highlights the need for further training on diagnosing skin diseases in people with darker skin tones. “The strengths of this study include its large sample size of dermatologists and primary care physicians, use of quality-controlled images across skin tones, and thorough evaluation of diagnostic accuracy with and without AI assistance,” said Dr. Moy, who is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, and the American Board of Facial Cosmetic Surgery.
“The study is limited to diagnosis and skin tone estimation based purely on a single image, which does not fully represent a clinical evaluation,” he added. However, “it does provide important benchmark data on diagnostic accuracy disparities across skin tones, but also demonstrates that while AI assistance can improve overall diagnostic accuracy, it may exacerbate disparities for non-specialists.”
Funding for the study was provided by MIT Media Lab consortium members and the Harold Horowitz Student Research Fund. One of the study authors, P. Murali Doraiswamy, MBBS, disclosed that he has received grants, advisory fees, and/or stock from several biotechnology companies outside the scope of this work and that he is a co-inventor on several patents through Duke University. The remaining authors reported having no disclosures. Dr. Moy reported having no disclosures.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
Comorbidities and Disease Type Weigh Heavily in Pregnancy Outcomes of Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases
Comorbidities may play a large role in driving poor pregnancy outcomes in pregnant people with certain immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs).
In a new study of 12 individual IMIDs, people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) did not have signficantly increased risk for preterm birth (PTB) or low birth weight (LBW), compared with people who did not have an IMID, after adjusting for additional chronic conditions and other confounding factors.
The study was published online on February 1 in eClinicalMedicine.
While many studies have explored the relationships between pregnancy outcomes and IMIDs, “the impact of comorbidities on the relation between IMIDs and pregnancy course is insufficiently examined,” the authors wrote. These previous studies also tended to have a small sample size.
Pregnancy Outcome Risks Varied Between IMIDs
To remedy this, researchers used electronic health record data from Providence St Joseph Health — a multistate integrated healthcare system — to identify more than 365,000 pregnant people with live births between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2022. The cohort included more than 5700 people with at least one of 12 IMIDs: Psoriasis, IBD, RA, spondyloarthritis (SpA), multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), Sjögren syndrome (SjS), vasculitis, sarcoidosis, and systemic sclerosis. The study included only live births with a gestational age of 20 weeks or greater.
Researchers compared maternal-fetal health outcomes between the two groups, controlling for comorbidities including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, obesity, and depression. They also accounted for confounding variables including race, age, smoking status, and socioeconomic status.
In total, 83% of people in the IMID group had no immunomodulatory medication prescriptions during their pregnancy. Of the 17% taking medication, 48%-70% continued taking their medication until delivery. Most patients were White, comprising 62.9% of the non-IMID group and 73.1% of the IMID group.
After adjusting for comorbidities, patients with any of the 12 IMIDs had a 10%-20% higher risk for PTB, LBW, small for gestation age (SGA), and cesarean section than did comparators.
But these risks varied between IMIDs. Patients with RA and IBD did not have an increased risk for PTB or LBW. However, when researchers did not control for comorbidities, pregnancy risks were higher and showed statistical significance in these two groups.
“This suggests that for RA and IBD, comorbidities may be a more important factor for adverse outcomes than the underlying autoimmune disease,” senior author Jennifer Hadlock, MD, an associate professor and director of medical data science at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, Washington, said in a video accompanying a press release.
Overall, the analysis found that women with IMIDs were approximately two to three times more likely to have chronic comorbidities than the control group.
Like previous studies, there was a strong association between SLE and APS and poor pregnancy outcomes, even after controlling for confounding factors. Patients with SpA had a 50% increased risk for PTB, while those with SLE and APS had more than a twofold higher risk. Patients with SLE were 90% more likely than comparators to deliver babies with an SGA condition, while RA patients had a 30% higher risk. SLE was the only condition with an increased risk for LBW (relative risk, 3.5). IBD, RA, PsA, SpA, SLE, APS, and SjS were all associated with a higher likelihood of delivery via cesarean section.
“The findings of this study reveal that the associations between IMIDs and adverse pregnancy outcomes are influenced by the specific type of IMIDs and the presence of comorbidities,” the authors wrote.
A Large Study, But How Representative Is It?
Asked to comment on the study, Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, noted that the analysis was much larger than many reproductive rheumatology studies, and “their statistics were phenomenal.”
She agreed that “not all autoimmune diseases are created equal when it comes to pregnancy-associated risks.” However, she added that this study’s patient population may not be totally representative of pregnant people with IMIDs or autoimmune diseases.
“We’re making generalizations about autoimmune diseases based on this demographic of White women who are not taking immunosuppression,” she said.
“We know that race and ethnicity play a huge role in pregnancy outcomes, and Black women have higher maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality, which is likely related to systemic racism and biases in the medical system,” she added. “While the study did control for sociodemographic factors, the population studied is not diverse.”
Only 17% of people with IMID in the cohort were on immunosuppressive medication, which could suggest low disease activity in the study population, Dr. Sims said. If the population generally had well-controlled disease, that could have positioned them for better pregnancy outcomes.
The authors noted that their analysis did not have information on IMID disease activity or severity — one of the limitations of the study.
However, the authors argued that the observed low prescription rate during the study may have increased poor pregnancy outcomes.
“Although this reflects real-world care in the population studied, results from this study may show higher risk than might be achieved with recommended care guidelines,” they wrote.
Ultimately, the authors argued that these findings show how co-occurring health conditions can affect pregnancy outcomes in autoimmune diseases, particularly for RA and IBD.
“There is a need to take comorbidities into consideration for guidelines for patients with inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis and when designing future research to investigate maternal health in patients with IMIDs,” they wrote.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sims declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hadlock has received research funding (paid to the institute) from Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Gilead.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Comorbidities may play a large role in driving poor pregnancy outcomes in pregnant people with certain immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs).
In a new study of 12 individual IMIDs, people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) did not have signficantly increased risk for preterm birth (PTB) or low birth weight (LBW), compared with people who did not have an IMID, after adjusting for additional chronic conditions and other confounding factors.
The study was published online on February 1 in eClinicalMedicine.
While many studies have explored the relationships between pregnancy outcomes and IMIDs, “the impact of comorbidities on the relation between IMIDs and pregnancy course is insufficiently examined,” the authors wrote. These previous studies also tended to have a small sample size.
Pregnancy Outcome Risks Varied Between IMIDs
To remedy this, researchers used electronic health record data from Providence St Joseph Health — a multistate integrated healthcare system — to identify more than 365,000 pregnant people with live births between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2022. The cohort included more than 5700 people with at least one of 12 IMIDs: Psoriasis, IBD, RA, spondyloarthritis (SpA), multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), Sjögren syndrome (SjS), vasculitis, sarcoidosis, and systemic sclerosis. The study included only live births with a gestational age of 20 weeks or greater.
Researchers compared maternal-fetal health outcomes between the two groups, controlling for comorbidities including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, obesity, and depression. They also accounted for confounding variables including race, age, smoking status, and socioeconomic status.
In total, 83% of people in the IMID group had no immunomodulatory medication prescriptions during their pregnancy. Of the 17% taking medication, 48%-70% continued taking their medication until delivery. Most patients were White, comprising 62.9% of the non-IMID group and 73.1% of the IMID group.
After adjusting for comorbidities, patients with any of the 12 IMIDs had a 10%-20% higher risk for PTB, LBW, small for gestation age (SGA), and cesarean section than did comparators.
But these risks varied between IMIDs. Patients with RA and IBD did not have an increased risk for PTB or LBW. However, when researchers did not control for comorbidities, pregnancy risks were higher and showed statistical significance in these two groups.
“This suggests that for RA and IBD, comorbidities may be a more important factor for adverse outcomes than the underlying autoimmune disease,” senior author Jennifer Hadlock, MD, an associate professor and director of medical data science at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, Washington, said in a video accompanying a press release.
Overall, the analysis found that women with IMIDs were approximately two to three times more likely to have chronic comorbidities than the control group.
Like previous studies, there was a strong association between SLE and APS and poor pregnancy outcomes, even after controlling for confounding factors. Patients with SpA had a 50% increased risk for PTB, while those with SLE and APS had more than a twofold higher risk. Patients with SLE were 90% more likely than comparators to deliver babies with an SGA condition, while RA patients had a 30% higher risk. SLE was the only condition with an increased risk for LBW (relative risk, 3.5). IBD, RA, PsA, SpA, SLE, APS, and SjS were all associated with a higher likelihood of delivery via cesarean section.
“The findings of this study reveal that the associations between IMIDs and adverse pregnancy outcomes are influenced by the specific type of IMIDs and the presence of comorbidities,” the authors wrote.
A Large Study, But How Representative Is It?
Asked to comment on the study, Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, noted that the analysis was much larger than many reproductive rheumatology studies, and “their statistics were phenomenal.”
She agreed that “not all autoimmune diseases are created equal when it comes to pregnancy-associated risks.” However, she added that this study’s patient population may not be totally representative of pregnant people with IMIDs or autoimmune diseases.
“We’re making generalizations about autoimmune diseases based on this demographic of White women who are not taking immunosuppression,” she said.
“We know that race and ethnicity play a huge role in pregnancy outcomes, and Black women have higher maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality, which is likely related to systemic racism and biases in the medical system,” she added. “While the study did control for sociodemographic factors, the population studied is not diverse.”
Only 17% of people with IMID in the cohort were on immunosuppressive medication, which could suggest low disease activity in the study population, Dr. Sims said. If the population generally had well-controlled disease, that could have positioned them for better pregnancy outcomes.
The authors noted that their analysis did not have information on IMID disease activity or severity — one of the limitations of the study.
However, the authors argued that the observed low prescription rate during the study may have increased poor pregnancy outcomes.
“Although this reflects real-world care in the population studied, results from this study may show higher risk than might be achieved with recommended care guidelines,” they wrote.
Ultimately, the authors argued that these findings show how co-occurring health conditions can affect pregnancy outcomes in autoimmune diseases, particularly for RA and IBD.
“There is a need to take comorbidities into consideration for guidelines for patients with inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis and when designing future research to investigate maternal health in patients with IMIDs,” they wrote.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sims declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hadlock has received research funding (paid to the institute) from Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Gilead.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Comorbidities may play a large role in driving poor pregnancy outcomes in pregnant people with certain immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs).
In a new study of 12 individual IMIDs, people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) did not have signficantly increased risk for preterm birth (PTB) or low birth weight (LBW), compared with people who did not have an IMID, after adjusting for additional chronic conditions and other confounding factors.
The study was published online on February 1 in eClinicalMedicine.
While many studies have explored the relationships between pregnancy outcomes and IMIDs, “the impact of comorbidities on the relation between IMIDs and pregnancy course is insufficiently examined,” the authors wrote. These previous studies also tended to have a small sample size.
Pregnancy Outcome Risks Varied Between IMIDs
To remedy this, researchers used electronic health record data from Providence St Joseph Health — a multistate integrated healthcare system — to identify more than 365,000 pregnant people with live births between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2022. The cohort included more than 5700 people with at least one of 12 IMIDs: Psoriasis, IBD, RA, spondyloarthritis (SpA), multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), Sjögren syndrome (SjS), vasculitis, sarcoidosis, and systemic sclerosis. The study included only live births with a gestational age of 20 weeks or greater.
Researchers compared maternal-fetal health outcomes between the two groups, controlling for comorbidities including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, obesity, and depression. They also accounted for confounding variables including race, age, smoking status, and socioeconomic status.
In total, 83% of people in the IMID group had no immunomodulatory medication prescriptions during their pregnancy. Of the 17% taking medication, 48%-70% continued taking their medication until delivery. Most patients were White, comprising 62.9% of the non-IMID group and 73.1% of the IMID group.
After adjusting for comorbidities, patients with any of the 12 IMIDs had a 10%-20% higher risk for PTB, LBW, small for gestation age (SGA), and cesarean section than did comparators.
But these risks varied between IMIDs. Patients with RA and IBD did not have an increased risk for PTB or LBW. However, when researchers did not control for comorbidities, pregnancy risks were higher and showed statistical significance in these two groups.
“This suggests that for RA and IBD, comorbidities may be a more important factor for adverse outcomes than the underlying autoimmune disease,” senior author Jennifer Hadlock, MD, an associate professor and director of medical data science at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle, Washington, said in a video accompanying a press release.
Overall, the analysis found that women with IMIDs were approximately two to three times more likely to have chronic comorbidities than the control group.
Like previous studies, there was a strong association between SLE and APS and poor pregnancy outcomes, even after controlling for confounding factors. Patients with SpA had a 50% increased risk for PTB, while those with SLE and APS had more than a twofold higher risk. Patients with SLE were 90% more likely than comparators to deliver babies with an SGA condition, while RA patients had a 30% higher risk. SLE was the only condition with an increased risk for LBW (relative risk, 3.5). IBD, RA, PsA, SpA, SLE, APS, and SjS were all associated with a higher likelihood of delivery via cesarean section.
“The findings of this study reveal that the associations between IMIDs and adverse pregnancy outcomes are influenced by the specific type of IMIDs and the presence of comorbidities,” the authors wrote.
A Large Study, But How Representative Is It?
Asked to comment on the study, Catherine Sims, MD, a rheumatologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, noted that the analysis was much larger than many reproductive rheumatology studies, and “their statistics were phenomenal.”
She agreed that “not all autoimmune diseases are created equal when it comes to pregnancy-associated risks.” However, she added that this study’s patient population may not be totally representative of pregnant people with IMIDs or autoimmune diseases.
“We’re making generalizations about autoimmune diseases based on this demographic of White women who are not taking immunosuppression,” she said.
“We know that race and ethnicity play a huge role in pregnancy outcomes, and Black women have higher maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality, which is likely related to systemic racism and biases in the medical system,” she added. “While the study did control for sociodemographic factors, the population studied is not diverse.”
Only 17% of people with IMID in the cohort were on immunosuppressive medication, which could suggest low disease activity in the study population, Dr. Sims said. If the population generally had well-controlled disease, that could have positioned them for better pregnancy outcomes.
The authors noted that their analysis did not have information on IMID disease activity or severity — one of the limitations of the study.
However, the authors argued that the observed low prescription rate during the study may have increased poor pregnancy outcomes.
“Although this reflects real-world care in the population studied, results from this study may show higher risk than might be achieved with recommended care guidelines,” they wrote.
Ultimately, the authors argued that these findings show how co-occurring health conditions can affect pregnancy outcomes in autoimmune diseases, particularly for RA and IBD.
“There is a need to take comorbidities into consideration for guidelines for patients with inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis and when designing future research to investigate maternal health in patients with IMIDs,” they wrote.
