Dermatology

SAN DIEGO — During her dermatology residency training, Caroline Piggott, MD, was taught that the classic signs of a Spitz nevus were a symmetric arrangement of colors and structures, followed by certain features on dermoscopy.

“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 — During her dermatology residency training, Caroline Piggott, MD, was taught that the classic signs of a Spitz nevus were a symmetric arrangement of colors and structures, followed by certain features on dermoscopy.

“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 — During her dermatology residency training, Caroline Piggott, MD, was taught that the classic signs of a Spitz nevus were a symmetric arrangement of colors and structures, followed by certain features on dermoscopy.

“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.

When it comes to managing acne, new guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology rate the existing evidence as “strong” for topical benzoyl peroxide, retinoids, and/or antibiotics and their fixed-dose combinations, as well as the use of oral isotretinoin for severe forms of the condition. 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.

Dr. Barbieri

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.

When it comes to managing acne, new guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology rate the existing evidence as “strong” for topical benzoyl peroxide, retinoids, and/or antibiotics and their fixed-dose combinations, as well as the use of oral isotretinoin for severe forms of the condition. 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.

Dr. Barbieri

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.

When it comes to managing acne, new guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology rate the existing evidence as “strong” for topical benzoyl peroxide, retinoids, and/or antibiotics and their fixed-dose combinations, as well as the use of oral isotretinoin for severe forms of the condition. 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.

Dr. Barbieri

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.

SAN DIEGO — According to data from the American Cancer Society (ACS), cutaneous melanoma was the fifth most common cancer in 2023, with an estimated 97,610 new cases and 7,990 deaths, following cancer of the colorectal area, lung and bronchus, prostate, and breast.

“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 American Cancer Society (ACS), cutaneous melanoma was the fifth most common cancer in 2023, with an estimated 97,610 new cases and 7,990 deaths, following cancer of the colorectal area, lung and bronchus, prostate, and breast.

“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 American Cancer Society (ACS), cutaneous melanoma was the fifth most common cancer in 2023, with an estimated 97,610 new cases and 7,990 deaths, following cancer of the colorectal area, lung and bronchus, prostate, and breast.

“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.

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.

Dr. Christensen

Dr. Bottomley

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.

Dr. Arron

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.

Dr. Christensen

Dr. Bottomley

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.

Dr. Arron

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.

Dr. Christensen

Dr. Bottomley

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.

Dr. Arron

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.

There is insufficient evidence that drugs targeting the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway increase the risk of cardiovascular or thrombotic complications in people undergoing treatment for a variety of dermatological conditions, 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.

There is insufficient evidence that drugs targeting the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway increase the risk of cardiovascular or thrombotic complications in people undergoing treatment for a variety of dermatological conditions, 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.

There is insufficient evidence that drugs targeting the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway increase the risk of cardiovascular or thrombotic complications in people undergoing treatment for a variety of dermatological conditions, 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.

The National Rosacea Society (NRS) has launched a new Seal of Acceptance program to help patients and physicians identify skin care and cosmetic products that are appropriate for sensitive and redness-prone skin in people who have rosacea, 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.

National Rosacea Society

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/.

The National Rosacea Society (NRS) has launched a new Seal of Acceptance program to help patients and physicians identify skin care and cosmetic products that are appropriate for sensitive and redness-prone skin in people who have rosacea, 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.

National Rosacea Society

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/.

The National Rosacea Society (NRS) has launched a new Seal of Acceptance program to help patients and physicians identify skin care and cosmetic products that are appropriate for sensitive and redness-prone skin in people who have rosacea, 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.

National Rosacea Society

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/.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — For some people, acne carries a one-two punch. First, they experience acne that is significant enough to decrease their quality of life, followed by scarring that can last a lifetime. For those patients, dermatologists have several options: Subcision to lift the depression of the scar, laser treatment to lower the height of scar tissue, and injections to fill scars.

“In my practice, I find that these [acne scars] are probably the hardest things to treat. But along the way, I created a protocol that I would love to share with you today,” Robyn Siperstein, MD, said at the annual ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference.

Dr. Siperstein starts by identifying the type of acne scar — rolling scars, boxcar scars, or ice pick scars. Rolling scars tend to be shallower with no sharp edges; boxcar scars are deeper, more defined round or oval depressions; and ice pick scars, as the name suggests, look like someone stuck tiny ice picks into the skin, leaving a sunken or pitted appearance.

“It’s really important to categorize so that we know which ones are going to be effectively treated with different modalities and which ones aren’t, so that we can give our patients realistic expectations,” said Dr. Siperstein, a cosmetic dermatologist in private practice in Boca Raton, Florida, and a clinical affiliate associate professor of dermatology at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

“There’s not going to be one treatment that’s right for everything,” she said. Different approaches may be required even for the same patient because some people present with all three types of acne scars, she added.

Combining Treatments

When it comes to injecting dermal fillers into acne scars to lift the depressed areas, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a filler with polymethyl methacrylate filler and bovine collagen (Bellafill) for this indication (moderate to severe, atrophic, distensible facial acne scars on the cheek in patients over age 21) in 2015. “And off-label, I use hyaluronic acid in my practice,” Dr. Siperstein said. Each filler “probably works a little bit better or differently on different types of scars.”

For rolling scars, she recommends hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal filler for everyone. “Of course, this is my opinion.” She was also a lead investigator in a randomized, placebo-controlled split-face study comparing HA filler with saline for correcting atrophic facial scars in 15 patients. The HA filler emerged superior, although there were some improvements with saline.

In her clinical experience, patients are happy with the results and ask, “Why didn’t the last four doctors do this?”

Boxcar scars are more challenging to fill with HA. In some cases, Dr. Siperstein is able to raise the depressed portion of the scar, but some of the vertical edges remain. In this scenario, she might combine treatments. Laser resurfacing, for example, might help convert boxcar scars into rolling scars, which then can be filled more successfully.

“Ice pick scars are tough,” Dr. Siperstein said. A punch removal technique can work in some cases, or she might try the “cross technique.” This involves placing acetic acid inside the scar using a Q-tip. “You have to be really careful,” she added, “because if you get it around the edges, it’s actually going to make the scar bigger.”
 

Choosing the Right Candidates

Selecting the right candidate for HA treatment of acne scars is essential. Dr. Siperstein shared the example of a lifeguard who had prominent acne scarring down the center of his chest. “He was embarrassed to go to the beach and take off his shirt. He said he felt like he had bullet holes in his chest.”

