User login
Expert discusses her approach to using systemic agents in children and adolescents with severe skin disease
In the clinical opinion of Kaiane A. Habeshian, MD, dermatologists shouldn’t think twice about using systemic agents in pediatric patients with severe dermatologic diseases.
“By the time patients come to us pediatric dermatologists, they have been treated by multiple other doctors, and are frustrated,” Dr. Habeshian said during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology. “Childhood eczema affects not only patients, but the whole family. For instance, if the child is not sleeping due to itch, their parents are probably not sleeping, either. Parental well-being and workplace productivity are affected, and finances are affected.”
Only a limited number of medications are Food and Drug Administration approved in pediatric patients for common dermatologic indications. These include dupilumab for atopic dermatitis (AD), etanercept and ustekinumab for psoriasis, adalimumab for hidradenitis suppurativa, and omalizumab for chronic idiopathic urticaria. “The approvals are mainly for the adolescent age group, except for etanercept, which is approved at the age of 4 years and above,” said Dr. Habeshian of the department of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital, Washington.
. “These agents are approved for other indications in infants and have many years of data to describe their use in these other conditions, although comprehensive randomized, controlled studies in pediatric patients for dermatologic conditions are lacking,” she said. “What’s in clinical trials for pediatric skin disease? There are multiple ongoing clinical studies of biologic agents in pediatric dermatology, mainly for psoriasis and also for dupilumab in younger patients, as well as a JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor for alopecia areata.”
Dr. Habeshian noted that while some clinicians may have a knee-jerk reaction to go straight to dupilumab, which was approved in March of 2019 for adolescents with moderate to severe AD, that agent is not currently approved for the most sizable pediatric population with this condition – those under 12 years of age. “FDA approval is important in part because it helps establish safety and optimal dosing, which is often different and weight based in children,” she said. “In addition, FDA approval significantly impacts access to these newer, more expensive medications.”
Speaking from her experience treating patients in the DC/Maryland/Virginia area, Medicaid has consistently denied dupilumab coverage in children under age 12, “even in severe eczema that is suboptimally controlled with both methotrexate and cyclosporine, despite multiple levels of appeal, including letters of medical necessity and peer-to-peer evaluation,” she said. “This can vary across the country among states. However, dupilumab has been completely unattainable in those under 12 in our practice.”
When dupilumab is approved, most insurers first require step therapy with off-label agents for at least 3 months, as well as documented failure of topical corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, crisaborole ointment, and phototherapy (if done). “It’s important to document an objective measure of severity at the very first visit with the SCORAD [scoring atopic dermatitis] or IGA [investigator global assessment],” she said. “Often, that is required if there is any hope for coverage. A familiarity with these requirements is often acquired through trial and error, and may change over time. This can lead to many delays in getting patients these treatments.” Additional information to consider documenting include the disease impact on quality of life, sleep, and school attendance, any hospitalizations for AD flares or secondary infections, and comorbid disease such as asthma.
Meanwhile, dupilumab is under priority review for children aged 6-11 years with moderate to severe AD, with a target action date of May 26, 2020. “It’s unclear how recent events [with the COVID-19 pandemic] will impact that, but there is something to look forward to, and give us hope for our patients,” she said.
Typically, Dr. Habeshian starts her pediatric patients with moderate to severe AD on methotrexate, which she characterized as “a time-tested, affordable, and very accessible option. It requires a little bit less monitoring upon initiation than cyclosporine, and it can be used for longer periods of time before weaning is required.”
In cases when disease is severe or intolerable, she often starts methotrexate and cyclosporine together. “I will usually start right at the 0.5 mg/kg per week rather than titrating up, because this maximizes the response and reduces the amount of blood work needed, unless they have an underlying risk factor for GI distress, or obese patients who are at increased risk for LFT [liver function test] elevation,” she noted. “Patients will note some improvement as early as 2 weeks on methotrexate, but I counsel them to expect 4-6 weeks for maximum improvement. We do not do a test dose of methotrexate at our institution. If there is a slight LFT elevation upon checking labs, ensure that the labs were done at least 4-6 days after the dose, because transient LFT dose elevations are common in 3-4 days.”
GI distress is by far the most common clinical side effect of methotrexate. “We do not do much intramuscular injection of methotrexate, so we rely a lot on folic acid, which reduces the risk of GI distress and elevated LFTs without reducing efficacy,” she said. “We recommend daily folic acid for simplicity, or folic acid 6 days per week.”
Dr. Habeshian said that many pediatric patients can swallow the 2.5 mg tablets of methotrexate “because they’re quite small, and most patients don’t have a problem taking the methotrexate when it’s crushed and mixed with food such as apple sauce or pudding. However, it is critical to discuss proper handling to avoid lung toxicity.” This includes placing the pills in a plastic bag prior to crushing, avoiding inhalation, and avoiding handling near pregnant women and pets, she noted. In addition, she said, “in adolescents, we need to consider the teratogenicity of methotrexate, as well as the possibility of alcohol consumption worsening liver complications. If I prescribe methotrexate in patients of childbearing age, I will counsel them extensively regarding the risk of fetal death and birth defects. If needed, I will start combined oral contraceptives. Ultimately, I’m willing to use these medicines safely, with significant counseling.”
When addressing the risk of methotrexate overdose, she reminds parents to store the medication in a safe place, out of the reach of children. “Patients are at the highest risk of overdose complications if they are given the medication multiple days in a row rather than a one-time, single high dose,” she said. “The literature suggests that one-time overdoses of methotrexate – deliberate or accidental – are unlikely to cause acute bone marrow suppression or hepatitis. This is probably because GI absorption of methotrexate reaches a saturation point, and the kidneys passively and actively excrete the medication at quite a rapid pace so that the methotrexate is often undetectable in the blood at 24 hours post ingestion. I do prescribe a limited supply to help prevent accidental overdoses. In part, this is because if the patient is receiving the medication daily, they’ll run out very quickly, and it will come the family’s attention and to your attention that it’s not being administered correctly.”
Another treatment option to consider for cases of moderate to severe AD is cyclosporine, “which works extremely quickly,” Dr. Habeshian said. “It is very good to rapidly control severe disease while methotrexate or other modes of treatment kick in. It’s best used as a bridge, given the risks of renal damage with long-term use. I like to limit its use to 6 months.”
Cyclosporine comes in two formulations: a modified oral formulation and a nonmodified oral formulation. The modified formulation is absorbed much better than the unmodified formulation. “We start at 5 mg/kg divided b.i.d., which is higher than the recommended dosing for dermatologic conditions in adults,” she said. “This is because children may not absorb the medication as well and may have improved renal clearance. Higher doses may be needed to achieve the desirable effect. In contrast to methotrexate, cyclosporine is available in a capsule, so it cannot be crushed.”
The choice of medication for psoriasis is generally guided by insurance step therapy requirements and is limited in the pediatric population (new guidelines on the care of pediatric psoriasis patients can be found at J Am Acad Dermatol 2020; 82[1]:161-201). In Dr. Habeshian’s experience, methotrexate is the go-to for most patients. “It treats concomitant psoriatic arthritis and can be used as monotherapy or combined with biologics,” she said. “Cyclosporine is useful for erythrodermic, pustular, and severe plaque psoriasis as a bridge. Other options include etanercept weekly in patients age 4-17 years and ustekinumab weekly dosing in patients age 12-17 years.”
Acitretin can be a useful adjunct for younger patients who are unable to obtain biologic agents. “It is most useful in widespread guttate and pustular psoriasis, but can be used be used in plaque psoriasis as well,” Dr. Habeshian said. “It is usually dosed as 0.1-1 mg/kg per day. Improvement in plaque disease is generally seen in 2-3 months of therapy, so it has a slow onset, whereas improvement in pustular psoriasis is seen within 3 weeks.” The most common side effects are dry skin and mucous membranes, while an important consideration is the potential for inducing premature bone toxicity. “It is thought that the risk is relatively low if the daily and total doses are kept low,” she said. “There is no consensus for monitoring bone health. Some clinicians will consider radiography periodically.”
Dr. Habeshian concluded her talk by noting that clinicians should give vaccinations/boosters before starting systemic therapy in young children. “The safety and efficacy of live immunization administered to children on biologics is not known,” she said. “Therefore, if live vaccination is needed, it’s generally recommended to postpone initiating biologic treatment.” The MMR and varicella vaccines are given at 12-15 months of life, with a booster at 4-6 years. The varicella vaccine should be given at least 6 weeks before starting immunosuppressive therapy, and the MMR vaccine at least 4 weeks before starting therapy.
The virtual meeting included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Habeshian reported having no disclosures.
In the clinical opinion of Kaiane A. Habeshian, MD, dermatologists shouldn’t think twice about using systemic agents in pediatric patients with severe dermatologic diseases.
“By the time patients come to us pediatric dermatologists, they have been treated by multiple other doctors, and are frustrated,” Dr. Habeshian said during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology. “Childhood eczema affects not only patients, but the whole family. For instance, if the child is not sleeping due to itch, their parents are probably not sleeping, either. Parental well-being and workplace productivity are affected, and finances are affected.”
Only a limited number of medications are Food and Drug Administration approved in pediatric patients for common dermatologic indications. These include dupilumab for atopic dermatitis (AD), etanercept and ustekinumab for psoriasis, adalimumab for hidradenitis suppurativa, and omalizumab for chronic idiopathic urticaria. “The approvals are mainly for the adolescent age group, except for etanercept, which is approved at the age of 4 years and above,” said Dr. Habeshian of the department of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital, Washington.
. “These agents are approved for other indications in infants and have many years of data to describe their use in these other conditions, although comprehensive randomized, controlled studies in pediatric patients for dermatologic conditions are lacking,” she said. “What’s in clinical trials for pediatric skin disease? There are multiple ongoing clinical studies of biologic agents in pediatric dermatology, mainly for psoriasis and also for dupilumab in younger patients, as well as a JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor for alopecia areata.”
Dr. Habeshian noted that while some clinicians may have a knee-jerk reaction to go straight to dupilumab, which was approved in March of 2019 for adolescents with moderate to severe AD, that agent is not currently approved for the most sizable pediatric population with this condition – those under 12 years of age. “FDA approval is important in part because it helps establish safety and optimal dosing, which is often different and weight based in children,” she said. “In addition, FDA approval significantly impacts access to these newer, more expensive medications.”
Speaking from her experience treating patients in the DC/Maryland/Virginia area, Medicaid has consistently denied dupilumab coverage in children under age 12, “even in severe eczema that is suboptimally controlled with both methotrexate and cyclosporine, despite multiple levels of appeal, including letters of medical necessity and peer-to-peer evaluation,” she said. “This can vary across the country among states. However, dupilumab has been completely unattainable in those under 12 in our practice.”
When dupilumab is approved, most insurers first require step therapy with off-label agents for at least 3 months, as well as documented failure of topical corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, crisaborole ointment, and phototherapy (if done). “It’s important to document an objective measure of severity at the very first visit with the SCORAD [scoring atopic dermatitis] or IGA [investigator global assessment],” she said. “Often, that is required if there is any hope for coverage. A familiarity with these requirements is often acquired through trial and error, and may change over time. This can lead to many delays in getting patients these treatments.” Additional information to consider documenting include the disease impact on quality of life, sleep, and school attendance, any hospitalizations for AD flares or secondary infections, and comorbid disease such as asthma.
Meanwhile, dupilumab is under priority review for children aged 6-11 years with moderate to severe AD, with a target action date of May 26, 2020. “It’s unclear how recent events [with the COVID-19 pandemic] will impact that, but there is something to look forward to, and give us hope for our patients,” she said.
Typically, Dr. Habeshian starts her pediatric patients with moderate to severe AD on methotrexate, which she characterized as “a time-tested, affordable, and very accessible option. It requires a little bit less monitoring upon initiation than cyclosporine, and it can be used for longer periods of time before weaning is required.”
In cases when disease is severe or intolerable, she often starts methotrexate and cyclosporine together. “I will usually start right at the 0.5 mg/kg per week rather than titrating up, because this maximizes the response and reduces the amount of blood work needed, unless they have an underlying risk factor for GI distress, or obese patients who are at increased risk for LFT [liver function test] elevation,” she noted. “Patients will note some improvement as early as 2 weeks on methotrexate, but I counsel them to expect 4-6 weeks for maximum improvement. We do not do a test dose of methotrexate at our institution. If there is a slight LFT elevation upon checking labs, ensure that the labs were done at least 4-6 days after the dose, because transient LFT dose elevations are common in 3-4 days.”
GI distress is by far the most common clinical side effect of methotrexate. “We do not do much intramuscular injection of methotrexate, so we rely a lot on folic acid, which reduces the risk of GI distress and elevated LFTs without reducing efficacy,” she said. “We recommend daily folic acid for simplicity, or folic acid 6 days per week.”
Dr. Habeshian said that many pediatric patients can swallow the 2.5 mg tablets of methotrexate “because they’re quite small, and most patients don’t have a problem taking the methotrexate when it’s crushed and mixed with food such as apple sauce or pudding. However, it is critical to discuss proper handling to avoid lung toxicity.” This includes placing the pills in a plastic bag prior to crushing, avoiding inhalation, and avoiding handling near pregnant women and pets, she noted. In addition, she said, “in adolescents, we need to consider the teratogenicity of methotrexate, as well as the possibility of alcohol consumption worsening liver complications. If I prescribe methotrexate in patients of childbearing age, I will counsel them extensively regarding the risk of fetal death and birth defects. If needed, I will start combined oral contraceptives. Ultimately, I’m willing to use these medicines safely, with significant counseling.”
When addressing the risk of methotrexate overdose, she reminds parents to store the medication in a safe place, out of the reach of children. “Patients are at the highest risk of overdose complications if they are given the medication multiple days in a row rather than a one-time, single high dose,” she said. “The literature suggests that one-time overdoses of methotrexate – deliberate or accidental – are unlikely to cause acute bone marrow suppression or hepatitis. This is probably because GI absorption of methotrexate reaches a saturation point, and the kidneys passively and actively excrete the medication at quite a rapid pace so that the methotrexate is often undetectable in the blood at 24 hours post ingestion. I do prescribe a limited supply to help prevent accidental overdoses. In part, this is because if the patient is receiving the medication daily, they’ll run out very quickly, and it will come the family’s attention and to your attention that it’s not being administered correctly.”
Another treatment option to consider for cases of moderate to severe AD is cyclosporine, “which works extremely quickly,” Dr. Habeshian said. “It is very good to rapidly control severe disease while methotrexate or other modes of treatment kick in. It’s best used as a bridge, given the risks of renal damage with long-term use. I like to limit its use to 6 months.”
Cyclosporine comes in two formulations: a modified oral formulation and a nonmodified oral formulation. The modified formulation is absorbed much better than the unmodified formulation. “We start at 5 mg/kg divided b.i.d., which is higher than the recommended dosing for dermatologic conditions in adults,” she said. “This is because children may not absorb the medication as well and may have improved renal clearance. Higher doses may be needed to achieve the desirable effect. In contrast to methotrexate, cyclosporine is available in a capsule, so it cannot be crushed.”
The choice of medication for psoriasis is generally guided by insurance step therapy requirements and is limited in the pediatric population (new guidelines on the care of pediatric psoriasis patients can be found at J Am Acad Dermatol 2020; 82[1]:161-201). In Dr. Habeshian’s experience, methotrexate is the go-to for most patients. “It treats concomitant psoriatic arthritis and can be used as monotherapy or combined with biologics,” she said. “Cyclosporine is useful for erythrodermic, pustular, and severe plaque psoriasis as a bridge. Other options include etanercept weekly in patients age 4-17 years and ustekinumab weekly dosing in patients age 12-17 years.”
Acitretin can be a useful adjunct for younger patients who are unable to obtain biologic agents. “It is most useful in widespread guttate and pustular psoriasis, but can be used be used in plaque psoriasis as well,” Dr. Habeshian said. “It is usually dosed as 0.1-1 mg/kg per day. Improvement in plaque disease is generally seen in 2-3 months of therapy, so it has a slow onset, whereas improvement in pustular psoriasis is seen within 3 weeks.” The most common side effects are dry skin and mucous membranes, while an important consideration is the potential for inducing premature bone toxicity. “It is thought that the risk is relatively low if the daily and total doses are kept low,” she said. “There is no consensus for monitoring bone health. Some clinicians will consider radiography periodically.”