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sims declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hadlock has received research funding (paid to the institute) from Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Gilead.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ECLINICALMEDICINE
While Rare, Periocular Melanoma May Be Slightly Increasing
SAN DIEGO — Every year, about 4000 patients in the United States are diagnosed with periocular melanoma, according to Geva Mannor, MD, MPH.
“Though rare, the incidence is thought to be slightly increasing, while the onset tends to occur in patients over age 40 years,” Dr. Mannor, an oculofacial plastic surgeon in the division of ophthalmology at Scripps Clinic, San Diego, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “It may be more common in males and welding is a risk factor. Pain and vision loss are late symptoms, and there are amelanotic variants. Gene expression profiling and other genetic testing can predict metastasis, especially expression of BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1).”
. Extrapolating from the best available data, Dr. Mannor said that the annual incidence of choroidal melanoma in the United States is less than 2500, the annual incidence of eyelid melanoma is less than 750, and the annual incidence of conjunctival melanoma is less than 250 — much lower than for cutaneous melanomas. Put another way, the ratio between cutaneous and choroid melanoma is 80:1, the ratio between cutaneous and eyelid melanoma is 266:1, and the ratio between cutaneous and conjunctival melanoma is 800:1.
According to an article published in 2021 on the topic, risk factors for periocular melanoma include light eye color (blue/gray; relative risk, 1.75), fair skin (RR, 1.80), and inability to tan (RR, 1.64), but not blonde hair. A review of 210 patients with melanoma of the eyelid from 11 studies showed that 57% were located on the lower lid, 13% were on the upper lid (“I think because the brow protects sun exposure to the upper lid,” Dr. Mannor said), 12% were on the brow, 10% were on the lateral canthus, and 2% were on the medial canthus. In addition, 35% of the eyelid melanomas were superficial spreading cases, 31% were lentigo maligna, and 19% were nodular. The mean Breslow depth was 1.36 mm and the mortality rate was 4.9%.
Dr. Mannor said that cheek and brow melanomas can extend to the inside of the eyelid and conjunctiva. “Therefore, you want to examine the inside of upper and lower eyelids,” he said at the meeting, which was hosted by the Scripps Cancer Center. “Margin-control excision of lid melanoma is the standard treatment.”
On a related note, he said that glaucoma eye drops that contain prostaglandin F2alpha induce cutaneous and iris pigmentation with varying rates depending on the specific type of prostaglandin. “There have been case reports of these eye drops causing periocular pigmentation that masquerades as suspicious, melanoma-like skin cancer, often necessitating a skin biopsy,” he said.
Dr. Mannor reported having no disclosures.
SAN DIEGO — Every year, about 4000 patients in the United States are diagnosed with periocular melanoma, according to Geva Mannor, MD, MPH.
“Though rare, the incidence is thought to be slightly increasing, while the onset tends to occur in patients over age 40 years,” Dr. Mannor, an oculofacial plastic surgeon in the division of ophthalmology at Scripps Clinic, San Diego, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “It may be more common in males and welding is a risk factor. Pain and vision loss are late symptoms, and there are amelanotic variants. Gene expression profiling and other genetic testing can predict metastasis, especially expression of BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1).”
. Extrapolating from the best available data, Dr. Mannor said that the annual incidence of choroidal melanoma in the United States is less than 2500, the annual incidence of eyelid melanoma is less than 750, and the annual incidence of conjunctival melanoma is less than 250 — much lower than for cutaneous melanomas. Put another way, the ratio between cutaneous and choroid melanoma is 80:1, the ratio between cutaneous and eyelid melanoma is 266:1, and the ratio between cutaneous and conjunctival melanoma is 800:1.
According to an article published in 2021 on the topic, risk factors for periocular melanoma include light eye color (blue/gray; relative risk, 1.75), fair skin (RR, 1.80), and inability to tan (RR, 1.64), but not blonde hair. A review of 210 patients with melanoma of the eyelid from 11 studies showed that 57% were located on the lower lid, 13% were on the upper lid (“I think because the brow protects sun exposure to the upper lid,” Dr. Mannor said), 12% were on the brow, 10% were on the lateral canthus, and 2% were on the medial canthus. In addition, 35% of the eyelid melanomas were superficial spreading cases, 31% were lentigo maligna, and 19% were nodular. The mean Breslow depth was 1.36 mm and the mortality rate was 4.9%.
Dr. Mannor said that cheek and brow melanomas can extend to the inside of the eyelid and conjunctiva. “Therefore, you want to examine the inside of upper and lower eyelids,” he said at the meeting, which was hosted by the Scripps Cancer Center. “Margin-control excision of lid melanoma is the standard treatment.”
On a related note, he said that glaucoma eye drops that contain prostaglandin F2alpha induce cutaneous and iris pigmentation with varying rates depending on the specific type of prostaglandin. “There have been case reports of these eye drops causing periocular pigmentation that masquerades as suspicious, melanoma-like skin cancer, often necessitating a skin biopsy,” he said.
Dr. Mannor reported having no disclosures.
SAN DIEGO — Every year, about 4000 patients in the United States are diagnosed with periocular melanoma, according to Geva Mannor, MD, MPH.
“Though rare, the incidence is thought to be slightly increasing, while the onset tends to occur in patients over age 40 years,” Dr. Mannor, an oculofacial plastic surgeon in the division of ophthalmology at Scripps Clinic, San Diego, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “It may be more common in males and welding is a risk factor. Pain and vision loss are late symptoms, and there are amelanotic variants. Gene expression profiling and other genetic testing can predict metastasis, especially expression of BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1).”
. Extrapolating from the best available data, Dr. Mannor said that the annual incidence of choroidal melanoma in the United States is less than 2500, the annual incidence of eyelid melanoma is less than 750, and the annual incidence of conjunctival melanoma is less than 250 — much lower than for cutaneous melanomas. Put another way, the ratio between cutaneous and choroid melanoma is 80:1, the ratio between cutaneous and eyelid melanoma is 266:1, and the ratio between cutaneous and conjunctival melanoma is 800:1.
According to an article published in 2021 on the topic, risk factors for periocular melanoma include light eye color (blue/gray; relative risk, 1.75), fair skin (RR, 1.80), and inability to tan (RR, 1.64), but not blonde hair. A review of 210 patients with melanoma of the eyelid from 11 studies showed that 57% were located on the lower lid, 13% were on the upper lid (“I think because the brow protects sun exposure to the upper lid,” Dr. Mannor said), 12% were on the brow, 10% were on the lateral canthus, and 2% were on the medial canthus. In addition, 35% of the eyelid melanomas were superficial spreading cases, 31% were lentigo maligna, and 19% were nodular. The mean Breslow depth was 1.36 mm and the mortality rate was 4.9%.
Dr. Mannor said that cheek and brow melanomas can extend to the inside of the eyelid and conjunctiva. “Therefore, you want to examine the inside of upper and lower eyelids,” he said at the meeting, which was hosted by the Scripps Cancer Center. “Margin-control excision of lid melanoma is the standard treatment.”
On a related note, he said that glaucoma eye drops that contain prostaglandin F2alpha induce cutaneous and iris pigmentation with varying rates depending on the specific type of prostaglandin. “There have been case reports of these eye drops causing periocular pigmentation that masquerades as suspicious, melanoma-like skin cancer, often necessitating a skin biopsy,” he said.
Dr. Mannor reported having no disclosures.
FROM MELANOMA 2024
A Neurotoxin, an Antidepressant, and More Emerging Options for Treating Rosacea
ORLANDO, FLORIDA — At the same time, there is new recognition that systemic inflammation can occur with rosacea, and targeting treatment to the phenotype continues to gain steam as a way to help people with this difficult-to-manage condition.
“Anyone here think they’ve got rosacea under control? No, I wish — not yet,” Diane Dr. Thiboutot, MD, said at the annual ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference.
Botulinum Toxin Benefits
With that in mind, Dr. Thiboutot highlighted emerging therapies for treating rosacea. “Last year, there were a couple of reports … looking at the use of botulinum toxin injections for patients with rosacea,” said Dr. Thiboutot, professor of dermatology and vice chair for research in the Department of Dermatology at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
One report describes the case of a woman with rosacea who had severe recurrent episodes of erythema and flushing. She also experienced occasional papules and pustules and had been recalcitrant to multiple treatments for rosacea, according to the report published in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology in June 2023. The patient was treated with a total of 150-180 units of botulinum toxin administered as 3-6 units spaced 1 cm apart every 2-4 months. She was “eventually maintained every 6 months with excellent improvement,” Dr. Thiboutot said.
In another case, a man with refractory vascular and papulopustular rosacea was treated with half of a unit of botulinum toxin spaced every 0.5 cm. Images taken at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months after treatment demonstrated improvements, as reported in June 2023.
Regarding botulinum toxin for rosacea, Dr. Thiboutot said, “it’s a very interesting thing to think about.”
Susan Weinkle, MD, ODAC conference cochair, session moderator, and collaborative associate professor of dermatology at the University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, agreed. “I do think it holds some interesting potential,” she said. “How good are your hands? Because administering 0.5-unit injections evenly is a little bit challenging.”
However, one approach that might help is “if we could be a little more innovative like they are in Europe.” Physicians in Europe can use a metered syringe, one where they dial in the exact amount per injection, which allows them to be consistent, she added.
With rosacea erythema, Dr. Thiboutot noted, a spotted effect can result if injections are not administered uniformly.
Potential Role for Paroxetine
The antidepressant paroxetine, a potent selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, could be an effective treatment for refractory erythema of rosacea, Dr. Thiboutot said. It is approved for treating depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and social phobia. The agent has also shown effectiveness in alleviating hot flashes associated with vascular dysregulation in menopause.
Uptake in serotonin and changes in receptors are closely related to vascular dilation and constriction, Dr. Thiboutot added, so paroxetine “may be beneficial in treating vascular dysfunction” including in people with rosacea. Evidence to support this potential approach comes from the primary results of a randomized controlled trial published in June 2023. Based on the results, the researchers concluded that paroxetine “appears to be an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment for refractory erythema in rosacea.”
In the trial, almost 43% of people treated with paroxetine met the primary endpoint for improving recalcitrant erythema at week 12 compared with almost 21% who took a placebo, a statistically significant difference.
Heparan Sulfate Analog in a Cream
Evidence suggests that a low-molecular-weight heparan sulfate analog is another agent that holds potential for treating rosacea. For example, a 2023 randomized controlled trial evaluated the immune response in rosacea, focusing on a specific cathelicidin peptide called LL-37 that activates an inflammasome in rosacea. Low-molecular-weight heparan sulfate holds the potential to inhibit LL-37 activity, as LL-37 is inhibited by binding to heparan sulfate, a cell surface glycosaminoglycan.
The study of 16 people assessed the ability of the analog to modulate this response; they were also treated with the pulsed dye laser. Participants who applied a dermal repair cream that contained this ingredient experienced a one-grade reduction in erythema at weeks 4 and 8 compared with a control group applying a moisturizer.
A Growing Case for Systemic Inflammation
In the meantime, treating rosacea with more traditional therapies remains challenging.
But there’s hope. Success has been reported in the few years since an expert panel recommended treating based on phenotype — a treat-what-you-see approach, Dr. Thiboutot said.
“We don’t have a single treatment that is one-size-fits-all. We have to individualize our treatment [based] more on what we are seeing and what the patient is experiencing.”
Eventually, therapies to treat systemic inflammation could provide benefits as well. As with hidradenitis suppurativa and psoriasis, “there’s evidence of systemic inflammation in some of our rosacea patients,” Dr. Thiboutot said.
For example, researchers compared blood taken from people with and without rosacea and found increased levels of some inflammatory markers among participants with the condition.
The retrospective study published in June 2023 in Scientific Reports included 100 patients with rosacea and 58 controls. The investigators found significantly higher elevations in the SII index, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in the patients with rosacea.
“There was no significant link between the severity of rosacea and the ESR, CRP, or SII index values, Dr. Thiboutot added. “This study suggests inflammation beyond the skin in rosacea patients.”
For more guidance on treating rosacea through standard management options, including how to tailor therapy to each individual, she recommended the 2019 Update by the National Rosacea Society Expert Committee. “It’s a nice quick way to see, based on expert opinion, the most effective treatments and what the evidence base is,” said Dr. Thiboutot, lead author of the paper, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in February 2020.
Dr. Thiboutot reported no relevant financial relationships.
ORLANDO, FLORIDA — At the same time, there is new recognition that systemic inflammation can occur with rosacea, and targeting treatment to the phenotype continues to gain steam as a way to help people with this difficult-to-manage condition.
“Anyone here think they’ve got rosacea under control? No, I wish — not yet,” Diane Dr. Thiboutot, MD, said at the annual ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference.
Botulinum Toxin Benefits
With that in mind, Dr. Thiboutot highlighted emerging therapies for treating rosacea. “Last year, there were a couple of reports … looking at the use of botulinum toxin injections for patients with rosacea,” said Dr. Thiboutot, professor of dermatology and vice chair for research in the Department of Dermatology at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
One report describes the case of a woman with rosacea who had severe recurrent episodes of erythema and flushing. She also experienced occasional papules and pustules and had been recalcitrant to multiple treatments for rosacea, according to the report published in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology in June 2023. The patient was treated with a total of 150-180 units of botulinum toxin administered as 3-6 units spaced 1 cm apart every 2-4 months. She was “eventually maintained every 6 months with excellent improvement,” Dr. Thiboutot said.
In another case, a man with refractory vascular and papulopustular rosacea was treated with half of a unit of botulinum toxin spaced every 0.5 cm. Images taken at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months after treatment demonstrated improvements, as reported in June 2023.
Regarding botulinum toxin for rosacea, Dr. Thiboutot said, “it’s a very interesting thing to think about.”
Susan Weinkle, MD, ODAC conference cochair, session moderator, and collaborative associate professor of dermatology at the University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, agreed. “I do think it holds some interesting potential,” she said. “How good are your hands? Because administering 0.5-unit injections evenly is a little bit challenging.”
However, one approach that might help is “if we could be a little more innovative like they are in Europe.” Physicians in Europe can use a metered syringe, one where they dial in the exact amount per injection, which allows them to be consistent, she added.
With rosacea erythema, Dr. Thiboutot noted, a spotted effect can result if injections are not administered uniformly.
Potential Role for Paroxetine
The antidepressant paroxetine, a potent selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, could be an effective treatment for refractory erythema of rosacea, Dr. Thiboutot said. It is approved for treating depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and social phobia. The agent has also shown effectiveness in alleviating hot flashes associated with vascular dysregulation in menopause.