One month following treatment, “he had a really nice improvement, and now he feels really comfortable,” she said.

Some dermatologists might be reluctant to consider HA fillers for acne scarring because there is a misconception that HA is short-acting, lasting 6 months to 1 year before the effect wears off. That impression can persist from company-sponsored studies that limit follow-up to 6 months or 1 year “to get their drug to market,” she noted.

Also adding to this impression is that HA fillers in wrinkles may not last as long. Dr. Siperstein explained that wrinkles on the face are dynamic and constantly moving. In contrast, acne scars experience less movement, which helps the HA last longer. There is MRI evidence that shows HA fillers last over 2 years in the face, she added.

One tip to predict how well an acne scar might respond to filler injections is to squeeze it and look for the “dimple sign.” If the floor of the scar lifts up when squeezed, “we know that they’ll be a good candidate for hyaluronic acid filler.” Another tip is to inject HA in a retrograde technique high up in the skin. Inject tiny amounts — microdroplets — of the HA filler high on the dermis, she advised.

Deeper injections run the risk of raising the entire scar instead of filling it, she added.

Like many dermatologic procedures, before and after photos are essential to demonstrate improvements, Dr. Siperstein pointed out. Patients are often skeptical. “This happens a lot with acne scar patients. They’ve been to a million places that have promised results, they have not gotten them, and they are frustrated.”

Acne scars can result from picking, inflammation, or treatment. “This is what we see all day in clinic,” Dr. Siperstein said. “Somebody who had to undergo Accutane treatment but unfortunately is left with holes. This is a huge psychological burden on our patients,” she said, describing a younger patient who had scarring, which “led to depression — it was ruining his life.”

“His mom was willing to do whatever it took. And I said, You know what, I think filler will be enough,” Dr. Siperstein said. She counseled them that treatment would not make the scars disappear completely. But patients used to 10% improvements are very happy when their acne scars look 80% or 90% better, she added.

Dr. Siperstein received grant or research support and is a member of the speakers bureau for Allergan and Galderma. She is also a consultant/advisory board member for Allergan.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — For some people, acne carries a one-two punch. First, they experience acne that is significant enough to decrease their quality of life, followed by scarring that can last a lifetime. For those patients, dermatologists have several options: Subcision to lift the depression of the scar, laser treatment to lower the height of scar tissue, and injections to fill scars.

“In my practice, I find that these [acne scars] are probably the hardest things to treat. But along the way, I created a protocol that I would love to share with you today,” Robyn Siperstein, MD, said at the annual ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference.

Dr. Siperstein starts by identifying the type of acne scar — rolling scars, boxcar scars, or ice pick scars. Rolling scars tend to be shallower with no sharp edges; boxcar scars are deeper, more defined round or oval depressions; and ice pick scars, as the name suggests, look like someone stuck tiny ice picks into the skin, leaving a sunken or pitted appearance.

“It’s really important to categorize so that we know which ones are going to be effectively treated with different modalities and which ones aren’t, so that we can give our patients realistic expectations,” said Dr. Siperstein, a cosmetic dermatologist in private practice in Boca Raton, Florida, and a clinical affiliate associate professor of dermatology at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

“There’s not going to be one treatment that’s right for everything,” she said. Different approaches may be required even for the same patient because some people present with all three types of acne scars, she added.

Combining Treatments

When it comes to injecting dermal fillers into acne scars to lift the depressed areas, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a filler with polymethyl methacrylate filler and bovine collagen (Bellafill) for this indication (moderate to severe, atrophic, distensible facial acne scars on the cheek in patients over age 21) in 2015. “And off-label, I use hyaluronic acid in my practice,” Dr. Siperstein said. Each filler “probably works a little bit better or differently on different types of scars.”

For rolling scars, she recommends hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal filler for everyone. “Of course, this is my opinion.” She was also a lead investigator in a randomized, placebo-controlled split-face study comparing HA filler with saline for correcting atrophic facial scars in 15 patients. The HA filler emerged superior, although there were some improvements with saline.

In her clinical experience, patients are happy with the results and ask, “Why didn’t the last four doctors do this?”

Boxcar scars are more challenging to fill with HA. In some cases, Dr. Siperstein is able to raise the depressed portion of the scar, but some of the vertical edges remain. In this scenario, she might combine treatments. Laser resurfacing, for example, might help convert boxcar scars into rolling scars, which then can be filled more successfully.

“Ice pick scars are tough,” Dr. Siperstein said. A punch removal technique can work in some cases, or she might try the “cross technique.” This involves placing acetic acid inside the scar using a Q-tip. “You have to be really careful,” she added, “because if you get it around the edges, it’s actually going to make the scar bigger.”
 

Choosing the Right Candidates

Selecting the right candidate for HA treatment of acne scars is essential. Dr. Siperstein shared the example of a lifeguard who had prominent acne scarring down the center of his chest. “He was embarrassed to go to the beach and take off his shirt. He said he felt like he had bullet holes in his chest.”

One month following treatment, “he had a really nice improvement, and now he feels really comfortable,” she said.

Some dermatologists might be reluctant to consider HA fillers for acne scarring because there is a misconception that HA is short-acting, lasting 6 months to 1 year before the effect wears off. That impression can persist from company-sponsored studies that limit follow-up to 6 months or 1 year “to get their drug to market,” she noted.

Also adding to this impression is that HA fillers in wrinkles may not last as long. Dr. Siperstein explained that wrinkles on the face are dynamic and constantly moving. In contrast, acne scars experience less movement, which helps the HA last longer. There is MRI evidence that shows HA fillers last over 2 years in the face, she added.

One tip to predict how well an acne scar might respond to filler injections is to squeeze it and look for the “dimple sign.” If the floor of the scar lifts up when squeezed, “we know that they’ll be a good candidate for hyaluronic acid filler.” Another tip is to inject HA in a retrograde technique high up in the skin. Inject tiny amounts — microdroplets — of the HA filler high on the dermis, she advised.

Deeper injections run the risk of raising the entire scar instead of filling it, she added.

Like many dermatologic procedures, before and after photos are essential to demonstrate improvements, Dr. Siperstein pointed out. Patients are often skeptical. “This happens a lot with acne scar patients. They’ve been to a million places that have promised results, they have not gotten them, and they are frustrated.”

Acne scars can result from picking, inflammation, or treatment. “This is what we see all day in clinic,” Dr. Siperstein said. “Somebody who had to undergo Accutane treatment but unfortunately is left with holes. This is a huge psychological burden on our patients,” she said, describing a younger patient who had scarring, which “led to depression — it was ruining his life.”

