Psoriasis

NEW YORK – From clinical trials to textbooks, patients with darker skin types who have psoriasis overall – and Black patients in particular – are underrepresented, which might at least partially explain why clinicians are slow to recognize nail involvement, even when the skin disease has already been diagnosed, according to Shari R. Lipner, MD.

In a recently published review of 45 randomized controlled trials of therapies for nail psoriasis, almost all included information about the gender of the patients enrolled, but only about 35% reported race and/or ethnicity, Dr. Lipner, associate professor of dermatology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, said at the Skin of Color Update 2023. The proportion climbed to 59% in trials that included at least one study site in the United States, although representation of non-White patients in studies conducted in the United States was not proportional to the population (13.4% vs. 39.9%), said Dr. Lipner, senior author of the review .
 

Black patients largely unrepresented in photos

When an Internet search was conducted for images of nail psoriasis, the proportion of images fell as the number of the Fitzpatrick scale increased. Fitzpatrick skin types 1 or 2 represented 70% of the images, skin types 3 to 4 represented about 27%, leaving just 3% represented by darker skin types, Dr. Lipner said.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Unfortunately, things are not much better if you look at the dermatology and nail-specific textbooks. In fact, the percentages we see are almost identical,” said Dr. Lipner, noting that her review of images suggested that only about 3% of images in textbooks are of Fitzpatrick skin types 5 or 6, an obstacle for clinicians learning to recognize nail involvement in skin of color patients with psoriasis.

“We have written a couple of papers on this topic, including a call to action” in a letter to the editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Lipner noted. “To ensure access to safe and effective treatments for all patient populations,” she and her coauthor wrote, “we advocate the prioritized enrollment of racial and ethnic minority groups in psoriasis, PsA [psoriatic arthritis], and NP [nail psoriasis] clinical trials.”

Data from the 2009-2010 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) confirms that psoriasis is less common in Blacks (1.9%) and Hispanics (1.6%) than Whites (3.6%). But these lower numbers still translate into substantial numbers nationally. Of those with psoriasis, the lifetime incidence of nail involvement has been variously estimated between 80% and 90%, Dr. Lipner said.

In about 10% of patients with psoriasis, nail involvement is isolated, occurring in the absence of skin lesions, a proportion that appears to be similar in Blacks and Whites according to Dr. Lipner.
 

Patient characteristics similar by race

In a study conducted at her own center, many of the characteristics of psoriasis were similar when those with a Fitzpatrick skin type 4 or higher were compared to those of 3 or lower. This included male-female distribution, smoking history, and presence of accompanying psoriatic arthritis. There was one discrepancy between lighter and darker skin.

“The big difference was that it took almost 3 years longer [on average] for darker skin to be diagnosed, and there was worse severity of disease,” Dr. Lipner said.

Like cutaneous manifestations of psoriasis, there are differences in appearance in the nail, many of which are simply produced by how skin color alters the appearance, such as the brownish hue of erythema in darker versus lighter skin. Dr. Lipner also noted that many of the features, such as keratosis, can be more severe in patients with darker skin types, but this is likely because of the delay in diagnosis.

The problem with overlooking nail psoriasis in patients of any skin color is the significant and independent adverse impact imposed by nail disease on quality of life, she added. She recounted the case of a 22-year-old Black patient whose nail psoriasis was overlooked even as she was being treated for her skin lesions.

“The diagnosis of nail psoriasis was missed for 3 years,” said Dr. Lipner, noting that the nail involvement was not trivial. “She had trouble doing her daily activities of life, but also, she was very embarrassed by her nails, not surprisingly.”

The problem of underrepresentation of Blacks in photos depicting nail diseases is not going unnoticed.

“Recently, there has been a concerted effort on the part of authors and editors to include more images of skin of color patients in published articles and textbooks,” said Jane S. Bellet, MD, professor of dermatology, Duke University, Durham, N.C.

An expert in nail disorders, particularly in children, Dr. Bellet said in an interview that this trend “must continue and increase in volume.” She said that the need for more images of nail disease in skin of color is not restricted to textbooks but includes “other learning materials, such as online atlases.”

Dr. Lipner and Dr. Bellet reported no potential conflicts of interest relative to this topic.

NEW YORK – From clinical trials to textbooks, patients with darker skin types who have psoriasis overall – and Black patients in particular – are underrepresented, which might at least partially explain why clinicians are slow to recognize nail involvement, even when the skin disease has already been diagnosed, according to Shari R. Lipner, MD.

In a recently published review of 45 randomized controlled trials of therapies for nail psoriasis, almost all included information about the gender of the patients enrolled, but only about 35% reported race and/or ethnicity, Dr. Lipner, associate professor of dermatology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, said at the Skin of Color Update 2023. The proportion climbed to 59% in trials that included at least one study site in the United States, although representation of non-White patients in studies conducted in the United States was not proportional to the population (13.4% vs. 39.9%), said Dr. Lipner, senior author of the review .
 

Black patients largely unrepresented in photos

When an Internet search was conducted for images of nail psoriasis, the proportion of images fell as the number of the Fitzpatrick scale increased. Fitzpatrick skin types 1 or 2 represented 70% of the images, skin types 3 to 4 represented about 27%, leaving just 3% represented by darker skin types, Dr. Lipner said.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Unfortunately, things are not much better if you look at the dermatology and nail-specific textbooks. In fact, the percentages we see are almost identical,” said Dr. Lipner, noting that her review of images suggested that only about 3% of images in textbooks are of Fitzpatrick skin types 5 or 6, an obstacle for clinicians learning to recognize nail involvement in skin of color patients with psoriasis.

“We have written a couple of papers on this topic, including a call to action” in a letter to the editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Lipner noted. “To ensure access to safe and effective treatments for all patient populations,” she and her coauthor wrote, “we advocate the prioritized enrollment of racial and ethnic minority groups in psoriasis, PsA [psoriatic arthritis], and NP [nail psoriasis] clinical trials.”

Data from the 2009-2010 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) confirms that psoriasis is less common in Blacks (1.9%) and Hispanics (1.6%) than Whites (3.6%). But these lower numbers still translate into substantial numbers nationally. Of those with psoriasis, the lifetime incidence of nail involvement has been variously estimated between 80% and 90%, Dr. Lipner said.

In about 10% of patients with psoriasis, nail involvement is isolated, occurring in the absence of skin lesions, a proportion that appears to be similar in Blacks and Whites according to Dr. Lipner.
 

Patient characteristics similar by race

In a study conducted at her own center, many of the characteristics of psoriasis were similar when those with a Fitzpatrick skin type 4 or higher were compared to those of 3 or lower. This included male-female distribution, smoking history, and presence of accompanying psoriatic arthritis. There was one discrepancy between lighter and darker skin.

“The big difference was that it took almost 3 years longer [on average] for darker skin to be diagnosed, and there was worse severity of disease,” Dr. Lipner said.

Like cutaneous manifestations of psoriasis, there are differences in appearance in the nail, many of which are simply produced by how skin color alters the appearance, such as the brownish hue of erythema in darker versus lighter skin. Dr. Lipner also noted that many of the features, such as keratosis, can be more severe in patients with darker skin types, but this is likely because of the delay in diagnosis.