Uptake in serotonin and changes in receptors are closely related to vascular dilation and constriction, Dr. Thiboutot added, so paroxetine “may be beneficial in treating vascular dysfunction” including in people with rosacea. Evidence to support this potential approach comes from the primary results of a randomized controlled trial published in June 2023. Based on the results, the researchers concluded that paroxetine “appears to be an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment for refractory erythema in rosacea.”
In the trial, almost 43% of people treated with paroxetine met the primary endpoint for improving recalcitrant erythema at week 12 compared with almost 21% who took a placebo, a statistically significant difference.
Heparan Sulfate Analog in a Cream
Evidence suggests that a low-molecular-weight heparan sulfate analog is another agent that holds potential for treating rosacea. For example, a 2023 randomized controlled trial evaluated the immune response in rosacea, focusing on a specific cathelicidin peptide called LL-37 that activates an inflammasome in rosacea. Low-molecular-weight heparan sulfate holds the potential to inhibit LL-37 activity, as LL-37 is inhibited by binding to heparan sulfate, a cell surface glycosaminoglycan.
The study of 16 people assessed the ability of the analog to modulate this response; they were also treated with the pulsed dye laser. Participants who applied a dermal repair cream that contained this ingredient experienced a one-grade reduction in erythema at weeks 4 and 8 compared with a control group applying a moisturizer.
A Growing Case for Systemic Inflammation
In the meantime, treating rosacea with more traditional therapies remains challenging.
But there’s hope. Success has been reported in the few years since an expert panel recommended treating based on phenotype — a treat-what-you-see approach, Dr. Thiboutot said.
“We don’t have a single treatment that is one-size-fits-all. We have to individualize our treatment [based] more on what we are seeing and what the patient is experiencing.”
Eventually, therapies to treat systemic inflammation could provide benefits as well. As with hidradenitis suppurativa and psoriasis, “there’s evidence of systemic inflammation in some of our rosacea patients,” Dr. Thiboutot said.
For example, researchers compared blood taken from people with and without rosacea and found increased levels of some inflammatory markers among participants with the condition.
The retrospective study published in June 2023 in Scientific Reports included 100 patients with rosacea and 58 controls. The investigators found significantly higher elevations in the SII index, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in the patients with rosacea.
“There was no significant link between the severity of rosacea and the ESR, CRP, or SII index values, Dr. Thiboutot added. “This study suggests inflammation beyond the skin in rosacea patients.”
For more guidance on treating rosacea through standard management options, including how to tailor therapy to each individual, she recommended the 2019 Update by the National Rosacea Society Expert Committee. “It’s a nice quick way to see, based on expert opinion, the most effective treatments and what the evidence base is,” said Dr. Thiboutot, lead author of the paper, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in February 2020.
Dr. Thiboutot reported no relevant financial relationships.
ORLANDO, FLORIDA — At the same time, there is new recognition that systemic inflammation can occur with rosacea, and targeting treatment to the phenotype continues to gain steam as a way to help people with this difficult-to-manage condition.
“Anyone here think they’ve got rosacea under control? No, I wish — not yet,” Diane Dr. Thiboutot, MD, said at the annual ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference.
Botulinum Toxin Benefits
With that in mind, Dr. Thiboutot highlighted emerging therapies for treating rosacea. “Last year, there were a couple of reports … looking at the use of botulinum toxin injections for patients with rosacea,” said Dr. Thiboutot, professor of dermatology and vice chair for research in the Department of Dermatology at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
One report describes the case of a woman with rosacea who had severe recurrent episodes of erythema and flushing. She also experienced occasional papules and pustules and had been recalcitrant to multiple treatments for rosacea, according to the report published in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology in June 2023. The patient was treated with a total of 150-180 units of botulinum toxin administered as 3-6 units spaced 1 cm apart every 2-4 months. She was “eventually maintained every 6 months with excellent improvement,” Dr. Thiboutot said.
In another case, a man with refractory vascular and papulopustular rosacea was treated with half of a unit of botulinum toxin spaced every 0.5 cm. Images taken at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months after treatment demonstrated improvements, as reported in June 2023.
Regarding botulinum toxin for rosacea, Dr. Thiboutot said, “it’s a very interesting thing to think about.”
Susan Weinkle, MD, ODAC conference cochair, session moderator, and collaborative associate professor of dermatology at the University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, agreed. “I do think it holds some interesting potential,” she said. “How good are your hands? Because administering 0.5-unit injections evenly is a little bit challenging.”
However, one approach that might help is “if we could be a little more innovative like they are in Europe.” Physicians in Europe can use a metered syringe, one where they dial in the exact amount per injection, which allows them to be consistent, she added.
With rosacea erythema, Dr. Thiboutot noted, a spotted effect can result if injections are not administered uniformly.
Potential Role for Paroxetine
The antidepressant paroxetine, a potent selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, could be an effective treatment for refractory erythema of rosacea, Dr. Thiboutot said. It is approved for treating depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and social phobia. The agent has also shown effectiveness in alleviating hot flashes associated with vascular dysregulation in menopause.
Uptake in serotonin and changes in receptors are closely related to vascular dilation and constriction, Dr. Thiboutot added, so paroxetine “may be beneficial in treating vascular dysfunction” including in people with rosacea. Evidence to support this potential approach comes from the primary results of a randomized controlled trial published in June 2023. Based on the results, the researchers concluded that paroxetine “appears to be an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment for refractory erythema in rosacea.”
In the trial, almost 43% of people treated with paroxetine met the primary endpoint for improving recalcitrant erythema at week 12 compared with almost 21% who took a placebo, a statistically significant difference.
Heparan Sulfate Analog in a Cream
Evidence suggests that a low-molecular-weight heparan sulfate analog is another agent that holds potential for treating rosacea. For example, a 2023 randomized controlled trial evaluated the immune response in rosacea, focusing on a specific cathelicidin peptide called LL-37 that activates an inflammasome in rosacea. Low-molecular-weight heparan sulfate holds the potential to inhibit LL-37 activity, as LL-37 is inhibited by binding to heparan sulfate, a cell surface glycosaminoglycan.
The study of 16 people assessed the ability of the analog to modulate this response; they were also treated with the pulsed dye laser. Participants who applied a dermal repair cream that contained this ingredient experienced a one-grade reduction in erythema at weeks 4 and 8 compared with a control group applying a moisturizer.
A Growing Case for Systemic Inflammation
In the meantime, treating rosacea with more traditional therapies remains challenging.
But there’s hope. Success has been reported in the few years since an expert panel recommended treating based on phenotype — a treat-what-you-see approach, Dr. Thiboutot said.
“We don’t have a single treatment that is one-size-fits-all. We have to individualize our treatment [based] more on what we are seeing and what the patient is experiencing.”
Eventually, therapies to treat systemic inflammation could provide benefits as well. As with hidradenitis suppurativa and psoriasis, “there’s evidence of systemic inflammation in some of our rosacea patients,” Dr. Thiboutot said.
For example, researchers compared blood taken from people with and without rosacea and found increased levels of some inflammatory markers among participants with the condition.
The retrospective study published in June 2023 in Scientific Reports included 100 patients with rosacea and 58 controls. The investigators found significantly higher elevations in the SII index, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in the patients with rosacea.
“There was no significant link between the severity of rosacea and the ESR, CRP, or SII index values, Dr. Thiboutot added. “This study suggests inflammation beyond the skin in rosacea patients.”
For more guidance on treating rosacea through standard management options, including how to tailor therapy to each individual, she recommended the 2019 Update by the National Rosacea Society Expert Committee. “It’s a nice quick way to see, based on expert opinion, the most effective treatments and what the evidence base is,” said Dr. Thiboutot, lead author of the paper, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in February 2020.
Dr. Thiboutot reported no relevant financial relationships.
FROM ODAC 2024
Expert Shares Tips for Diagnosing, Managing Spitz Nevi
SAN DIEGO —
“For a pigmented Spitz nevus, we were taught to look for a starburst pattern, a central area of homogeneous pigment, and peripheral symmetrical streaks or pseudopods,” Dr. Piggott, an adult and pediatric dermatologist at Scripps Clinic, San Diego, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “For Spitz nevi without pigment, we were taught to look for symmetric dotted vessels.”
However, results from a retrospective study published in 2015 gave her pause in relying on dermoscopy alone for assessing Spitz nevi. Researchers from Italy, Japan, and Brazil studied excision specimens of 384 Spitzoid-looking lesions in patients 12 years and older. On histology, 86.7% were diagnosed as benign Spitz nevi and 13.3% were diagnosed as melanoma.
When the researchers looked at the dermoscopic images, many cases of atypical Spitz nevi were indistinguishable from the benign Spitz nevi. Now, Dr. Piggott said, “I respect the dermoscopy criteria, but I don’t rely solely on it.”
If a child presents with Spitzoid-looking lesion, biopsy is generally preferred to observation. “The traditional belief was that punch biopsy was preferable, followed by shave biopsy,” she said. “This is always on a case-by-case basis.”
However, results from a retrospective study of the records of 123 cases of biopsy-proven Spitz nevi with incomplete removal on biopsy suggests that the method of biopsy matters. The researchers found that the presence of residual lesion in the re-excision specimen was significantly higher when the initial biopsy was done by punch biopsy (90.9%) when compared with shave biopsy (48.9%) and formal excision (62.5%; P < .05).
“This suggests that shave may better than punch for the initial biopsy, but the study was limited by its retrospective design,” Dr. Piggott said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps Cancer Center. “Even today it remains controversial whether you should do a shave or punch biopsy.”
Parameters for diagnosing Spitzoid tumors that pathologists look for under the microscope are asymmetry, Clark’s level IV/V, lack of maturation, solid growth, nuclear pleomorphism, high nuclear-cytoplasmic ratio, and mitoses that are atypical, deep, or that exceed 6 mm2 in size.
In terms of treatment recommendations for children with biopsy-proven Spitz nevi, Dr. Piggott said that there is no consensus among pediatric dermatologists. If the biopsy comes back as a benign Spitz nevus, the most reasonable approach is observation, “especially if there is no clinical residue — no pigment on exam, no papule left over in the scar,” she said. “You also want to educate the family about the rare potential for transformation down the line. Monitor for recurrence and consider re-excision if recurrence occurs.”
If the initial Spitz nevus biopsy reveals any degree of atypia, excision is preferred. “In young children, you have to weigh the risks of anesthesia for removal,” she said. “If you’re unable to excise the lesion, close observation is recommended at 6 months or 1 year.”
Treatment for borderline atypical Spitz tumor is excision, she continued, but no outcomes data exist that document a survival benefit with sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy. “The decision on whether to do a SLN biopsy is usually made on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Piggott said. “Nodal metastases from atypical Spitzoid tumors are not uncommon, but death from widespread disease is rare. If the SLN biopsy is positive, complete lymphadenectomy is associated with increased risk of morbidity and no evidence of increased survival. If lymph node disease is found, we in pediatric dermatology would consider referral to a pediatric oncologist for consideration of systemic therapy such as interferon or a newer immunotherapy.”
Dr. Piggott reported having no relevant disclosures.
SAN DIEGO —
“For a pigmented Spitz nevus, we were taught to look for a starburst pattern, a central area of homogeneous pigment, and peripheral symmetrical streaks or pseudopods,” Dr. Piggott, an adult and pediatric dermatologist at Scripps Clinic, San Diego, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “For Spitz nevi without pigment, we were taught to look for symmetric dotted vessels.”
However, results from a retrospective study published in 2015 gave her pause in relying on dermoscopy alone for assessing Spitz nevi. Researchers from Italy, Japan, and Brazil studied excision specimens of 384 Spitzoid-looking lesions in patients 12 years and older. On histology, 86.7% were diagnosed as benign Spitz nevi and 13.3% were diagnosed as melanoma.
When the researchers looked at the dermoscopic images, many cases of atypical Spitz nevi were indistinguishable from the benign Spitz nevi. Now, Dr. Piggott said, “I respect the dermoscopy criteria, but I don’t rely solely on it.”
If a child presents with Spitzoid-looking lesion, biopsy is generally preferred to observation. “The traditional belief was that punch biopsy was preferable, followed by shave biopsy,” she said. “This is always on a case-by-case basis.”
However, results from a retrospective study of the records of 123 cases of biopsy-proven Spitz nevi with incomplete removal on biopsy suggests that the method of biopsy matters. The researchers found that the presence of residual lesion in the re-excision specimen was significantly higher when the initial biopsy was done by punch biopsy (90.9%) when compared with shave biopsy (48.9%) and formal excision (62.5%; P < .05).
“This suggests that shave may better than punch for the initial biopsy, but the study was limited by its retrospective design,” Dr. Piggott said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps Cancer Center. “Even today it remains controversial whether you should do a shave or punch biopsy.”
Parameters for diagnosing Spitzoid tumors that pathologists look for under the microscope are asymmetry, Clark’s level IV/V, lack of maturation, solid growth, nuclear pleomorphism, high nuclear-cytoplasmic ratio, and mitoses that are atypical, deep, or that exceed 6 mm2 in size.
In terms of treatment recommendations for children with biopsy-proven Spitz nevi, Dr. Piggott said that there is no consensus among pediatric dermatologists. If the biopsy comes back as a benign Spitz nevus, the most reasonable approach is observation, “especially if there is no clinical residue — no pigment on exam, no papule left over in the scar,” she said. “You also want to educate the family about the rare potential for transformation down the line. Monitor for recurrence and consider re-excision if recurrence occurs.”
If the initial Spitz nevus biopsy reveals any degree of atypia, excision is preferred. “In young children, you have to weigh the risks of anesthesia for removal,” she said. “If you’re unable to excise the lesion, close observation is recommended at 6 months or 1 year.”
Treatment for borderline atypical Spitz tumor is excision, she continued, but no outcomes data exist that document a survival benefit with sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy. “The decision on whether to do a SLN biopsy is usually made on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Piggott said. “Nodal metastases from atypical Spitzoid tumors are not uncommon, but death from widespread disease is rare. If the SLN biopsy is positive, complete lymphadenectomy is associated with increased risk of morbidity and no evidence of increased survival. If lymph node disease is found, we in pediatric dermatology would consider referral to a pediatric oncologist for consideration of systemic therapy such as interferon or a newer immunotherapy.”
Dr. Piggott reported having no relevant disclosures.
SAN DIEGO —
“For a pigmented Spitz nevus, we were taught to look for a starburst pattern, a central area of homogeneous pigment, and peripheral symmetrical streaks or pseudopods,” Dr. Piggott, an adult and pediatric dermatologist at Scripps Clinic, San Diego, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “For Spitz nevi without pigment, we were taught to look for symmetric dotted vessels.”