Dr. Habeshian concluded her talk by noting that clinicians should give vaccinations/boosters before starting systemic therapy in young children. “The safety and efficacy of live immunization administered to children on biologics is not known,” she said. “Therefore, if live vaccination is needed, it’s generally recommended to postpone initiating biologic treatment.” The MMR and varicella vaccines are given at 12-15 months of life, with a booster at 4-6 years. The varicella vaccine should be given at least 6 weeks before starting immunosuppressive therapy, and the MMR vaccine at least 4 weeks before starting therapy.
The virtual meeting included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Habeshian reported having no disclosures.
In the clinical opinion of Kaiane A. Habeshian, MD, dermatologists shouldn’t think twice about using systemic agents in pediatric patients with severe dermatologic diseases.
“By the time patients come to us pediatric dermatologists, they have been treated by multiple other doctors, and are frustrated,” Dr. Habeshian said during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology. “Childhood eczema affects not only patients, but the whole family. For instance, if the child is not sleeping due to itch, their parents are probably not sleeping, either. Parental well-being and workplace productivity are affected, and finances are affected.”
Only a limited number of medications are Food and Drug Administration approved in pediatric patients for common dermatologic indications. These include dupilumab for atopic dermatitis (AD), etanercept and ustekinumab for psoriasis, adalimumab for hidradenitis suppurativa, and omalizumab for chronic idiopathic urticaria. “The approvals are mainly for the adolescent age group, except for etanercept, which is approved at the age of 4 years and above,” said Dr. Habeshian of the department of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital, Washington.
. “These agents are approved for other indications in infants and have many years of data to describe their use in these other conditions, although comprehensive randomized, controlled studies in pediatric patients for dermatologic conditions are lacking,” she said. “What’s in clinical trials for pediatric skin disease? There are multiple ongoing clinical studies of biologic agents in pediatric dermatology, mainly for psoriasis and also for dupilumab in younger patients, as well as a JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor for alopecia areata.”
Dr. Habeshian noted that while some clinicians may have a knee-jerk reaction to go straight to dupilumab, which was approved in March of 2019 for adolescents with moderate to severe AD, that agent is not currently approved for the most sizable pediatric population with this condition – those under 12 years of age. “FDA approval is important in part because it helps establish safety and optimal dosing, which is often different and weight based in children,” she said. “In addition, FDA approval significantly impacts access to these newer, more expensive medications.”
Speaking from her experience treating patients in the DC/Maryland/Virginia area, Medicaid has consistently denied dupilumab coverage in children under age 12, “even in severe eczema that is suboptimally controlled with both methotrexate and cyclosporine, despite multiple levels of appeal, including letters of medical necessity and peer-to-peer evaluation,” she said. “This can vary across the country among states. However, dupilumab has been completely unattainable in those under 12 in our practice.”
When dupilumab is approved, most insurers first require step therapy with off-label agents for at least 3 months, as well as documented failure of topical corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, crisaborole ointment, and phototherapy (if done). “It’s important to document an objective measure of severity at the very first visit with the SCORAD [scoring atopic dermatitis] or IGA [investigator global assessment],” she said. “Often, that is required if there is any hope for coverage. A familiarity with these requirements is often acquired through trial and error, and may change over time. This can lead to many delays in getting patients these treatments.” Additional information to consider documenting include the disease impact on quality of life, sleep, and school attendance, any hospitalizations for AD flares or secondary infections, and comorbid disease such as asthma.
Meanwhile, dupilumab is under priority review for children aged 6-11 years with moderate to severe AD, with a target action date of May 26, 2020. “It’s unclear how recent events [with the COVID-19 pandemic] will impact that, but there is something to look forward to, and give us hope for our patients,” she said.
Typically, Dr. Habeshian starts her pediatric patients with moderate to severe AD on methotrexate, which she characterized as “a time-tested, affordable, and very accessible option. It requires a little bit less monitoring upon initiation than cyclosporine, and it can be used for longer periods of time before weaning is required.”
In cases when disease is severe or intolerable, she often starts methotrexate and cyclosporine together. “I will usually start right at the 0.5 mg/kg per week rather than titrating up, because this maximizes the response and reduces the amount of blood work needed, unless they have an underlying risk factor for GI distress, or obese patients who are at increased risk for LFT [liver function test] elevation,” she noted. “Patients will note some improvement as early as 2 weeks on methotrexate, but I counsel them to expect 4-6 weeks for maximum improvement. We do not do a test dose of methotrexate at our institution. If there is a slight LFT elevation upon checking labs, ensure that the labs were done at least 4-6 days after the dose, because transient LFT dose elevations are common in 3-4 days.”
GI distress is by far the most common clinical side effect of methotrexate. “We do not do much intramuscular injection of methotrexate, so we rely a lot on folic acid, which reduces the risk of GI distress and elevated LFTs without reducing efficacy,” she said. “We recommend daily folic acid for simplicity, or folic acid 6 days per week.”
Dr. Habeshian said that many pediatric patients can swallow the 2.5 mg tablets of methotrexate “because they’re quite small, and most patients don’t have a problem taking the methotrexate when it’s crushed and mixed with food such as apple sauce or pudding. However, it is critical to discuss proper handling to avoid lung toxicity.” This includes placing the pills in a plastic bag prior to crushing, avoiding inhalation, and avoiding handling near pregnant women and pets, she noted. In addition, she said, “in adolescents, we need to consider the teratogenicity of methotrexate, as well as the possibility of alcohol consumption worsening liver complications. If I prescribe methotrexate in patients of childbearing age, I will counsel them extensively regarding the risk of fetal death and birth defects. If needed, I will start combined oral contraceptives. Ultimately, I’m willing to use these medicines safely, with significant counseling.”
When addressing the risk of methotrexate overdose, she reminds parents to store the medication in a safe place, out of the reach of children. “Patients are at the highest risk of overdose complications if they are given the medication multiple days in a row rather than a one-time, single high dose,” she said. “The literature suggests that one-time overdoses of methotrexate – deliberate or accidental – are unlikely to cause acute bone marrow suppression or hepatitis. This is probably because GI absorption of methotrexate reaches a saturation point, and the kidneys passively and actively excrete the medication at quite a rapid pace so that the methotrexate is often undetectable in the blood at 24 hours post ingestion. I do prescribe a limited supply to help prevent accidental overdoses. In part, this is because if the patient is receiving the medication daily, they’ll run out very quickly, and it will come the family’s attention and to your attention that it’s not being administered correctly.”
Another treatment option to consider for cases of moderate to severe AD is cyclosporine, “which works extremely quickly,” Dr. Habeshian said. “It is very good to rapidly control severe disease while methotrexate or other modes of treatment kick in. It’s best used as a bridge, given the risks of renal damage with long-term use. I like to limit its use to 6 months.”
Cyclosporine comes in two formulations: a modified oral formulation and a nonmodified oral formulation. The modified formulation is absorbed much better than the unmodified formulation. “We start at 5 mg/kg divided b.i.d., which is higher than the recommended dosing for dermatologic conditions in adults,” she said. “This is because children may not absorb the medication as well and may have improved renal clearance. Higher doses may be needed to achieve the desirable effect. In contrast to methotrexate, cyclosporine is available in a capsule, so it cannot be crushed.”
The choice of medication for psoriasis is generally guided by insurance step therapy requirements and is limited in the pediatric population (new guidelines on the care of pediatric psoriasis patients can be found at J Am Acad Dermatol 2020; 82[1]:161-201). In Dr. Habeshian’s experience, methotrexate is the go-to for most patients. “It treats concomitant psoriatic arthritis and can be used as monotherapy or combined with biologics,” she said. “Cyclosporine is useful for erythrodermic, pustular, and severe plaque psoriasis as a bridge. Other options include etanercept weekly in patients age 4-17 years and ustekinumab weekly dosing in patients age 12-17 years.”
Acitretin can be a useful adjunct for younger patients who are unable to obtain biologic agents. “It is most useful in widespread guttate and pustular psoriasis, but can be used be used in plaque psoriasis as well,” Dr. Habeshian said. “It is usually dosed as 0.1-1 mg/kg per day. Improvement in plaque disease is generally seen in 2-3 months of therapy, so it has a slow onset, whereas improvement in pustular psoriasis is seen within 3 weeks.” The most common side effects are dry skin and mucous membranes, while an important consideration is the potential for inducing premature bone toxicity. “It is thought that the risk is relatively low if the daily and total doses are kept low,” she said. “There is no consensus for monitoring bone health. Some clinicians will consider radiography periodically.”
Dr. Habeshian concluded her talk by noting that clinicians should give vaccinations/boosters before starting systemic therapy in young children. “The safety and efficacy of live immunization administered to children on biologics is not known,” she said. “Therefore, if live vaccination is needed, it’s generally recommended to postpone initiating biologic treatment.” The MMR and varicella vaccines are given at 12-15 months of life, with a booster at 4-6 years. The varicella vaccine should be given at least 6 weeks before starting immunosuppressive therapy, and the MMR vaccine at least 4 weeks before starting therapy.
The virtual meeting included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Habeshian reported having no disclosures.
‘We’re in great distress here,’ infusion center CMO says
Count Vikram Sengupta, MD, among the slew of health care workers feeling overwhelmed by the impact that COVID-19 is having on the delivery of health care in Manhattan and its surrounding boroughs.
“Nobody in the country is suffering like New York City,” said Dr. Sengupta, chief medical officer of Thrivewell Infusion, which operates three stand-alone infusion centers in the region: a four-chair center in Crown Heights, a 10-chair center in Borough Park, Brooklyn, and an eight-chair center in Manhasset. “We have 30%-50% of all cases in the country. I’ve been reading the news, and some people think this thing is going away. We’re in great distress here. There need to be new strategies moving forward. The whole world has changed. Our whole approach to ambulatory care has changed.”
In early March 2020, when it became clear that New York hospitals would face a tidal wave of citizens infected with COVID-19, Thrivewell began to receive an influx of referrals originating from concerned patients, providers, payers, and even large integrated health care systems, all in an effort to help prevent infectious exposure through infusion in hospital-based settings. “We are trying to accommodate them as swiftly as possible,” said Dr. Sengupta, who was interviewed for this story on April 9. “There’s been a huge uptick from that standpoint. We’ve made sure that we’ve kept our facilities clean by employing standards that have been released by the CDC, as well as by the major academic centers who are dealing with this firsthand, and also with guidance from the National Infusion Center Association.”
He and his colleagues launched a pop-up infusion center in the Bronx to help offload Montefiore Medical Center, “because they’re so overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients that they need help taking care of the autoimmune patients,” Dr. Sengupta said. “That’s the role we’re playing. We’ve made our resources available to these centers in a very flexible way in order to ensure that we do the best thing we can for everybody.”
Thrivewell is also deploying a mobile infusion unit to recovered COVID-19 patients who require an infusion for their autoimmune disease, in order to minimize the risk of contamination and transmission in their stand-alone centers. The RV-sized unit, about the size of a Bloodmobile, is equipped with infusion chairs and staffed by a physician and nurse practitioner. “The objective is continuant care and reduction of cross-contamination, and also, on a broader health care systems level, to ensure that we as ambulatory infusion center providers can offload an overburdened system,” he said.
Dr. Sengupta, who has assisted on COVID-19 inpatient wards at New York University as a volunteer, is also leading a trial of a stem cell-derived therapy developed by Israel-based Pluristem Therapeutics, to treat New York–area patients severely ill from COVID-19 infection. “There are reports from Wuhan, China, in which clinicians are delivering IV mesenchymal stem cells to patients who are on mechanical ventilators, and the patients are getting better,” he said. “I have initiated a study in which we have three cohorts: One is the outpatient setting in which we are trying to treat COVID-19 patients who have hypoxia but have been turned away from overwhelmed EDs and need some therapy. We will be converting one of our infusion centers to conduct this trial. We are also going to be administering this [stem cell-derived therapy] to COVID-19 patients in ICUs, in EDs, and on med-surg floors throughout the city.”
Count Vikram Sengupta, MD, among the slew of health care workers feeling overwhelmed by the impact that COVID-19 is having on the delivery of health care in Manhattan and its surrounding boroughs.
“Nobody in the country is suffering like New York City,” said Dr. Sengupta, chief medical officer of Thrivewell Infusion, which operates three stand-alone infusion centers in the region: a four-chair center in Crown Heights, a 10-chair center in Borough Park, Brooklyn, and an eight-chair center in Manhasset. “We have 30%-50% of all cases in the country. I’ve been reading the news, and some people think this thing is going away. We’re in great distress here. There need to be new strategies moving forward. The whole world has changed. Our whole approach to ambulatory care has changed.”
In early March 2020, when it became clear that New York hospitals would face a tidal wave of citizens infected with COVID-19, Thrivewell began to receive an influx of referrals originating from concerned patients, providers, payers, and even large integrated health care systems, all in an effort to help prevent infectious exposure through infusion in hospital-based settings. “We are trying to accommodate them as swiftly as possible,” said Dr. Sengupta, who was interviewed for this story on April 9. “There’s been a huge uptick from that standpoint. We’ve made sure that we’ve kept our facilities clean by employing standards that have been released by the CDC, as well as by the major academic centers who are dealing with this firsthand, and also with guidance from the National Infusion Center Association.”
He and his colleagues launched a pop-up infusion center in the Bronx to help offload Montefiore Medical Center, “because they’re so overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients that they need help taking care of the autoimmune patients,” Dr. Sengupta said. “That’s the role we’re playing. We’ve made our resources available to these centers in a very flexible way in order to ensure that we do the best thing we can for everybody.”
Thrivewell is also deploying a mobile infusion unit to recovered COVID-19 patients who require an infusion for their autoimmune disease, in order to minimize the risk of contamination and transmission in their stand-alone centers. The RV-sized unit, about the size of a Bloodmobile, is equipped with infusion chairs and staffed by a physician and nurse practitioner. “The objective is continuant care and reduction of cross-contamination, and also, on a broader health care systems level, to ensure that we as ambulatory infusion center providers can offload an overburdened system,” he said.
Dr. Sengupta, who has assisted on COVID-19 inpatient wards at New York University as a volunteer, is also leading a trial of a stem cell-derived therapy developed by Israel-based Pluristem Therapeutics, to treat New York–area patients severely ill from COVID-19 infection. “There are reports from Wuhan, China, in which clinicians are delivering IV mesenchymal stem cells to patients who are on mechanical ventilators, and the patients are getting better,” he said. “I have initiated a study in which we have three cohorts: One is the outpatient setting in which we are trying to treat COVID-19 patients who have hypoxia but have been turned away from overwhelmed EDs and need some therapy. We will be converting one of our infusion centers to conduct this trial. We are also going to be administering this [stem cell-derived therapy] to COVID-19 patients in ICUs, in EDs, and on med-surg floors throughout the city.”
Count Vikram Sengupta, MD, among the slew of health care workers feeling overwhelmed by the impact that COVID-19 is having on the delivery of health care in Manhattan and its surrounding boroughs.
“Nobody in the country is suffering like New York City,” said Dr. Sengupta, chief medical officer of Thrivewell Infusion, which operates three stand-alone infusion centers in the region: a four-chair center in Crown Heights, a 10-chair center in Borough Park, Brooklyn, and an eight-chair center in Manhasset. “We have 30%-50% of all cases in the country. I’ve been reading the news, and some people think this thing is going away. We’re in great distress here. There need to be new strategies moving forward. The whole world has changed. Our whole approach to ambulatory care has changed.”
In early March 2020, when it became clear that New York hospitals would face a tidal wave of citizens infected with COVID-19, Thrivewell began to receive an influx of referrals originating from concerned patients, providers, payers, and even large integrated health care systems, all in an effort to help prevent infectious exposure through infusion in hospital-based settings. “We are trying to accommodate them as swiftly as possible,” said Dr. Sengupta, who was interviewed for this story on April 9. “There’s been a huge uptick from that standpoint. We’ve made sure that we’ve kept our facilities clean by employing standards that have been released by the CDC, as well as by the major academic centers who are dealing with this firsthand, and also with guidance from the National Infusion Center Association.”
He and his colleagues launched a pop-up infusion center in the Bronx to help offload Montefiore Medical Center, “because they’re so overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients that they need help taking care of the autoimmune patients,” Dr. Sengupta said. “That’s the role we’re playing. We’ve made our resources available to these centers in a very flexible way in order to ensure that we do the best thing we can for everybody.”
Thrivewell is also deploying a mobile infusion unit to recovered COVID-19 patients who require an infusion for their autoimmune disease, in order to minimize the risk of contamination and transmission in their stand-alone centers. The RV-sized unit, about the size of a Bloodmobile, is equipped with infusion chairs and staffed by a physician and nurse practitioner. “The objective is continuant care and reduction of cross-contamination, and also, on a broader health care systems level, to ensure that we as ambulatory infusion center providers can offload an overburdened system,” he said.