The problem with overlooking nail psoriasis in patients of any skin color is the significant and independent adverse impact imposed by nail disease on quality of life, she added. She recounted the case of a 22-year-old Black patient whose nail psoriasis was overlooked even as she was being treated for her skin lesions.

“The diagnosis of nail psoriasis was missed for 3 years,” said Dr. Lipner, noting that the nail involvement was not trivial. “She had trouble doing her daily activities of life, but also, she was very embarrassed by her nails, not surprisingly.”

The problem of underrepresentation of Blacks in photos depicting nail diseases is not going unnoticed.

“Recently, there has been a concerted effort on the part of authors and editors to include more images of skin of color patients in published articles and textbooks,” said Jane S. Bellet, MD, professor of dermatology, Duke University, Durham, N.C.

An expert in nail disorders, particularly in children, Dr. Bellet said in an interview that this trend “must continue and increase in volume.” She said that the need for more images of nail disease in skin of color is not restricted to textbooks but includes “other learning materials, such as online atlases.”

Dr. Lipner and Dr. Bellet reported no potential conflicts of interest relative to this topic.

NEW YORK – From clinical trials to textbooks, patients with darker skin types who have psoriasis overall – and Black patients in particular – are underrepresented, which might at least partially explain why clinicians are slow to recognize nail involvement, even when the skin disease has already been diagnosed, according to Shari R. Lipner, MD.

In a recently published review of 45 randomized controlled trials of therapies for nail psoriasis, almost all included information about the gender of the patients enrolled, but only about 35% reported race and/or ethnicity, Dr. Lipner, associate professor of dermatology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, said at the Skin of Color Update 2023. The proportion climbed to 59% in trials that included at least one study site in the United States, although representation of non-White patients in studies conducted in the United States was not proportional to the population (13.4% vs. 39.9%), said Dr. Lipner, senior author of the review .
 

Black patients largely unrepresented in photos

When an Internet search was conducted for images of nail psoriasis, the proportion of images fell as the number of the Fitzpatrick scale increased. Fitzpatrick skin types 1 or 2 represented 70% of the images, skin types 3 to 4 represented about 27%, leaving just 3% represented by darker skin types, Dr. Lipner said.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Unfortunately, things are not much better if you look at the dermatology and nail-specific textbooks. In fact, the percentages we see are almost identical,” said Dr. Lipner, noting that her review of images suggested that only about 3% of images in textbooks are of Fitzpatrick skin types 5 or 6, an obstacle for clinicians learning to recognize nail involvement in skin of color patients with psoriasis.

“We have written a couple of papers on this topic, including a call to action” in a letter to the editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Lipner noted. “To ensure access to safe and effective treatments for all patient populations,” she and her coauthor wrote, “we advocate the prioritized enrollment of racial and ethnic minority groups in psoriasis, PsA [psoriatic arthritis], and NP [nail psoriasis] clinical trials.”

Data from the 2009-2010 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) confirms that psoriasis is less common in Blacks (1.9%) and Hispanics (1.6%) than Whites (3.6%). But these lower numbers still translate into substantial numbers nationally. Of those with psoriasis, the lifetime incidence of nail involvement has been variously estimated between 80% and 90%, Dr. Lipner said.

In about 10% of patients with psoriasis, nail involvement is isolated, occurring in the absence of skin lesions, a proportion that appears to be similar in Blacks and Whites according to Dr. Lipner.
 

Patient characteristics similar by race

In a study conducted at her own center, many of the characteristics of psoriasis were similar when those with a Fitzpatrick skin type 4 or higher were compared to those of 3 or lower. This included male-female distribution, smoking history, and presence of accompanying psoriatic arthritis. There was one discrepancy between lighter and darker skin.

“The big difference was that it took almost 3 years longer [on average] for darker skin to be diagnosed, and there was worse severity of disease,” Dr. Lipner said.

Like cutaneous manifestations of psoriasis, there are differences in appearance in the nail, many of which are simply produced by how skin color alters the appearance, such as the brownish hue of erythema in darker versus lighter skin. Dr. Lipner also noted that many of the features, such as keratosis, can be more severe in patients with darker skin types, but this is likely because of the delay in diagnosis.

The problem with overlooking nail psoriasis in patients of any skin color is the significant and independent adverse impact imposed by nail disease on quality of life, she added. She recounted the case of a 22-year-old Black patient whose nail psoriasis was overlooked even as she was being treated for her skin lesions.

“The diagnosis of nail psoriasis was missed for 3 years,” said Dr. Lipner, noting that the nail involvement was not trivial. “She had trouble doing her daily activities of life, but also, she was very embarrassed by her nails, not surprisingly.”

The problem of underrepresentation of Blacks in photos depicting nail diseases is not going unnoticed.

“Recently, there has been a concerted effort on the part of authors and editors to include more images of skin of color patients in published articles and textbooks,” said Jane S. Bellet, MD, professor of dermatology, Duke University, Durham, N.C.

An expert in nail disorders, particularly in children, Dr. Bellet said in an interview that this trend “must continue and increase in volume.” She said that the need for more images of nail disease in skin of color is not restricted to textbooks but includes “other learning materials, such as online atlases.”

Dr. Lipner and Dr. Bellet reported no potential conflicts of interest relative to this topic.

NEW YORK – Many inflammatory diseases, such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis (AD), can present differently in patients with darker skin types, but it is the pigmentary changes themselves that are often a dominant concern for parents, according to pediatric dermatologist Candrice R. Heath, MD.

Skin diseases pose a greater risk of both hyper- and hypopigmentation in patients with darker skin types, but the fear and concern that this raises for permanent disfigurement is not limited to Blacks, Dr. Heath, assistant professor of pediatric dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said at the Skin of Color Update 2023.

“Culturally, pigmentation changes can be huge. For people of Indian descent, for example, pigmentary changes like light spots on the skin might be an obstacle to marriage, so it can really be life changing,” she added.

In patients with darker skin tones presenting with an inflammatory skin disease, such as AD or psoriasis, Dr. Heath advised asking specifically about change in skin tone even if it is not readily apparent. In pediatric patients, it is also appropriate to include parents in this conversation.
 

Consider the parent’s perspective

“When you are taking care of a child or adolescent, the patient is likely to be concerned about changes in pigmentation, but it is important to remember that the adult in the room might have had their own journey with brown skin and has dealt with the burden of pigment changes,” Dr. Heath said.

For the parent, the pigmentation changes, rather than the inflammation, might be the governing issue and the reason that he or she brought the child to the clinician. Dr. Heath suggested that it is important for caregivers to explicitly recognize their concern, explain that addressing the pigmentary changes is part of the treatment plan, and to create realistic expectations about how long pigmentary changes will take to resolve.

As an example, Dr. Heath recounted a difficult case of a Black infant with disseminated hyperpigmentation and features that did not preclude pathology other than AD. Dr. Heath created a multifaceted treatment plan to address the inflammation in distinct areas of the body that included low-strength topical steroids for the face, stronger steroids for the body, and advice on scalp and skin care.

“I thought this was a great treatment plan out of the gate – I was covering all of the things on my differential list – I thought that the mom would be thinking, this doctor is amazing,” Dr. Heath said.
 

Pigmentary changes are a priority

However, that was not what the patient’s mother was thinking. Having failed to explicitly recognize her concern about the pigmentation changes and how the treatment would address this issue, the mother was disappointed.