However, results from a retrospective study published in 2015 gave her pause in relying on dermoscopy alone for assessing Spitz nevi. Researchers from Italy, Japan, and Brazil studied excision specimens of 384 Spitzoid-looking lesions in patients 12 years and older. On histology, 86.7% were diagnosed as benign Spitz nevi and 13.3% were diagnosed as melanoma.
When the researchers looked at the dermoscopic images, many cases of atypical Spitz nevi were indistinguishable from the benign Spitz nevi. Now, Dr. Piggott said, “I respect the dermoscopy criteria, but I don’t rely solely on it.”
If a child presents with Spitzoid-looking lesion, biopsy is generally preferred to observation. “The traditional belief was that punch biopsy was preferable, followed by shave biopsy,” she said. “This is always on a case-by-case basis.”
However, results from a retrospective study of the records of 123 cases of biopsy-proven Spitz nevi with incomplete removal on biopsy suggests that the method of biopsy matters. The researchers found that the presence of residual lesion in the re-excision specimen was significantly higher when the initial biopsy was done by punch biopsy (90.9%) when compared with shave biopsy (48.9%) and formal excision (62.5%; P < .05).
“This suggests that shave may better than punch for the initial biopsy, but the study was limited by its retrospective design,” Dr. Piggott said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps Cancer Center. “Even today it remains controversial whether you should do a shave or punch biopsy.”
Parameters for diagnosing Spitzoid tumors that pathologists look for under the microscope are asymmetry, Clark’s level IV/V, lack of maturation, solid growth, nuclear pleomorphism, high nuclear-cytoplasmic ratio, and mitoses that are atypical, deep, or that exceed 6 mm2 in size.
In terms of treatment recommendations for children with biopsy-proven Spitz nevi, Dr. Piggott said that there is no consensus among pediatric dermatologists. If the biopsy comes back as a benign Spitz nevus, the most reasonable approach is observation, “especially if there is no clinical residue — no pigment on exam, no papule left over in the scar,” she said. “You also want to educate the family about the rare potential for transformation down the line. Monitor for recurrence and consider re-excision if recurrence occurs.”
If the initial Spitz nevus biopsy reveals any degree of atypia, excision is preferred. “In young children, you have to weigh the risks of anesthesia for removal,” she said. “If you’re unable to excise the lesion, close observation is recommended at 6 months or 1 year.”
Treatment for borderline atypical Spitz tumor is excision, she continued, but no outcomes data exist that document a survival benefit with sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy. “The decision on whether to do a SLN biopsy is usually made on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Piggott said. “Nodal metastases from atypical Spitzoid tumors are not uncommon, but death from widespread disease is rare. If the SLN biopsy is positive, complete lymphadenectomy is associated with increased risk of morbidity and no evidence of increased survival. If lymph node disease is found, we in pediatric dermatology would consider referral to a pediatric oncologist for consideration of systemic therapy such as interferon or a newer immunotherapy.”
Dr. Piggott reported having no relevant disclosures.
FROM MELANOMA 2024
AAD Updates Guidelines for Managing Acne
. The guidelines also conditionally recommend the use of topical clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, oral minocycline, sarecycline, combined oral contraceptives, and spironolactone.
The development updates the AAD’s 2016 guidelines for managing acne. “Since there have been several important new treatments introduced since the prior guidelines, it was determined that there was a need to update these guidelines,” John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, who cochaired a 16-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the guidelines, told this news organization.
For the new guidelines, which were published online January 30, 2023, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri, a dermatologist who directs the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, guidelines cochair Rachel V. Reynolds, MD, a dermatologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding the management of acne. Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.
In all, the work group made 18 recommendations and 5 good practice statements. They ranked 7 of the recommendations as “strong” based on the evidence reviewed, and the rest as “conditional.” The “strong” recommendations include the use of benzoyl peroxide, the use of topical retinoids, the use of topical antibiotics, a fixed dose of a combination topical antibiotic with benzoyl peroxide, a fixed dose of a combination topical retinoid with topical antibiotic, a fixed dose combination of a topical retinoid with benzoyl peroxide, and the use of doxycycline.
“Conditional” recommendations include those for the use of clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, minocycline, sarecycline, doxycycline over azithromycin; combined oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, and, for patients with severe acne, traditional daily dosing of isotretinoin over intermittent dosing of isotretinoin.
Meanwhile, good clinical practice statements contained in the document include using topical therapies combining multiple mechanisms of action, limiting systemic antibiotic use, combining topical and systemic antibiotics with benzoyl peroxide and other topical therapies, and adjuvant intralesional corticosteroid injections.
In Dr. Barbieri’s opinion, the recommendations regarding clascoterone and sarecycline represent important developments. “Clascoterone is the first FDA-approved treatment that can address hormonal causes of acne in both men and women,” he told this news organization. “Sarecycline is a narrow-spectrum tetracycline that might have some advantages over other tetracyclines such as doxycycline and minocycline. It will be important to payers to provide coverage to ensure that patients have access to these valuable new treatments.”
Dr. Barbieri added that while no evidence exists to suggest that minocycline is more effective than doxycycline, minocycline can be associated with rare but serious side effects, such as vestibular dysfunction, autoimmune hepatitis, drug-induced lupus, and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). “We should consider whether reducing use of minocycline might be beneficial to our overall care of patients with acne,” he said. “In addition, we discuss that use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be limited due to risk of severe adverse reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and acute respiratory failure.”
Another highlight of the guidelines, he continued, are specific recommendations for young, healthy patients on isotretinoin or spironolactone, which “can help clinicians and patients who are interested in less frequent monitoring feel more comfortable with these approaches,” he said.
Many discussions among work group members dealt with how to best implement the GRADE approach to the project “while ensuring the guidelines were as clinically relevant and actionable as possible,” according to Dr. Barbieri. “I think an important issue going forward will be to consider how to update and modify the GRADE approach to fit the unique needs of creating evidence-based guidelines for the management of skin disease.”
The work group acknowledged limitations of the guidelines, including identification of “important evidence gaps on the use of microbiology and endocrinology testing in acne, the use of systemic antibiotics beyond tetracycline-class antibiotics, physical modalities, complementary and alternative therapies, dietary interventions for the treatment of acne, and cost-effectiveness of acne treatments,” they wrote. “RCTs with long-term follow-up and comparative effectiveness research are necessary to examine and compare patient-centered acne treatment outcomes.”
The AAD funded the project. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he serves as investigator for the National Institutes of Health and the National Psoriasis Foundation. Many coauthors reported being a speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies.
. The guidelines also conditionally recommend the use of topical clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, oral minocycline, sarecycline, combined oral contraceptives, and spironolactone.
The development updates the AAD’s 2016 guidelines for managing acne. “Since there have been several important new treatments introduced since the prior guidelines, it was determined that there was a need to update these guidelines,” John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, who cochaired a 16-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the guidelines, told this news organization.
For the new guidelines, which were published online January 30, 2023, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri, a dermatologist who directs the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, guidelines cochair Rachel V. Reynolds, MD, a dermatologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding the management of acne. Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.
In all, the work group made 18 recommendations and 5 good practice statements. They ranked 7 of the recommendations as “strong” based on the evidence reviewed, and the rest as “conditional.” The “strong” recommendations include the use of benzoyl peroxide, the use of topical retinoids, the use of topical antibiotics, a fixed dose of a combination topical antibiotic with benzoyl peroxide, a fixed dose of a combination topical retinoid with topical antibiotic, a fixed dose combination of a topical retinoid with benzoyl peroxide, and the use of doxycycline.
“Conditional” recommendations include those for the use of clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, minocycline, sarecycline, doxycycline over azithromycin; combined oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, and, for patients with severe acne, traditional daily dosing of isotretinoin over intermittent dosing of isotretinoin.
Meanwhile, good clinical practice statements contained in the document include using topical therapies combining multiple mechanisms of action, limiting systemic antibiotic use, combining topical and systemic antibiotics with benzoyl peroxide and other topical therapies, and adjuvant intralesional corticosteroid injections.
In Dr. Barbieri’s opinion, the recommendations regarding clascoterone and sarecycline represent important developments. “Clascoterone is the first FDA-approved treatment that can address hormonal causes of acne in both men and women,” he told this news organization. “Sarecycline is a narrow-spectrum tetracycline that might have some advantages over other tetracyclines such as doxycycline and minocycline. It will be important to payers to provide coverage to ensure that patients have access to these valuable new treatments.”
Dr. Barbieri added that while no evidence exists to suggest that minocycline is more effective than doxycycline, minocycline can be associated with rare but serious side effects, such as vestibular dysfunction, autoimmune hepatitis, drug-induced lupus, and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). “We should consider whether reducing use of minocycline might be beneficial to our overall care of patients with acne,” he said. “In addition, we discuss that use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be limited due to risk of severe adverse reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and acute respiratory failure.”
Another highlight of the guidelines, he continued, are specific recommendations for young, healthy patients on isotretinoin or spironolactone, which “can help clinicians and patients who are interested in less frequent monitoring feel more comfortable with these approaches,” he said.
Many discussions among work group members dealt with how to best implement the GRADE approach to the project “while ensuring the guidelines were as clinically relevant and actionable as possible,” according to Dr. Barbieri. “I think an important issue going forward will be to consider how to update and modify the GRADE approach to fit the unique needs of creating evidence-based guidelines for the management of skin disease.”
The work group acknowledged limitations of the guidelines, including identification of “important evidence gaps on the use of microbiology and endocrinology testing in acne, the use of systemic antibiotics beyond tetracycline-class antibiotics, physical modalities, complementary and alternative therapies, dietary interventions for the treatment of acne, and cost-effectiveness of acne treatments,” they wrote. “RCTs with long-term follow-up and comparative effectiveness research are necessary to examine and compare patient-centered acne treatment outcomes.”
The AAD funded the project. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he serves as investigator for the National Institutes of Health and the National Psoriasis Foundation. Many coauthors reported being a speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies.
. The guidelines also conditionally recommend the use of topical clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, oral minocycline, sarecycline, combined oral contraceptives, and spironolactone.
The development updates the AAD’s 2016 guidelines for managing acne. “Since there have been several important new treatments introduced since the prior guidelines, it was determined that there was a need to update these guidelines,” John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, who cochaired a 16-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the guidelines, told this news organization.
For the new guidelines, which were published online January 30, 2023, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri, a dermatologist who directs the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, guidelines cochair Rachel V. Reynolds, MD, a dermatologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding the management of acne. Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.
In all, the work group made 18 recommendations and 5 good practice statements. They ranked 7 of the recommendations as “strong” based on the evidence reviewed, and the rest as “conditional.” The “strong” recommendations include the use of benzoyl peroxide, the use of topical retinoids, the use of topical antibiotics, a fixed dose of a combination topical antibiotic with benzoyl peroxide, a fixed dose of a combination topical retinoid with topical antibiotic, a fixed dose combination of a topical retinoid with benzoyl peroxide, and the use of doxycycline.
“Conditional” recommendations include those for the use of clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, minocycline, sarecycline, doxycycline over azithromycin; combined oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, and, for patients with severe acne, traditional daily dosing of isotretinoin over intermittent dosing of isotretinoin.
Meanwhile, good clinical practice statements contained in the document include using topical therapies combining multiple mechanisms of action, limiting systemic antibiotic use, combining topical and systemic antibiotics with benzoyl peroxide and other topical therapies, and adjuvant intralesional corticosteroid injections.
In Dr. Barbieri’s opinion, the recommendations regarding clascoterone and sarecycline represent important developments. “Clascoterone is the first FDA-approved treatment that can address hormonal causes of acne in both men and women,” he told this news organization. “Sarecycline is a narrow-spectrum tetracycline that might have some advantages over other tetracyclines such as doxycycline and minocycline. It will be important to payers to provide coverage to ensure that patients have access to these valuable new treatments.”
Dr. Barbieri added that while no evidence exists to suggest that minocycline is more effective than doxycycline, minocycline can be associated with rare but serious side effects, such as vestibular dysfunction, autoimmune hepatitis, drug-induced lupus, and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). “We should consider whether reducing use of minocycline might be beneficial to our overall care of patients with acne,” he said. “In addition, we discuss that use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be limited due to risk of severe adverse reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and acute respiratory failure.”
Another highlight of the guidelines, he continued, are specific recommendations for young, healthy patients on isotretinoin or spironolactone, which “can help clinicians and patients who are interested in less frequent monitoring feel more comfortable with these approaches,” he said.
Many discussions among work group members dealt with how to best implement the GRADE approach to the project “while ensuring the guidelines were as clinically relevant and actionable as possible,” according to Dr. Barbieri. “I think an important issue going forward will be to consider how to update and modify the GRADE approach to fit the unique needs of creating evidence-based guidelines for the management of skin disease.”
The work group acknowledged limitations of the guidelines, including identification of “important evidence gaps on the use of microbiology and endocrinology testing in acne, the use of systemic antibiotics beyond tetracycline-class antibiotics, physical modalities, complementary and alternative therapies, dietary interventions for the treatment of acne, and cost-effectiveness of acne treatments,” they wrote. “RCTs with long-term follow-up and comparative effectiveness research are necessary to examine and compare patient-centered acne treatment outcomes.”
The AAD funded the project. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he serves as investigator for the National Institutes of Health and the National Psoriasis Foundation. Many coauthors reported being a speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
More Than 100K New Cutaneous Melanoma Diagnoses Expected in 2024
SAN DIEGO — According to data from the
“The incidence of melanoma seems to have continued to go up since the early 1990s,” David E. Kent, MD, a dermatologist at Skin Care Physicians of Georgia, Macon, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The death rates have been flat and may have slightly decreased.”
In 2024, the ACS estimates that about 100,640 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States (59,170 in men and 41,470 in women), and about 8,290 people are expected to die of melanoma (5,430 men and 2,860 women). Meanwhile, the lifetime risk of melanoma is about 3% (1 in 33) for Whites, 0.1% (1 in 1,000) for Blacks, and 0.5% (1 in 200) for Hispanics. In 2019, there were an estimated 1.4 million people in the United States living with cutaneous melanoma, and the overall 5-year survival is 93.7%.
Epidemiologic studies show an increase in melanoma incidence, primarily among White populations. “This is believed to be due to sun exposure, changes in recreational behaviors, and tanning bed exposures,” said Dr. Kent, who holds a faculty position in the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. Increased surveillance and diagnosis also play a role. In the medical literature, annual increases in melanoma incidence vary from 3%-7% per year, “which means that the rate is doubling every 10-20 years,” he said, noting that annual melanoma costs are approximately $3.3 billion.
While incidence rates are lower in non-White, non-Hispanic populations, poor outcomes are disproportionately higher in persons of color, according to a 2023 paper. Black individuals present at diagnosis with more advanced stage disease and are 1.5 times more likely to die from melanoma, he said, while Hispanics are 2.4 times more likely to present with stage III disease and 3.6 times more likely to have distant metastases. Persons of color also have higher rates of mucosal, acral lentiginous, and subungual melanoma.