“His mom was willing to do whatever it took. And I said, You know what, I think filler will be enough,” Dr. Siperstein said. She counseled them that treatment would not make the scars disappear completely. But patients used to 10% improvements are very happy when their acne scars look 80% or 90% better, she added.

Dr. Siperstein received grant or research support and is a member of the speakers bureau for Allergan and Galderma. She is also a consultant/advisory board member for Allergan.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — For some people, acne carries a one-two punch. First, they experience acne that is significant enough to decrease their quality of life, followed by scarring that can last a lifetime. For those patients, dermatologists have several options: Subcision to lift the depression of the scar, laser treatment to lower the height of scar tissue, and injections to fill scars.

“In my practice, I find that these [acne scars] are probably the hardest things to treat. But along the way, I created a protocol that I would love to share with you today,” Robyn Siperstein, MD, said at the annual ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference.

Dr. Siperstein starts by identifying the type of acne scar — rolling scars, boxcar scars, or ice pick scars. Rolling scars tend to be shallower with no sharp edges; boxcar scars are deeper, more defined round or oval depressions; and ice pick scars, as the name suggests, look like someone stuck tiny ice picks into the skin, leaving a sunken or pitted appearance.

“It’s really important to categorize so that we know which ones are going to be effectively treated with different modalities and which ones aren’t, so that we can give our patients realistic expectations,” said Dr. Siperstein, a cosmetic dermatologist in private practice in Boca Raton, Florida, and a clinical affiliate associate professor of dermatology at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

“There’s not going to be one treatment that’s right for everything,” she said. Different approaches may be required even for the same patient because some people present with all three types of acne scars, she added.

Combining Treatments

When it comes to injecting dermal fillers into acne scars to lift the depressed areas, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a filler with polymethyl methacrylate filler and bovine collagen (Bellafill) for this indication (moderate to severe, atrophic, distensible facial acne scars on the cheek in patients over age 21) in 2015. “And off-label, I use hyaluronic acid in my practice,” Dr. Siperstein said. Each filler “probably works a little bit better or differently on different types of scars.”

For rolling scars, she recommends hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal filler for everyone. “Of course, this is my opinion.” She was also a lead investigator in a randomized, placebo-controlled split-face study comparing HA filler with saline for correcting atrophic facial scars in 15 patients. The HA filler emerged superior, although there were some improvements with saline.

In her clinical experience, patients are happy with the results and ask, “Why didn’t the last four doctors do this?”

Boxcar scars are more challenging to fill with HA. In some cases, Dr. Siperstein is able to raise the depressed portion of the scar, but some of the vertical edges remain. In this scenario, she might combine treatments. Laser resurfacing, for example, might help convert boxcar scars into rolling scars, which then can be filled more successfully.

“Ice pick scars are tough,” Dr. Siperstein said. A punch removal technique can work in some cases, or she might try the “cross technique.” This involves placing acetic acid inside the scar using a Q-tip. “You have to be really careful,” she added, “because if you get it around the edges, it’s actually going to make the scar bigger.”
 

Choosing the Right Candidates

Selecting the right candidate for HA treatment of acne scars is essential. Dr. Siperstein shared the example of a lifeguard who had prominent acne scarring down the center of his chest. “He was embarrassed to go to the beach and take off his shirt. He said he felt like he had bullet holes in his chest.”

One month following treatment, “he had a really nice improvement, and now he feels really comfortable,” she said.

Some dermatologists might be reluctant to consider HA fillers for acne scarring because there is a misconception that HA is short-acting, lasting 6 months to 1 year before the effect wears off. That impression can persist from company-sponsored studies that limit follow-up to 6 months or 1 year “to get their drug to market,” she noted.

Also adding to this impression is that HA fillers in wrinkles may not last as long. Dr. Siperstein explained that wrinkles on the face are dynamic and constantly moving. In contrast, acne scars experience less movement, which helps the HA last longer. There is MRI evidence that shows HA fillers last over 2 years in the face, she added.

One tip to predict how well an acne scar might respond to filler injections is to squeeze it and look for the “dimple sign.” If the floor of the scar lifts up when squeezed, “we know that they’ll be a good candidate for hyaluronic acid filler.” Another tip is to inject HA in a retrograde technique high up in the skin. Inject tiny amounts — microdroplets — of the HA filler high on the dermis, she advised.

Deeper injections run the risk of raising the entire scar instead of filling it, she added.

Like many dermatologic procedures, before and after photos are essential to demonstrate improvements, Dr. Siperstein pointed out. Patients are often skeptical. “This happens a lot with acne scar patients. They’ve been to a million places that have promised results, they have not gotten them, and they are frustrated.”

Acne scars can result from picking, inflammation, or treatment. “This is what we see all day in clinic,” Dr. Siperstein said. “Somebody who had to undergo Accutane treatment but unfortunately is left with holes. This is a huge psychological burden on our patients,” she said, describing a younger patient who had scarring, which “led to depression — it was ruining his life.”

“His mom was willing to do whatever it took. And I said, You know what, I think filler will be enough,” Dr. Siperstein said. She counseled them that treatment would not make the scars disappear completely. But patients used to 10% improvements are very happy when their acne scars look 80% or 90% better, she added.

Dr. Siperstein received grant or research support and is a member of the speakers bureau for Allergan and Galderma. She is also a consultant/advisory board member for Allergan.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Melanoma in situ drives most cases of melanoma overdiagnoses, according to an analysis by Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER).

METHODOLOGY:

• The increase in melanoma diagnoses in the United States, while mortality has remained flat, has raised concerns about overdiagnosis of melanoma, cases that may not result in harm if left untreated. How much of the overdiagnoses can be attributed to melanoma in situ vs invasive melanoma is unknown.
• To address this question, researchers collected data from the SEER 9 registries database.
• They used DevCan software to calculate the cumulative lifetime risk of White American men and women being diagnosed with melanoma between 1975 and 2018, adjusting for changes in longevity and risk factors over the study period.
• The primary outcome was excess lifetime risk for melanoma diagnosis between 1976 and 2018, adjusted for year 2018 competing mortality and changes in risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers found that between 1975 and 2018, the adjusted lifetime risk of being diagnosed with melanoma in situ increased from 0.17% to 2.7% in White men and 0.08% to 2% in White women.
• An estimated 49.7% and 64.6% of melanomas diagnosed in White men and White women, respectively, were overdiagnosed in 2018.
• Among individuals diagnosed with melanoma in situ, 89.4% of White men and 85.4% of White women were likely overdiagnosed in 2018.