“She had one question: Will my baby ever be one color? That was her main concern,” said Dr. Heath, indicating that other clinicians seeing inflammatory diseases in children with darker skin types can learn from her experience.

“Really, you have to acknowledge that the condition you are treating is causing the pigmentation change, and we do see that and that we have a treatment plan in place,” she said.

Because of differences in how inflammatory skin diseases present in darker skin types, there is plenty of room for a delayed diagnosis for clinicians who do not see many of these patients, according to Dr. Heath. Follicular eczema, which is common in skin of color, often presents with pruritus but differences in the appearance of the underlying disease can threaten a delay in diagnosis.

In cases of follicular eczema with itch in darker skin, the bumps look and feel like goose bumps, which “means that the eczema is really active and inflamed,” Dr. Heath said. When the skin becomes smooth and the itch dissipates, “you know that they are under great control.”

Psoriasis is often missed in children with darker skin types based on the misperception that it is rare. Although it is true that it is less common in Blacks than Whites, it is not rare, according to Dr. Heath. In inspecting the telltale erythematous plaque–like lesions, clinicians might start to consider alternative diagnoses when they do not detect the same erythematous appearance, but the reddish tone is often concealed in darker skin.

She said that predominant involvement in the head and neck and diaper area is often more common in children of color and that nail or scalp involvement, when present, is often a clue that psoriasis is the diagnosis.

Again, because many clinicians do not think immediately of psoriasis in darker skin children with lesions in the scalp, Dr. Heath advised this is another reason to include psoriasis in the differential diagnosis.

“If you have a child that has failed multiple courses of treatment for tinea capitis and they have well-demarcated plaques, it’s time to really start to think about pediatric psoriasis,” she said.
 

Restoring skin tone can be the priority

Asked to comment on Dr. Heath’s advice about the importance of acknowledging pigmentary changes associated with inflammatory skin diseases in patients of color, Jenna Lester, MD, the founding director of the Skin of Color Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, called it an “often unspoken concern of patients.”

“Pigmentary changes that occur secondary to an inflammatory condition should be addressed and treated alongside the inciting condition,” she agreed.

Even if changes in skin color or skin tone are not a specific complaint of the patients, Dr. Lester also urged clinicians to raise the topic. If change in skin pigmentation is part of the clinical picture, this should be targeted in the treatment plan.

“In acne, for example, often times I find that patients are as worried about postinflammatory hyperpigmentation as they are about their acne,” she said, reiterating the advice provided by Dr. Heath.

Dr. Heath has financial relationships with Arcutis, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, and Regeneron. Dr. Lester reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW YORK – Many inflammatory diseases, such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis (AD), can present differently in patients with darker skin types, but it is the pigmentary changes themselves that are often a dominant concern for parents, according to pediatric dermatologist Candrice R. Heath, MD.

Skin diseases pose a greater risk of both hyper- and hypopigmentation in patients with darker skin types, but the fear and concern that this raises for permanent disfigurement is not limited to Blacks, Dr. Heath, assistant professor of pediatric dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said at the Skin of Color Update 2023.

“Culturally, pigmentation changes can be huge. For people of Indian descent, for example, pigmentary changes like light spots on the skin might be an obstacle to marriage, so it can really be life changing,” she added.

In patients with darker skin tones presenting with an inflammatory skin disease, such as AD or psoriasis, Dr. Heath advised asking specifically about change in skin tone even if it is not readily apparent. In pediatric patients, it is also appropriate to include parents in this conversation.
 

Consider the parent’s perspective

“When you are taking care of a child or adolescent, the patient is likely to be concerned about changes in pigmentation, but it is important to remember that the adult in the room might have had their own journey with brown skin and has dealt with the burden of pigment changes,” Dr. Heath said.

For the parent, the pigmentation changes, rather than the inflammation, might be the governing issue and the reason that he or she brought the child to the clinician. Dr. Heath suggested that it is important for caregivers to explicitly recognize their concern, explain that addressing the pigmentary changes is part of the treatment plan, and to create realistic expectations about how long pigmentary changes will take to resolve.

As an example, Dr. Heath recounted a difficult case of a Black infant with disseminated hyperpigmentation and features that did not preclude pathology other than AD. Dr. Heath created a multifaceted treatment plan to address the inflammation in distinct areas of the body that included low-strength topical steroids for the face, stronger steroids for the body, and advice on scalp and skin care.

“I thought this was a great treatment plan out of the gate – I was covering all of the things on my differential list – I thought that the mom would be thinking, this doctor is amazing,” Dr. Heath said.
 

Pigmentary changes are a priority

However, that was not what the patient’s mother was thinking. Having failed to explicitly recognize her concern about the pigmentation changes and how the treatment would address this issue, the mother was disappointed.

“She had one question: Will my baby ever be one color? That was her main concern,” said Dr. Heath, indicating that other clinicians seeing inflammatory diseases in children with darker skin types can learn from her experience.

“Really, you have to acknowledge that the condition you are treating is causing the pigmentation change, and we do see that and that we have a treatment plan in place,” she said.

Because of differences in how inflammatory skin diseases present in darker skin types, there is plenty of room for a delayed diagnosis for clinicians who do not see many of these patients, according to Dr. Heath. Follicular eczema, which is common in skin of color, often presents with pruritus but differences in the appearance of the underlying disease can threaten a delay in diagnosis.

In cases of follicular eczema with itch in darker skin, the bumps look and feel like goose bumps, which “means that the eczema is really active and inflamed,” Dr. Heath said. When the skin becomes smooth and the itch dissipates, “you know that they are under great control.”

Psoriasis is often missed in children with darker skin types based on the misperception that it is rare. Although it is true that it is less common in Blacks than Whites, it is not rare, according to Dr. Heath. In inspecting the telltale erythematous plaque–like lesions, clinicians might start to consider alternative diagnoses when they do not detect the same erythematous appearance, but the reddish tone is often concealed in darker skin.

She said that predominant involvement in the head and neck and diaper area is often more common in children of color and that nail or scalp involvement, when present, is often a clue that psoriasis is the diagnosis.

Again, because many clinicians do not think immediately of psoriasis in darker skin children with lesions in the scalp, Dr. Heath advised this is another reason to include psoriasis in the differential diagnosis.

“If you have a child that has failed multiple courses of treatment for tinea capitis and they have well-demarcated plaques, it’s time to really start to think about pediatric psoriasis,” she said.
 

Restoring skin tone can be the priority

Asked to comment on Dr. Heath’s advice about the importance of acknowledging pigmentary changes associated with inflammatory skin diseases in patients of color, Jenna Lester, MD, the founding director of the Skin of Color Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, called it an “often unspoken concern of patients.”

“Pigmentary changes that occur secondary to an inflammatory condition should be addressed and treated alongside the inciting condition,” she agreed.

Even if changes in skin color or skin tone are not a specific complaint of the patients, Dr. Lester also urged clinicians to raise the topic. If change in skin pigmentation is part of the clinical picture, this should be targeted in the treatment plan.

“In acne, for example, often times I find that patients are as worried about postinflammatory hyperpigmentation as they are about their acne,” she said, reiterating the advice provided by Dr. Heath.