Dr. Sengupta, who has assisted on COVID-19 inpatient wards at New York University as a volunteer, is also leading a trial of a stem cell-derived therapy developed by Israel-based Pluristem Therapeutics, to treat New York–area patients severely ill from COVID-19 infection. “There are reports from Wuhan, China, in which clinicians are delivering IV mesenchymal stem cells to patients who are on mechanical ventilators, and the patients are getting better,” he said. “I have initiated a study in which we have three cohorts: One is the outpatient setting in which we are trying to treat COVID-19 patients who have hypoxia but have been turned away from overwhelmed EDs and need some therapy. We will be converting one of our infusion centers to conduct this trial. We are also going to be administering this [stem cell-derived therapy] to COVID-19 patients in ICUs, in EDs, and on med-surg floors throughout the city.”
JAK inhibitors may increase risk of herpes zoster
For patients with inflammatory bowel disease or other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors appear generally safe, though they may increase the risk of herpes zoster infection, according to a large-scale systematic review and meta-analysis.
Data from more than 66,000 patients revealed no significant links between JAK inhibitors and risks of serious infections, malignancy, or major adverse cardiovascular events, reported lead author Pablo Olivera, MD, of Centro de Educación Médica e Investigación Clínica (CEMIC) in Buenos Aires and colleagues.
“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review evaluating the risk profile of JAK inhibitors in a wide spectrum of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.
The investigators drew studies from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from 1990 to 2019 and from conference databases from 2012 to 2018. Out of 973 studies identified, 82 were included in the final analysis, of which two-thirds were randomized clinical trials. In total, 101,925 subjects were included, of whom a majority had rheumatoid arthritis (n = 86,308), followed by psoriasis (n = 9,311), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 5,987), and ankylosing spondylitis (n = 319).
Meta-analysis of JAK inhibitor usage involved 66,159 patients. Four JAK inhibitors were included: tofacitinib, filgotinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib. The primary outcomes were the incidence rates of adverse events and serious adverse events. The investigators also estimated incidence rates of herpes zoster infection, serious infections, mortality, malignancy, and major adverse cardiovascular events. These rates were compared with those of patients who received placebo or an active comparator in clinical trials.
Analysis showed that almost 9 out of 10 patients (87.16%) who were exposed to a JAK inhibitor received tofacitinib. The investigators described high variability in treatment duration and baseline characteristics of participants. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events also fell across a broad spectrum, from 10% to 82% and from 0% to 29%, respectively.
“Most [adverse events] were mild, and included worsening of the underlying condition, probably showing lack of efficacy,” the investigators wrote.
Rates of mortality and most adverse events were not significantly associated with JAK inhibitor exposure. In contrast, relative risk of herpes zoster infection was 57% higher in patients who received a JAK inhibitor than in those who received a placebo or comparator (RR, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.37).
“Regarding the risk of herpes zoster with JAK inhibitors, the largest evidence comes from the use of tofacitinib, but it appears to be a class effect, with a clear dose-dependent effect,” the investigators wrote.
Although risks of herpes zoster may be carried across the drug class, they may not be evenly distributed given that a subgroup analysis revealed that some JAK inhibitors may bring higher risks than others; specifically, tofacitinib and baricitinib were associated with higher relative risks of herpes zoster than were upadacitinib and filgotinib.
“Although this is merely a qualitative comparison, this difference could be related to the fact that both filgotinib and upadacitinib are selective JAK1 inhibitors, whereas tofacitinib is a JAK1/JAK3 inhibitor and baricitinib a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor,” the investigators wrote. “Further studies are needed to determine if JAK isoform selectivity affects the risk of herpes zoster.”
The investigators emphasized this need for more research. While the present findings help illuminate the safety profile of JAK inhibitors, they are clouded by various other factors, such as disease-specific considerations, a lack of real-world data, and studies that are likely too short to accurately determine risk of malignancy, the investigators wrote.
“More studies with long follow-up and in the real world setting, in different conditions, will be needed to fully elucidate the safety profile of the different JAK inhibitors,” the investigators concluded.
The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, and others.
SOURCE: Olivera P et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.001.
The multiple different cytokines contributing to intestinal inflammation in IBD patients have been a major challenge in the design of therapies. Because the JAK signaling pathway (comprised of JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2) is required for responses to a broad range of cytokines, therapies that inhibit JAK signaling have been an active area of interest. A simultaneous and important concern, however, has been the potential for adverse consequences when inhibiting the breadth of immune and hematopoietic molecules that depend on JAK family members for their functions. This meta-analysis by Olivera et al. examined adverse outcomes of four different JAK inhibitors in clinical trials across four immune-mediated diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, IBD, psoriasis, and ankylosing spondylitis), finding that herpes zoster infection was significantly increased (relative risk, 1.57). In contrast, patients treated with JAK inhibitors were not at a significantly increased risk for various other adverse events.
Reduced dosing of JAK inhibitors has been implemented as a means of improving safety profiles in select immune-mediated diseases. Another approach is more selective JAK inhibition, although it is unclear whether this will eliminate the risk of herpes zoster infection. In the current meta-analysis, about 87% of the studies had evaluated tofacitinib treatment, which inhibits both JAK1 and JAK3; more selective JAK inhibitors could not be evaluated in an equivalent manner. Of note, JAK1 is required for signaling by various cytokines that participate in the response to viruses, including type I IFNs and gamma c family members (such as IL-2 and IL-15); therefore, even the more selective JAK1 inhibitors do not leave this immune function fully intact. However, simply reducing the number of JAK family members inhibited simultaneously may be sufficient to reduce risk.
JAK inhibitors warrant further evaluation as additional infectious challenges arise, particularly with respect to viruses. In addition, more selective targeting of JAK inhibition of intestinal tissues may ultimately reduce systemic effects, including the risk of herpes zoster.
Clara Abraham, MD, professor of medicine, section of digestive diseases, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
The multiple different cytokines contributing to intestinal inflammation in IBD patients have been a major challenge in the design of therapies. Because the JAK signaling pathway (comprised of JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2) is required for responses to a broad range of cytokines, therapies that inhibit JAK signaling have been an active area of interest. A simultaneous and important concern, however, has been the potential for adverse consequences when inhibiting the breadth of immune and hematopoietic molecules that depend on JAK family members for their functions. This meta-analysis by Olivera et al. examined adverse outcomes of four different JAK inhibitors in clinical trials across four immune-mediated diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, IBD, psoriasis, and ankylosing spondylitis), finding that herpes zoster infection was significantly increased (relative risk, 1.57). In contrast, patients treated with JAK inhibitors were not at a significantly increased risk for various other adverse events.
Reduced dosing of JAK inhibitors has been implemented as a means of improving safety profiles in select immune-mediated diseases. Another approach is more selective JAK inhibition, although it is unclear whether this will eliminate the risk of herpes zoster infection. In the current meta-analysis, about 87% of the studies had evaluated tofacitinib treatment, which inhibits both JAK1 and JAK3; more selective JAK inhibitors could not be evaluated in an equivalent manner. Of note, JAK1 is required for signaling by various cytokines that participate in the response to viruses, including type I IFNs and gamma c family members (such as IL-2 and IL-15); therefore, even the more selective JAK1 inhibitors do not leave this immune function fully intact. However, simply reducing the number of JAK family members inhibited simultaneously may be sufficient to reduce risk.
JAK inhibitors warrant further evaluation as additional infectious challenges arise, particularly with respect to viruses. In addition, more selective targeting of JAK inhibition of intestinal tissues may ultimately reduce systemic effects, including the risk of herpes zoster.
Clara Abraham, MD, professor of medicine, section of digestive diseases, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
The multiple different cytokines contributing to intestinal inflammation in IBD patients have been a major challenge in the design of therapies. Because the JAK signaling pathway (comprised of JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2) is required for responses to a broad range of cytokines, therapies that inhibit JAK signaling have been an active area of interest. A simultaneous and important concern, however, has been the potential for adverse consequences when inhibiting the breadth of immune and hematopoietic molecules that depend on JAK family members for their functions. This meta-analysis by Olivera et al. examined adverse outcomes of four different JAK inhibitors in clinical trials across four immune-mediated diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, IBD, psoriasis, and ankylosing spondylitis), finding that herpes zoster infection was significantly increased (relative risk, 1.57). In contrast, patients treated with JAK inhibitors were not at a significantly increased risk for various other adverse events.
Reduced dosing of JAK inhibitors has been implemented as a means of improving safety profiles in select immune-mediated diseases. Another approach is more selective JAK inhibition, although it is unclear whether this will eliminate the risk of herpes zoster infection. In the current meta-analysis, about 87% of the studies had evaluated tofacitinib treatment, which inhibits both JAK1 and JAK3; more selective JAK inhibitors could not be evaluated in an equivalent manner. Of note, JAK1 is required for signaling by various cytokines that participate in the response to viruses, including type I IFNs and gamma c family members (such as IL-2 and IL-15); therefore, even the more selective JAK1 inhibitors do not leave this immune function fully intact. However, simply reducing the number of JAK family members inhibited simultaneously may be sufficient to reduce risk.
JAK inhibitors warrant further evaluation as additional infectious challenges arise, particularly with respect to viruses. In addition, more selective targeting of JAK inhibition of intestinal tissues may ultimately reduce systemic effects, including the risk of herpes zoster.
Clara Abraham, MD, professor of medicine, section of digestive diseases, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
For patients with inflammatory bowel disease or other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors appear generally safe, though they may increase the risk of herpes zoster infection, according to a large-scale systematic review and meta-analysis.
Data from more than 66,000 patients revealed no significant links between JAK inhibitors and risks of serious infections, malignancy, or major adverse cardiovascular events, reported lead author Pablo Olivera, MD, of Centro de Educación Médica e Investigación Clínica (CEMIC) in Buenos Aires and colleagues.
“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review evaluating the risk profile of JAK inhibitors in a wide spectrum of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.
The investigators drew studies from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from 1990 to 2019 and from conference databases from 2012 to 2018. Out of 973 studies identified, 82 were included in the final analysis, of which two-thirds were randomized clinical trials. In total, 101,925 subjects were included, of whom a majority had rheumatoid arthritis (n = 86,308), followed by psoriasis (n = 9,311), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 5,987), and ankylosing spondylitis (n = 319).
Meta-analysis of JAK inhibitor usage involved 66,159 patients. Four JAK inhibitors were included: tofacitinib, filgotinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib. The primary outcomes were the incidence rates of adverse events and serious adverse events. The investigators also estimated incidence rates of herpes zoster infection, serious infections, mortality, malignancy, and major adverse cardiovascular events. These rates were compared with those of patients who received placebo or an active comparator in clinical trials.
Analysis showed that almost 9 out of 10 patients (87.16%) who were exposed to a JAK inhibitor received tofacitinib. The investigators described high variability in treatment duration and baseline characteristics of participants. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events also fell across a broad spectrum, from 10% to 82% and from 0% to 29%, respectively.
“Most [adverse events] were mild, and included worsening of the underlying condition, probably showing lack of efficacy,” the investigators wrote.
Rates of mortality and most adverse events were not significantly associated with JAK inhibitor exposure. In contrast, relative risk of herpes zoster infection was 57% higher in patients who received a JAK inhibitor than in those who received a placebo or comparator (RR, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.37).
“Regarding the risk of herpes zoster with JAK inhibitors, the largest evidence comes from the use of tofacitinib, but it appears to be a class effect, with a clear dose-dependent effect,” the investigators wrote.
Although risks of herpes zoster may be carried across the drug class, they may not be evenly distributed given that a subgroup analysis revealed that some JAK inhibitors may bring higher risks than others; specifically, tofacitinib and baricitinib were associated with higher relative risks of herpes zoster than were upadacitinib and filgotinib.
“Although this is merely a qualitative comparison, this difference could be related to the fact that both filgotinib and upadacitinib are selective JAK1 inhibitors, whereas tofacitinib is a JAK1/JAK3 inhibitor and baricitinib a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor,” the investigators wrote. “Further studies are needed to determine if JAK isoform selectivity affects the risk of herpes zoster.”
The investigators emphasized this need for more research. While the present findings help illuminate the safety profile of JAK inhibitors, they are clouded by various other factors, such as disease-specific considerations, a lack of real-world data, and studies that are likely too short to accurately determine risk of malignancy, the investigators wrote.
“More studies with long follow-up and in the real world setting, in different conditions, will be needed to fully elucidate the safety profile of the different JAK inhibitors,” the investigators concluded.
The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, and others.
SOURCE: Olivera P et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.001.
For patients with inflammatory bowel disease or other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors appear generally safe, though they may increase the risk of herpes zoster infection, according to a large-scale systematic review and meta-analysis.
Data from more than 66,000 patients revealed no significant links between JAK inhibitors and risks of serious infections, malignancy, or major adverse cardiovascular events, reported lead author Pablo Olivera, MD, of Centro de Educación Médica e Investigación Clínica (CEMIC) in Buenos Aires and colleagues.
“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review evaluating the risk profile of JAK inhibitors in a wide spectrum of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.
The investigators drew studies from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from 1990 to 2019 and from conference databases from 2012 to 2018. Out of 973 studies identified, 82 were included in the final analysis, of which two-thirds were randomized clinical trials. In total, 101,925 subjects were included, of whom a majority had rheumatoid arthritis (n = 86,308), followed by psoriasis (n = 9,311), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 5,987), and ankylosing spondylitis (n = 319).
Meta-analysis of JAK inhibitor usage involved 66,159 patients. Four JAK inhibitors were included: tofacitinib, filgotinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib. The primary outcomes were the incidence rates of adverse events and serious adverse events. The investigators also estimated incidence rates of herpes zoster infection, serious infections, mortality, malignancy, and major adverse cardiovascular events. These rates were compared with those of patients who received placebo or an active comparator in clinical trials.
Analysis showed that almost 9 out of 10 patients (87.16%) who were exposed to a JAK inhibitor received tofacitinib. The investigators described high variability in treatment duration and baseline characteristics of participants. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events also fell across a broad spectrum, from 10% to 82% and from 0% to 29%, respectively.
“Most [adverse events] were mild, and included worsening of the underlying condition, probably showing lack of efficacy,” the investigators wrote.
Rates of mortality and most adverse events were not significantly associated with JAK inhibitor exposure. In contrast, relative risk of herpes zoster infection was 57% higher in patients who received a JAK inhibitor than in those who received a placebo or comparator (RR, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.37).
“Regarding the risk of herpes zoster with JAK inhibitors, the largest evidence comes from the use of tofacitinib, but it appears to be a class effect, with a clear dose-dependent effect,” the investigators wrote.
Although risks of herpes zoster may be carried across the drug class, they may not be evenly distributed given that a subgroup analysis revealed that some JAK inhibitors may bring higher risks than others; specifically, tofacitinib and baricitinib were associated with higher relative risks of herpes zoster than were upadacitinib and filgotinib.
“Although this is merely a qualitative comparison, this difference could be related to the fact that both filgotinib and upadacitinib are selective JAK1 inhibitors, whereas tofacitinib is a JAK1/JAK3 inhibitor and baricitinib a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor,” the investigators wrote. “Further studies are needed to determine if JAK isoform selectivity affects the risk of herpes zoster.”
The investigators emphasized this need for more research. While the present findings help illuminate the safety profile of JAK inhibitors, they are clouded by various other factors, such as disease-specific considerations, a lack of real-world data, and studies that are likely too short to accurately determine risk of malignancy, the investigators wrote.
“More studies with long follow-up and in the real world setting, in different conditions, will be needed to fully elucidate the safety profile of the different JAK inhibitors,” the investigators concluded.
The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, and others.
SOURCE: Olivera P et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.001.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Genome study examines heritability of psoriatic disease subtypes
Genetic variation plays a greater role in the phenotype of cutaneous psoriasis, compared with psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis vulgaris, according to a study published in Scientific Reports.
Psoriatic disease is known to have a strong genetic basis, but understanding variations in the heritability of different forms of psoriasis is important for research into new genes, risk factors, and potential treatments, wrote Quan Li, PhD, of the faculty of medicine at Memorial University, St. John’s, Nfld., and coauthors.
“Heritability essentially refers to how much variation in a trait is due to variation in genetic factors,” the authors wrote. “Better approximation of the heritability of PsC [cutaneous psoriasis], PsV [psoriasis vulgaris], and PsA [psoriatic arthritis] will culminate in more efficient genetic profiling of psoriatic disease and facilitate gene identification studies by providing more accurate estimates of sample sizes needed based on the heritability of different subsets of psoriatic disease.”