IN PRACTICE:

“A large proportion of overdiagnosed melanomas are in situ cancers, pointing to a potential area to focus for an intervention de-escalation of the intensity of treatment and survivorship care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Adewole S. Adamson, MD, of the Division of Dermatology at The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, led the research. The study was published in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine on January 19, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis only involved White individuals. Other limitations include a high risk for selection bias and that the researchers assumed no melanoma diagnosis in 1975, which may not be the case.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Adamson disclosed that he is supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation through The Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program. Coauthor Katy J.L. Bell, MBchB, PhD, of the University of Sydney, is supported by an Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant.

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

TOPLINE:

Melanoma in situ drives most cases of melanoma overdiagnoses, according to an analysis by Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER).

METHODOLOGY:

• The increase in melanoma diagnoses in the United States, while mortality has remained flat, has raised concerns about overdiagnosis of melanoma, cases that may not result in harm if left untreated. How much of the overdiagnoses can be attributed to melanoma in situ vs invasive melanoma is unknown.
• To address this question, researchers collected data from the SEER 9 registries database.
• They used DevCan software to calculate the cumulative lifetime risk of White American men and women being diagnosed with melanoma between 1975 and 2018, adjusting for changes in longevity and risk factors over the study period.
• The primary outcome was excess lifetime risk for melanoma diagnosis between 1976 and 2018, adjusted for year 2018 competing mortality and changes in risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers found that between 1975 and 2018, the adjusted lifetime risk of being diagnosed with melanoma in situ increased from 0.17% to 2.7% in White men and 0.08% to 2% in White women.
• An estimated 49.7% and 64.6% of melanomas diagnosed in White men and White women, respectively, were overdiagnosed in 2018.
• Among individuals diagnosed with melanoma in situ, 89.4% of White men and 85.4% of White women were likely overdiagnosed in 2018.

IN PRACTICE:

“A large proportion of overdiagnosed melanomas are in situ cancers, pointing to a potential area to focus for an intervention de-escalation of the intensity of treatment and survivorship care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Adewole S. Adamson, MD, of the Division of Dermatology at The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, led the research. The study was published in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine on January 19, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis only involved White individuals. Other limitations include a high risk for selection bias and that the researchers assumed no melanoma diagnosis in 1975, which may not be the case.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Adamson disclosed that he is supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation through The Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program. Coauthor Katy J.L. Bell, MBchB, PhD, of the University of Sydney, is supported by an Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant.

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

TOPLINE:

Melanoma in situ drives most cases of melanoma overdiagnoses, according to an analysis by Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER).

METHODOLOGY:

• The increase in melanoma diagnoses in the United States, while mortality has remained flat, has raised concerns about overdiagnosis of melanoma, cases that may not result in harm if left untreated. How much of the overdiagnoses can be attributed to melanoma in situ vs invasive melanoma is unknown.
• To address this question, researchers collected data from the SEER 9 registries database.
• They used DevCan software to calculate the cumulative lifetime risk of White American men and women being diagnosed with melanoma between 1975 and 2018, adjusting for changes in longevity and risk factors over the study period.
• The primary outcome was excess lifetime risk for melanoma diagnosis between 1976 and 2018, adjusted for year 2018 competing mortality and changes in risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers found that between 1975 and 2018, the adjusted lifetime risk of being diagnosed with melanoma in situ increased from 0.17% to 2.7% in White men and 0.08% to 2% in White women.
• An estimated 49.7% and 64.6% of melanomas diagnosed in White men and White women, respectively, were overdiagnosed in 2018.
• Among individuals diagnosed with melanoma in situ, 89.4% of White men and 85.4% of White women were likely overdiagnosed in 2018.

IN PRACTICE:

“A large proportion of overdiagnosed melanomas are in situ cancers, pointing to a potential area to focus for an intervention de-escalation of the intensity of treatment and survivorship care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Adewole S. Adamson, MD, of the Division of Dermatology at The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, led the research. The study was published in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine on January 19, 2024.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis only involved White individuals. Other limitations include a high risk for selection bias and that the researchers assumed no melanoma diagnosis in 1975, which may not be the case.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Adamson disclosed that he is supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation through The Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program. Coauthor Katy J.L. Bell, MBchB, PhD, of the University of Sydney, is supported by an Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grant.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with pemphigus who received rituximab as first-line therapy experienced sustained remission without corticosteroids or additional rituximab infusions, an analysis showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The short-term efficacy and safety of first-line treatment with rituximab for pemphigus were demonstrated in the Ritux 3 trial, but the rates of long-term remission are unknown.
• French investigators from 25 dermatology departments evaluated 83 patients from the Ritux 3 trial between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2015.
• They used Kaplan-Meir curves to determine the 5- and 7-year rates of disease-free survival (DFS) without corticosteroids.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 83 patients, 44 were in the rituximab-plus-prednisone group and 39 were in the prednisone-only group, with a median follow-up of 87.3 months (7.3 years).
• Among patients in the rituximab plus prednisone group, 43 (93.5%) achieved complete remission without corticosteroids at any time during follow-up, compared with 17 patients (39%) in the prednisone-only group.
• DFS (without corticosteroid therapy) statistically favored patients in the rituximab plus prednisone group compared with patients in the prednisone-only group at follow-up times of 5 years (76.7% vs 35.3%, respectively) and 7 years (72.1% vs 35.3%; P < .001 for both associations).
• In another finding, 31 patients in the rituximab plus prednisone group reported fewer serious adverse events (SAEs) than 58 patients in the prednisone-only group, which corresponds to 0.67 and 1.32 SAEs per patient, respectively (P = .003).