Dr. Heath has financial relationships with Arcutis, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, and Regeneron. Dr. Lester reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW YORK – Many inflammatory diseases, such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis (AD), can present differently in patients with darker skin types, but it is the pigmentary changes themselves that are often a dominant concern for parents, according to pediatric dermatologist Candrice R. Heath, MD.

Skin diseases pose a greater risk of both hyper- and hypopigmentation in patients with darker skin types, but the fear and concern that this raises for permanent disfigurement is not limited to Blacks, Dr. Heath, assistant professor of pediatric dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said at the Skin of Color Update 2023.

“Culturally, pigmentation changes can be huge. For people of Indian descent, for example, pigmentary changes like light spots on the skin might be an obstacle to marriage, so it can really be life changing,” she added.

In patients with darker skin tones presenting with an inflammatory skin disease, such as AD or psoriasis, Dr. Heath advised asking specifically about change in skin tone even if it is not readily apparent. In pediatric patients, it is also appropriate to include parents in this conversation.
 

Consider the parent’s perspective

“When you are taking care of a child or adolescent, the patient is likely to be concerned about changes in pigmentation, but it is important to remember that the adult in the room might have had their own journey with brown skin and has dealt with the burden of pigment changes,” Dr. Heath said.

For the parent, the pigmentation changes, rather than the inflammation, might be the governing issue and the reason that he or she brought the child to the clinician. Dr. Heath suggested that it is important for caregivers to explicitly recognize their concern, explain that addressing the pigmentary changes is part of the treatment plan, and to create realistic expectations about how long pigmentary changes will take to resolve.

As an example, Dr. Heath recounted a difficult case of a Black infant with disseminated hyperpigmentation and features that did not preclude pathology other than AD. Dr. Heath created a multifaceted treatment plan to address the inflammation in distinct areas of the body that included low-strength topical steroids for the face, stronger steroids for the body, and advice on scalp and skin care.

“I thought this was a great treatment plan out of the gate – I was covering all of the things on my differential list – I thought that the mom would be thinking, this doctor is amazing,” Dr. Heath said.
 

Pigmentary changes are a priority

However, that was not what the patient’s mother was thinking. Having failed to explicitly recognize her concern about the pigmentation changes and how the treatment would address this issue, the mother was disappointed.

“She had one question: Will my baby ever be one color? That was her main concern,” said Dr. Heath, indicating that other clinicians seeing inflammatory diseases in children with darker skin types can learn from her experience.

“Really, you have to acknowledge that the condition you are treating is causing the pigmentation change, and we do see that and that we have a treatment plan in place,” she said.

Because of differences in how inflammatory skin diseases present in darker skin types, there is plenty of room for a delayed diagnosis for clinicians who do not see many of these patients, according to Dr. Heath. Follicular eczema, which is common in skin of color, often presents with pruritus but differences in the appearance of the underlying disease can threaten a delay in diagnosis.

In cases of follicular eczema with itch in darker skin, the bumps look and feel like goose bumps, which “means that the eczema is really active and inflamed,” Dr. Heath said. When the skin becomes smooth and the itch dissipates, “you know that they are under great control.”

Psoriasis is often missed in children with darker skin types based on the misperception that it is rare. Although it is true that it is less common in Blacks than Whites, it is not rare, according to Dr. Heath. In inspecting the telltale erythematous plaque–like lesions, clinicians might start to consider alternative diagnoses when they do not detect the same erythematous appearance, but the reddish tone is often concealed in darker skin.

She said that predominant involvement in the head and neck and diaper area is often more common in children of color and that nail or scalp involvement, when present, is often a clue that psoriasis is the diagnosis.

Again, because many clinicians do not think immediately of psoriasis in darker skin children with lesions in the scalp, Dr. Heath advised this is another reason to include psoriasis in the differential diagnosis.

“If you have a child that has failed multiple courses of treatment for tinea capitis and they have well-demarcated plaques, it’s time to really start to think about pediatric psoriasis,” she said.
 

Restoring skin tone can be the priority

Asked to comment on Dr. Heath’s advice about the importance of acknowledging pigmentary changes associated with inflammatory skin diseases in patients of color, Jenna Lester, MD, the founding director of the Skin of Color Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, called it an “often unspoken concern of patients.”

“Pigmentary changes that occur secondary to an inflammatory condition should be addressed and treated alongside the inciting condition,” she agreed.

Even if changes in skin color or skin tone are not a specific complaint of the patients, Dr. Lester also urged clinicians to raise the topic. If change in skin pigmentation is part of the clinical picture, this should be targeted in the treatment plan.

“In acne, for example, often times I find that patients are as worried about postinflammatory hyperpigmentation as they are about their acne,” she said, reiterating the advice provided by Dr. Heath.

Dr. Heath has financial relationships with Arcutis, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, and Regeneron. Dr. Lester reported no potential conflicts of interest.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the pilosebaceous unit that occurs in concert with elevations of various cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), IL-1β, IL-10, and IL-17.^1,2 Adalimumab is a TNF-α inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS. Although TNF-α inhibitors are effective for many immune-mediated inflammatory disorders, paradoxical drug reactions have been reported following treatment with these agents.^3-6 True paradoxical drug reactions likely are immune mediated and directly lead to new onset of a pathologic condition that would otherwise respond to that drug. For example, there are reports of rheumatoid arthritis patients who were treated with a TNF-α inhibitor and developed psoriatic skin lesions.^3,6 Paradoxical drug reactions also have been reported with acute-onset inflammatory bowel disease and HS or less commonly pyoderma gangrenosum (PG), uveitis, granulomatous reactions, and vasculitis.^4,5 We present the case of a patient with HS who was treated with a TNF-α inhibitor and developed 2 distinct paradoxical drug reactions. We also provide an overview of paradoxical drug reactions associated with TNF-α inhibitors.

A 38-year-old woman developed a painful “boil” on the right leg that was previously treated in the emergency department with incision and drainage as well as oral clindamycin for 7 days, but the lesion spread and continued to worsen. She had a history of HS in the axillae and groin region that had been present since 12 years of age. The condition was poorly controlled despite multiple courses of oral antibiotics and surgical resections. An oral contraceptive also was attempted, but the patient discontinued treatment when liver enzyme levels became elevated. The patient had no other notable medical history, including skin disease. There was a family history of HS in her father and a sibling. Seeking more effective treatment, the patient was offered adalimumab approximately 4 months prior to clinical presentation and agreed to start a course of the drug. She received a loading dose of 160 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on day 15 followed by a maintenance dosage of 40 mg weekly. She experienced improvement in HS symptoms after 3 months on adalimumab; however, she developed scaly pruritic patches on the scalp, arms, and legs that were consistent with psoriasis. Because of the absence of a personal or family history of psoriasis, the patient was informed of the probability of paradoxical psoriasis resulting from adalimumab. She elected to continue adalimumab because of the improvement in HS symptoms, and the psoriatic lesions were mild and adequately controlled with a topical steroid.

At the current presentation 1 month later, physical examination revealed a large indurated and ulcerated area with jagged edges at the incision and drainage site (Figure 1). Pyoderma gangrenosum was clinically suspected; a biopsy was performed, and the patient was started on oral prednisone. At 2-week follow-up, the ulcer was found to be rapidly resolving with prednisone and healing with cribriform scarring (Figure 2). Histopathology revealed an undermining neutrophilic inflammatory process that was consistent with PG. A diagnosis of PG was made based on previously published criteria⁷ and the following major/minor criteria in the patient: pathology; absence of infection on histologic analysis; history of pathergy related to worsening ulceration at the site of incision and drainage of the initial boil; clinical findings of an ulcer with peripheral violaceous erythema; undermined borders and tenderness at the site; and rapid resolution of the ulcer with prednisone.