The analysis used data from a previous genome-wide association study that looked at single nucleotide polymorphisms – a variation in the DNA sequence of a particular gene – in 2,938 people with PsV, 1,155 with PsC, 715 with PsA, and 3,117 unaffected controls.
The authors used two different modeling approaches to estimate the contribution these genetic variations made to each condition. These both revealed that PsC had a greater heritability than both PsV and PsA.
“This is the first study to quantify the additive heritability of three subsets of psoriatic disease that is attributable to common susceptibility [single nucleotide polymorphisms] from large-scale genotyping arrays,” the authors wrote.
The authors wrote that this finding differed from other population-based genetic epidemiologic studies, which had pointed to much greater heritability for PsA than for PsV. However, these earlier results could be attributed to common environmental factors.
Given these heritability estimates previously made for PsA, the authors commented on the surprising absence of PsA-specific genes that reach significance in genome-wide association studies.
“This is partly explained by the much larger number of patients in the PsC or PsV [genome-wide association] studies to date, compared with PsA,” they wrote, also suggesting that this may be because of the greater disease heterogeneity seen with PsA, compared with psoriasis.
“Considerably increasing the number of PsA patients in [genome-wide association] studies will help clarify the heritability estimate question for PsA,” they wrote, but acknowledged that lower heritability or greater environmental influence could also be an explanation for this finding.
The study was supported by the Atlantic Innovation Fund. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Li Q et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61981-5
Genetic variation plays a greater role in the phenotype of cutaneous psoriasis, compared with psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis vulgaris, according to a study published in Scientific Reports.
Psoriatic disease is known to have a strong genetic basis, but understanding variations in the heritability of different forms of psoriasis is important for research into new genes, risk factors, and potential treatments, wrote Quan Li, PhD, of the faculty of medicine at Memorial University, St. John’s, Nfld., and coauthors.
“Heritability essentially refers to how much variation in a trait is due to variation in genetic factors,” the authors wrote. “Better approximation of the heritability of PsC [cutaneous psoriasis], PsV [psoriasis vulgaris], and PsA [psoriatic arthritis] will culminate in more efficient genetic profiling of psoriatic disease and facilitate gene identification studies by providing more accurate estimates of sample sizes needed based on the heritability of different subsets of psoriatic disease.”
The analysis used data from a previous genome-wide association study that looked at single nucleotide polymorphisms – a variation in the DNA sequence of a particular gene – in 2,938 people with PsV, 1,155 with PsC, 715 with PsA, and 3,117 unaffected controls.
The authors used two different modeling approaches to estimate the contribution these genetic variations made to each condition. These both revealed that PsC had a greater heritability than both PsV and PsA.
“This is the first study to quantify the additive heritability of three subsets of psoriatic disease that is attributable to common susceptibility [single nucleotide polymorphisms] from large-scale genotyping arrays,” the authors wrote.
The authors wrote that this finding differed from other population-based genetic epidemiologic studies, which had pointed to much greater heritability for PsA than for PsV. However, these earlier results could be attributed to common environmental factors.
Given these heritability estimates previously made for PsA, the authors commented on the surprising absence of PsA-specific genes that reach significance in genome-wide association studies.
“This is partly explained by the much larger number of patients in the PsC or PsV [genome-wide association] studies to date, compared with PsA,” they wrote, also suggesting that this may be because of the greater disease heterogeneity seen with PsA, compared with psoriasis.
“Considerably increasing the number of PsA patients in [genome-wide association] studies will help clarify the heritability estimate question for PsA,” they wrote, but acknowledged that lower heritability or greater environmental influence could also be an explanation for this finding.
The study was supported by the Atlantic Innovation Fund. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Li Q et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61981-5
Genetic variation plays a greater role in the phenotype of cutaneous psoriasis, compared with psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis vulgaris, according to a study published in Scientific Reports.
Psoriatic disease is known to have a strong genetic basis, but understanding variations in the heritability of different forms of psoriasis is important for research into new genes, risk factors, and potential treatments, wrote Quan Li, PhD, of the faculty of medicine at Memorial University, St. John’s, Nfld., and coauthors.
“Heritability essentially refers to how much variation in a trait is due to variation in genetic factors,” the authors wrote. “Better approximation of the heritability of PsC [cutaneous psoriasis], PsV [psoriasis vulgaris], and PsA [psoriatic arthritis] will culminate in more efficient genetic profiling of psoriatic disease and facilitate gene identification studies by providing more accurate estimates of sample sizes needed based on the heritability of different subsets of psoriatic disease.”
The analysis used data from a previous genome-wide association study that looked at single nucleotide polymorphisms – a variation in the DNA sequence of a particular gene – in 2,938 people with PsV, 1,155 with PsC, 715 with PsA, and 3,117 unaffected controls.
The authors used two different modeling approaches to estimate the contribution these genetic variations made to each condition. These both revealed that PsC had a greater heritability than both PsV and PsA.
“This is the first study to quantify the additive heritability of three subsets of psoriatic disease that is attributable to common susceptibility [single nucleotide polymorphisms] from large-scale genotyping arrays,” the authors wrote.
The authors wrote that this finding differed from other population-based genetic epidemiologic studies, which had pointed to much greater heritability for PsA than for PsV. However, these earlier results could be attributed to common environmental factors.
Given these heritability estimates previously made for PsA, the authors commented on the surprising absence of PsA-specific genes that reach significance in genome-wide association studies.
“This is partly explained by the much larger number of patients in the PsC or PsV [genome-wide association] studies to date, compared with PsA,” they wrote, also suggesting that this may be because of the greater disease heterogeneity seen with PsA, compared with psoriasis.
“Considerably increasing the number of PsA patients in [genome-wide association] studies will help clarify the heritability estimate question for PsA,” they wrote, but acknowledged that lower heritability or greater environmental influence could also be an explanation for this finding.
The study was supported by the Atlantic Innovation Fund. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Li Q et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61981-5
FROM SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars in Denmark contrasts with U.S. experience
Adalimumab biosimilars are years away from entering the marketplace in the United States because of patent disputes, but they already have led to substantial discounts in Denmark, researchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The Danish health care system switched almost entirely to adalimumab biosimilars after the patent on the original adalimumab product, Humira, expired there in October 2018. The switch to biosimilars led to an 82% decrease in costs for the medication, wrote Thomas Bo Jensen, MD, and colleagues in a research letter.
Denmark did not automatically substitute biosimilars, but the Danish Medicines Council recommended adalimumab biosimilars for all indications following Humira’s patent expiration. The recommendations “included switching patients to a biosimilar who were already well treated with the originator,” the researchers wrote.
To study the shift to adalimumab biosimilars across all indications in Denmark and calculate cost reductions, Dr. Jensen, of the department of clinical pharmacology at Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, and coinvestigators examined monthly data on drug sales from Amgros, which purchases all hospital drugs in the country.
“The proportion of adalimumab biosimilars increased from 71.6% (7,040 of 9,829 pens) in November 2018 to 95.1% (8,974 of 9,438 pens) in December 2018,” the researchers wrote. “Costs of adalimumab decreased by 82.8% from September 2018 to December 2018 (September: 8,197 pens at $5.13 million; December: 9,438 pens at $1.01 million).” The results were similar in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved five adalimumab biosimilars in the United States, but “they will not enter the market until 2023 owing to patent disputes with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira,” wrote Jennifer D. Claytor, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Walid Gellad, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial.
The annual postrebate price of Humira doubled between 2013 and 2018, from $19,000 to $38,000, and these price increases may influence the price of biosimilars, “which will be priced using Humira’s price as an anchor,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad wrote.
A rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars across the United States when they become available is “unlikely,” they wrote. Nonetheless, “some health care systems of comparable size to Denmark (e.g., the Veterans Affairs system) and others that are larger (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) ... have the ability to switch products quickly through use of formularies and a prescriber workforce. For example, Kaiser Permanente has successfully replaced Remicade (infliximab) with biosimilars in 80% of patients.”
Given the many biologics in development and increasing health care spending, “we need to take seriously the substantial savings offered by biosimilars and the feasibility, as evidenced by Denmark, of switching to biosimilars quickly once they are available on the market,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad concluded.
The research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Helsefonden. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the current study. The editorial authors had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Jensen TB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0338.
Adalimumab biosimilars are years away from entering the marketplace in the United States because of patent disputes, but they already have led to substantial discounts in Denmark, researchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The Danish health care system switched almost entirely to adalimumab biosimilars after the patent on the original adalimumab product, Humira, expired there in October 2018. The switch to biosimilars led to an 82% decrease in costs for the medication, wrote Thomas Bo Jensen, MD, and colleagues in a research letter.
Denmark did not automatically substitute biosimilars, but the Danish Medicines Council recommended adalimumab biosimilars for all indications following Humira’s patent expiration. The recommendations “included switching patients to a biosimilar who were already well treated with the originator,” the researchers wrote.
To study the shift to adalimumab biosimilars across all indications in Denmark and calculate cost reductions, Dr. Jensen, of the department of clinical pharmacology at Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, and coinvestigators examined monthly data on drug sales from Amgros, which purchases all hospital drugs in the country.
“The proportion of adalimumab biosimilars increased from 71.6% (7,040 of 9,829 pens) in November 2018 to 95.1% (8,974 of 9,438 pens) in December 2018,” the researchers wrote. “Costs of adalimumab decreased by 82.8% from September 2018 to December 2018 (September: 8,197 pens at $5.13 million; December: 9,438 pens at $1.01 million).” The results were similar in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved five adalimumab biosimilars in the United States, but “they will not enter the market until 2023 owing to patent disputes with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira,” wrote Jennifer D. Claytor, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Walid Gellad, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial.
The annual postrebate price of Humira doubled between 2013 and 2018, from $19,000 to $38,000, and these price increases may influence the price of biosimilars, “which will be priced using Humira’s price as an anchor,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad wrote.
A rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars across the United States when they become available is “unlikely,” they wrote. Nonetheless, “some health care systems of comparable size to Denmark (e.g., the Veterans Affairs system) and others that are larger (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) ... have the ability to switch products quickly through use of formularies and a prescriber workforce. For example, Kaiser Permanente has successfully replaced Remicade (infliximab) with biosimilars in 80% of patients.”
Given the many biologics in development and increasing health care spending, “we need to take seriously the substantial savings offered by biosimilars and the feasibility, as evidenced by Denmark, of switching to biosimilars quickly once they are available on the market,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad concluded.
The research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Helsefonden. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the current study. The editorial authors had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Jensen TB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0338.
Adalimumab biosimilars are years away from entering the marketplace in the United States because of patent disputes, but they already have led to substantial discounts in Denmark, researchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The Danish health care system switched almost entirely to adalimumab biosimilars after the patent on the original adalimumab product, Humira, expired there in October 2018. The switch to biosimilars led to an 82% decrease in costs for the medication, wrote Thomas Bo Jensen, MD, and colleagues in a research letter.
Denmark did not automatically substitute biosimilars, but the Danish Medicines Council recommended adalimumab biosimilars for all indications following Humira’s patent expiration. The recommendations “included switching patients to a biosimilar who were already well treated with the originator,” the researchers wrote.
To study the shift to adalimumab biosimilars across all indications in Denmark and calculate cost reductions, Dr. Jensen, of the department of clinical pharmacology at Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, and coinvestigators examined monthly data on drug sales from Amgros, which purchases all hospital drugs in the country.
“The proportion of adalimumab biosimilars increased from 71.6% (7,040 of 9,829 pens) in November 2018 to 95.1% (8,974 of 9,438 pens) in December 2018,” the researchers wrote. “Costs of adalimumab decreased by 82.8% from September 2018 to December 2018 (September: 8,197 pens at $5.13 million; December: 9,438 pens at $1.01 million).” The results were similar in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved five adalimumab biosimilars in the United States, but “they will not enter the market until 2023 owing to patent disputes with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira,” wrote Jennifer D. Claytor, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Walid Gellad, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial.
The annual postrebate price of Humira doubled between 2013 and 2018, from $19,000 to $38,000, and these price increases may influence the price of biosimilars, “which will be priced using Humira’s price as an anchor,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad wrote.
A rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars across the United States when they become available is “unlikely,” they wrote. Nonetheless, “some health care systems of comparable size to Denmark (e.g., the Veterans Affairs system) and others that are larger (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) ... have the ability to switch products quickly through use of formularies and a prescriber workforce. For example, Kaiser Permanente has successfully replaced Remicade (infliximab) with biosimilars in 80% of patients.”
Given the many biologics in development and increasing health care spending, “we need to take seriously the substantial savings offered by biosimilars and the feasibility, as evidenced by Denmark, of switching to biosimilars quickly once they are available on the market,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad concluded.
The research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Helsefonden. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the current study. The editorial authors had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Jensen TB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0338.
FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
FDA approves ixekizumab for pediatric plaque psoriasis
The according to an announcement from Lilly.
Patients need to be candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy and have no known hypersensitivity to the biologic.
The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the interleukin-17a antagonist were demonstrated in a phase 3 study that included 171 patients aged 6-17 years with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. At 12 weeks, 89% those on ixekizumab achieved a 75% improvement on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, compared with 25% of those on placebo, and 81% achieved a static Physician’s Global Assessment of clear or almost clear, compared with 11% of those on placebo, according to the Lilly statement.
The safety profile seen with ixekizumab (Taltz) among the pediatric patients with plaque psoriasis is consistent with what has been observed among adult patients, although there were higher rates of conjunctivitis, influenza, and urticaria among the pediatric patients, the statement noted. The biologic may increase the risk of infection, and patients should be evaluated for tuberculosis, hypersensitivity, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is also recommended that routine immunizations be completed before initiating treatment.
Ixekizumab was initially approved for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2016, followed by approvals for treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis in 2017, and for adults with ankylosing spondylitis in August 2019.
The biologic therapies – etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor blocker, and ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12/23 antagonist – were previously approved by the FDA for pediatric psoriasis, in children ages 4 years and older and 12 years and older, respectively.
Updated prescribing information for ixekizumab can be found on the Lilly website.
[email protected]
The according to an announcement from Lilly.
Patients need to be candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy and have no known hypersensitivity to the biologic.
The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the interleukin-17a antagonist were demonstrated in a phase 3 study that included 171 patients aged 6-17 years with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. At 12 weeks, 89% those on ixekizumab achieved a 75% improvement on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, compared with 25% of those on placebo, and 81% achieved a static Physician’s Global Assessment of clear or almost clear, compared with 11% of those on placebo, according to the Lilly statement.
The safety profile seen with ixekizumab (Taltz) among the pediatric patients with plaque psoriasis is consistent with what has been observed among adult patients, although there were higher rates of conjunctivitis, influenza, and urticaria among the pediatric patients, the statement noted. The biologic may increase the risk of infection, and patients should be evaluated for tuberculosis, hypersensitivity, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is also recommended that routine immunizations be completed before initiating treatment.
Ixekizumab was initially approved for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2016, followed by approvals for treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis in 2017, and for adults with ankylosing spondylitis in August 2019.
The biologic therapies – etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor blocker, and ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12/23 antagonist – were previously approved by the FDA for pediatric psoriasis, in children ages 4 years and older and 12 years and older, respectively.
Updated prescribing information for ixekizumab can be found on the Lilly website.
[email protected]
The according to an announcement from Lilly.
Patients need to be candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy and have no known hypersensitivity to the biologic.
The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the interleukin-17a antagonist were demonstrated in a phase 3 study that included 171 patients aged 6-17 years with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. At 12 weeks, 89% those on ixekizumab achieved a 75% improvement on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, compared with 25% of those on placebo, and 81% achieved a static Physician’s Global Assessment of clear or almost clear, compared with 11% of those on placebo, according to the Lilly statement.
The safety profile seen with ixekizumab (Taltz) among the pediatric patients with plaque psoriasis is consistent with what has been observed among adult patients, although there were higher rates of conjunctivitis, influenza, and urticaria among the pediatric patients, the statement noted. The biologic may increase the risk of infection, and patients should be evaluated for tuberculosis, hypersensitivity, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is also recommended that routine immunizations be completed before initiating treatment.
Ixekizumab was initially approved for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2016, followed by approvals for treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis in 2017, and for adults with ankylosing spondylitis in August 2019.
The biologic therapies – etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor blocker, and ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12/23 antagonist – were previously approved by the FDA for pediatric psoriasis, in children ages 4 years and older and 12 years and older, respectively.
Updated prescribing information for ixekizumab can be found on the Lilly website.
[email protected]
Psoriasis Therapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Should Patients Continue Biologics?