IN PRACTICE:

The study findings demonstrated “the superiority of rituximab over a standard corticosteroids regimen, both in the short term and the long term,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Billal Tedbirt, MD, of the Department of Dermatology at CHU Rouen in France, led the study, which was published online on January 24, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Nearly 8% of patients did not attend the end of follow-up visit. Also, serum samples used to predict relapse were drawn at month 36, but the researchers said that a window of every 4-6 months might provide higher accuracy of relapses.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Tedbirt reported having no disclosures. Four of the study authors reported being investigators for and/or receiving personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies. The study was supported by a grant from the French Society of Dermatology.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with pemphigus who received rituximab as first-line therapy experienced sustained remission without corticosteroids or additional rituximab infusions, an analysis showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The short-term efficacy and safety of first-line treatment with rituximab for pemphigus were demonstrated in the Ritux 3 trial, but the rates of long-term remission are unknown.
• French investigators from 25 dermatology departments evaluated 83 patients from the Ritux 3 trial between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2015.
• They used Kaplan-Meir curves to determine the 5- and 7-year rates of disease-free survival (DFS) without corticosteroids.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 83 patients, 44 were in the rituximab-plus-prednisone group and 39 were in the prednisone-only group, with a median follow-up of 87.3 months (7.3 years).
• Among patients in the rituximab plus prednisone group, 43 (93.5%) achieved complete remission without corticosteroids at any time during follow-up, compared with 17 patients (39%) in the prednisone-only group.
• DFS (without corticosteroid therapy) statistically favored patients in the rituximab plus prednisone group compared with patients in the prednisone-only group at follow-up times of 5 years (76.7% vs 35.3%, respectively) and 7 years (72.1% vs 35.3%; P < .001 for both associations).
• In another finding, 31 patients in the rituximab plus prednisone group reported fewer serious adverse events (SAEs) than 58 patients in the prednisone-only group, which corresponds to 0.67 and 1.32 SAEs per patient, respectively (P = .003).

IN PRACTICE:

The study findings demonstrated “the superiority of rituximab over a standard corticosteroids regimen, both in the short term and the long term,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Billal Tedbirt, MD, of the Department of Dermatology at CHU Rouen in France, led the study, which was published online on January 24, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Nearly 8% of patients did not attend the end of follow-up visit. Also, serum samples used to predict relapse were drawn at month 36, but the researchers said that a window of every 4-6 months might provide higher accuracy of relapses.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Tedbirt reported having no disclosures. Four of the study authors reported being investigators for and/or receiving personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies. The study was supported by a grant from the French Society of Dermatology.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with pemphigus who received rituximab as first-line therapy experienced sustained remission without corticosteroids or additional rituximab infusions, an analysis showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The short-term efficacy and safety of first-line treatment with rituximab for pemphigus were demonstrated in the Ritux 3 trial, but the rates of long-term remission are unknown.
• French investigators from 25 dermatology departments evaluated 83 patients from the Ritux 3 trial between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2015.
• They used Kaplan-Meir curves to determine the 5- and 7-year rates of disease-free survival (DFS) without corticosteroids.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 83 patients, 44 were in the rituximab-plus-prednisone group and 39 were in the prednisone-only group, with a median follow-up of 87.3 months (7.3 years).
• Among patients in the rituximab plus prednisone group, 43 (93.5%) achieved complete remission without corticosteroids at any time during follow-up, compared with 17 patients (39%) in the prednisone-only group.
• DFS (without corticosteroid therapy) statistically favored patients in the rituximab plus prednisone group compared with patients in the prednisone-only group at follow-up times of 5 years (76.7% vs 35.3%, respectively) and 7 years (72.1% vs 35.3%; P < .001 for both associations).
• In another finding, 31 patients in the rituximab plus prednisone group reported fewer serious adverse events (SAEs) than 58 patients in the prednisone-only group, which corresponds to 0.67 and 1.32 SAEs per patient, respectively (P = .003).

IN PRACTICE:

The study findings demonstrated “the superiority of rituximab over a standard corticosteroids regimen, both in the short term and the long term,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Billal Tedbirt, MD, of the Department of Dermatology at CHU Rouen in France, led the study, which was published online on January 24, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Nearly 8% of patients did not attend the end of follow-up visit. Also, serum samples used to predict relapse were drawn at month 36, but the researchers said that a window of every 4-6 months might provide higher accuracy of relapses.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Tedbirt reported having no disclosures. Four of the study authors reported being investigators for and/or receiving personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies. The study was supported by a grant from the French Society of Dermatology.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — Advances in treating medical conditions rarely emerge in a straight line. Oftentimes, progress comes in fits and starts, and therapies to treat cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) and dermatomyositis are no exception.

Beyond approved treatments that deserve more attention, like belimumab, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 2011, and Octagam 10%, an intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) preparation approved for dermatomyositis in 2021, anticipation is growing for emerging therapies and their potential to provide relief to patients, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. The tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor deucravacitinib, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors brepocitinib and baricitinib, and the monoclonal antibody anifrolumab, he noted, are prime examples.

“There have been significant advances in the development of treatments for lupus erythematosus and dermatomyositis. In my opinion, this is the start of what will be the most exciting decade in the history of these two diseases,” said Dr. Fernandez, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

Emerging Treatments for Cutaneous Lupus

Although SLE can involve many organ systems, the skin is one of the most affected. There are specific cutaneous lesions categorized as either acute cutaneous lupus, subacute cutaneous lupus, or chronic cutaneous lupus.

The oral TYK2 inhibitor deucravacitinib, for example, should be able to dampen interleukin responses in people with CLE, Dr. Fernandez said. Deucravacitinib was approved by the FDA to treat psoriasis in September 2022.

Cleveland Clinic Foundation

A phase 2 study published in 2023 focused on this agent for relief of systemic lupus. Improvements in cutaneous disease were a secondary endpoint. The trial demonstrated that the patients treated with deucravacitinib achieved a 56%-70% CLASI-50 response, depending on dosing, compared with a 17% response among those on placebo at week 48.

Based on the trial results, recruitment has begun for a phase 2 trial to evaluate deucravacitinib, compared with placebo, in patients with discoid and/or subacute cutaneous lupus. “This may be another medicine we have available to give to any of our patients with cutaneous lupus,” Dr. Fernandez said.
 

Anifrolumab Appears Promising

The FDA approval of anifrolumab, a type I interferon (IFN) receptor antagonist, for treating moderate to severe SLE in July 2021, for example, is good news for dermatologists and their patients, added Dr. Fernandez. “Almost immediately after approval, case studies showed marked improvement in patients with refractory cutaneous lupus.” While the therapy was approved for treating systemic lupus, it allows for off-label treatment of the cutaneous predominant form of the disease, he said.

Furthermore, the manufacturer of anifrolumab, AstraZeneca, is launching the LAVENDER clinical trial to assess the monoclonal antibody specifically for treating CLE. “This is a big deal because we may be able to prescribe anifrolumab for our cutaneous lupus patients who don’t have systemic lupus,” Dr. Fernandez said.

Phase 3 data supported use the of anifrolumab in systemic lupus, including the TULIP-2 trial, which demonstrated its superiority to placebo for reducing severity of systemic disease and lowering corticosteroid use. A study published in March 2023 of 11 patients showed that they had a “very fast response” to the agent, Dr. Fernandez said, with a 50% or greater improvement in the Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index activity score reached by all participants at week 16. Improvements of 50% or more in this scoring system are considered clinically meaningful, he added.
 