Cessation of adalimumab gradually led to clearance of both psoriasiform lesions and PG; however, HS lesions persisted. At 2-month follow-up, the patient remained clear of new psoriatic and PG lesions. Alternative treatment options for HS, including isotretinoin and other biologic agents, were discussed with the patient. She was subsequently lost to follow-up.

Although the precise pathogenesis of HS is unclear, both genetic abnormalities of the pilosebaceous unit and a dysregulated immune reaction appear to lead to the clinical characteristics of chronic inflammation and scarring seen in HS. A key effector appears to be helper T-cell (T_H17) lymphocyte activation, with increased secretion of TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-17.^1,2 In turn, IL-17 induces higher expression of TNF-α, leading to a persistent cycle of inflammation. Peripheral recruitment of IL-17–producing neutrophils also may contribute to chronic inflammation.⁸

Adalimumab is the only US Food and Drug Administration–approved biologic indicated for the treatment of HS. Our patient initially responded to adalimumab with improvement of HS; however, treatment had to be discontinued because of the unusual occurrence of 2 distinct paradoxical reactions in a short span of time. Psoriasis and PG are both considered true paradoxical reactions because primary occurrences of both diseases usually are responsive to treatment with adalimumab.

Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor–induced psoriasis arises de novo and is estimated to occur in approximately 5% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.^3,6 Palmoplantar pustular psoriasiform reactions are the most common form of paradoxical psoriasis. Topical medications can be used to treat skin lesions, but systemic treatment is required in many cases. Switching to an alternate class of a biologic, such as an IL-17, IL-12/23, or IL-23 inhibitor, can improve the skin reaction; however, such treatment is inconsistently successful, and paradoxical drug reactions also have been seen with these other classes of biologics.^4,9

Recent studies support distinct immune causes for classical and paradoxical psoriasis. In classical psoriasis, plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) produce IFN-α, which stimulates conventional dendritic cells to produce TNF-α. However, TNF-α matures both pDCs and conventional dendritic cells; upon maturation, both types of dendritic cells lose the ability to produce IFN-α, thus allowing TNF-α to become dominant.¹⁰ The blockade of TNF-α prevents pDC maturation, leading to uninhibited IFN-α, which appears to drive inflammation in paradoxical psoriasis. In classical psoriasis, oligoclonal dermal CD4⁺ T cells and epidermal CD8⁺ T cells remain, even in resolved skin lesions, and can cause disease recurrence through reactivation of skin-resident memory T cells.¹¹ No relapse of paradoxical psoriasis occurs with discontinuation of anti-TNF-α therapy, which supports the notion of an absence of memory T cells.

The incidence of paradoxical psoriasis in patients receiving a TNF-α inhibitor for HS is unclear.¹² There are case series in which patients who had concurrent psoriasis and HS were successfully treated with a TNF-α inhibitor.¹³ A recently recognized condition—PASH syndrome—encompasses the clinical triad of PG, acne, and HS.¹⁰

Our patient had no history of acne or PG, only a long-standing history of HS. New-onset PG occurred only after a TNF-α inhibitor was initiated. Notably, PASH syndrome has been successfully treated with TNF-α inhibitors, highlighting the shared inflammatory etiology of HS and PG.¹⁴ In patients with concurrent PG and HS, TNF-α inhibitors were more effective for treating PG than for HS.

Pyoderma gangrenosum is an inflammatory disorder that often occurs concomitantly with other conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease. The exact underlying cause of PG is unclear, but there appears to be both neutrophil and T-cell dysfunction in PG, with excess inflammatory cytokine production (eg, IL-1β, TNF-α, IL-17).¹⁵

The mainstay of treatment of PG is systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressives, such as cyclosporine. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors as well as other interleukin inhibitors are increasingly utilized as potential therapeutic alternatives for PG.^16,17

Unlike paradoxical psoriasis, the underlying cause of paradoxical PG is unclear.^18,19 A similar mechanism may be postulated whereby inhibition of TNF-α leads to excessive activation of alternative inflammatory pathways that result in paradoxical PG. In one study, the prevalence of PG among 68,232 patients with HS was 0.18% compared with 0.01% among those without HS; therefore, patients with HS appear to be more predisposed to PG.²⁰

This case illustrates the complex, often conflicting effects of cytokine inhibition in the paradoxical elicitation of alternative inflammatory disorders as an unintended consequence of the initial cytokine blockade. It is likely that genetic predisposition allows for paradoxical reactions in some patients when there is predominant inhibition of one cytokine in the inflammatory pathway. In rare cases, multiple paradoxical reactions are possible.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the pilosebaceous unit that occurs in concert with elevations of various cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), IL-1β, IL-10, and IL-17.^1,2 Adalimumab is a TNF-α inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS. Although TNF-α inhibitors are effective for many immune-mediated inflammatory disorders, paradoxical drug reactions have been reported following treatment with these agents.^3-6 True paradoxical drug reactions likely are immune mediated and directly lead to new onset of a pathologic condition that would otherwise respond to that drug. For example, there are reports of rheumatoid arthritis patients who were treated with a TNF-α inhibitor and developed psoriatic skin lesions.^3,6 Paradoxical drug reactions also have been reported with acute-onset inflammatory bowel disease and HS or less commonly pyoderma gangrenosum (PG), uveitis, granulomatous reactions, and vasculitis.^4,5 We present the case of a patient with HS who was treated with a TNF-α inhibitor and developed 2 distinct paradoxical drug reactions. We also provide an overview of paradoxical drug reactions associated with TNF-α inhibitors.

A 38-year-old woman developed a painful “boil” on the right leg that was previously treated in the emergency department with incision and drainage as well as oral clindamycin for 7 days, but the lesion spread and continued to worsen. She had a history of HS in the axillae and groin region that had been present since 12 years of age. The condition was poorly controlled despite multiple courses of oral antibiotics and surgical resections. An oral contraceptive also was attempted, but the patient discontinued treatment when liver enzyme levels became elevated. The patient had no other notable medical history, including skin disease. There was a family history of HS in her father and a sibling. Seeking more effective treatment, the patient was offered adalimumab approximately 4 months prior to clinical presentation and agreed to start a course of the drug. She received a loading dose of 160 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on day 15 followed by a maintenance dosage of 40 mg weekly. She experienced improvement in HS symptoms after 3 months on adalimumab; however, she developed scaly pruritic patches on the scalp, arms, and legs that were consistent with psoriasis. Because of the absence of a personal or family history of psoriasis, the patient was informed of the probability of paradoxical psoriasis resulting from adalimumab. She elected to continue adalimumab because of the improvement in HS symptoms, and the psoriatic lesions were mild and adequately controlled with a topical steroid.