Dermatology therapies evolve as disease knowledge and investment grow
For much of the past 50 years, many of the drugs used in dermatology have been adopted – and often adapted – from other specialties and used for dermatologic conditions.
“Almost every drug was more or less a hand-me-down” developed first for cancer or other diseases and found later, often serendipitously, to be useful for the skin, said William Eaglstein, MD, thinking back to the 1970s and recalling steroids, tetracyclines, methotrexate, and 5-flourouracil. “The perception always was that skin diseases weren’t serious, that the market was small.”
Much has changed. by dermatologist investigators, and “more and more companies are recognizing the importance of our diseases and the ability to get a return on investment,” said Dr. Eaglstein, past professor and chair of the departments of dermatology at the University of Miami and the University of Pittsburgh, who worked in industry after his academic career.
Psoriasis was a game changer, he and other dermatologists said in interviews. The tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha blockers were first used for other indications, but their marked follow-on success in psoriasis “offered proof of concept clinically – showing that by targeting immune pathways in the skin we could achieve a clinical effect – and proof of concept commercially” that dermatology drugs are worth pursuing by pharmaceutical companies, said William Ju, MD, a cofounder and president of Advancing Innovation in Dermatology, a nonprofit organization that brings together stakeholders to develop novel dermatologic drugs and products.
This resulted in the approval of subsequent biologics, such as ustekinumab (Stelara) which inhibits the signaling of interleukin (IL)–12/IL-23, for psoriasis as their initial indication. Then, biologics targeting IL-17 followed this dermatology-first approach. “Researchers have continued further dissecting out the immunopathological pathways, and antibody drugs targeting IL-23p19 have been approved for psoriasis as the lead indication,” said Dr. Ju, a dermatologist who has worked in industry.
Seth Orlow, MD, PhD, who chairs the department of dermatology at NYU Langone Health, remembers the 1970s through the 1990s as the “era of topicals” developed for dermatologic conditions – topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and topical retinoids. The next decade was characterized by formulation tweaks and few novel treatments for dermatology, said Dr. Orlow, who is also professor of pediatric dermatology and director of the program in cutaneous biology at New York University.
Now, given the succession of psoriasis discoveries in the last decade, “large companies are interested in dermatology,” he said in an interview. “There’s an explosion of interest in atopic dermatitis. … and companies are dipping their toes in the water for alopecia areata and vitiligo. That’s amazing.”
Rare diseases like epidermolysis bullosa, ichthyosis, and basal cell nevus syndrome are getting attention as well, boosted by the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, in addition to increased research on disease pathways and growing appreciation of skin diseases. “There’s a lot under development, from small molecules to biologics to gene-based therapies,” Dr. Orlow commented.
The new frontier of atopic dermatitis
The approval in 2017 of dupilumab (Dupixent), a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the signaling of both IL-4 and IL-13) for moderate-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults illustrates the new standing of dermatologic diseases in the field of drug development and commercialization. “Atopic dermatitis had always been the forgotten chronic disease in dermatology. … We’ve had no good treatments,” said Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. “Dupilumab coming to the forefront [as a dermatology-first indication] has changed the entire perspective of the field. … Everyone is now trying to find the next best drug.”
As with psoriasis, a targeted therapy for AD was made possible by the development in the 1990s of monoclonal antibody technology and the ensuing ability to create biologics that target specific molecules in the body – as well as bedside-to-bench research that homed in on the involvement of particular cytokines.
But there also is a “new understanding of the burden of the disease,” Dr. Simpson observed. In the last 5 years, he said, research funded by the National Eczema Association documented that AD “not only causes inflammation of the skin … but that it affects people at school and in the workplace, that people have multiple mental health comorbidities and skin infections, and that the disease profoundly affects the entire patient in ways that weren’t really recognized or appreciated.”
Having evolved in the footsteps of psoriasis, AD is at a higher starting point in terms of the safety and efficacy of its first biologic, sources said. On the other hand, AD is a much more complex and heterogeneous disease, and researchers are trying to determine which immune pathways and cytokines are most important – and in which populations.
“We’re at the beginning. We’re trying to figure out how to get 80% of patients clear or almost clear [as we can now with psoriasis biologics] rather than almost 40% [as in the dupilumab pivotal trials],” said Dr. Simpson, former cochair of the National Eczema Association’s scientific committee. Public data from ongoing phase 2 and 3 trials of other Th2 cytokine inhibitors suggest that 25%-45% of enrolled patients achieve high levels of clearance, he noted.
Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, Sol and Clara Kest Professor and vice-chair for research in the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that AD’s heterogeneity involves “many factors, like ethnicity, age … and whether they have an atopic background such as asthma.”
Her research is showing, for instance, that AD in Asian and black patients is different than AD in European-American patients, and that the presence of comorbidities may well have treatment implications. She has also shown that children may have a different phenotype than adults, with greater activation of the Th17 axis that typifies psoriasis.
“For certain patients, we may need to target more than one pathway, or target a different pathway than the Th2 pathway. And treatment may be different in the setting of comorbidities,” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who is also director of the laboratory of inflammatory skin diseases at Mount Sinai. “We may think of one treatment – dupilumab, for example – for someone who has asthma and AD. But for patients who don’t have asthma and are Asian, for instance, or for children, we may need additional agents.”
Her research over the years on AD has taught her the importance of human studies over mouse model studies; it was in humans, she noted, that she and other investigators demonstrated “without doubt” that AD is an immune disease and not simply a barrier disease. The Th2 cytokine pathway appears to play the predominant role in AD, though “there still is a strong Th1 component,” she said.
“We’re in a better position to figure this out today [than in the past 20 or even 10 years],” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who recalls being told years ago that AD was a “dead end,” that it “would kill [her] career.” Given the evolution of science and the recognition of comorbidities and seriousness of dermatologic diseases, “the stars are aligned to get more [therapies] to these patients.”
Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are among these therapies. Three JAK inhibitors are in or have recently completed phase 3 studies for AD; two are currently approved for rheumatoid arthritis, and the other has been designed specifically for AD, Dr. Simpson pointed out. The drugs are oral small molecule drugs that block the JAK signaling pathways for certain proinflammatory cytokines.
“The JAK inhibitors are a real exciting story for dermatology,” he said. “Theoretically, by blocking more cytokines than biologics do, there could be some safety issues – that’s why we’re awaiting big phase 3 study results so we can figure out the risk-benefit balance and guide our patients as to which drug is best.”
Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, president of Oregon Medical Research Center in Portland – a stand-alone dermatology clinical trial center founded in 1998 – likes to envision the evolution of drugs for dermatologic conditions as a funnel, with the most broad-acting drugs at the wide top of the funnel and the most targeted drugs at the bottom tip.
JAK inhibitors, he said, sit near the middle – more targeted and safer than cyclosporine and methotrexate, for instance, but not as targeted as the biologics now available for psoriasis and being developed for AD. “The oral medications that have been developed for psoriasis and those coming for AD are not quite as targeted to the disease,” he noted. “JAK inhibitors have great efficacy – it’s more a question of safety and being able to treat without causing collateral damage.”
Dr. Blauvelt expects the armamentarium of new drugs approved for AD to go from one (dupilumab) to seven within the next 2 years. This will include three new biologics and three new oral JAK inhibitors, he predicts. As the specialty sorts through and integrates these new drugs into practice, dermatologists will increasingly personalize treatment and will face the “nonscientific” challenge of the cost of new therapies and patient access to them, he noted.
In the meantime, said Dr. Simpson, recent drug discoveries have driven more non–pharmaceutical-funded translational research aimed at understanding the underlying biology of AD. The National Institutes of Health, for instance, “is interested in dupilumab and its impact on the skin barrier and skin defense mechanisms,” he said. “We’ll learn a lot more [in coming years].”
Spillover to other diseases
JAK inhibitors – some in oral and some in topical form – are showing efficacy in ongoing research for alopecia areata (AA) and vitiligo as well, Dr. Blauvelt said.
“We’re understanding more about the pathophysiology of these diseases, which historically have been tough diseases for dermatologists to treat,” he said. “The successes in alopecia areata and vitiligo are incredibly exciting actually – it’s very exciting to see hair and pigment coming back. And as we learn more, we should be able to develop [additional] drugs that are more disease targeted than the JAK inhibitors.”
Already, some of the biologics used to treat psoriasis have been studied in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a disease in which painful lumps and sometimes tunnels form under the skin, with some success; adalimumab (Humira), a TNF-inhibitor, is now FDA approved for the treatment of moderate-severe HS, and studies are ongoing of IL-17 and IL-23 blockers for the disease.
“The pathophysiology [of HS] is very complex; it’s not nearly as straightforward as psoriasis, and there haven’t been any major breakthroughs yet,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “But the drugs seem to be working better than historical alternatives.”
Regarding AA, Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who is participating in a study of dupilumab for AA, recently found in a retrospective cross-sectional study that patients with the condition are more likely to have atopic comorbidities – asthma, allergic rhinitis, and AD, for instance. “The more comorbid conditions, the greater the risk of developing alopecia areata,” she said. “That could point to a potential pathogenic role of the Th2 axis in the disorder [challenging the traditional view of AA as a singularly Th1-centered disease.] The future will tell.”
Action on rare skin diseases
Both large and small companies have moved into the orphan drug space, investing in research and pursuing orphan drug indications for dermatologic conditions, because “it’s clear now in the marketplace that companies can develop effective drugs for rare disorders and be quite successful,” Dr. Orlow said.
According to a recent analysis, as a result of incentives for rare disease drug development contained in the Orphan Drug Act, 72 indications have been approved for rare skin disease, skin-related cancers, and hereditary disorders with prominent dermatologic manifestations since the law was passed in 1983 (J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2019;81[3]:867-77).
Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a good example, he and other sources said, of commercial interests merging with growing knowledge of disease pathogenesis as well as the tools needed to develop new treatments.
Research by dermatology scientists and others over the past 40 years, Dr. Ju explained, shed light on the molecular basis underlying the structure and function of the junction between the epidermis and dermis, including the pivotal role that type VII collagen plays in the normal adhesion of these two layers. Researchers then learned that, in EB, the family of genetic diseases characterized by skin fragility, “dystrophic types are caused by mutations in the gene encoding type VII collagen,” he said.
“Just as the advent of monoclonal antibodies allowed us to start attacking psoriasis and atopic dermatitis in unprecedented ways, the advent of gene therapy allows us to potentially address the fundamental molecular genetic defect of various types of EB,” Dr. Ju said.
While gene therapy is “still in its infancy,” companies have begun using the tools to address EB. One gene therapy in the pipeline – in phase 3 clinical trial testing – involves grafting back into patients with recessive dystrophic EB their skin cells that have been genetically modified to produce a correct (nonmutated) type VII collagen, he said.
Basal cell nevus syndrome, or Gorlin syndrome, a rare disease in which patients develop a multitude of basal cell carcinoma tumors, is another example of a “dermatology first” approach, Dr. Ju said. Research identified a genetic mutation that causes the hedgehog signaling pathway to be inappropriately activated in the disease, and a drug, vismodegib, was developed to inhibit this pathway. The drug was initially approved for patients with metastatic basal cell cancer and types of advanced basal cell cancer, and is now being tested in cancers affecting other organs, he said.
Basal cell cancer “is a huge market, but it was really unrecognized in the past,” Dr. Eaglstein said. “Seeing drugs come to market for basal cell cancer – this wouldn’t have happened [decades ago].”
Dr. Ju has worked in the pharmaceutical industry; all other sources in this story have worked with pharmaceutical manufacturers of treatments that are being developed or have been approved to treat dermatologic diseases mentioned in this story. In addition to Dr. Ju, Dr. Eaglstein and Dr. Orlow are cofounders of the Advancing Innovation in Dermatology group; Dr. Orlow is a member of the program committee for the organization’s dermatology summit conference.
For much of the past 50 years, many of the drugs used in dermatology have been adopted – and often adapted – from other specialties and used for dermatologic conditions.
“Almost every drug was more or less a hand-me-down” developed first for cancer or other diseases and found later, often serendipitously, to be useful for the skin, said William Eaglstein, MD, thinking back to the 1970s and recalling steroids, tetracyclines, methotrexate, and 5-flourouracil. “The perception always was that skin diseases weren’t serious, that the market was small.”
Much has changed. by dermatologist investigators, and “more and more companies are recognizing the importance of our diseases and the ability to get a return on investment,” said Dr. Eaglstein, past professor and chair of the departments of dermatology at the University of Miami and the University of Pittsburgh, who worked in industry after his academic career.
Psoriasis was a game changer, he and other dermatologists said in interviews. The tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha blockers were first used for other indications, but their marked follow-on success in psoriasis “offered proof of concept clinically – showing that by targeting immune pathways in the skin we could achieve a clinical effect – and proof of concept commercially” that dermatology drugs are worth pursuing by pharmaceutical companies, said William Ju, MD, a cofounder and president of Advancing Innovation in Dermatology, a nonprofit organization that brings together stakeholders to develop novel dermatologic drugs and products.
This resulted in the approval of subsequent biologics, such as ustekinumab (Stelara) which inhibits the signaling of interleukin (IL)–12/IL-23, for psoriasis as their initial indication. Then, biologics targeting IL-17 followed this dermatology-first approach. “Researchers have continued further dissecting out the immunopathological pathways, and antibody drugs targeting IL-23p19 have been approved for psoriasis as the lead indication,” said Dr. Ju, a dermatologist who has worked in industry.
Seth Orlow, MD, PhD, who chairs the department of dermatology at NYU Langone Health, remembers the 1970s through the 1990s as the “era of topicals” developed for dermatologic conditions – topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and topical retinoids. The next decade was characterized by formulation tweaks and few novel treatments for dermatology, said Dr. Orlow, who is also professor of pediatric dermatology and director of the program in cutaneous biology at New York University.
Now, given the succession of psoriasis discoveries in the last decade, “large companies are interested in dermatology,” he said in an interview. “There’s an explosion of interest in atopic dermatitis. … and companies are dipping their toes in the water for alopecia areata and vitiligo. That’s amazing.”
Rare diseases like epidermolysis bullosa, ichthyosis, and basal cell nevus syndrome are getting attention as well, boosted by the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, in addition to increased research on disease pathways and growing appreciation of skin diseases. “There’s a lot under development, from small molecules to biologics to gene-based therapies,” Dr. Orlow commented.
The new frontier of atopic dermatitis
The approval in 2017 of dupilumab (Dupixent), a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the signaling of both IL-4 and IL-13) for moderate-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults illustrates the new standing of dermatologic diseases in the field of drug development and commercialization. “Atopic dermatitis had always been the forgotten chronic disease in dermatology. … We’ve had no good treatments,” said Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. “Dupilumab coming to the forefront [as a dermatology-first indication] has changed the entire perspective of the field. … Everyone is now trying to find the next best drug.”
As with psoriasis, a targeted therapy for AD was made possible by the development in the 1990s of monoclonal antibody technology and the ensuing ability to create biologics that target specific molecules in the body – as well as bedside-to-bench research that homed in on the involvement of particular cytokines.
But there also is a “new understanding of the burden of the disease,” Dr. Simpson observed. In the last 5 years, he said, research funded by the National Eczema Association documented that AD “not only causes inflammation of the skin … but that it affects people at school and in the workplace, that people have multiple mental health comorbidities and skin infections, and that the disease profoundly affects the entire patient in ways that weren’t really recognized or appreciated.”
Having evolved in the footsteps of psoriasis, AD is at a higher starting point in terms of the safety and efficacy of its first biologic, sources said. On the other hand, AD is a much more complex and heterogeneous disease, and researchers are trying to determine which immune pathways and cytokines are most important – and in which populations.
“We’re at the beginning. We’re trying to figure out how to get 80% of patients clear or almost clear [as we can now with psoriasis biologics] rather than almost 40% [as in the dupilumab pivotal trials],” said Dr. Simpson, former cochair of the National Eczema Association’s scientific committee. Public data from ongoing phase 2 and 3 trials of other Th2 cytokine inhibitors suggest that 25%-45% of enrolled patients achieve high levels of clearance, he noted.
Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, Sol and Clara Kest Professor and vice-chair for research in the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that AD’s heterogeneity involves “many factors, like ethnicity, age … and whether they have an atopic background such as asthma.”
Her research is showing, for instance, that AD in Asian and black patients is different than AD in European-American patients, and that the presence of comorbidities may well have treatment implications. She has also shown that children may have a different phenotype than adults, with greater activation of the Th17 axis that typifies psoriasis.