Upcoming Dermatomyositis Treatments

Why highlight emerging therapies for CLE and dermatomyositis in the same ODAC presentation? Although distinct conditions, these autoimmune conditions are both mediated by type 1 IFN inflammation.

Dermatomyositis is a relatively rare immune-mediated disease that most commonly affects the skin and muscle. Doctors score disease presentation, activity, and clinical improvements on a scale similar to CLASI for cutaneous lupus, the CDASI or Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index. Among people with CDASI activity scores of at least 14, which is the threshold for moderate to severe disease, a 20% improvement is clinically meaningful, Dr. Fernandez said. In addition, a 40% or greater improvement correlates with significant improvements in quality of life.

There is now more evidence for the use of IVIG to treat dermatomyositis. “Among those of us who treat dermatomyositis on a regular basis, we believe IVIG is the most potent treatment. We’ve known that for a long time,” Dr. Fernandez said.

Despite this tenet, for years, there was only one placebo-controlled trial, published in 1993, that evaluated IVIG treatment for dermatomyositis, and it included only 15 participants. That was until October 2022, he said, when the New England Journal of Medicine published a study comparing a specific brand of IVIG (Octagam) with placebo in 95 people with dermatomyositis.

In the study, 79% of participants treated with IVIG had a total improvement score of at least 20 (minimal improvement), the primary endpoint, at 16 weeks, compared with 44% of those receiving a placebo. Those treated with IVIG also had significant improvements in the CDASI score, a secondary endpoint, compared with those on placebo, he said.

Based on results of this trial, the FDA approved Octagam 10% for dermatomyositis in adults. Dr. Fernandez noted the approval is restricted to the brand of IVIG in the trial, not all IVIG products. However, “the FDA approval is most important to us because it gives us ammunition to fight for insurers to approve IVIG when we feel our patients with dermatomyositis need it,” regardless of the brand.
 

The Potential of JAK1 Inhibitors

An open-label study of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib, published in December 2020, showed that mean changes in CDASI activity scores at 12 weeks were statistically significant compared with baseline in 10 people with dermatomyositis. “The importance of this study is that it is proof of concept that JAK inhibition can be effective for treating dermatomyositis, especially with active skin disease,” Dr. Fernandez said.

In addition, two large phase 3 trials are evaluating JAK inhibitor safety and efficacy for treating dermatomyositis. One is the VALOR trial, currently recruiting people with recalcitrant dermatomyositis to evaluate treatment with brepocitinib. Researchers in France are looking at another JAK inhibitor, baricitinib, for treating relapsing or treatment-naive dermatomyositis. Recruitment for the BIRD clinical trial is ongoing.

Monoclonal Antibody Showing Promise

“When it comes to looking specifically at dermatomyositis cutaneous disease, it’s been found that the levels of IFN beta correlate best with not only lesional skin type 1 IFN inflammatory signatures but also overall clinical disease activity,” Dr. Fernandez said. This correlation is stronger than for any other IFN-1-type cytokine active in the disorder.

“Perhaps blocking IFN beta might be best way to get control of dermatomyositis activity,” he added.

With that in mind, a phase 2 trial of dazukibart presented at the American Academy of Dermatology 2023 annual meeting highlighted the promise of this agent that targets type 1 IFN beta.

The primary endpoint was improvement in CDASI at 12 weeks. “This medication has remarkable efficacy,” Dr. Fernandez said. “We were one of the sites for this trial. Despite being blinded, there was no question about who was receiving drug and who was receiving placebo.”

“A minimal clinical improvement in disease activity was seen in more than 90%, so almost every patient who received this medication had meaningful improvement,” he added.

Based on the results, the manufacturer, Pfizer, is recruiting participants for a phase 3 trial to further assess dazukibart in dermatomyositis and polymyositis. Dr. Fernandez said, “This is a story you should pay attention to if you treat any dermatomyositis patients at all.”

Regarding these emerging therapies for CLE and dermatomyositis, “This looks very much like the early days of psoriasis, in the early 2000s, when there was a lot of activity developing treatments,” Dr. Fernandez said. “I will predict that within 10 years, we will have multiple novel agents available that will probably work better than anything we have today.”

Dr. Fernandez reported receiving grant and/or research support from Alexion, Incyte, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, and Priovant Therapeutics; acting as a consultant or advisory board member for AbbVie, Biogen, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals; and being a member of the speaker bureau or receiving honoraria for non-CME from AbbVie, Kyowa Kirin, and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — Advances in treating medical conditions rarely emerge in a straight line. Oftentimes, progress comes in fits and starts, and therapies to treat cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) and dermatomyositis are no exception.

Beyond approved treatments that deserve more attention, like belimumab, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 2011, and Octagam 10%, an intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) preparation approved for dermatomyositis in 2021, anticipation is growing for emerging therapies and their potential to provide relief to patients, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. The tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor deucravacitinib, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors brepocitinib and baricitinib, and the monoclonal antibody anifrolumab, he noted, are prime examples.

“There have been significant advances in the development of treatments for lupus erythematosus and dermatomyositis. In my opinion, this is the start of what will be the most exciting decade in the history of these two diseases,” said Dr. Fernandez, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

Emerging Treatments for Cutaneous Lupus

Although SLE can involve many organ systems, the skin is one of the most affected. There are specific cutaneous lesions categorized as either acute cutaneous lupus, subacute cutaneous lupus, or chronic cutaneous lupus.

The oral TYK2 inhibitor deucravacitinib, for example, should be able to dampen interleukin responses in people with CLE, Dr. Fernandez said. Deucravacitinib was approved by the FDA to treat psoriasis in September 2022.

Cleveland Clinic Foundation

A phase 2 study published in 2023 focused on this agent for relief of systemic lupus. Improvements in cutaneous disease were a secondary endpoint. The trial demonstrated that the patients treated with deucravacitinib achieved a 56%-70% CLASI-50 response, depending on dosing, compared with a 17% response among those on placebo at week 48.

Based on the trial results, recruitment has begun for a phase 2 trial to evaluate deucravacitinib, compared with placebo, in patients with discoid and/or subacute cutaneous lupus. “This may be another medicine we have available to give to any of our patients with cutaneous lupus,” Dr. Fernandez said.
 