At the current presentation 1 month later, physical examination revealed a large indurated and ulcerated area with jagged edges at the incision and drainage site (Figure 1). Pyoderma gangrenosum was clinically suspected; a biopsy was performed, and the patient was started on oral prednisone. At 2-week follow-up, the ulcer was found to be rapidly resolving with prednisone and healing with cribriform scarring (Figure 2). Histopathology revealed an undermining neutrophilic inflammatory process that was consistent with PG. A diagnosis of PG was made based on previously published criteria⁷ and the following major/minor criteria in the patient: pathology; absence of infection on histologic analysis; history of pathergy related to worsening ulceration at the site of incision and drainage of the initial boil; clinical findings of an ulcer with peripheral violaceous erythema; undermined borders and tenderness at the site; and rapid resolution of the ulcer with prednisone.

Cessation of adalimumab gradually led to clearance of both psoriasiform lesions and PG; however, HS lesions persisted. At 2-month follow-up, the patient remained clear of new psoriatic and PG lesions. Alternative treatment options for HS, including isotretinoin and other biologic agents, were discussed with the patient. She was subsequently lost to follow-up.

Although the precise pathogenesis of HS is unclear, both genetic abnormalities of the pilosebaceous unit and a dysregulated immune reaction appear to lead to the clinical characteristics of chronic inflammation and scarring seen in HS. A key effector appears to be helper T-cell (T_H17) lymphocyte activation, with increased secretion of TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-17.^1,2 In turn, IL-17 induces higher expression of TNF-α, leading to a persistent cycle of inflammation. Peripheral recruitment of IL-17–producing neutrophils also may contribute to chronic inflammation.⁸

Adalimumab is the only US Food and Drug Administration–approved biologic indicated for the treatment of HS. Our patient initially responded to adalimumab with improvement of HS; however, treatment had to be discontinued because of the unusual occurrence of 2 distinct paradoxical reactions in a short span of time. Psoriasis and PG are both considered true paradoxical reactions because primary occurrences of both diseases usually are responsive to treatment with adalimumab.

Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor–induced psoriasis arises de novo and is estimated to occur in approximately 5% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.^3,6 Palmoplantar pustular psoriasiform reactions are the most common form of paradoxical psoriasis. Topical medications can be used to treat skin lesions, but systemic treatment is required in many cases. Switching to an alternate class of a biologic, such as an IL-17, IL-12/23, or IL-23 inhibitor, can improve the skin reaction; however, such treatment is inconsistently successful, and paradoxical drug reactions also have been seen with these other classes of biologics.^4,9

Recent studies support distinct immune causes for classical and paradoxical psoriasis. In classical psoriasis, plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) produce IFN-α, which stimulates conventional dendritic cells to produce TNF-α. However, TNF-α matures both pDCs and conventional dendritic cells; upon maturation, both types of dendritic cells lose the ability to produce IFN-α, thus allowing TNF-α to become dominant.¹⁰ The blockade of TNF-α prevents pDC maturation, leading to uninhibited IFN-α, which appears to drive inflammation in paradoxical psoriasis. In classical psoriasis, oligoclonal dermal CD4⁺ T cells and epidermal CD8⁺ T cells remain, even in resolved skin lesions, and can cause disease recurrence through reactivation of skin-resident memory T cells.¹¹ No relapse of paradoxical psoriasis occurs with discontinuation of anti-TNF-α therapy, which supports the notion of an absence of memory T cells.

The incidence of paradoxical psoriasis in patients receiving a TNF-α inhibitor for HS is unclear.¹² There are case series in which patients who had concurrent psoriasis and HS were successfully treated with a TNF-α inhibitor.¹³ A recently recognized condition—PASH syndrome—encompasses the clinical triad of PG, acne, and HS.¹⁰

Our patient had no history of acne or PG, only a long-standing history of HS. New-onset PG occurred only after a TNF-α inhibitor was initiated. Notably, PASH syndrome has been successfully treated with TNF-α inhibitors, highlighting the shared inflammatory etiology of HS and PG.¹⁴ In patients with concurrent PG and HS, TNF-α inhibitors were more effective for treating PG than for HS.

Pyoderma gangrenosum is an inflammatory disorder that often occurs concomitantly with other conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease. The exact underlying cause of PG is unclear, but there appears to be both neutrophil and T-cell dysfunction in PG, with excess inflammatory cytokine production (eg, IL-1β, TNF-α, IL-17).¹⁵

The mainstay of treatment of PG is systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressives, such as cyclosporine. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors as well as other interleukin inhibitors are increasingly utilized as potential therapeutic alternatives for PG.^16,17

Unlike paradoxical psoriasis, the underlying cause of paradoxical PG is unclear.^18,19 A similar mechanism may be postulated whereby inhibition of TNF-α leads to excessive activation of alternative inflammatory pathways that result in paradoxical PG. In one study, the prevalence of PG among 68,232 patients with HS was 0.18% compared with 0.01% among those without HS; therefore, patients with HS appear to be more predisposed to PG.²⁰

This case illustrates the complex, often conflicting effects of cytokine inhibition in the paradoxical elicitation of alternative inflammatory disorders as an unintended consequence of the initial cytokine blockade. It is likely that genetic predisposition allows for paradoxical reactions in some patients when there is predominant inhibition of one cytokine in the inflammatory pathway. In rare cases, multiple paradoxical reactions are possible.

To the Editor:

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the pilosebaceous unit that occurs in concert with elevations of various cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), IL-1β, IL-10, and IL-17.^1,2 Adalimumab is a TNF-α inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of HS. Although TNF-α inhibitors are effective for many immune-mediated inflammatory disorders, paradoxical drug reactions have been reported following treatment with these agents.^3-6 True paradoxical drug reactions likely are immune mediated and directly lead to new onset of a pathologic condition that would otherwise respond to that drug. For example, there are reports of rheumatoid arthritis patients who were treated with a TNF-α inhibitor and developed psoriatic skin lesions.^3,6 Paradoxical drug reactions also have been reported with acute-onset inflammatory bowel disease and HS or less commonly pyoderma gangrenosum (PG), uveitis, granulomatous reactions, and vasculitis.^4,5 We present the case of a patient with HS who was treated with a TNF-α inhibitor and developed 2 distinct paradoxical drug reactions. We also provide an overview of paradoxical drug reactions associated with TNF-α inhibitors.

A 38-year-old woman developed a painful “boil” on the right leg that was previously treated in the emergency department with incision and drainage as well as oral clindamycin for 7 days, but the lesion spread and continued to worsen. She had a history of HS in the axillae and groin region that had been present since 12 years of age. The condition was poorly controlled despite multiple courses of oral antibiotics and surgical resections. An oral contraceptive also was attempted, but the patient discontinued treatment when liver enzyme levels became elevated. The patient had no other notable medical history, including skin disease. There was a family history of HS in her father and a sibling. Seeking more effective treatment, the patient was offered adalimumab approximately 4 months prior to clinical presentation and agreed to start a course of the drug. She received a loading dose of 160 mg on day 1 and 80 mg on day 15 followed by a maintenance dosage of 40 mg weekly. She experienced improvement in HS symptoms after 3 months on adalimumab; however, she developed scaly pruritic patches on the scalp, arms, and legs that were consistent with psoriasis. Because of the absence of a personal or family history of psoriasis, the patient was informed of the probability of paradoxical psoriasis resulting from adalimumab. She elected to continue adalimumab because of the improvement in HS symptoms, and the psoriatic lesions were mild and adequately controlled with a topical steroid.