“For certain patients, we may need to target more than one pathway, or target a different pathway than the Th2 pathway. And treatment may be different in the setting of comorbidities,” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who is also director of the laboratory of inflammatory skin diseases at Mount Sinai. “We may think of one treatment – dupilumab, for example – for someone who has asthma and AD. But for patients who don’t have asthma and are Asian, for instance, or for children, we may need additional agents.”
Her research over the years on AD has taught her the importance of human studies over mouse model studies; it was in humans, she noted, that she and other investigators demonstrated “without doubt” that AD is an immune disease and not simply a barrier disease. The Th2 cytokine pathway appears to play the predominant role in AD, though “there still is a strong Th1 component,” she said.
“We’re in a better position to figure this out today [than in the past 20 or even 10 years],” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who recalls being told years ago that AD was a “dead end,” that it “would kill [her] career.” Given the evolution of science and the recognition of comorbidities and seriousness of dermatologic diseases, “the stars are aligned to get more [therapies] to these patients.”
Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are among these therapies. Three JAK inhibitors are in or have recently completed phase 3 studies for AD; two are currently approved for rheumatoid arthritis, and the other has been designed specifically for AD, Dr. Simpson pointed out. The drugs are oral small molecule drugs that block the JAK signaling pathways for certain proinflammatory cytokines.
“The JAK inhibitors are a real exciting story for dermatology,” he said. “Theoretically, by blocking more cytokines than biologics do, there could be some safety issues – that’s why we’re awaiting big phase 3 study results so we can figure out the risk-benefit balance and guide our patients as to which drug is best.”
Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, president of Oregon Medical Research Center in Portland – a stand-alone dermatology clinical trial center founded in 1998 – likes to envision the evolution of drugs for dermatologic conditions as a funnel, with the most broad-acting drugs at the wide top of the funnel and the most targeted drugs at the bottom tip.
JAK inhibitors, he said, sit near the middle – more targeted and safer than cyclosporine and methotrexate, for instance, but not as targeted as the biologics now available for psoriasis and being developed for AD. “The oral medications that have been developed for psoriasis and those coming for AD are not quite as targeted to the disease,” he noted. “JAK inhibitors have great efficacy – it’s more a question of safety and being able to treat without causing collateral damage.”
Dr. Blauvelt expects the armamentarium of new drugs approved for AD to go from one (dupilumab) to seven within the next 2 years. This will include three new biologics and three new oral JAK inhibitors, he predicts. As the specialty sorts through and integrates these new drugs into practice, dermatologists will increasingly personalize treatment and will face the “nonscientific” challenge of the cost of new therapies and patient access to them, he noted.
In the meantime, said Dr. Simpson, recent drug discoveries have driven more non–pharmaceutical-funded translational research aimed at understanding the underlying biology of AD. The National Institutes of Health, for instance, “is interested in dupilumab and its impact on the skin barrier and skin defense mechanisms,” he said. “We’ll learn a lot more [in coming years].”
Spillover to other diseases
JAK inhibitors – some in oral and some in topical form – are showing efficacy in ongoing research for alopecia areata (AA) and vitiligo as well, Dr. Blauvelt said.
“We’re understanding more about the pathophysiology of these diseases, which historically have been tough diseases for dermatologists to treat,” he said. “The successes in alopecia areata and vitiligo are incredibly exciting actually – it’s very exciting to see hair and pigment coming back. And as we learn more, we should be able to develop [additional] drugs that are more disease targeted than the JAK inhibitors.”
Already, some of the biologics used to treat psoriasis have been studied in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a disease in which painful lumps and sometimes tunnels form under the skin, with some success; adalimumab (Humira), a TNF-inhibitor, is now FDA approved for the treatment of moderate-severe HS, and studies are ongoing of IL-17 and IL-23 blockers for the disease.
“The pathophysiology [of HS] is very complex; it’s not nearly as straightforward as psoriasis, and there haven’t been any major breakthroughs yet,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “But the drugs seem to be working better than historical alternatives.”
Regarding AA, Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who is participating in a study of dupilumab for AA, recently found in a retrospective cross-sectional study that patients with the condition are more likely to have atopic comorbidities – asthma, allergic rhinitis, and AD, for instance. “The more comorbid conditions, the greater the risk of developing alopecia areata,” she said. “That could point to a potential pathogenic role of the Th2 axis in the disorder [challenging the traditional view of AA as a singularly Th1-centered disease.] The future will tell.”
Action on rare skin diseases
Both large and small companies have moved into the orphan drug space, investing in research and pursuing orphan drug indications for dermatologic conditions, because “it’s clear now in the marketplace that companies can develop effective drugs for rare disorders and be quite successful,” Dr. Orlow said.
According to a recent analysis, as a result of incentives for rare disease drug development contained in the Orphan Drug Act, 72 indications have been approved for rare skin disease, skin-related cancers, and hereditary disorders with prominent dermatologic manifestations since the law was passed in 1983 (J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2019;81[3]:867-77).
Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a good example, he and other sources said, of commercial interests merging with growing knowledge of disease pathogenesis as well as the tools needed to develop new treatments.
Research by dermatology scientists and others over the past 40 years, Dr. Ju explained, shed light on the molecular basis underlying the structure and function of the junction between the epidermis and dermis, including the pivotal role that type VII collagen plays in the normal adhesion of these two layers. Researchers then learned that, in EB, the family of genetic diseases characterized by skin fragility, “dystrophic types are caused by mutations in the gene encoding type VII collagen,” he said.
“Just as the advent of monoclonal antibodies allowed us to start attacking psoriasis and atopic dermatitis in unprecedented ways, the advent of gene therapy allows us to potentially address the fundamental molecular genetic defect of various types of EB,” Dr. Ju said.
While gene therapy is “still in its infancy,” companies have begun using the tools to address EB. One gene therapy in the pipeline – in phase 3 clinical trial testing – involves grafting back into patients with recessive dystrophic EB their skin cells that have been genetically modified to produce a correct (nonmutated) type VII collagen, he said.
Basal cell nevus syndrome, or Gorlin syndrome, a rare disease in which patients develop a multitude of basal cell carcinoma tumors, is another example of a “dermatology first” approach, Dr. Ju said. Research identified a genetic mutation that causes the hedgehog signaling pathway to be inappropriately activated in the disease, and a drug, vismodegib, was developed to inhibit this pathway. The drug was initially approved for patients with metastatic basal cell cancer and types of advanced basal cell cancer, and is now being tested in cancers affecting other organs, he said.
Basal cell cancer “is a huge market, but it was really unrecognized in the past,” Dr. Eaglstein said. “Seeing drugs come to market for basal cell cancer – this wouldn’t have happened [decades ago].”
Dr. Ju has worked in the pharmaceutical industry; all other sources in this story have worked with pharmaceutical manufacturers of treatments that are being developed or have been approved to treat dermatologic diseases mentioned in this story. In addition to Dr. Ju, Dr. Eaglstein and Dr. Orlow are cofounders of the Advancing Innovation in Dermatology group; Dr. Orlow is a member of the program committee for the organization’s dermatology summit conference.
For much of the past 50 years, many of the drugs used in dermatology have been adopted – and often adapted – from other specialties and used for dermatologic conditions.
“Almost every drug was more or less a hand-me-down” developed first for cancer or other diseases and found later, often serendipitously, to be useful for the skin, said William Eaglstein, MD, thinking back to the 1970s and recalling steroids, tetracyclines, methotrexate, and 5-flourouracil. “The perception always was that skin diseases weren’t serious, that the market was small.”
Much has changed. by dermatologist investigators, and “more and more companies are recognizing the importance of our diseases and the ability to get a return on investment,” said Dr. Eaglstein, past professor and chair of the departments of dermatology at the University of Miami and the University of Pittsburgh, who worked in industry after his academic career.
Psoriasis was a game changer, he and other dermatologists said in interviews. The tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha blockers were first used for other indications, but their marked follow-on success in psoriasis “offered proof of concept clinically – showing that by targeting immune pathways in the skin we could achieve a clinical effect – and proof of concept commercially” that dermatology drugs are worth pursuing by pharmaceutical companies, said William Ju, MD, a cofounder and president of Advancing Innovation in Dermatology, a nonprofit organization that brings together stakeholders to develop novel dermatologic drugs and products.
This resulted in the approval of subsequent biologics, such as ustekinumab (Stelara) which inhibits the signaling of interleukin (IL)–12/IL-23, for psoriasis as their initial indication. Then, biologics targeting IL-17 followed this dermatology-first approach. “Researchers have continued further dissecting out the immunopathological pathways, and antibody drugs targeting IL-23p19 have been approved for psoriasis as the lead indication,” said Dr. Ju, a dermatologist who has worked in industry.
Seth Orlow, MD, PhD, who chairs the department of dermatology at NYU Langone Health, remembers the 1970s through the 1990s as the “era of topicals” developed for dermatologic conditions – topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and topical retinoids. The next decade was characterized by formulation tweaks and few novel treatments for dermatology, said Dr. Orlow, who is also professor of pediatric dermatology and director of the program in cutaneous biology at New York University.
Now, given the succession of psoriasis discoveries in the last decade, “large companies are interested in dermatology,” he said in an interview. “There’s an explosion of interest in atopic dermatitis. … and companies are dipping their toes in the water for alopecia areata and vitiligo. That’s amazing.”
Rare diseases like epidermolysis bullosa, ichthyosis, and basal cell nevus syndrome are getting attention as well, boosted by the Orphan Drug Act of 1983, in addition to increased research on disease pathways and growing appreciation of skin diseases. “There’s a lot under development, from small molecules to biologics to gene-based therapies,” Dr. Orlow commented.
The new frontier of atopic dermatitis
The approval in 2017 of dupilumab (Dupixent), a monoclonal antibody that inhibits the signaling of both IL-4 and IL-13) for moderate-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults illustrates the new standing of dermatologic diseases in the field of drug development and commercialization. “Atopic dermatitis had always been the forgotten chronic disease in dermatology. … We’ve had no good treatments,” said Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. “Dupilumab coming to the forefront [as a dermatology-first indication] has changed the entire perspective of the field. … Everyone is now trying to find the next best drug.”
As with psoriasis, a targeted therapy for AD was made possible by the development in the 1990s of monoclonal antibody technology and the ensuing ability to create biologics that target specific molecules in the body – as well as bedside-to-bench research that homed in on the involvement of particular cytokines.
But there also is a “new understanding of the burden of the disease,” Dr. Simpson observed. In the last 5 years, he said, research funded by the National Eczema Association documented that AD “not only causes inflammation of the skin … but that it affects people at school and in the workplace, that people have multiple mental health comorbidities and skin infections, and that the disease profoundly affects the entire patient in ways that weren’t really recognized or appreciated.”
Having evolved in the footsteps of psoriasis, AD is at a higher starting point in terms of the safety and efficacy of its first biologic, sources said. On the other hand, AD is a much more complex and heterogeneous disease, and researchers are trying to determine which immune pathways and cytokines are most important – and in which populations.
“We’re at the beginning. We’re trying to figure out how to get 80% of patients clear or almost clear [as we can now with psoriasis biologics] rather than almost 40% [as in the dupilumab pivotal trials],” said Dr. Simpson, former cochair of the National Eczema Association’s scientific committee. Public data from ongoing phase 2 and 3 trials of other Th2 cytokine inhibitors suggest that 25%-45% of enrolled patients achieve high levels of clearance, he noted.
Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, Sol and Clara Kest Professor and vice-chair for research in the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that AD’s heterogeneity involves “many factors, like ethnicity, age … and whether they have an atopic background such as asthma.”
Her research is showing, for instance, that AD in Asian and black patients is different than AD in European-American patients, and that the presence of comorbidities may well have treatment implications. She has also shown that children may have a different phenotype than adults, with greater activation of the Th17 axis that typifies psoriasis.
“For certain patients, we may need to target more than one pathway, or target a different pathway than the Th2 pathway. And treatment may be different in the setting of comorbidities,” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who is also director of the laboratory of inflammatory skin diseases at Mount Sinai. “We may think of one treatment – dupilumab, for example – for someone who has asthma and AD. But for patients who don’t have asthma and are Asian, for instance, or for children, we may need additional agents.”
Her research over the years on AD has taught her the importance of human studies over mouse model studies; it was in humans, she noted, that she and other investigators demonstrated “without doubt” that AD is an immune disease and not simply a barrier disease. The Th2 cytokine pathway appears to play the predominant role in AD, though “there still is a strong Th1 component,” she said.
“We’re in a better position to figure this out today [than in the past 20 or even 10 years],” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who recalls being told years ago that AD was a “dead end,” that it “would kill [her] career.” Given the evolution of science and the recognition of comorbidities and seriousness of dermatologic diseases, “the stars are aligned to get more [therapies] to these patients.”
Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are among these therapies. Three JAK inhibitors are in or have recently completed phase 3 studies for AD; two are currently approved for rheumatoid arthritis, and the other has been designed specifically for AD, Dr. Simpson pointed out. The drugs are oral small molecule drugs that block the JAK signaling pathways for certain proinflammatory cytokines.
“The JAK inhibitors are a real exciting story for dermatology,” he said. “Theoretically, by blocking more cytokines than biologics do, there could be some safety issues – that’s why we’re awaiting big phase 3 study results so we can figure out the risk-benefit balance and guide our patients as to which drug is best.”
Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, president of Oregon Medical Research Center in Portland – a stand-alone dermatology clinical trial center founded in 1998 – likes to envision the evolution of drugs for dermatologic conditions as a funnel, with the most broad-acting drugs at the wide top of the funnel and the most targeted drugs at the bottom tip.
JAK inhibitors, he said, sit near the middle – more targeted and safer than cyclosporine and methotrexate, for instance, but not as targeted as the biologics now available for psoriasis and being developed for AD. “The oral medications that have been developed for psoriasis and those coming for AD are not quite as targeted to the disease,” he noted. “JAK inhibitors have great efficacy – it’s more a question of safety and being able to treat without causing collateral damage.”
Dr. Blauvelt expects the armamentarium of new drugs approved for AD to go from one (dupilumab) to seven within the next 2 years. This will include three new biologics and three new oral JAK inhibitors, he predicts. As the specialty sorts through and integrates these new drugs into practice, dermatologists will increasingly personalize treatment and will face the “nonscientific” challenge of the cost of new therapies and patient access to them, he noted.
In the meantime, said Dr. Simpson, recent drug discoveries have driven more non–pharmaceutical-funded translational research aimed at understanding the underlying biology of AD. The National Institutes of Health, for instance, “is interested in dupilumab and its impact on the skin barrier and skin defense mechanisms,” he said. “We’ll learn a lot more [in coming years].”
Spillover to other diseases
JAK inhibitors – some in oral and some in topical form – are showing efficacy in ongoing research for alopecia areata (AA) and vitiligo as well, Dr. Blauvelt said.
“We’re understanding more about the pathophysiology of these diseases, which historically have been tough diseases for dermatologists to treat,” he said. “The successes in alopecia areata and vitiligo are incredibly exciting actually – it’s very exciting to see hair and pigment coming back. And as we learn more, we should be able to develop [additional] drugs that are more disease targeted than the JAK inhibitors.”
Already, some of the biologics used to treat psoriasis have been studied in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a disease in which painful lumps and sometimes tunnels form under the skin, with some success; adalimumab (Humira), a TNF-inhibitor, is now FDA approved for the treatment of moderate-severe HS, and studies are ongoing of IL-17 and IL-23 blockers for the disease.
“The pathophysiology [of HS] is very complex; it’s not nearly as straightforward as psoriasis, and there haven’t been any major breakthroughs yet,” Dr. Blauvelt said. “But the drugs seem to be working better than historical alternatives.”
Regarding AA, Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who is participating in a study of dupilumab for AA, recently found in a retrospective cross-sectional study that patients with the condition are more likely to have atopic comorbidities – asthma, allergic rhinitis, and AD, for instance. “The more comorbid conditions, the greater the risk of developing alopecia areata,” she said. “That could point to a potential pathogenic role of the Th2 axis in the disorder [challenging the traditional view of AA as a singularly Th1-centered disease.] The future will tell.”
Action on rare skin diseases
Both large and small companies have moved into the orphan drug space, investing in research and pursuing orphan drug indications for dermatologic conditions, because “it’s clear now in the marketplace that companies can develop effective drugs for rare disorders and be quite successful,” Dr. Orlow said.
According to a recent analysis, as a result of incentives for rare disease drug development contained in the Orphan Drug Act, 72 indications have been approved for rare skin disease, skin-related cancers, and hereditary disorders with prominent dermatologic manifestations since the law was passed in 1983 (J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2019;81[3]:867-77).
Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a good example, he and other sources said, of commercial interests merging with growing knowledge of disease pathogenesis as well as the tools needed to develop new treatments.
Research by dermatology scientists and others over the past 40 years, Dr. Ju explained, shed light on the molecular basis underlying the structure and function of the junction between the epidermis and dermis, including the pivotal role that type VII collagen plays in the normal adhesion of these two layers. Researchers then learned that, in EB, the family of genetic diseases characterized by skin fragility, “dystrophic types are caused by mutations in the gene encoding type VII collagen,” he said.
“Just as the advent of monoclonal antibodies allowed us to start attacking psoriasis and atopic dermatitis in unprecedented ways, the advent of gene therapy allows us to potentially address the fundamental molecular genetic defect of various types of EB,” Dr. Ju said.
While gene therapy is “still in its infancy,” companies have begun using the tools to address EB. One gene therapy in the pipeline – in phase 3 clinical trial testing – involves grafting back into patients with recessive dystrophic EB their skin cells that have been genetically modified to produce a correct (nonmutated) type VII collagen, he said.
Basal cell nevus syndrome, or Gorlin syndrome, a rare disease in which patients develop a multitude of basal cell carcinoma tumors, is another example of a “dermatology first” approach, Dr. Ju said. Research identified a genetic mutation that causes the hedgehog signaling pathway to be inappropriately activated in the disease, and a drug, vismodegib, was developed to inhibit this pathway. The drug was initially approved for patients with metastatic basal cell cancer and types of advanced basal cell cancer, and is now being tested in cancers affecting other organs, he said.
Basal cell cancer “is a huge market, but it was really unrecognized in the past,” Dr. Eaglstein said. “Seeing drugs come to market for basal cell cancer – this wouldn’t have happened [decades ago].”
Dr. Ju has worked in the pharmaceutical industry; all other sources in this story have worked with pharmaceutical manufacturers of treatments that are being developed or have been approved to treat dermatologic diseases mentioned in this story. In addition to Dr. Ju, Dr. Eaglstein and Dr. Orlow are cofounders of the Advancing Innovation in Dermatology group; Dr. Orlow is a member of the program committee for the organization’s dermatology summit conference.
AAD-NPF releases first guidelines for nonbiologic treatments of psoriasis
It’s been 11 years since monotherapy and suggest a framework for a number of off-label treatments.
The guidelines, issued jointly with the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF), were published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“I think we are way behind,” Alan Menter, MD, chairman of the division of dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the guideline writing committee, said in an interview. “Most other countries update their guidelines every 1 or 2 years; we were 10 years behind.” The guidelines for systemic nonbiologic drugs follow up psoriasis guidelines issued by the AAD and the NPF on pediatric patients issued earlier this year, and on phototherapy, biologic treatments, and management of comorbidities issued last year.
“A lot has happened in the last 10 years,” said cochair Craig Elmets, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “While much of the interest is on biologic agents, nonbiologics are still used quite frequently, and the guidelines for their appropriate use have changed. Use of the guidelines provides people in the health profession with the most up to date evidence-based information so they can give their patients the best care.”
The guidelines acknowledge that the medications it covers are still widely used, either by themselves or in combination with biologic agents; readily available; easy to use; and, in the case of older therapies, relatively cheap.
Methotrexate has been available since the 1970s. Given as an injection or taken orally, the guidelines recommend supplementation with folic acid to counteract methotrexate’s side effects, particularly GI upset. The guidelines note that folic acid is less expensive than folinic acid. Combination therapy with methotrexate and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors is more effective than methotrexate monotherapy, with a similar side effect profile, the guidelines state.
Methotrexate is more widely used outside the United States, “but it is a very good, quick fix and it’s much safer in children and young people than it is in people with cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Menter noted. “It’s still the most commonly used drug worldwide because it’s cheap, and you do have to worry about the long-term toxicity which is related the liver issues.”
The guidelines say that subcutaneous administration of methotrexate “may be particularly useful” for patients on higher doses, which when taken orally, are associated with a higher risk of GI effects.
Dr. Menter referred to a 2017 study, which reported 41% of patients treated with subcutaneous methotrexate once a week achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 score of 41% after a year of treatment, compared with 10% of those on placebo (Lancet. 2017 Feb 4;389[10068]:528-37).
The guidelines rate strength of recommendation as class A for methotrexate for moderate to severe psoriasis in adults, recommend supplementation with folic or folinic acid to counteract GI complications and liver problems, and note that adalimumab and infliximab are more effective than methotrexate for cutaneous psoriasis. Class B recommendations for methotrexate and psoriasis include statements that patients should begin with a test dose, especially if they have impaired kidney function; methotrexate is effective for peripheral, but not axial, psoriatic arthritis (PsA); and TNF inhibitors are more effective than methotrexate for PsA.
Approved by the FDA in 2014 for psoriasis, apremilast, which inhibits phosphodiesterase-4, is the newest drug in the recommendations. The guidelines recommend its use for moderate to severe psoriasis in adults, with a class A recommendation. Patients should start on a low dose and then build up to the 30-mg, twice-daily dose over 6 days and should be counseled about the risk of depression before starting treatment. Routine laboratory testing can be considered on an individual basis.
The guidelines also lay out three recommendations (and strength of recommendation) for cyclosporine, a drug that’s been around since the 1990s: for severe, recalcitrant cases (class A); for erythrodermic, general pustular, and palmoplantar psoriasis (class B); and as short-term therapy for psoriasis flare in patients already on another drug (class C).
Acitretin is another longstanding therapy used mostly for palmar-plantar psoriasis, but it can also be used as monotherapy for plaque psoriasis as well as erythrodermic and pustular disease. It can also be used in combination with psoralens with UVA for psoriasis and combined with broadband UVB phototherapy for plaque psoriasis. The acitretin recommendations are class B.
The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib isn’t specifically approved for psoriasis, but it is approved for RA, PsA, and ulcerative colitis. The drug targets the JAK-STAT signaling pathway that causes inflammation. The guidelines state that tofacitinib can be considered for moderate to severe psoriasis, but lists no strength of recommendation. The recommended dose is either 5 or 10 mg orally twice a day, with a caveat that the higher dose carries a higher risk of adverse events. Patients should be evaluated for getting a zoster vaccine before they begin therapy.
“We thought that, because there was probably a small chance that it might get approved for psoriasis, that we would discuss it briefly,” Dr. Menter said of tofacitinib.
Another off-label use the guidelines address is for fumaric and acid esters, also known as fumarates, which are used to in Europe to treat moderate to severe psoriasis. Dimethyl fumarate is approved for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States. The guidelines state that fumarates can be used for psoriasis, but offer no strength of recommendation. Side effects include gastrointestinal disturbance and flushing.
Other treatments that are also addressed in the guidelines include a host of systemic immunosuppressants and antimetabolites: azathioprine, hydroxyurea, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, thioguanine, and tacrolimus, none of which are FDA approved for psoriasis. They’re rarely used for psoriasis, but may have value in selected cases, the guidelines state.
Dr. Menter said that apremilast is the only oral drug in the guidelines, but they are the wave of the future for treating psoriasis. “I think there’s a tremendous potential for new oral drugs – TK2 [thymidine kinase], the JAK inhibitors, and other drugs coming down the pipelines. The majority of patients, if you ask them their preference, would like to take an oral drug rather than an injectable drug. And it would be much easier for dermatologists, they wouldn’t have to train patients on how to do the injections.”
Dr. Menter and Dr. Elmets disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Other authors/work group members also had disclosures related to pharmaceutical manufacturers, and several had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Menter A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Feb 28. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.02.044.
It’s been 11 years since monotherapy and suggest a framework for a number of off-label treatments.
The guidelines, issued jointly with the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF), were published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“I think we are way behind,” Alan Menter, MD, chairman of the division of dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the guideline writing committee, said in an interview. “Most other countries update their guidelines every 1 or 2 years; we were 10 years behind.” The guidelines for systemic nonbiologic drugs follow up psoriasis guidelines issued by the AAD and the NPF on pediatric patients issued earlier this year, and on phototherapy, biologic treatments, and management of comorbidities issued last year.
“A lot has happened in the last 10 years,” said cochair Craig Elmets, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “While much of the interest is on biologic agents, nonbiologics are still used quite frequently, and the guidelines for their appropriate use have changed. Use of the guidelines provides people in the health profession with the most up to date evidence-based information so they can give their patients the best care.”
The guidelines acknowledge that the medications it covers are still widely used, either by themselves or in combination with biologic agents; readily available; easy to use; and, in the case of older therapies, relatively cheap.
Methotrexate has been available since the 1970s. Given as an injection or taken orally, the guidelines recommend supplementation with folic acid to counteract methotrexate’s side effects, particularly GI upset. The guidelines note that folic acid is less expensive than folinic acid. Combination therapy with methotrexate and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors is more effective than methotrexate monotherapy, with a similar side effect profile, the guidelines state.
Methotrexate is more widely used outside the United States, “but it is a very good, quick fix and it’s much safer in children and young people than it is in people with cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Menter noted. “It’s still the most commonly used drug worldwide because it’s cheap, and you do have to worry about the long-term toxicity which is related the liver issues.”
The guidelines say that subcutaneous administration of methotrexate “may be particularly useful” for patients on higher doses, which when taken orally, are associated with a higher risk of GI effects.
Dr. Menter referred to a 2017 study, which reported 41% of patients treated with subcutaneous methotrexate once a week achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 score of 41% after a year of treatment, compared with 10% of those on placebo (Lancet. 2017 Feb 4;389[10068]:528-37).
The guidelines rate strength of recommendation as class A for methotrexate for moderate to severe psoriasis in adults, recommend supplementation with folic or folinic acid to counteract GI complications and liver problems, and note that adalimumab and infliximab are more effective than methotrexate for cutaneous psoriasis. Class B recommendations for methotrexate and psoriasis include statements that patients should begin with a test dose, especially if they have impaired kidney function; methotrexate is effective for peripheral, but not axial, psoriatic arthritis (PsA); and TNF inhibitors are more effective than methotrexate for PsA.
Approved by the FDA in 2014 for psoriasis, apremilast, which inhibits phosphodiesterase-4, is the newest drug in the recommendations. The guidelines recommend its use for moderate to severe psoriasis in adults, with a class A recommendation. Patients should start on a low dose and then build up to the 30-mg, twice-daily dose over 6 days and should be counseled about the risk of depression before starting treatment. Routine laboratory testing can be considered on an individual basis.
The guidelines also lay out three recommendations (and strength of recommendation) for cyclosporine, a drug that’s been around since the 1990s: for severe, recalcitrant cases (class A); for erythrodermic, general pustular, and palmoplantar psoriasis (class B); and as short-term therapy for psoriasis flare in patients already on another drug (class C).
Acitretin is another longstanding therapy used mostly for palmar-plantar psoriasis, but it can also be used as monotherapy for plaque psoriasis as well as erythrodermic and pustular disease. It can also be used in combination with psoralens with UVA for psoriasis and combined with broadband UVB phototherapy for plaque psoriasis. The acitretin recommendations are class B.
The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib isn’t specifically approved for psoriasis, but it is approved for RA, PsA, and ulcerative colitis. The drug targets the JAK-STAT signaling pathway that causes inflammation. The guidelines state that tofacitinib can be considered for moderate to severe psoriasis, but lists no strength of recommendation. The recommended dose is either 5 or 10 mg orally twice a day, with a caveat that the higher dose carries a higher risk of adverse events. Patients should be evaluated for getting a zoster vaccine before they begin therapy.
“We thought that, because there was probably a small chance that it might get approved for psoriasis, that we would discuss it briefly,” Dr. Menter said of tofacitinib.
Another off-label use the guidelines address is for fumaric and acid esters, also known as fumarates, which are used to in Europe to treat moderate to severe psoriasis. Dimethyl fumarate is approved for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States. The guidelines state that fumarates can be used for psoriasis, but offer no strength of recommendation. Side effects include gastrointestinal disturbance and flushing.
Other treatments that are also addressed in the guidelines include a host of systemic immunosuppressants and antimetabolites: azathioprine, hydroxyurea, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, thioguanine, and tacrolimus, none of which are FDA approved for psoriasis. They’re rarely used for psoriasis, but may have value in selected cases, the guidelines state.
Dr. Menter said that apremilast is the only oral drug in the guidelines, but they are the wave of the future for treating psoriasis. “I think there’s a tremendous potential for new oral drugs – TK2 [thymidine kinase], the JAK inhibitors, and other drugs coming down the pipelines. The majority of patients, if you ask them their preference, would like to take an oral drug rather than an injectable drug. And it would be much easier for dermatologists, they wouldn’t have to train patients on how to do the injections.”
Dr. Menter and Dr. Elmets disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Other authors/work group members also had disclosures related to pharmaceutical manufacturers, and several had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Menter A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Feb 28. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.02.044.
It’s been 11 years since monotherapy and suggest a framework for a number of off-label treatments.
The guidelines, issued jointly with the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF), were published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“I think we are way behind,” Alan Menter, MD, chairman of the division of dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the guideline writing committee, said in an interview. “Most other countries update their guidelines every 1 or 2 years; we were 10 years behind.” The guidelines for systemic nonbiologic drugs follow up psoriasis guidelines issued by the AAD and the NPF on pediatric patients issued earlier this year, and on phototherapy, biologic treatments, and management of comorbidities issued last year.
“A lot has happened in the last 10 years,” said cochair Craig Elmets, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “While much of the interest is on biologic agents, nonbiologics are still used quite frequently, and the guidelines for their appropriate use have changed. Use of the guidelines provides people in the health profession with the most up to date evidence-based information so they can give their patients the best care.”
The guidelines acknowledge that the medications it covers are still widely used, either by themselves or in combination with biologic agents; readily available; easy to use; and, in the case of older therapies, relatively cheap.
Methotrexate has been available since the 1970s. Given as an injection or taken orally, the guidelines recommend supplementation with folic acid to counteract methotrexate’s side effects, particularly GI upset. The guidelines note that folic acid is less expensive than folinic acid. Combination therapy with methotrexate and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors is more effective than methotrexate monotherapy, with a similar side effect profile, the guidelines state.
Methotrexate is more widely used outside the United States, “but it is a very good, quick fix and it’s much safer in children and young people than it is in people with cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Menter noted. “It’s still the most commonly used drug worldwide because it’s cheap, and you do have to worry about the long-term toxicity which is related the liver issues.”
The guidelines say that subcutaneous administration of methotrexate “may be particularly useful” for patients on higher doses, which when taken orally, are associated with a higher risk of GI effects.
Dr. Menter referred to a 2017 study, which reported 41% of patients treated with subcutaneous methotrexate once a week achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 score of 41% after a year of treatment, compared with 10% of those on placebo (Lancet. 2017 Feb 4;389[10068]:528-37).
The guidelines rate strength of recommendation as class A for methotrexate for moderate to severe psoriasis in adults, recommend supplementation with folic or folinic acid to counteract GI complications and liver problems, and note that adalimumab and infliximab are more effective than methotrexate for cutaneous psoriasis. Class B recommendations for methotrexate and psoriasis include statements that patients should begin with a test dose, especially if they have impaired kidney function; methotrexate is effective for peripheral, but not axial, psoriatic arthritis (PsA); and TNF inhibitors are more effective than methotrexate for PsA.
Approved by the FDA in 2014 for psoriasis, apremilast, which inhibits phosphodiesterase-4, is the newest drug in the recommendations. The guidelines recommend its use for moderate to severe psoriasis in adults, with a class A recommendation. Patients should start on a low dose and then build up to the 30-mg, twice-daily dose over 6 days and should be counseled about the risk of depression before starting treatment. Routine laboratory testing can be considered on an individual basis.
The guidelines also lay out three recommendations (and strength of recommendation) for cyclosporine, a drug that’s been around since the 1990s: for severe, recalcitrant cases (class A); for erythrodermic, general pustular, and palmoplantar psoriasis (class B); and as short-term therapy for psoriasis flare in patients already on another drug (class C).
Acitretin is another longstanding therapy used mostly for palmar-plantar psoriasis, but it can also be used as monotherapy for plaque psoriasis as well as erythrodermic and pustular disease. It can also be used in combination with psoralens with UVA for psoriasis and combined with broadband UVB phototherapy for plaque psoriasis. The acitretin recommendations are class B.
The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib isn’t specifically approved for psoriasis, but it is approved for RA, PsA, and ulcerative colitis. The drug targets the JAK-STAT signaling pathway that causes inflammation. The guidelines state that tofacitinib can be considered for moderate to severe psoriasis, but lists no strength of recommendation. The recommended dose is either 5 or 10 mg orally twice a day, with a caveat that the higher dose carries a higher risk of adverse events. Patients should be evaluated for getting a zoster vaccine before they begin therapy.