Anifrolumab Appears Promising

The FDA approval of anifrolumab, a type I interferon (IFN) receptor antagonist, for treating moderate to severe SLE in July 2021, for example, is good news for dermatologists and their patients, added Dr. Fernandez. “Almost immediately after approval, case studies showed marked improvement in patients with refractory cutaneous lupus.” While the therapy was approved for treating systemic lupus, it allows for off-label treatment of the cutaneous predominant form of the disease, he said.

Furthermore, the manufacturer of anifrolumab, AstraZeneca, is launching the LAVENDER clinical trial to assess the monoclonal antibody specifically for treating CLE. “This is a big deal because we may be able to prescribe anifrolumab for our cutaneous lupus patients who don’t have systemic lupus,” Dr. Fernandez said.

Phase 3 data supported use the of anifrolumab in systemic lupus, including the TULIP-2 trial, which demonstrated its superiority to placebo for reducing severity of systemic disease and lowering corticosteroid use. A study published in March 2023 of 11 patients showed that they had a “very fast response” to the agent, Dr. Fernandez said, with a 50% or greater improvement in the Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index activity score reached by all participants at week 16. Improvements of 50% or more in this scoring system are considered clinically meaningful, he added.
 

Upcoming Dermatomyositis Treatments

Why highlight emerging therapies for CLE and dermatomyositis in the same ODAC presentation? Although distinct conditions, these autoimmune conditions are both mediated by type 1 IFN inflammation.

Dermatomyositis is a relatively rare immune-mediated disease that most commonly affects the skin and muscle. Doctors score disease presentation, activity, and clinical improvements on a scale similar to CLASI for cutaneous lupus, the CDASI or Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index. Among people with CDASI activity scores of at least 14, which is the threshold for moderate to severe disease, a 20% improvement is clinically meaningful, Dr. Fernandez said. In addition, a 40% or greater improvement correlates with significant improvements in quality of life.

There is now more evidence for the use of IVIG to treat dermatomyositis. “Among those of us who treat dermatomyositis on a regular basis, we believe IVIG is the most potent treatment. We’ve known that for a long time,” Dr. Fernandez said.

Despite this tenet, for years, there was only one placebo-controlled trial, published in 1993, that evaluated IVIG treatment for dermatomyositis, and it included only 15 participants. That was until October 2022, he said, when the New England Journal of Medicine published a study comparing a specific brand of IVIG (Octagam) with placebo in 95 people with dermatomyositis.

In the study, 79% of participants treated with IVIG had a total improvement score of at least 20 (minimal improvement), the primary endpoint, at 16 weeks, compared with 44% of those receiving a placebo. Those treated with IVIG also had significant improvements in the CDASI score, a secondary endpoint, compared with those on placebo, he said.

Based on results of this trial, the FDA approved Octagam 10% for dermatomyositis in adults. Dr. Fernandez noted the approval is restricted to the brand of IVIG in the trial, not all IVIG products. However, “the FDA approval is most important to us because it gives us ammunition to fight for insurers to approve IVIG when we feel our patients with dermatomyositis need it,” regardless of the brand.
 

The Potential of JAK1 Inhibitors

An open-label study of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib, published in December 2020, showed that mean changes in CDASI activity scores at 12 weeks were statistically significant compared with baseline in 10 people with dermatomyositis. “The importance of this study is that it is proof of concept that JAK inhibition can be effective for treating dermatomyositis, especially with active skin disease,” Dr. Fernandez said.

In addition, two large phase 3 trials are evaluating JAK inhibitor safety and efficacy for treating dermatomyositis. One is the VALOR trial, currently recruiting people with recalcitrant dermatomyositis to evaluate treatment with brepocitinib. Researchers in France are looking at another JAK inhibitor, baricitinib, for treating relapsing or treatment-naive dermatomyositis. Recruitment for the BIRD clinical trial is ongoing.

Monoclonal Antibody Showing Promise

“When it comes to looking specifically at dermatomyositis cutaneous disease, it’s been found that the levels of IFN beta correlate best with not only lesional skin type 1 IFN inflammatory signatures but also overall clinical disease activity,” Dr. Fernandez said. This correlation is stronger than for any other IFN-1-type cytokine active in the disorder.

“Perhaps blocking IFN beta might be best way to get control of dermatomyositis activity,” he added.

With that in mind, a phase 2 trial of dazukibart presented at the American Academy of Dermatology 2023 annual meeting highlighted the promise of this agent that targets type 1 IFN beta.

The primary endpoint was improvement in CDASI at 12 weeks. “This medication has remarkable efficacy,” Dr. Fernandez said. “We were one of the sites for this trial. Despite being blinded, there was no question about who was receiving drug and who was receiving placebo.”

“A minimal clinical improvement in disease activity was seen in more than 90%, so almost every patient who received this medication had meaningful improvement,” he added.

Based on the results, the manufacturer, Pfizer, is recruiting participants for a phase 3 trial to further assess dazukibart in dermatomyositis and polymyositis. Dr. Fernandez said, “This is a story you should pay attention to if you treat any dermatomyositis patients at all.”

Regarding these emerging therapies for CLE and dermatomyositis, “This looks very much like the early days of psoriasis, in the early 2000s, when there was a lot of activity developing treatments,” Dr. Fernandez said. “I will predict that within 10 years, we will have multiple novel agents available that will probably work better than anything we have today.”

Dr. Fernandez reported receiving grant and/or research support from Alexion, Incyte, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, and Priovant Therapeutics; acting as a consultant or advisory board member for AbbVie, Biogen, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals; and being a member of the speaker bureau or receiving honoraria for non-CME from AbbVie, Kyowa Kirin, and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — Advances in treating medical conditions rarely emerge in a straight line. Oftentimes, progress comes in fits and starts, and therapies to treat cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) and dermatomyositis are no exception.

Beyond approved treatments that deserve more attention, like belimumab, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 2011, and Octagam 10%, an intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) preparation approved for dermatomyositis in 2021, anticipation is growing for emerging therapies and their potential to provide relief to patients, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. The tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor deucravacitinib, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors brepocitinib and baricitinib, and the monoclonal antibody anifrolumab, he noted, are prime examples.

“There have been significant advances in the development of treatments for lupus erythematosus and dermatomyositis. In my opinion, this is the start of what will be the most exciting decade in the history of these two diseases,” said Dr. Fernandez, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

Emerging Treatments for Cutaneous Lupus

Although SLE can involve many organ systems, the skin is one of the most affected. There are specific cutaneous lesions categorized as either acute cutaneous lupus, subacute cutaneous lupus, or chronic cutaneous lupus.