At the current presentation 1 month later, physical examination revealed a large indurated and ulcerated area with jagged edges at the incision and drainage site (Figure 1). Pyoderma gangrenosum was clinically suspected; a biopsy was performed, and the patient was started on oral prednisone. At 2-week follow-up, the ulcer was found to be rapidly resolving with prednisone and healing with cribriform scarring (Figure 2). Histopathology revealed an undermining neutrophilic inflammatory process that was consistent with PG. A diagnosis of PG was made based on previously published criteria⁷ and the following major/minor criteria in the patient: pathology; absence of infection on histologic analysis; history of pathergy related to worsening ulceration at the site of incision and drainage of the initial boil; clinical findings of an ulcer with peripheral violaceous erythema; undermined borders and tenderness at the site; and rapid resolution of the ulcer with prednisone.

Cessation of adalimumab gradually led to clearance of both psoriasiform lesions and PG; however, HS lesions persisted. At 2-month follow-up, the patient remained clear of new psoriatic and PG lesions. Alternative treatment options for HS, including isotretinoin and other biologic agents, were discussed with the patient. She was subsequently lost to follow-up.

Although the precise pathogenesis of HS is unclear, both genetic abnormalities of the pilosebaceous unit and a dysregulated immune reaction appear to lead to the clinical characteristics of chronic inflammation and scarring seen in HS. A key effector appears to be helper T-cell (T_H17) lymphocyte activation, with increased secretion of TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-17.^1,2 In turn, IL-17 induces higher expression of TNF-α, leading to a persistent cycle of inflammation. Peripheral recruitment of IL-17–producing neutrophils also may contribute to chronic inflammation.⁸

Adalimumab is the only US Food and Drug Administration–approved biologic indicated for the treatment of HS. Our patient initially responded to adalimumab with improvement of HS; however, treatment had to be discontinued because of the unusual occurrence of 2 distinct paradoxical reactions in a short span of time. Psoriasis and PG are both considered true paradoxical reactions because primary occurrences of both diseases usually are responsive to treatment with adalimumab.

Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor–induced psoriasis arises de novo and is estimated to occur in approximately 5% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.^3,6 Palmoplantar pustular psoriasiform reactions are the most common form of paradoxical psoriasis. Topical medications can be used to treat skin lesions, but systemic treatment is required in many cases. Switching to an alternate class of a biologic, such as an IL-17, IL-12/23, or IL-23 inhibitor, can improve the skin reaction; however, such treatment is inconsistently successful, and paradoxical drug reactions also have been seen with these other classes of biologics.^4,9

Recent studies support distinct immune causes for classical and paradoxical psoriasis. In classical psoriasis, plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) produce IFN-α, which stimulates conventional dendritic cells to produce TNF-α. However, TNF-α matures both pDCs and conventional dendritic cells; upon maturation, both types of dendritic cells lose the ability to produce IFN-α, thus allowing TNF-α to become dominant.¹⁰ The blockade of TNF-α prevents pDC maturation, leading to uninhibited IFN-α, which appears to drive inflammation in paradoxical psoriasis. In classical psoriasis, oligoclonal dermal CD4⁺ T cells and epidermal CD8⁺ T cells remain, even in resolved skin lesions, and can cause disease recurrence through reactivation of skin-resident memory T cells.¹¹ No relapse of paradoxical psoriasis occurs with discontinuation of anti-TNF-α therapy, which supports the notion of an absence of memory T cells.

The incidence of paradoxical psoriasis in patients receiving a TNF-α inhibitor for HS is unclear.¹² There are case series in which patients who had concurrent psoriasis and HS were successfully treated with a TNF-α inhibitor.¹³ A recently recognized condition—PASH syndrome—encompasses the clinical triad of PG, acne, and HS.¹⁰

Our patient had no history of acne or PG, only a long-standing history of HS. New-onset PG occurred only after a TNF-α inhibitor was initiated. Notably, PASH syndrome has been successfully treated with TNF-α inhibitors, highlighting the shared inflammatory etiology of HS and PG.¹⁴ In patients with concurrent PG and HS, TNF-α inhibitors were more effective for treating PG than for HS.

Pyoderma gangrenosum is an inflammatory disorder that often occurs concomitantly with other conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease. The exact underlying cause of PG is unclear, but there appears to be both neutrophil and T-cell dysfunction in PG, with excess inflammatory cytokine production (eg, IL-1β, TNF-α, IL-17).¹⁵

The mainstay of treatment of PG is systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressives, such as cyclosporine. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors as well as other interleukin inhibitors are increasingly utilized as potential therapeutic alternatives for PG.^16,17

Unlike paradoxical psoriasis, the underlying cause of paradoxical PG is unclear.^18,19 A similar mechanism may be postulated whereby inhibition of TNF-α leads to excessive activation of alternative inflammatory pathways that result in paradoxical PG. In one study, the prevalence of PG among 68,232 patients with HS was 0.18% compared with 0.01% among those without HS; therefore, patients with HS appear to be more predisposed to PG.²⁰

This case illustrates the complex, often conflicting effects of cytokine inhibition in the paradoxical elicitation of alternative inflammatory disorders as an unintended consequence of the initial cytokine blockade. It is likely that genetic predisposition allows for paradoxical reactions in some patients when there is predominant inhibition of one cytokine in the inflammatory pathway. In rare cases, multiple paradoxical reactions are possible.

SAN DIEGO – Continuing a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) during pregnancy does not increase risk of worse fetal or obstetric outcomes, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Patients who continued a TNFi also had fewer severe infections requiring hospitalization, compared with those who stopped taking the medication during their pregnancy.

Lucy Hicks/Medscape Medical News

“The main message is that patients continuing were not doing worse than the patients stopping. It’s an important clinical message for rheumatologists who are not really confident in dealing with these drugs during pregnancy,” said Anna Moltó, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Cochin Hospital, Paris, who led the research. “It adds to the data that it seems to be safe,” she added in an interview.

Previous research, largely from pregnant patients with inflammatory bowel disease, suggests that taking a TNFi during pregnancy is safe, and 2020 ACR guidelines conditionally recommend continuing therapy prior to and during pregnancy; however, many people still stop taking the drugs during pregnancy for fear of potentially harming the fetus.

To better understand how TNFi use affected pregnancy outcomes, Dr. Moltó and colleagues analyzed data from a French nationwide health insurance database to identify adult women with chronic rheumatic inflammatory disease. All women included in the cohort had a singleton pregnancy between 2008 and 2017 and were taking a TNFi upon pregnancy diagnosis.

Patients who restarted TNFi after initially pausing because of pregnancy were included in the continuation group.

Researchers identified more than 2,000 pregnancies, including 1,503 in individuals with spondyloarthritis and 579 individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Patients were, on average, 31 years old and were diagnosed with a rheumatic disease 4 years prior to their pregnancy.

About 72% (n = 1,497) discontinued TNFi after learning they were pregnant, and 584 individuals continued treatment. Dr. Moltó noted that data from more recent years might have captured lower discontinuation rates among pregnant individuals, but those data were not available for the study.