“We thought that, because there was probably a small chance that it might get approved for psoriasis, that we would discuss it briefly,” Dr. Menter said of tofacitinib.
Another off-label use the guidelines address is for fumaric and acid esters, also known as fumarates, which are used to in Europe to treat moderate to severe psoriasis. Dimethyl fumarate is approved for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States. The guidelines state that fumarates can be used for psoriasis, but offer no strength of recommendation. Side effects include gastrointestinal disturbance and flushing.
Other treatments that are also addressed in the guidelines include a host of systemic immunosuppressants and antimetabolites: azathioprine, hydroxyurea, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, thioguanine, and tacrolimus, none of which are FDA approved for psoriasis. They’re rarely used for psoriasis, but may have value in selected cases, the guidelines state.
Dr. Menter said that apremilast is the only oral drug in the guidelines, but they are the wave of the future for treating psoriasis. “I think there’s a tremendous potential for new oral drugs – TK2 [thymidine kinase], the JAK inhibitors, and other drugs coming down the pipelines. The majority of patients, if you ask them their preference, would like to take an oral drug rather than an injectable drug. And it would be much easier for dermatologists, they wouldn’t have to train patients on how to do the injections.”
Dr. Menter and Dr. Elmets disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Other authors/work group members also had disclosures related to pharmaceutical manufacturers, and several had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Menter A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Feb 28. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.02.044.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection in a Hepatitis B Virus–Positive Psoriasis Patient Treated With Ustekinumab
To the Editor:
The incidence of psoriasis in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–infected patients is similar to the general population, but it usually becomes more severe as immunosuppression increases. Additionally, it tends to be more resistant to conventional therapies, and the incidence and severity of psoriatic arthropathy is increased. Psoriasis often worsens at the time of HIV primary infection.1 We describe a case of a patient with hepatitis B virus (HBV) whose severe plaque psoriasis was controlled on ustekinumab; he was later diagnosed with HIV infection.
A 42-year-old man with HBV treated with entecavir (HBV DNA viral load, <20 copies/mL [inactive carrier, <2000 copies/mL]) presented to our dermatology unit with severe plaque psoriasis (psoriasis area and severity index 23) that caused notable psychologic difficulties such as anxiety and depression. Treatment was attempted with cyclosporine; acitretin; psoralen plus UVA; infliximab; adalimumab; and eventually ustekinumab (45 mg every 3 months), which controlled the condition well (psoriasis area and severity index 0) in an almost completely sustained manner.
Serologic tests requested at one of his analytical control appointments 2 years after initiating treatment with ustekinumab revealed he was HIV positive. The patient reported unprotected sexual intercourse 4 months prior. He was referred to the infectious disease unit and was classified in subtype A1 of HIV infection (CD4 count, 583 cells/µL [reference range, 500-1200 cells/µL]; viral load, 159,268 copies/mL [rapid progression to AIDS, >100,000 copies/mL]). Treatment was initiated with raltegravir, ritonavir, darunavir, and abacavir; tolerance was suitable. Because of the patient’s history of severe psoriasis, treatment with ustekinumab was maintained. Normally, treatment with this drug would be contraindicated in patients with HIV, as it can lead to viral reactivation. Four years after his HIV diagnosis, neither the patient’s cutaneous nor HIV-associated condition had worsened.
For patients with HIV and mild or moderate psoriasis, topical therapies (eg, corticosteroids, vitamin D analogues, tazarotene) are recommended, similar to patients who are HIV negative. Human immunodeficiency virus–positive patients with severe psoriasis who do not respond to topical treatment should receive phototherapy (UVB or psoralen plus UVA) or acitretin along with their antiretroviral drugs.2 In refractory cases, immunosuppressants, including cyclosporine, methotrexate, or tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, might be used, though experience with them is limited.3,4 Maintaining antiretroviral therapy and prophylaxis against opportunist disease is important in patients who receive such immunosuppressants, as is close monitoring of the viral load.
Ustekinumab is an IL-12/IL-23 monoclonal antibody indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, active psoriatic arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is contraindicated in patients with clinically important active infections, such as HBV and hepatitis C virus infections.5 However, it was shown to be safe in a group of 18 patients with HBV who had received antiviral prophylaxis6; a degree of reactivation was observed in similar patients who received no such prophylaxis and in others with hepatitis C virus infection.7 The simultaneous use of methotrexate with ustekinumab in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis does not appear to affect the safety of the latter drug.8 Paparizos et al9 described a patient with HIV controlled with antiretroviral drugs who was treated with ustekinumab for psoriasis; no adverse effects were observed.
We report the case of a patient with HBV and psoriasis who was treated with ustekinumab and later became infected with HIV. His ustekinumab treatment was maintained without subsequent cutaneous or systemic complications.
- Menon K, Van Voorhees V, Bebo B, et al. Psoriasis in patients with HIV infection: from the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62:291-299.
- Chiricozzi A, Saraceno R, Cannizzaro MV. Complete resolution of erythrodermic psoriasis in an HIV and HCV patient unresponsive to antipsoriatic treatments after highly active antiretroviral therapy. Dermatology. 2012;225:333-337.
- Barco D, Puig L, Alomar A. Treatment of moderate-severe psoriasis with etanercept in patients with chronic human immunodeficiency virus infection. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2010;101(suppl 1):77-81.
- Lindsey SF, Weiss J, Lee ES, et al. Treatment of severe psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis with adalimumab in an HIV positive patient. J Drugs Dermatol. 2014;13:869-871.
- Rustin MH. Long-term safety of biologics in the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: review of the current data. Br J Dermatol. 2012;167(suppl 3):3-11.
- Navarro R, Vilarrasa E, Herranz P, et al. Safety and effectiveness of ustekinumab and antitumour necrosis factor therapy in patients with psoriasis and chronic viral hepatitis B or C: a retrospective, multicentre study in a clinical setting. Br J Dermatol. 2013;168:609-616.
- Chiu HY, Chen CH, Wu MS, et al. The safety profile of ustekinumab in the treatment of patients with psoriasis and concurrent hepatitis B or C. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169:1295-1303.
- Weitz JE, Ritchlin CT. Ustekinumab: targeting the IL-17 pathway to improve outcomes in psoriatic arthritis. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2014;14:515-526.
- Paparizos V, Rallis E, Kirsten L, et al. Ustekinumab for the treatment of HIV psoriasis. J Dermatol Treat. 2012;23:398-399.
To the Editor:
The incidence of psoriasis in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–infected patients is similar to the general population, but it usually becomes more severe as immunosuppression increases. Additionally, it tends to be more resistant to conventional therapies, and the incidence and severity of psoriatic arthropathy is increased. Psoriasis often worsens at the time of HIV primary infection.1 We describe a case of a patient with hepatitis B virus (HBV) whose severe plaque psoriasis was controlled on ustekinumab; he was later diagnosed with HIV infection.
A 42-year-old man with HBV treated with entecavir (HBV DNA viral load, <20 copies/mL [inactive carrier, <2000 copies/mL]) presented to our dermatology unit with severe plaque psoriasis (psoriasis area and severity index 23) that caused notable psychologic difficulties such as anxiety and depression. Treatment was attempted with cyclosporine; acitretin; psoralen plus UVA; infliximab; adalimumab; and eventually ustekinumab (45 mg every 3 months), which controlled the condition well (psoriasis area and severity index 0) in an almost completely sustained manner.
Serologic tests requested at one of his analytical control appointments 2 years after initiating treatment with ustekinumab revealed he was HIV positive. The patient reported unprotected sexual intercourse 4 months prior. He was referred to the infectious disease unit and was classified in subtype A1 of HIV infection (CD4 count, 583 cells/µL [reference range, 500-1200 cells/µL]; viral load, 159,268 copies/mL [rapid progression to AIDS, >100,000 copies/mL]). Treatment was initiated with raltegravir, ritonavir, darunavir, and abacavir; tolerance was suitable. Because of the patient’s history of severe psoriasis, treatment with ustekinumab was maintained. Normally, treatment with this drug would be contraindicated in patients with HIV, as it can lead to viral reactivation. Four years after his HIV diagnosis, neither the patient’s cutaneous nor HIV-associated condition had worsened.
For patients with HIV and mild or moderate psoriasis, topical therapies (eg, corticosteroids, vitamin D analogues, tazarotene) are recommended, similar to patients who are HIV negative. Human immunodeficiency virus–positive patients with severe psoriasis who do not respond to topical treatment should receive phototherapy (UVB or psoralen plus UVA) or acitretin along with their antiretroviral drugs.2 In refractory cases, immunosuppressants, including cyclosporine, methotrexate, or tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, might be used, though experience with them is limited.3,4 Maintaining antiretroviral therapy and prophylaxis against opportunist disease is important in patients who receive such immunosuppressants, as is close monitoring of the viral load.
Ustekinumab is an IL-12/IL-23 monoclonal antibody indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, active psoriatic arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is contraindicated in patients with clinically important active infections, such as HBV and hepatitis C virus infections.5 However, it was shown to be safe in a group of 18 patients with HBV who had received antiviral prophylaxis6; a degree of reactivation was observed in similar patients who received no such prophylaxis and in others with hepatitis C virus infection.7 The simultaneous use of methotrexate with ustekinumab in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis does not appear to affect the safety of the latter drug.8 Paparizos et al9 described a patient with HIV controlled with antiretroviral drugs who was treated with ustekinumab for psoriasis; no adverse effects were observed.
We report the case of a patient with HBV and psoriasis who was treated with ustekinumab and later became infected with HIV. His ustekinumab treatment was maintained without subsequent cutaneous or systemic complications.
To the Editor:
The incidence of psoriasis in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–infected patients is similar to the general population, but it usually becomes more severe as immunosuppression increases. Additionally, it tends to be more resistant to conventional therapies, and the incidence and severity of psoriatic arthropathy is increased. Psoriasis often worsens at the time of HIV primary infection.1 We describe a case of a patient with hepatitis B virus (HBV) whose severe plaque psoriasis was controlled on ustekinumab; he was later diagnosed with HIV infection.
A 42-year-old man with HBV treated with entecavir (HBV DNA viral load, <20 copies/mL [inactive carrier, <2000 copies/mL]) presented to our dermatology unit with severe plaque psoriasis (psoriasis area and severity index 23) that caused notable psychologic difficulties such as anxiety and depression. Treatment was attempted with cyclosporine; acitretin; psoralen plus UVA; infliximab; adalimumab; and eventually ustekinumab (45 mg every 3 months), which controlled the condition well (psoriasis area and severity index 0) in an almost completely sustained manner.
Serologic tests requested at one of his analytical control appointments 2 years after initiating treatment with ustekinumab revealed he was HIV positive. The patient reported unprotected sexual intercourse 4 months prior. He was referred to the infectious disease unit and was classified in subtype A1 of HIV infection (CD4 count, 583 cells/µL [reference range, 500-1200 cells/µL]; viral load, 159,268 copies/mL [rapid progression to AIDS, >100,000 copies/mL]). Treatment was initiated with raltegravir, ritonavir, darunavir, and abacavir; tolerance was suitable. Because of the patient’s history of severe psoriasis, treatment with ustekinumab was maintained. Normally, treatment with this drug would be contraindicated in patients with HIV, as it can lead to viral reactivation. Four years after his HIV diagnosis, neither the patient’s cutaneous nor HIV-associated condition had worsened.
For patients with HIV and mild or moderate psoriasis, topical therapies (eg, corticosteroids, vitamin D analogues, tazarotene) are recommended, similar to patients who are HIV negative. Human immunodeficiency virus–positive patients with severe psoriasis who do not respond to topical treatment should receive phototherapy (UVB or psoralen plus UVA) or acitretin along with their antiretroviral drugs.2 In refractory cases, immunosuppressants, including cyclosporine, methotrexate, or tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors, might be used, though experience with them is limited.3,4 Maintaining antiretroviral therapy and prophylaxis against opportunist disease is important in patients who receive such immunosuppressants, as is close monitoring of the viral load.
Ustekinumab is an IL-12/IL-23 monoclonal antibody indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, active psoriatic arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is contraindicated in patients with clinically important active infections, such as HBV and hepatitis C virus infections.5 However, it was shown to be safe in a group of 18 patients with HBV who had received antiviral prophylaxis6; a degree of reactivation was observed in similar patients who received no such prophylaxis and in others with hepatitis C virus infection.7 The simultaneous use of methotrexate with ustekinumab in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis does not appear to affect the safety of the latter drug.8 Paparizos et al9 described a patient with HIV controlled with antiretroviral drugs who was treated with ustekinumab for psoriasis; no adverse effects were observed.
We report the case of a patient with HBV and psoriasis who was treated with ustekinumab and later became infected with HIV. His ustekinumab treatment was maintained without subsequent cutaneous or systemic complications.
- Menon K, Van Voorhees V, Bebo B, et al. Psoriasis in patients with HIV infection: from the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62:291-299.
- Chiricozzi A, Saraceno R, Cannizzaro MV. Complete resolution of erythrodermic psoriasis in an HIV and HCV patient unresponsive to antipsoriatic treatments after highly active antiretroviral therapy. Dermatology. 2012;225:333-337.
- Barco D, Puig L, Alomar A. Treatment of moderate-severe psoriasis with etanercept in patients with chronic human immunodeficiency virus infection. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2010;101(suppl 1):77-81.
- Lindsey SF, Weiss J, Lee ES, et al. Treatment of severe psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis with adalimumab in an HIV positive patient. J Drugs Dermatol. 2014;13:869-871.
- Rustin MH. Long-term safety of biologics in the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: review of the current data. Br J Dermatol. 2012;167(suppl 3):3-11.
- Navarro R, Vilarrasa E, Herranz P, et al. Safety and effectiveness of ustekinumab and antitumour necrosis factor therapy in patients with psoriasis and chronic viral hepatitis B or C: a retrospective, multicentre study in a clinical setting. Br J Dermatol. 2013;168:609-616.
- Chiu HY, Chen CH, Wu MS, et al. The safety profile of ustekinumab in the treatment of patients with psoriasis and concurrent hepatitis B or C. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169:1295-1303.
- Weitz JE, Ritchlin CT. Ustekinumab: targeting the IL-17 pathway to improve outcomes in psoriatic arthritis. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2014;14:515-526.
- Paparizos V, Rallis E, Kirsten L, et al. Ustekinumab for the treatment of HIV psoriasis. J Dermatol Treat. 2012;23:398-399.
- Menon K, Van Voorhees V, Bebo B, et al. Psoriasis in patients with HIV infection: from the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62:291-299.
- Chiricozzi A, Saraceno R, Cannizzaro MV. Complete resolution of erythrodermic psoriasis in an HIV and HCV patient unresponsive to antipsoriatic treatments after highly active antiretroviral therapy. Dermatology. 2012;225:333-337.
- Barco D, Puig L, Alomar A. Treatment of moderate-severe psoriasis with etanercept in patients with chronic human immunodeficiency virus infection. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2010;101(suppl 1):77-81.
- Lindsey SF, Weiss J, Lee ES, et al. Treatment of severe psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis with adalimumab in an HIV positive patient. J Drugs Dermatol. 2014;13:869-871.
- Rustin MH. Long-term safety of biologics in the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: review of the current data. Br J Dermatol. 2012;167(suppl 3):3-11.
- Navarro R, Vilarrasa E, Herranz P, et al. Safety and effectiveness of ustekinumab and antitumour necrosis factor therapy in patients with psoriasis and chronic viral hepatitis B or C: a retrospective, multicentre study in a clinical setting. Br J Dermatol. 2013;168:609-616.
- Chiu HY, Chen CH, Wu MS, et al. The safety profile of ustekinumab in the treatment of patients with psoriasis and concurrent hepatitis B or C. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169:1295-1303.
- Weitz JE, Ritchlin CT. Ustekinumab: targeting the IL-17 pathway to improve outcomes in psoriatic arthritis. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2014;14:515-526.
- Paparizos V, Rallis E, Kirsten L, et al. Ustekinumab for the treatment of HIV psoriasis. J Dermatol Treat. 2012;23:398-399.
Practice Points
- Psoriasis in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) tends to be more resistant to conventional therapies.
- Experience is limited in the use of immunosuppressants and biologics to treat psoriasis in HIV patients.
- Maintaining antiretroviral therapy and prophylaxis against opportunist disease is important in HIV patients who receive biologics, as is close monitoring of the viral load.