Risk Factors
Known genetic risk factors for melanoma include having skin types I and II, particularly those with light hair, light eyes, and freckling, and those with a family history have a twofold increased risk. Also, up to 40% of genetic cases are from inherited mutations in CDKN2A, CDK4, BAP1 and MCR1. Other genetic-related risk factors include the number and size of nevi, having atypical nevus syndrome, DNA repair defects, large congenital nevi, and a personal history of melanoma.
Dr. Kent said that genetic testing for melanoma is warranted for individuals who meet criteria for the “rule of 3s.” He defined this as three primary melanomas in an individual, or three cases of melanoma in first- or second-degree relatives, or two cases of melanoma and one pancreatic cancer or astrocytoma in first or second-degree relatives, or one case of melanoma and two of pancreatic cancer/astrocytoma in first- or second-degree relatives.
The main environmental risk factor for melanoma is exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Individuals can track their UV exposure with a variety of wearable devices and apps, including SunSense One Digital UV Tracker, the SunSense App, the UV Index Widget, the SunSmart Global UV App, the SunKnown UV light photometer, and the EPA’s UV Index Mobile App. Other environment-related risk factors include having a high socioeconomic status (SES), being immunosuppressed, as well as exposure to heavy metals, insecticides, or hormones; and ones distance from the equator.
In a study published in 2023, researchers investigated the risk factors associated with first and second primary melanomas in 38,845 patients who were followed in Australia between 2011 and 2018. During a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 1212 patients (3.1%) had a single primary melanoma diagnosis and 245 (0.6%) had a secondary primary melanoma diagnosis. The researchers found that second melanomas were more likely than first melanomas to be in situ; for invasive tumors, second melanomas were more likely to be thin (defined as 1 mm or less) than first melanomas. In addition, having many self-reported moles at age 21 years was more strongly associated with second melanomas compared with first melanomas (hazard ratio, 6.36 vs 3.46, respectively; P = .01), as was having a high genetic predisposition (HR, 3.28 vs. 2.06; P = .03). Second melanomas were also more strongly associated with a history of multiple skin cancer excisions (HR, 2.63 vs 1.86; P = .05).
Dr. Kent noted that while sunscreen use protects against melanoma, a National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey in 2014 found that internists and pediatricians mentioned sunscreen at fewer than 0.1% of visits — even those with patients who have a diagnosis of skin disease. “Physicians need to do better,” he said at the meeting, which was hosted by the Scripps Cancer Center. “We as dermatologists have work to do to help educate them.”
Dr. Kent reported having no relevant disclosures.
SAN DIEGO — According to data from the
“The incidence of melanoma seems to have continued to go up since the early 1990s,” David E. Kent, MD, a dermatologist at Skin Care Physicians of Georgia, Macon, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The death rates have been flat and may have slightly decreased.”
In 2024, the ACS estimates that about 100,640 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States (59,170 in men and 41,470 in women), and about 8,290 people are expected to die of melanoma (5,430 men and 2,860 women). Meanwhile, the lifetime risk of melanoma is about 3% (1 in 33) for Whites, 0.1% (1 in 1,000) for Blacks, and 0.5% (1 in 200) for Hispanics. In 2019, there were an estimated 1.4 million people in the United States living with cutaneous melanoma, and the overall 5-year survival is 93.7%.
Epidemiologic studies show an increase in melanoma incidence, primarily among White populations. “This is believed to be due to sun exposure, changes in recreational behaviors, and tanning bed exposures,” said Dr. Kent, who holds a faculty position in the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. Increased surveillance and diagnosis also play a role. In the medical literature, annual increases in melanoma incidence vary from 3%-7% per year, “which means that the rate is doubling every 10-20 years,” he said, noting that annual melanoma costs are approximately $3.3 billion.
While incidence rates are lower in non-White, non-Hispanic populations, poor outcomes are disproportionately higher in persons of color, according to a 2023 paper. Black individuals present at diagnosis with more advanced stage disease and are 1.5 times more likely to die from melanoma, he said, while Hispanics are 2.4 times more likely to present with stage III disease and 3.6 times more likely to have distant metastases. Persons of color also have higher rates of mucosal, acral lentiginous, and subungual melanoma.
Risk Factors
Known genetic risk factors for melanoma include having skin types I and II, particularly those with light hair, light eyes, and freckling, and those with a family history have a twofold increased risk. Also, up to 40% of genetic cases are from inherited mutations in CDKN2A, CDK4, BAP1 and MCR1. Other genetic-related risk factors include the number and size of nevi, having atypical nevus syndrome, DNA repair defects, large congenital nevi, and a personal history of melanoma.
Dr. Kent said that genetic testing for melanoma is warranted for individuals who meet criteria for the “rule of 3s.” He defined this as three primary melanomas in an individual, or three cases of melanoma in first- or second-degree relatives, or two cases of melanoma and one pancreatic cancer or astrocytoma in first or second-degree relatives, or one case of melanoma and two of pancreatic cancer/astrocytoma in first- or second-degree relatives.
The main environmental risk factor for melanoma is exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Individuals can track their UV exposure with a variety of wearable devices and apps, including SunSense One Digital UV Tracker, the SunSense App, the UV Index Widget, the SunSmart Global UV App, the SunKnown UV light photometer, and the EPA’s UV Index Mobile App. Other environment-related risk factors include having a high socioeconomic status (SES), being immunosuppressed, as well as exposure to heavy metals, insecticides, or hormones; and ones distance from the equator.
In a study published in 2023, researchers investigated the risk factors associated with first and second primary melanomas in 38,845 patients who were followed in Australia between 2011 and 2018. During a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 1212 patients (3.1%) had a single primary melanoma diagnosis and 245 (0.6%) had a secondary primary melanoma diagnosis. The researchers found that second melanomas were more likely than first melanomas to be in situ; for invasive tumors, second melanomas were more likely to be thin (defined as 1 mm or less) than first melanomas. In addition, having many self-reported moles at age 21 years was more strongly associated with second melanomas compared with first melanomas (hazard ratio, 6.36 vs 3.46, respectively; P = .01), as was having a high genetic predisposition (HR, 3.28 vs. 2.06; P = .03). Second melanomas were also more strongly associated with a history of multiple skin cancer excisions (HR, 2.63 vs 1.86; P = .05).
Dr. Kent noted that while sunscreen use protects against melanoma, a National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey in 2014 found that internists and pediatricians mentioned sunscreen at fewer than 0.1% of visits — even those with patients who have a diagnosis of skin disease. “Physicians need to do better,” he said at the meeting, which was hosted by the Scripps Cancer Center. “We as dermatologists have work to do to help educate them.”
Dr. Kent reported having no relevant disclosures.
SAN DIEGO — According to data from the
“The incidence of melanoma seems to have continued to go up since the early 1990s,” David E. Kent, MD, a dermatologist at Skin Care Physicians of Georgia, Macon, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The death rates have been flat and may have slightly decreased.”
In 2024, the ACS estimates that about 100,640 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States (59,170 in men and 41,470 in women), and about 8,290 people are expected to die of melanoma (5,430 men and 2,860 women). Meanwhile, the lifetime risk of melanoma is about 3% (1 in 33) for Whites, 0.1% (1 in 1,000) for Blacks, and 0.5% (1 in 200) for Hispanics. In 2019, there were an estimated 1.4 million people in the United States living with cutaneous melanoma, and the overall 5-year survival is 93.7%.
Epidemiologic studies show an increase in melanoma incidence, primarily among White populations. “This is believed to be due to sun exposure, changes in recreational behaviors, and tanning bed exposures,” said Dr. Kent, who holds a faculty position in the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. Increased surveillance and diagnosis also play a role. In the medical literature, annual increases in melanoma incidence vary from 3%-7% per year, “which means that the rate is doubling every 10-20 years,” he said, noting that annual melanoma costs are approximately $3.3 billion.
While incidence rates are lower in non-White, non-Hispanic populations, poor outcomes are disproportionately higher in persons of color, according to a 2023 paper. Black individuals present at diagnosis with more advanced stage disease and are 1.5 times more likely to die from melanoma, he said, while Hispanics are 2.4 times more likely to present with stage III disease and 3.6 times more likely to have distant metastases. Persons of color also have higher rates of mucosal, acral lentiginous, and subungual melanoma.
Risk Factors
Known genetic risk factors for melanoma include having skin types I and II, particularly those with light hair, light eyes, and freckling, and those with a family history have a twofold increased risk. Also, up to 40% of genetic cases are from inherited mutations in CDKN2A, CDK4, BAP1 and MCR1. Other genetic-related risk factors include the number and size of nevi, having atypical nevus syndrome, DNA repair defects, large congenital nevi, and a personal history of melanoma.
Dr. Kent said that genetic testing for melanoma is warranted for individuals who meet criteria for the “rule of 3s.” He defined this as three primary melanomas in an individual, or three cases of melanoma in first- or second-degree relatives, or two cases of melanoma and one pancreatic cancer or astrocytoma in first or second-degree relatives, or one case of melanoma and two of pancreatic cancer/astrocytoma in first- or second-degree relatives.
The main environmental risk factor for melanoma is exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Individuals can track their UV exposure with a variety of wearable devices and apps, including SunSense One Digital UV Tracker, the SunSense App, the UV Index Widget, the SunSmart Global UV App, the SunKnown UV light photometer, and the EPA’s UV Index Mobile App. Other environment-related risk factors include having a high socioeconomic status (SES), being immunosuppressed, as well as exposure to heavy metals, insecticides, or hormones; and ones distance from the equator.
In a study published in 2023, researchers investigated the risk factors associated with first and second primary melanomas in 38,845 patients who were followed in Australia between 2011 and 2018. During a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 1212 patients (3.1%) had a single primary melanoma diagnosis and 245 (0.6%) had a secondary primary melanoma diagnosis. The researchers found that second melanomas were more likely than first melanomas to be in situ; for invasive tumors, second melanomas were more likely to be thin (defined as 1 mm or less) than first melanomas. In addition, having many self-reported moles at age 21 years was more strongly associated with second melanomas compared with first melanomas (hazard ratio, 6.36 vs 3.46, respectively; P = .01), as was having a high genetic predisposition (HR, 3.28 vs. 2.06; P = .03). Second melanomas were also more strongly associated with a history of multiple skin cancer excisions (HR, 2.63 vs 1.86; P = .05).
Dr. Kent noted that while sunscreen use protects against melanoma, a National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey in 2014 found that internists and pediatricians mentioned sunscreen at fewer than 0.1% of visits — even those with patients who have a diagnosis of skin disease. “Physicians need to do better,” he said at the meeting, which was hosted by the Scripps Cancer Center. “We as dermatologists have work to do to help educate them.”
Dr. Kent reported having no relevant disclosures.
FROM MELANOMA 2024
New Tools on the Horizon for Managing cSCC in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
The patient had an advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) on the face that seemed to be affecting the facial nerve, ruling out aggressive surgery. When Mohs surgery failed to clear the tumor, radiation was ordered. But the best option — an immune checkpoint inhibitor — could not be administered because the patient was a lung transplant recipient.
Although approved for metastatic cSCC, immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with a higher potential for rejection of an organ transplant.
“The feeling is that the risk of rejection is just too great if we were to try to give an immune checkpoint inhibitor,” said Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery at Yale Dermatology–Branford, in Connecticut, who was treating the patient. Dr. Christensen consulted with the transplant team, and together they decided to switch the patient to sirolimus, an immunosuppressant that has been shown to have less risk of promoting skin cancer in those who take the medication. Sirolimus, however, is not as well tolerated as the usual first-line immunosuppressant, tacrolimus.
Organ transplant recipients have a 200-fold increased incidence of keratinocyte carcinoma compared with immunocompetent individuals, and cSCC accounts for 80% of skin cancers in those recipients, according to a 2022 paper published in Transplant International, by Matthew Bottomley, MRCP, and colleagues at the University of Oxford, England.
And in a 2017 JAMA Dermatology study on skin cancer in organ transplant recipients in the United States, Sarah Arron, MD, and colleagues, wrote that posttransplant cSCC has an incidence of 812 per 100,000 person-years. To put that in perspective, breast cancer has an incidence of 126 per 100,000 person-years and prostate cancer, an incidence of 112 per 100,000 person-years, according to data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, respectively.
Once a transplant recipient has a single cSCC, he or she is at higher risk for developing multiple lesions and is at greatly increased risk for metastasis and death. Skin cancer-specific mortality in transplants patients is ninefold higher than for immunocompetent patients, reported Johns Hopkins dermatologist Kristin Page Bibee, MD, PhD, and colleagues in a 2020 paper in Oral Oncology.
Clinicians focus primarily on reducing patients’ sun exposure to prevent precancerous and cancerous lesions. While field therapy, such as topical 5-flourouracil, and systemic therapy, including acitretin, can be as effective in treating cSCCs as they are for immunocompetent patients, dermatologists are hoping for more tools.
Dr. Christensen, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, told this news organization that immune checkpoint inhibitors might become more useful in the future as trials are exploring the feasibility of injecting them directly into the cancers. “That’s a really exciting area of research,” he said, noting that direct injection would lower the risk of transplant rejection.
In an interview, Dr. Bottomley said that he is excited about new techniques, such as high-resolution spatial transcriptomic and proteomic profiling. Those techniques will allow researchers “to identify new pathways and mechanisms that we can target to reduce cSCC risk in both immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients, ideally without the increased risk of graft rejection that we see with immune checkpoint inhibitors,” said Dr. Bottomley, a consultant nephrologist in the Oxford Kidney and Transplant Unit at Churchill Hospital.
Reducing Risk Factors
Dr. Bottomley said that there’s also been renewed effort to identify how to reduce cSCC risk in transplant recipients through recently developed consensus guidelines and a proposed decision framework developed by Dr. Bottomley and colleagues. The evidence will help clinicians have “greater confidence in making early interventions,” he said.
Currently, solid organ transplant patients are told to reduce sun exposure, in part because the majority of cSCCs occur in sun-exposed areas, such as the head and neck, and ultraviolet radiation leads to mutations. “Sun protection is critical,” Dr. Christensen said. That’s especially true in younger transplant recipients, who may have decades of sun exposure, he said.
The immunosuppressive medications also increase cancer risk, for a variety of reasons. One of the more-commonly used immunosuppressants in the past, azathioprine, is itself carcinogenic. Other antirejection medications, such as tacrolimus and mycophenolate, may also induce mutagenic changes that give rise to malignancies, according to the paper by Dr. Bibee, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.