The oral TYK2 inhibitor deucravacitinib, for example, should be able to dampen interleukin responses in people with CLE, Dr. Fernandez said. Deucravacitinib was approved by the FDA to treat psoriasis in September 2022.

Cleveland Clinic Foundation

A phase 2 study published in 2023 focused on this agent for relief of systemic lupus. Improvements in cutaneous disease were a secondary endpoint. The trial demonstrated that the patients treated with deucravacitinib achieved a 56%-70% CLASI-50 response, depending on dosing, compared with a 17% response among those on placebo at week 48.

Based on the trial results, recruitment has begun for a phase 2 trial to evaluate deucravacitinib, compared with placebo, in patients with discoid and/or subacute cutaneous lupus. “This may be another medicine we have available to give to any of our patients with cutaneous lupus,” Dr. Fernandez said.
 

Anifrolumab Appears Promising

The FDA approval of anifrolumab, a type I interferon (IFN) receptor antagonist, for treating moderate to severe SLE in July 2021, for example, is good news for dermatologists and their patients, added Dr. Fernandez. “Almost immediately after approval, case studies showed marked improvement in patients with refractory cutaneous lupus.” While the therapy was approved for treating systemic lupus, it allows for off-label treatment of the cutaneous predominant form of the disease, he said.

Furthermore, the manufacturer of anifrolumab, AstraZeneca, is launching the LAVENDER clinical trial to assess the monoclonal antibody specifically for treating CLE. “This is a big deal because we may be able to prescribe anifrolumab for our cutaneous lupus patients who don’t have systemic lupus,” Dr. Fernandez said.

Phase 3 data supported use the of anifrolumab in systemic lupus, including the TULIP-2 trial, which demonstrated its superiority to placebo for reducing severity of systemic disease and lowering corticosteroid use. A study published in March 2023 of 11 patients showed that they had a “very fast response” to the agent, Dr. Fernandez said, with a 50% or greater improvement in the Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index activity score reached by all participants at week 16. Improvements of 50% or more in this scoring system are considered clinically meaningful, he added.
 

Upcoming Dermatomyositis Treatments

Why highlight emerging therapies for CLE and dermatomyositis in the same ODAC presentation? Although distinct conditions, these autoimmune conditions are both mediated by type 1 IFN inflammation.

Dermatomyositis is a relatively rare immune-mediated disease that most commonly affects the skin and muscle. Doctors score disease presentation, activity, and clinical improvements on a scale similar to CLASI for cutaneous lupus, the CDASI or Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index. Among people with CDASI activity scores of at least 14, which is the threshold for moderate to severe disease, a 20% improvement is clinically meaningful, Dr. Fernandez said. In addition, a 40% or greater improvement correlates with significant improvements in quality of life.

There is now more evidence for the use of IVIG to treat dermatomyositis. “Among those of us who treat dermatomyositis on a regular basis, we believe IVIG is the most potent treatment. We’ve known that for a long time,” Dr. Fernandez said.

Despite this tenet, for years, there was only one placebo-controlled trial, published in 1993, that evaluated IVIG treatment for dermatomyositis, and it included only 15 participants. That was until October 2022, he said, when the New England Journal of Medicine published a study comparing a specific brand of IVIG (Octagam) with placebo in 95 people with dermatomyositis.

In the study, 79% of participants treated with IVIG had a total improvement score of at least 20 (minimal improvement), the primary endpoint, at 16 weeks, compared with 44% of those receiving a placebo. Those treated with IVIG also had significant improvements in the CDASI score, a secondary endpoint, compared with those on placebo, he said.

Based on results of this trial, the FDA approved Octagam 10% for dermatomyositis in adults. Dr. Fernandez noted the approval is restricted to the brand of IVIG in the trial, not all IVIG products. However, “the FDA approval is most important to us because it gives us ammunition to fight for insurers to approve IVIG when we feel our patients with dermatomyositis need it,” regardless of the brand.
 

The Potential of JAK1 Inhibitors

An open-label study of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib, published in December 2020, showed that mean changes in CDASI activity scores at 12 weeks were statistically significant compared with baseline in 10 people with dermatomyositis. “The importance of this study is that it is proof of concept that JAK inhibition can be effective for treating dermatomyositis, especially with active skin disease,” Dr. Fernandez said.

In addition, two large phase 3 trials are evaluating JAK inhibitor safety and efficacy for treating dermatomyositis. One is the VALOR trial, currently recruiting people with recalcitrant dermatomyositis to evaluate treatment with brepocitinib. Researchers in France are looking at another JAK inhibitor, baricitinib, for treating relapsing or treatment-naive dermatomyositis. Recruitment for the BIRD clinical trial is ongoing.

Monoclonal Antibody Showing Promise

“When it comes to looking specifically at dermatomyositis cutaneous disease, it’s been found that the levels of IFN beta correlate best with not only lesional skin type 1 IFN inflammatory signatures but also overall clinical disease activity,” Dr. Fernandez said. This correlation is stronger than for any other IFN-1-type cytokine active in the disorder.

“Perhaps blocking IFN beta might be best way to get control of dermatomyositis activity,” he added.

With that in mind, a phase 2 trial of dazukibart presented at the American Academy of Dermatology 2023 annual meeting highlighted the promise of this agent that targets type 1 IFN beta.

The primary endpoint was improvement in CDASI at 12 weeks. “This medication has remarkable efficacy,” Dr. Fernandez said. “We were one of the sites for this trial. Despite being blinded, there was no question about who was receiving drug and who was receiving placebo.”

“A minimal clinical improvement in disease activity was seen in more than 90%, so almost every patient who received this medication had meaningful improvement,” he added.

Based on the results, the manufacturer, Pfizer, is recruiting participants for a phase 3 trial to further assess dazukibart in dermatomyositis and polymyositis. Dr. Fernandez said, “This is a story you should pay attention to if you treat any dermatomyositis patients at all.”

Regarding these emerging therapies for CLE and dermatomyositis, “This looks very much like the early days of psoriasis, in the early 2000s, when there was a lot of activity developing treatments,” Dr. Fernandez said. “I will predict that within 10 years, we will have multiple novel agents available that will probably work better than anything we have today.”

Dr. Fernandez reported receiving grant and/or research support from Alexion, Incyte, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, and Priovant Therapeutics; acting as a consultant or advisory board member for AbbVie, Biogen, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals; and being a member of the speaker bureau or receiving honoraria for non-CME from AbbVie, Kyowa Kirin, and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.