Both Dr. Bibee, in her paper, and Dr. Arron, in an interview, noted that voriconazole, an antifungal used to prevent Aspergillus infection after lung transplant, has been associated with an increase in cSCC in lung transplant recipients.
In addition, immunosuppression essentially “blocks the body’s immune system from recognizing that there are abnormal cancerous cells present,” Dr. Arron, a dermatologist in private practice in Burlingame, California, told this news organization.
Previously, while at the High-Risk Skin Cancer Program at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Dr. Arron and others studied whether human papillomavirus (HPV) might play a role in spurring the development of cSCC formation in the immunocompromised. HPV is highly prevalent on the skin, but the virus found on the skin tends to be composed of lower-risk strains.
“In our research, we did not find any biologic mechanism by which this virus might be driving these cancers,” said Dr. Arron, although she said that some researchers “feel very strongly that HPV must be in some way a driver.”
Dr. Bottomley believes that HPV’s role has not been completely determined. The excess incidence of cSCC suggests a virus might be involved, as has been seen with excess risk of lymphoma in patients with Epstein-Barr virus, he said.
Some of his research is focusing on whether advanced immune aging is an independent risk factor for subsequent cSCC development in solid organ transplant recipients. The immune system undergoes changes as people age, and the speed of this process varies from patient to patient, which means immune age can be different from chronological age, said Dr. Bottomley. “We’re still exploring why immune aging should predispose you to cSCC,” he said.
When to Intervene?
Transplant patients are followed by dermatologists at regular intervals. But guidelines are not consistent on the recommended timing of those intervals.
Dr. Arron and colleagues in 2019 created a risk prediction module that recommended frequency of follow-up based on low, medium, high, or very high risk. The tool is available to clinicians in an app called SUNTRAC, or the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator.
A question that Dr. Arron said dermatologists and transplant specialists have wrangled with: How early can they intervene to prevent further lesions?
In the 2022 decision framework paper in Transplant International, Dr. Bottomley and dermatology colleagues from around the world attempted to better delineate when and how clinicians should intervene when a cSCC is first detected. That first cSCC “should be regarded as a ‘red flag’ heralding an increased risk of further skin cancers and possibly internal malignancies,” the authors wrote. That moment is “a key opportunity to proactively consider secondary preventive strategies,” they wrote, but noted that the best interventions and “their sequencing remain unclear,” indicating the need for further research.
Coordinating With the Transplant Team
A key strategy to help prevent cSCC development — suggested in Dr. Bottomley’s paper, and by Dr. Arron and Dr. Christensen — is to consult with the transplant team on potentially changing a patient’s immunosuppressive medication or reducing the dose.
Dr. Arron said that a decade ago, it was somewhat of a novel concept, requiring data-sharing and making personal connections with the transplant team to forge trusting relationships. By the time she left UCSF a few years ago, she said, “the transplant program was very much on board with preventing and treating skin cancer and oftentimes they were making changes even before I would suggest them.”
Suggesting a change or dose reduction is not undertaken lightly. “Our transplant physician colleagues are balancing multiple problems in very sick patients, of which skin cancer might be one, but not the most pressing one in the setting of other transplant complications,” said Dr. Arron.
Dr. Bottomley said that “as transplant physicians, we very much respect and value the input of our dermatology colleagues,” but agreed that many factors “outside malignancy risk” must be weighed when considering changing an immunosuppressive regimen.
In a Delphi Consensus Statement on prevention of cSCC in organ transplant recipients, published in 2021 in JAMA Dermatology, the authors recommended having discussions about immunosuppression with transplant specialists, but did not make a recommendation on what strategy to use. The consensus panel said it preferred “to defer this decision to transplant physicians.”
Acitretin a Go, Nicotinamide Not So Much
Outside of changing an immunosuppressive regimen, among the interventions for secondary prevention are acitretin, the systemic retinoid, and nicotinamide, a form of niacin.
Dr. Christensen conducted a small retrospective investigation evaluating the effectiveness of acitretin in reducing cSCC in both immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients who had received care at Yale, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Acitretin reduced invasive cSCC by about 75% in both patient groups — a surprising result for the immunocompetent group, but well-established in patients who have had a solid organ transplant. But acitretin had no effect on cSCC in situ or basal cell carcinoma. “The benefit of acitretin is primarily in preventing the invasive SCC,” said Dr. Christensen, which is why he tends to reserve it for patients who have already had several cSCCs.
“It’s not a completely benign medication,” he said, noting the need for monitoring for cholesterol and liver function.
Several years ago, a study in immunocompetent patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that nicotinamide (also known as niacinamide) reduced the rate of nonmelonoma skin cancer by 23%, giving clinicians hope that it might also be a low-risk, low-cost cancer preventive for solid organ transplant patients. But enthusiasm has dampened since a 2023 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the vitamin did not reduce cSCCs in transplant recipients.
Dr. Christensen said he believes the most-recent study wasn’t powered to detect a 25% reduction in cancers. “It’s certainly possible that it still works exactly the same way in transplant patients that it does in immunocompetent patients,” he said. “There’s very little risk of recommending it to patients for general prevention. But it probably has a very modest effect in many,” he said.
Dr. Arron agreed, saying, “it may be that we simply need bigger studies to achieve that statistical significance.” Even so, she said she would not use the therapy “until there is more evidence supporting the use of nicotinamide in transplant recipients.”
Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for advanced cSCC; nivolumab is another drug in the same class that has not yet been approved for cSCC. But “there’s always been a fear — and a legitimate fear — that if you gave those to organ transplant recipients they would reject their organ,” said Dr. Christensen.
Patients who take the checkpoint inhibitors may first have to stop taking their antirejection drugs, leaving them at risk. It also appears that the checkpoint inhibitors themselves contribute to organ rejection. Recent studies suggest that “the rate of organ rejection is only about 30% to 40%,” with the checkpoint inhibitors, said Dr. Christensen. “Obviously that’s still not an ideal outcome,” he said, but noted that with patients who have inoperable metastatic cSCC, “immune therapy can be a good option.”
Dr. Christensen reported no disclosures. Dr. Bottomley has previously received speaker fees and an educational grant from Astellas. Dr. Arron disclosed ties with Regeneron, Castle Biosciences, and Enspectra Health, not specific to transplantation.
The patient had an advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) on the face that seemed to be affecting the facial nerve, ruling out aggressive surgery. When Mohs surgery failed to clear the tumor, radiation was ordered. But the best option — an immune checkpoint inhibitor — could not be administered because the patient was a lung transplant recipient.
Although approved for metastatic cSCC, immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with a higher potential for rejection of an organ transplant.
“The feeling is that the risk of rejection is just too great if we were to try to give an immune checkpoint inhibitor,” said Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery at Yale Dermatology–Branford, in Connecticut, who was treating the patient. Dr. Christensen consulted with the transplant team, and together they decided to switch the patient to sirolimus, an immunosuppressant that has been shown to have less risk of promoting skin cancer in those who take the medication. Sirolimus, however, is not as well tolerated as the usual first-line immunosuppressant, tacrolimus.
Organ transplant recipients have a 200-fold increased incidence of keratinocyte carcinoma compared with immunocompetent individuals, and cSCC accounts for 80% of skin cancers in those recipients, according to a 2022 paper published in Transplant International, by Matthew Bottomley, MRCP, and colleagues at the University of Oxford, England.
And in a 2017 JAMA Dermatology study on skin cancer in organ transplant recipients in the United States, Sarah Arron, MD, and colleagues, wrote that posttransplant cSCC has an incidence of 812 per 100,000 person-years. To put that in perspective, breast cancer has an incidence of 126 per 100,000 person-years and prostate cancer, an incidence of 112 per 100,000 person-years, according to data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, respectively.
Once a transplant recipient has a single cSCC, he or she is at higher risk for developing multiple lesions and is at greatly increased risk for metastasis and death. Skin cancer-specific mortality in transplants patients is ninefold higher than for immunocompetent patients, reported Johns Hopkins dermatologist Kristin Page Bibee, MD, PhD, and colleagues in a 2020 paper in Oral Oncology.
Clinicians focus primarily on reducing patients’ sun exposure to prevent precancerous and cancerous lesions. While field therapy, such as topical 5-flourouracil, and systemic therapy, including acitretin, can be as effective in treating cSCCs as they are for immunocompetent patients, dermatologists are hoping for more tools.
Dr. Christensen, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, told this news organization that immune checkpoint inhibitors might become more useful in the future as trials are exploring the feasibility of injecting them directly into the cancers. “That’s a really exciting area of research,” he said, noting that direct injection would lower the risk of transplant rejection.
In an interview, Dr. Bottomley said that he is excited about new techniques, such as high-resolution spatial transcriptomic and proteomic profiling. Those techniques will allow researchers “to identify new pathways and mechanisms that we can target to reduce cSCC risk in both immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients, ideally without the increased risk of graft rejection that we see with immune checkpoint inhibitors,” said Dr. Bottomley, a consultant nephrologist in the Oxford Kidney and Transplant Unit at Churchill Hospital.
Reducing Risk Factors
Dr. Bottomley said that there’s also been renewed effort to identify how to reduce cSCC risk in transplant recipients through recently developed consensus guidelines and a proposed decision framework developed by Dr. Bottomley and colleagues. The evidence will help clinicians have “greater confidence in making early interventions,” he said.
Currently, solid organ transplant patients are told to reduce sun exposure, in part because the majority of cSCCs occur in sun-exposed areas, such as the head and neck, and ultraviolet radiation leads to mutations. “Sun protection is critical,” Dr. Christensen said. That’s especially true in younger transplant recipients, who may have decades of sun exposure, he said.
The immunosuppressive medications also increase cancer risk, for a variety of reasons. One of the more-commonly used immunosuppressants in the past, azathioprine, is itself carcinogenic. Other antirejection medications, such as tacrolimus and mycophenolate, may also induce mutagenic changes that give rise to malignancies, according to the paper by Dr. Bibee, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.
Both Dr. Bibee, in her paper, and Dr. Arron, in an interview, noted that voriconazole, an antifungal used to prevent Aspergillus infection after lung transplant, has been associated with an increase in cSCC in lung transplant recipients.
In addition, immunosuppression essentially “blocks the body’s immune system from recognizing that there are abnormal cancerous cells present,” Dr. Arron, a dermatologist in private practice in Burlingame, California, told this news organization.
Previously, while at the High-Risk Skin Cancer Program at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Dr. Arron and others studied whether human papillomavirus (HPV) might play a role in spurring the development of cSCC formation in the immunocompromised. HPV is highly prevalent on the skin, but the virus found on the skin tends to be composed of lower-risk strains.
“In our research, we did not find any biologic mechanism by which this virus might be driving these cancers,” said Dr. Arron, although she said that some researchers “feel very strongly that HPV must be in some way a driver.”
Dr. Bottomley believes that HPV’s role has not been completely determined. The excess incidence of cSCC suggests a virus might be involved, as has been seen with excess risk of lymphoma in patients with Epstein-Barr virus, he said.
Some of his research is focusing on whether advanced immune aging is an independent risk factor for subsequent cSCC development in solid organ transplant recipients. The immune system undergoes changes as people age, and the speed of this process varies from patient to patient, which means immune age can be different from chronological age, said Dr. Bottomley. “We’re still exploring why immune aging should predispose you to cSCC,” he said.
When to Intervene?
Transplant patients are followed by dermatologists at regular intervals. But guidelines are not consistent on the recommended timing of those intervals.
Dr. Arron and colleagues in 2019 created a risk prediction module that recommended frequency of follow-up based on low, medium, high, or very high risk. The tool is available to clinicians in an app called SUNTRAC, or the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator.
A question that Dr. Arron said dermatologists and transplant specialists have wrangled with: How early can they intervene to prevent further lesions?
In the 2022 decision framework paper in Transplant International, Dr. Bottomley and dermatology colleagues from around the world attempted to better delineate when and how clinicians should intervene when a cSCC is first detected. That first cSCC “should be regarded as a ‘red flag’ heralding an increased risk of further skin cancers and possibly internal malignancies,” the authors wrote. That moment is “a key opportunity to proactively consider secondary preventive strategies,” they wrote, but noted that the best interventions and “their sequencing remain unclear,” indicating the need for further research.
Coordinating With the Transplant Team
A key strategy to help prevent cSCC development — suggested in Dr. Bottomley’s paper, and by Dr. Arron and Dr. Christensen — is to consult with the transplant team on potentially changing a patient’s immunosuppressive medication or reducing the dose.
Dr. Arron said that a decade ago, it was somewhat of a novel concept, requiring data-sharing and making personal connections with the transplant team to forge trusting relationships. By the time she left UCSF a few years ago, she said, “the transplant program was very much on board with preventing and treating skin cancer and oftentimes they were making changes even before I would suggest them.”
Suggesting a change or dose reduction is not undertaken lightly. “Our transplant physician colleagues are balancing multiple problems in very sick patients, of which skin cancer might be one, but not the most pressing one in the setting of other transplant complications,” said Dr. Arron.
Dr. Bottomley said that “as transplant physicians, we very much respect and value the input of our dermatology colleagues,” but agreed that many factors “outside malignancy risk” must be weighed when considering changing an immunosuppressive regimen.
In a Delphi Consensus Statement on prevention of cSCC in organ transplant recipients, published in 2021 in JAMA Dermatology, the authors recommended having discussions about immunosuppression with transplant specialists, but did not make a recommendation on what strategy to use. The consensus panel said it preferred “to defer this decision to transplant physicians.”
Acitretin a Go, Nicotinamide Not So Much
Outside of changing an immunosuppressive regimen, among the interventions for secondary prevention are acitretin, the systemic retinoid, and nicotinamide, a form of niacin.
Dr. Christensen conducted a small retrospective investigation evaluating the effectiveness of acitretin in reducing cSCC in both immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients who had received care at Yale, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Acitretin reduced invasive cSCC by about 75% in both patient groups — a surprising result for the immunocompetent group, but well-established in patients who have had a solid organ transplant. But acitretin had no effect on cSCC in situ or basal cell carcinoma. “The benefit of acitretin is primarily in preventing the invasive SCC,” said Dr. Christensen, which is why he tends to reserve it for patients who have already had several cSCCs.
“It’s not a completely benign medication,” he said, noting the need for monitoring for cholesterol and liver function.
Several years ago, a study in immunocompetent patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that nicotinamide (also known as niacinamide) reduced the rate of nonmelonoma skin cancer by 23%, giving clinicians hope that it might also be a low-risk, low-cost cancer preventive for solid organ transplant patients. But enthusiasm has dampened since a 2023 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the vitamin did not reduce cSCCs in transplant recipients.
Dr. Christensen said he believes the most-recent study wasn’t powered to detect a 25% reduction in cancers. “It’s certainly possible that it still works exactly the same way in transplant patients that it does in immunocompetent patients,” he said. “There’s very little risk of recommending it to patients for general prevention. But it probably has a very modest effect in many,” he said.
Dr. Arron agreed, saying, “it may be that we simply need bigger studies to achieve that statistical significance.” Even so, she said she would not use the therapy “until there is more evidence supporting the use of nicotinamide in transplant recipients.”
Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for advanced cSCC; nivolumab is another drug in the same class that has not yet been approved for cSCC. But “there’s always been a fear — and a legitimate fear — that if you gave those to organ transplant recipients they would reject their organ,” said Dr. Christensen.
Patients who take the checkpoint inhibitors may first have to stop taking their antirejection drugs, leaving them at risk. It also appears that the checkpoint inhibitors themselves contribute to organ rejection. Recent studies suggest that “the rate of organ rejection is only about 30% to 40%,” with the checkpoint inhibitors, said Dr. Christensen. “Obviously that’s still not an ideal outcome,” he said, but noted that with patients who have inoperable metastatic cSCC, “immune therapy can be a good option.”
Dr. Christensen reported no disclosures. Dr. Bottomley has previously received speaker fees and an educational grant from Astellas. Dr. Arron disclosed ties with Regeneron, Castle Biosciences, and Enspectra Health, not specific to transplantation.
The patient had an advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) on the face that seemed to be affecting the facial nerve, ruling out aggressive surgery. When Mohs surgery failed to clear the tumor, radiation was ordered. But the best option — an immune checkpoint inhibitor — could not be administered because the patient was a lung transplant recipient.
Although approved for metastatic cSCC, immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with a higher potential for rejection of an organ transplant.
“The feeling is that the risk of rejection is just too great if we were to try to give an immune checkpoint inhibitor,” said Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery at Yale Dermatology–Branford, in Connecticut, who was treating the patient. Dr. Christensen consulted with the transplant team, and together they decided to switch the patient to sirolimus, an immunosuppressant that has been shown to have less risk of promoting skin cancer in those who take the medication. Sirolimus, however, is not as well tolerated as the usual first-line immunosuppressant, tacrolimus.
Organ transplant recipients have a 200-fold increased incidence of keratinocyte carcinoma compared with immunocompetent individuals, and cSCC accounts for 80% of skin cancers in those recipients, according to a 2022 paper published in Transplant International, by Matthew Bottomley, MRCP, and colleagues at the University of Oxford, England.
And in a 2017 JAMA Dermatology study on skin cancer in organ transplant recipients in the United States, Sarah Arron, MD, and colleagues, wrote that posttransplant cSCC has an incidence of 812 per 100,000 person-years. To put that in perspective, breast cancer has an incidence of 126 per 100,000 person-years and prostate cancer, an incidence of 112 per 100,000 person-years, according to data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, respectively.
Once a transplant recipient has a single cSCC, he or she is at higher risk for developing multiple lesions and is at greatly increased risk for metastasis and death. Skin cancer-specific mortality in transplants patients is ninefold higher than for immunocompetent patients, reported Johns Hopkins dermatologist Kristin Page Bibee, MD, PhD, and colleagues in a 2020 paper in Oral Oncology.
Clinicians focus primarily on reducing patients’ sun exposure to prevent precancerous and cancerous lesions. While field therapy, such as topical 5-flourouracil, and systemic therapy, including acitretin, can be as effective in treating cSCCs as they are for immunocompetent patients, dermatologists are hoping for more tools.
Dr. Christensen, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, told this news organization that immune checkpoint inhibitors might become more useful in the future as trials are exploring the feasibility of injecting them directly into the cancers. “That’s a really exciting area of research,” he said, noting that direct injection would lower the risk of transplant rejection.
In an interview, Dr. Bottomley said that he is excited about new techniques, such as high-resolution spatial transcriptomic and proteomic profiling. Those techniques will allow researchers “to identify new pathways and mechanisms that we can target to reduce cSCC risk in both immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients, ideally without the increased risk of graft rejection that we see with immune checkpoint inhibitors,” said Dr. Bottomley, a consultant nephrologist in the Oxford Kidney and Transplant Unit at Churchill Hospital.
Reducing Risk Factors
Dr. Bottomley said that there’s also been renewed effort to identify how to reduce cSCC risk in transplant recipients through recently developed consensus guidelines and a proposed decision framework developed by Dr. Bottomley and colleagues. The evidence will help clinicians have “greater confidence in making early interventions,” he said.
Currently, solid organ transplant patients are told to reduce sun exposure, in part because the majority of cSCCs occur in sun-exposed areas, such as the head and neck, and ultraviolet radiation leads to mutations. “Sun protection is critical,” Dr. Christensen said. That’s especially true in younger transplant recipients, who may have decades of sun exposure, he said.
The immunosuppressive medications also increase cancer risk, for a variety of reasons. One of the more-commonly used immunosuppressants in the past, azathioprine, is itself carcinogenic. Other antirejection medications, such as tacrolimus and mycophenolate, may also induce mutagenic changes that give rise to malignancies, according to the paper by Dr. Bibee, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.
Both Dr. Bibee, in her paper, and Dr. Arron, in an interview, noted that voriconazole, an antifungal used to prevent Aspergillus infection after lung transplant, has been associated with an increase in cSCC in lung transplant recipients.
In addition, immunosuppression essentially “blocks the body’s immune system from recognizing that there are abnormal cancerous cells present,” Dr. Arron, a dermatologist in private practice in Burlingame, California, told this news organization.
Previously, while at the High-Risk Skin Cancer Program at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Dr. Arron and others studied whether human papillomavirus (HPV) might play a role in spurring the development of cSCC formation in the immunocompromised. HPV is highly prevalent on the skin, but the virus found on the skin tends to be composed of lower-risk strains.
“In our research, we did not find any biologic mechanism by which this virus might be driving these cancers,” said Dr. Arron, although she said that some researchers “feel very strongly that HPV must be in some way a driver.”
Dr. Bottomley believes that HPV’s role has not been completely determined. The excess incidence of cSCC suggests a virus might be involved, as has been seen with excess risk of lymphoma in patients with Epstein-Barr virus, he said.
Some of his research is focusing on whether advanced immune aging is an independent risk factor for subsequent cSCC development in solid organ transplant recipients. The immune system undergoes changes as people age, and the speed of this process varies from patient to patient, which means immune age can be different from chronological age, said Dr. Bottomley. “We’re still exploring why immune aging should predispose you to cSCC,” he said.
When to Intervene?
Transplant patients are followed by dermatologists at regular intervals. But guidelines are not consistent on the recommended timing of those intervals.
Dr. Arron and colleagues in 2019 created a risk prediction module that recommended frequency of follow-up based on low, medium, high, or very high risk. The tool is available to clinicians in an app called SUNTRAC, or the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator.
A question that Dr. Arron said dermatologists and transplant specialists have wrangled with: How early can they intervene to prevent further lesions?
In the 2022 decision framework paper in Transplant International, Dr. Bottomley and dermatology colleagues from around the world attempted to better delineate when and how clinicians should intervene when a cSCC is first detected. That first cSCC “should be regarded as a ‘red flag’ heralding an increased risk of further skin cancers and possibly internal malignancies,” the authors wrote. That moment is “a key opportunity to proactively consider secondary preventive strategies,” they wrote, but noted that the best interventions and “their sequencing remain unclear,” indicating the need for further research.
Coordinating With the Transplant Team
A key strategy to help prevent cSCC development — suggested in Dr. Bottomley’s paper, and by Dr. Arron and Dr. Christensen — is to consult with the transplant team on potentially changing a patient’s immunosuppressive medication or reducing the dose.
Dr. Arron said that a decade ago, it was somewhat of a novel concept, requiring data-sharing and making personal connections with the transplant team to forge trusting relationships. By the time she left UCSF a few years ago, she said, “the transplant program was very much on board with preventing and treating skin cancer and oftentimes they were making changes even before I would suggest them.”
Suggesting a change or dose reduction is not undertaken lightly. “Our transplant physician colleagues are balancing multiple problems in very sick patients, of which skin cancer might be one, but not the most pressing one in the setting of other transplant complications,” said Dr. Arron.
Dr. Bottomley said that “as transplant physicians, we very much respect and value the input of our dermatology colleagues,” but agreed that many factors “outside malignancy risk” must be weighed when considering changing an immunosuppressive regimen.
In a Delphi Consensus Statement on prevention of cSCC in organ transplant recipients, published in 2021 in JAMA Dermatology, the authors recommended having discussions about immunosuppression with transplant specialists, but did not make a recommendation on what strategy to use. The consensus panel said it preferred “to defer this decision to transplant physicians.”
Acitretin a Go, Nicotinamide Not So Much
Outside of changing an immunosuppressive regimen, among the interventions for secondary prevention are acitretin, the systemic retinoid, and nicotinamide, a form of niacin.
Dr. Christensen conducted a small retrospective investigation evaluating the effectiveness of acitretin in reducing cSCC in both immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients who had received care at Yale, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Acitretin reduced invasive cSCC by about 75% in both patient groups — a surprising result for the immunocompetent group, but well-established in patients who have had a solid organ transplant. But acitretin had no effect on cSCC in situ or basal cell carcinoma. “The benefit of acitretin is primarily in preventing the invasive SCC,” said Dr. Christensen, which is why he tends to reserve it for patients who have already had several cSCCs.
“It’s not a completely benign medication,” he said, noting the need for monitoring for cholesterol and liver function.
Several years ago, a study in immunocompetent patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that nicotinamide (also known as niacinamide) reduced the rate of nonmelonoma skin cancer by 23%, giving clinicians hope that it might also be a low-risk, low-cost cancer preventive for solid organ transplant patients. But enthusiasm has dampened since a 2023 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the vitamin did not reduce cSCCs in transplant recipients.
Dr. Christensen said he believes the most-recent study wasn’t powered to detect a 25% reduction in cancers. “It’s certainly possible that it still works exactly the same way in transplant patients that it does in immunocompetent patients,” he said. “There’s very little risk of recommending it to patients for general prevention. But it probably has a very modest effect in many,” he said.
Dr. Arron agreed, saying, “it may be that we simply need bigger studies to achieve that statistical significance.” Even so, she said she would not use the therapy “until there is more evidence supporting the use of nicotinamide in transplant recipients.”
Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for advanced cSCC; nivolumab is another drug in the same class that has not yet been approved for cSCC. But “there’s always been a fear — and a legitimate fear — that if you gave those to organ transplant recipients they would reject their organ,” said Dr. Christensen.
Patients who take the checkpoint inhibitors may first have to stop taking their antirejection drugs, leaving them at risk. It also appears that the checkpoint inhibitors themselves contribute to organ rejection. Recent studies suggest that “the rate of organ rejection is only about 30% to 40%,” with the checkpoint inhibitors, said Dr. Christensen. “Obviously that’s still not an ideal outcome,” he said, but noted that with patients who have inoperable metastatic cSCC, “immune therapy can be a good option.”
Dr. Christensen reported no disclosures. Dr. Bottomley has previously received speaker fees and an educational grant from Astellas. Dr. Arron disclosed ties with Regeneron, Castle Biosciences, and Enspectra Health, not specific to transplantation.
Review Finds No Short-term MACE, VTE risk with JAK Inhibitors For Dermatoses
, at least in the short term, say the authors of a new meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.
Considering data on over 17,000 patients with different dermatoses from 45 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an average follow up of 16 weeks, they found there was no significant increase in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with dermatoses treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, compared with placebo.
The I² statistic was 0.00% for both MACE and VTE comparing the two arms, indicating that the results were unlikely to be due to chance. There was no increased risk in MACE between those on placebo and those on JAK-STAT inhibitors, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.47; or for VTE risk, with an RR of 0.46.
Similar findings were obtained when data were analyzed according to the dermatological condition being treated, mechanism of action of the medication, or whether the medication carried a boxed warning.
These data “suggest inconsistency with established sentiments,” that JAK-STAT inhibitors increase the risk for cardiovascular events, Patrick Ireland, MD, of the University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia, and coauthors wrote in the article. “This may be owing to the limited time frames in which these rare events could be adequately captured, or the ages of enrolled patients being too young to realize the well established heightened risks of developing MACE and VTE,” they suggested.
However, the findings challenge the notion that the cardiovascular complications of these drugs are the same in all patients; dermatological use may not be associated with the same risks as with use for rheumatologic indications.
Class-Wide Boxed Warning
“JAK-STAT [inhibitors] have had some pretty indemnifying data against their use, with the ORAL [Surveillance] study demonstrating increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy,” Dr. Ireland said in an interview.
ORAL Surveillance was an open-label, postmarketing trial conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The results led the US Food and Drug Administration to require information about the risks of serious heart-related events, cancer, blood clots, and death in a boxed warning for JAK-STAT inhibitors in 2022.
“I think it’s important to recognize that these [ORAL Surveillance participants] are very different patients to the typical dermatological patient being treated with a JAK-STAT [inhibitors], with newer studies demonstrating a much safer profile than initially thought,” Dr. Ireland said.
Examining Risk in Dermatological Conditions
The meta-analysis performed by Dr. Ireland and associates focused specifically on the risk for MACE and VTE in patients being treated for dermatological conditions, and included trials published up until June 2023. Only trials that had included a placebo arm were considered; pooled analyses, long-term extension trial data, post hoc analyses, and pediatric-specific trials were excluded.
Most (25) of the trials were phase 2b or phase 3 trials, 18 were phase 2 to 2b, and two were phase 1 trials. The studies included 12,996 participants, mostly with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, who were treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, which included baricitinib (2846 patients), tofacitinib (2470), upadacitinib (2218), abrocitinib (1904), and deucravacitinib (1492), among others. There were 4925 patients on placebo.
Overall, MACE — defined as a combined endpoint of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and unstable angina, as well as arterial embolism — occurred in 13 of the JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in four of those on placebo. VTE — defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and any unusual site thrombosis — was reported in eight JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in one patient on placebo.
The pooled incidence ratios for MACE and VTE were calculated as 0.20 per 100 person exposure years (PEY) for JAK-STAT inhibitor treatment and 0.13 PEY for placebo. The pooled RRs comparing the two treatment groups were a respective 1.13 for MACE and 2.79 for VTE, but neither RR reached statistical significance.
No difference was seen between the treatment arms in terms of treatment emergent adverse events (RR, 1.05), serious adverse events (RR, 0.92), or study discontinuation because of adverse events (RR, 0.94).
Reassuring Results?
Dr. Ireland and coauthors said the finding should help to reassure clinicians that the short-term use of JAK-STAT inhibitors in patients with dermatological conditions with low cardiovascular risk profiles “appears to be both safe and well tolerated.” They cautioned, however, that “clinicians must remain judicious” when using these medications for longer periods and in high-risk patient populations.
This was a pragmatic meta-analysis that provides useful information for dermatologists, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.
“When there are safety concerns, I think that’s where data like this are so important to not just allay the fears of practitioners, but also to arm the practitioner with information for when they discuss a possible treatment with a patient,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved in the study.
“What’s unique here is that they’re looking at any possible use of JAK inhibitors for dermatological disease,” so this represents patients that dermatologists would be seeing, he added.
“The limitation here is time, we only can say so much about the safety of the medication with the data that we have,” Dr. Friedman said. Almost 4 months is “a good amount of time” to know about the cardiovascular risks, he said, but added, what happens then? Will the risk increase and will patients need to be switched to another medication?
“There’s no line in the sand,” with regard to using a JAK-STAT inhibitor. “If you look at the label, they’re not meant to be used incrementally,” but as ongoing treatment, while considering the needs of the patient and the relative risks and benefits, he said.
With that in mind, “the open label extension studies for all these [JAK-STAT inhibitors] are really, really important to get a sense of ‘do new signals emerge down the road.’ ”
The meta-analysis received no commercial funding. One author of the work reported personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies which were done outside of analysis. Dr. Friedman has received research funding from or acted as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies including, Incyte, Pfizer, Eli Lily, and AbbVie.
, at least in the short term, say the authors of a new meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.
Considering data on over 17,000 patients with different dermatoses from 45 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an average follow up of 16 weeks, they found there was no significant increase in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with dermatoses treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, compared with placebo.
The I² statistic was 0.00% for both MACE and VTE comparing the two arms, indicating that the results were unlikely to be due to chance. There was no increased risk in MACE between those on placebo and those on JAK-STAT inhibitors, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.47; or for VTE risk, with an RR of 0.46.
Similar findings were obtained when data were analyzed according to the dermatological condition being treated, mechanism of action of the medication, or whether the medication carried a boxed warning.
These data “suggest inconsistency with established sentiments,” that JAK-STAT inhibitors increase the risk for cardiovascular events, Patrick Ireland, MD, of the University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia, and coauthors wrote in the article. “This may be owing to the limited time frames in which these rare events could be adequately captured, or the ages of enrolled patients being too young to realize the well established heightened risks of developing MACE and VTE,” they suggested.
However, the findings challenge the notion that the cardiovascular complications of these drugs are the same in all patients; dermatological use may not be associated with the same risks as with use for rheumatologic indications.
Class-Wide Boxed Warning
“JAK-STAT [inhibitors] have had some pretty indemnifying data against their use, with the ORAL [Surveillance] study demonstrating increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy,” Dr. Ireland said in an interview.
ORAL Surveillance was an open-label, postmarketing trial conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The results led the US Food and Drug Administration to require information about the risks of serious heart-related events, cancer, blood clots, and death in a boxed warning for JAK-STAT inhibitors in 2022.
“I think it’s important to recognize that these [ORAL Surveillance participants] are very different patients to the typical dermatological patient being treated with a JAK-STAT [inhibitors], with newer studies demonstrating a much safer profile than initially thought,” Dr. Ireland said.
Examining Risk in Dermatological Conditions
The meta-analysis performed by Dr. Ireland and associates focused specifically on the risk for MACE and VTE in patients being treated for dermatological conditions, and included trials published up until June 2023. Only trials that had included a placebo arm were considered; pooled analyses, long-term extension trial data, post hoc analyses, and pediatric-specific trials were excluded.
Most (25) of the trials were phase 2b or phase 3 trials, 18 were phase 2 to 2b, and two were phase 1 trials. The studies included 12,996 participants, mostly with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, who were treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, which included baricitinib (2846 patients), tofacitinib (2470), upadacitinib (2218), abrocitinib (1904), and deucravacitinib (1492), among others. There were 4925 patients on placebo.
Overall, MACE — defined as a combined endpoint of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and unstable angina, as well as arterial embolism — occurred in 13 of the JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in four of those on placebo. VTE — defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and any unusual site thrombosis — was reported in eight JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in one patient on placebo.
The pooled incidence ratios for MACE and VTE were calculated as 0.20 per 100 person exposure years (PEY) for JAK-STAT inhibitor treatment and 0.13 PEY for placebo. The pooled RRs comparing the two treatment groups were a respective 1.13 for MACE and 2.79 for VTE, but neither RR reached statistical significance.
No difference was seen between the treatment arms in terms of treatment emergent adverse events (RR, 1.05), serious adverse events (RR, 0.92), or study discontinuation because of adverse events (RR, 0.94).
Reassuring Results?
Dr. Ireland and coauthors said the finding should help to reassure clinicians that the short-term use of JAK-STAT inhibitors in patients with dermatological conditions with low cardiovascular risk profiles “appears to be both safe and well tolerated.” They cautioned, however, that “clinicians must remain judicious” when using these medications for longer periods and in high-risk patient populations.
This was a pragmatic meta-analysis that provides useful information for dermatologists, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.
“When there are safety concerns, I think that’s where data like this are so important to not just allay the fears of practitioners, but also to arm the practitioner with information for when they discuss a possible treatment with a patient,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved in the study.
“What’s unique here is that they’re looking at any possible use of JAK inhibitors for dermatological disease,” so this represents patients that dermatologists would be seeing, he added.
“The limitation here is time, we only can say so much about the safety of the medication with the data that we have,” Dr. Friedman said. Almost 4 months is “a good amount of time” to know about the cardiovascular risks, he said, but added, what happens then? Will the risk increase and will patients need to be switched to another medication?
“There’s no line in the sand,” with regard to using a JAK-STAT inhibitor. “If you look at the label, they’re not meant to be used incrementally,” but as ongoing treatment, while considering the needs of the patient and the relative risks and benefits, he said.
With that in mind, “the open label extension studies for all these [JAK-STAT inhibitors] are really, really important to get a sense of ‘do new signals emerge down the road.’ ”
The meta-analysis received no commercial funding. One author of the work reported personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies which were done outside of analysis. Dr. Friedman has received research funding from or acted as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies including, Incyte, Pfizer, Eli Lily, and AbbVie.
, at least in the short term, say the authors of a new meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.
Considering data on over 17,000 patients with different dermatoses from 45 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an average follow up of 16 weeks, they found there was no significant increase in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with dermatoses treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, compared with placebo.
The I² statistic was 0.00% for both MACE and VTE comparing the two arms, indicating that the results were unlikely to be due to chance. There was no increased risk in MACE between those on placebo and those on JAK-STAT inhibitors, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.47; or for VTE risk, with an RR of 0.46.
Similar findings were obtained when data were analyzed according to the dermatological condition being treated, mechanism of action of the medication, or whether the medication carried a boxed warning.
These data “suggest inconsistency with established sentiments,” that JAK-STAT inhibitors increase the risk for cardiovascular events, Patrick Ireland, MD, of the University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia, and coauthors wrote in the article. “This may be owing to the limited time frames in which these rare events could be adequately captured, or the ages of enrolled patients being too young to realize the well established heightened risks of developing MACE and VTE,” they suggested.
However, the findings challenge the notion that the cardiovascular complications of these drugs are the same in all patients; dermatological use may not be associated with the same risks as with use for rheumatologic indications.
Class-Wide Boxed Warning
“JAK-STAT [inhibitors] have had some pretty indemnifying data against their use, with the ORAL [Surveillance] study demonstrating increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy,” Dr. Ireland said in an interview.
ORAL Surveillance was an open-label, postmarketing trial conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The results led the US Food and Drug Administration to require information about the risks of serious heart-related events, cancer, blood clots, and death in a boxed warning for JAK-STAT inhibitors in 2022.
“I think it’s important to recognize that these [ORAL Surveillance participants] are very different patients to the typical dermatological patient being treated with a JAK-STAT [inhibitors], with newer studies demonstrating a much safer profile than initially thought,” Dr. Ireland said.
Examining Risk in Dermatological Conditions
The meta-analysis performed by Dr. Ireland and associates focused specifically on the risk for MACE and VTE in patients being treated for dermatological conditions, and included trials published up until June 2023. Only trials that had included a placebo arm were considered; pooled analyses, long-term extension trial data, post hoc analyses, and pediatric-specific trials were excluded.
Most (25) of the trials were phase 2b or phase 3 trials, 18 were phase 2 to 2b, and two were phase 1 trials. The studies included 12,996 participants, mostly with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, who were treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, which included baricitinib (2846 patients), tofacitinib (2470), upadacitinib (2218), abrocitinib (1904), and deucravacitinib (1492), among others. There were 4925 patients on placebo.
Overall, MACE — defined as a combined endpoint of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and unstable angina, as well as arterial embolism — occurred in 13 of the JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in four of those on placebo. VTE — defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and any unusual site thrombosis — was reported in eight JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in one patient on placebo.
The pooled incidence ratios for MACE and VTE were calculated as 0.20 per 100 person exposure years (PEY) for JAK-STAT inhibitor treatment and 0.13 PEY for placebo. The pooled RRs comparing the two treatment groups were a respective 1.13 for MACE and 2.79 for VTE, but neither RR reached statistical significance.
No difference was seen between the treatment arms in terms of treatment emergent adverse events (RR, 1.05), serious adverse events (RR, 0.92), or study discontinuation because of adverse events (RR, 0.94).
Reassuring Results?
Dr. Ireland and coauthors said the finding should help to reassure clinicians that the short-term use of JAK-STAT inhibitors in patients with dermatological conditions with low cardiovascular risk profiles “appears to be both safe and well tolerated.” They cautioned, however, that “clinicians must remain judicious” when using these medications for longer periods and in high-risk patient populations.
This was a pragmatic meta-analysis that provides useful information for dermatologists, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.
“When there are safety concerns, I think that’s where data like this are so important to not just allay the fears of practitioners, but also to arm the practitioner with information for when they discuss a possible treatment with a patient,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved in the study.
“What’s unique here is that they’re looking at any possible use of JAK inhibitors for dermatological disease,” so this represents patients that dermatologists would be seeing, he added.
“The limitation here is time, we only can say so much about the safety of the medication with the data that we have,” Dr. Friedman said. Almost 4 months is “a good amount of time” to know about the cardiovascular risks, he said, but added, what happens then? Will the risk increase and will patients need to be switched to another medication?
“There’s no line in the sand,” with regard to using a JAK-STAT inhibitor. “If you look at the label, they’re not meant to be used incrementally,” but as ongoing treatment, while considering the needs of the patient and the relative risks and benefits, he said.
With that in mind, “the open label extension studies for all these [JAK-STAT inhibitors] are really, really important to get a sense of ‘do new signals emerge down the road.’ ”
The meta-analysis received no commercial funding. One author of the work reported personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies which were done outside of analysis. Dr. Friedman has received research funding from or acted as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies including, Incyte, Pfizer, Eli Lily, and AbbVie.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
National Rosacea Society adds imprimatur to skin products
, according to a press release from the NRS.
The seal is meant to be a resource to easily identify skin care products and cosmetic products that have been evaluated as unlikely to cause rosacea flares or skin irritation, according to the press release.
Surveys conducted by the NRS indicate that 92% of rosacea patients report burning, stinging, or itching on their skin, 66% identified specific skin products as triggers for their symptoms, and 84% were “very interested” in skin care guidance.
Patients and clinicians can find a searchable list of currently approved products in the Seal of Acceptance section of the NRS website. New skin care and cosmetic products will be added to the list of those with the Seal of Acceptance on an ongoing basis.
Products under consideration to earn the Seal of Acceptance must be free of ingredients that can cause skin barrier disruption, flushing, burning, itching, or other unwanted neurosensory stimulation, according to the press release.
Each accepted product also must pass clinical testing to confirm safety and low risk for irritation and sensitization for individuals with rosacea. Applications for the Seal of Acceptance are reviewed anonymously by an independent panel of dermatologists. The NRS created the program under the guidance of Zoe D. Draelos, MD, a clinical and research dermatologist in High Point, North Carolina, who also serves on the NRS board of directors.
More information about products carrying the seal and how companies can apply to have their products considered to carry the seal is available at rosacea.org/seal-of-acceptance/.
, according to a press release from the NRS.
The seal is meant to be a resource to easily identify skin care products and cosmetic products that have been evaluated as unlikely to cause rosacea flares or skin irritation, according to the press release.
Surveys conducted by the NRS indicate that 92% of rosacea patients report burning, stinging, or itching on their skin, 66% identified specific skin products as triggers for their symptoms, and 84% were “very interested” in skin care guidance.
Patients and clinicians can find a searchable list of currently approved products in the Seal of Acceptance section of the NRS website. New skin care and cosmetic products will be added to the list of those with the Seal of Acceptance on an ongoing basis.
Products under consideration to earn the Seal of Acceptance must be free of ingredients that can cause skin barrier disruption, flushing, burning, itching, or other unwanted neurosensory stimulation, according to the press release.
Each accepted product also must pass clinical testing to confirm safety and low risk for irritation and sensitization for individuals with rosacea. Applications for the Seal of Acceptance are reviewed anonymously by an independent panel of dermatologists. The NRS created the program under the guidance of Zoe D. Draelos, MD, a clinical and research dermatologist in High Point, North Carolina, who also serves on the NRS board of directors.
More information about products carrying the seal and how companies can apply to have their products considered to carry the seal is available at rosacea.org/seal-of-acceptance/.
, according to a press release from the NRS.
The seal is meant to be a resource to easily identify skin care products and cosmetic products that have been evaluated as unlikely to cause rosacea flares or skin irritation, according to the press release.
Surveys conducted by the NRS indicate that 92% of rosacea patients report burning, stinging, or itching on their skin, 66% identified specific skin products as triggers for their symptoms, and 84% were “very interested” in skin care guidance.
Patients and clinicians can find a searchable list of currently approved products in the Seal of Acceptance section of the NRS website. New skin care and cosmetic products will be added to the list of those with the Seal of Acceptance on an ongoing basis.
Products under consideration to earn the Seal of Acceptance must be free of ingredients that can cause skin barrier disruption, flushing, burning, itching, or other unwanted neurosensory stimulation, according to the press release.
Each accepted product also must pass clinical testing to confirm safety and low risk for irritation and sensitization for individuals with rosacea. Applications for the Seal of Acceptance are reviewed anonymously by an independent panel of dermatologists. The NRS created the program under the guidance of Zoe D. Draelos, MD, a clinical and research dermatologist in High Point, North Carolina, who also serves on the NRS board of directors.
More information about products carrying the seal and how companies can apply to have their products considered to carry the seal is available at rosacea.org/seal-of-acceptance/.