There was no difference in unfavorable obstetrical or infant outcomes, including spontaneous abortion, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, major congenital malformation, and severe infection of the infant requiring hospitalization. Somewhat surprisingly, the data showed that women who discontinued a TNFi were more likely to be hospitalized for infection either during their pregnancy or up to 6 weeks after delivery, compared with those who continued therapy (1.3% vs. 0.2%, respectively).

Dr. Moltó is currently looking into what could be behind this counterintuitive result, but she hypothesizes that patients who had stopped TNFi may have been taking more glucocorticoids.

“At our institution, there is generally a comfort level with continuing TNF inhibitors during pregnancy, at least until about 36 weeks,” said Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Sometimes, there is concern for risk of infection to the infant, depending on the type of TNFi being used, she added during a press conference.

“I think that these are really informative and supportive data to let women know that they probably have a really good chance of doing very well during the pregnancy if they continue” their TNFi, said Dr. Tedeschi, who was not involved with the study.
 

TNF discontinuation on the decline

In a related study, researchers at McGill University, Montreal, found that TNFi discontinuation prior to pregnancy had decreased over time in individuals with chronic inflammatory diseases.

Using a database of U.S. insurance claims, they identified 3,372 women with RA, ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and/or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who previously used a TNFi and gave birth between 2011 and 2019. A patient was considered to have used a TNFi if she had filled a prescription or had an infusion procedure insurance claim within 12 weeks before the gestational period or anytime during pregnancy. Researchers did not have time-specific data to account for women who stopped treatment at pregnancy diagnosis.

Nearly half (47%) of all identified pregnancies were in individuals with IBD, and the rest included patients with RA (24%), psoriasis or PsA (16%), AS (3%), or more than one diagnosis (10%).

In total, 14% of women discontinued TNFi use in the 12 weeks before becoming pregnant and did not restart. From 2011 to 2013, 19% of patients stopped their TNFi, but this proportion decreased overtime, with 10% of patients stopping therapy from 2017 to 2019 (P < .0001).

Lucy Hicks/Medscape Medical News

This decline “possibly reflects the increase in real-world evidence about the safety of TNFi in pregnancy. That research, in turn, led to new guidelines recommending the continuation of TNFi during pregnancy,” first author Leah Flatman, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at McGill, said in an interview. “I think we can see this potentially as good news.”

More patients with RA, psoriasis/PsA, and AS discontinued TNFi therapy prior to conception (23%-25%), compared with those with IBD (5%).

Ms. Flatman noted that her study and Moltó’s study complement each other by providing data on individuals stopping TNFi prior to conception versus those stopping treatment after pregnancy diagnosis.

“These findings demonstrate that continuing TNFi during pregnancy appears not to be associated with an increase in adverse obstetrical or infant outcomes,” Ms. Flatman said of Dr. Moltó’s study. “As guidelines currently recommend continuing TNFi, studies like this help demonstrate that the guideline changes do not appear to be associated with an increase in adverse events.”

Dr. Moltó and Ms. Flatman disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tedeschi has worked as a consultant for Novartis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Continuing a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) during pregnancy does not increase risk of worse fetal or obstetric outcomes, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Patients who continued a TNFi also had fewer severe infections requiring hospitalization, compared with those who stopped taking the medication during their pregnancy.

Lucy Hicks/Medscape Medical News

“The main message is that patients continuing were not doing worse than the patients stopping. It’s an important clinical message for rheumatologists who are not really confident in dealing with these drugs during pregnancy,” said Anna Moltó, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Cochin Hospital, Paris, who led the research. “It adds to the data that it seems to be safe,” she added in an interview.

Previous research, largely from pregnant patients with inflammatory bowel disease, suggests that taking a TNFi during pregnancy is safe, and 2020 ACR guidelines conditionally recommend continuing therapy prior to and during pregnancy; however, many people still stop taking the drugs during pregnancy for fear of potentially harming the fetus.

To better understand how TNFi use affected pregnancy outcomes, Dr. Moltó and colleagues analyzed data from a French nationwide health insurance database to identify adult women with chronic rheumatic inflammatory disease. All women included in the cohort had a singleton pregnancy between 2008 and 2017 and were taking a TNFi upon pregnancy diagnosis.

Patients who restarted TNFi after initially pausing because of pregnancy were included in the continuation group.

Researchers identified more than 2,000 pregnancies, including 1,503 in individuals with spondyloarthritis and 579 individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Patients were, on average, 31 years old and were diagnosed with a rheumatic disease 4 years prior to their pregnancy.

About 72% (n = 1,497) discontinued TNFi after learning they were pregnant, and 584 individuals continued treatment. Dr. Moltó noted that data from more recent years might have captured lower discontinuation rates among pregnant individuals, but those data were not available for the study.

There was no difference in unfavorable obstetrical or infant outcomes, including spontaneous abortion, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, major congenital malformation, and severe infection of the infant requiring hospitalization. Somewhat surprisingly, the data showed that women who discontinued a TNFi were more likely to be hospitalized for infection either during their pregnancy or up to 6 weeks after delivery, compared with those who continued therapy (1.3% vs. 0.2%, respectively).

Dr. Moltó is currently looking into what could be behind this counterintuitive result, but she hypothesizes that patients who had stopped TNFi may have been taking more glucocorticoids.

“At our institution, there is generally a comfort level with continuing TNF inhibitors during pregnancy, at least until about 36 weeks,” said Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Sometimes, there is concern for risk of infection to the infant, depending on the type of TNFi being used, she added during a press conference.

“I think that these are really informative and supportive data to let women know that they probably have a really good chance of doing very well during the pregnancy if they continue” their TNFi, said Dr. Tedeschi, who was not involved with the study.
 

TNF discontinuation on the decline

In a related study, researchers at McGill University, Montreal, found that TNFi discontinuation prior to pregnancy had decreased over time in individuals with chronic inflammatory diseases.

Using a database of U.S. insurance claims, they identified 3,372 women with RA, ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and/or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who previously used a TNFi and gave birth between 2011 and 2019. A patient was considered to have used a TNFi if she had filled a prescription or had an infusion procedure insurance claim within 12 weeks before the gestational period or anytime during pregnancy. Researchers did not have time-specific data to account for women who stopped treatment at pregnancy diagnosis.

Nearly half (47%) of all identified pregnancies were in individuals with IBD, and the rest included patients with RA (24%), psoriasis or PsA (16%), AS (3%), or more than one diagnosis (10%).

In total, 14% of women discontinued TNFi use in the 12 weeks before becoming pregnant and did not restart. From 2011 to 2013, 19% of patients stopped their TNFi, but this proportion decreased overtime, with 10% of patients stopping therapy from 2017 to 2019 (P < .0001).

Lucy Hicks/Medscape Medical News

This decline “possibly reflects the increase in real-world evidence about the safety of TNFi in pregnancy. That research, in turn, led to new guidelines recommending the continuation of TNFi during pregnancy,” first author Leah Flatman, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at McGill, said in an interview. “I think we can see this potentially as good news.”

More patients with RA, psoriasis/PsA, and AS discontinued TNFi therapy prior to conception (23%-25%), compared with those with IBD (5%).

Ms. Flatman noted that her study and Moltó’s study complement each other by providing data on individuals stopping TNFi prior to conception versus those stopping treatment after pregnancy diagnosis.

“These findings demonstrate that continuing TNFi during pregnancy appears not to be associated with an increase in adverse obstetrical or infant outcomes,” Ms. Flatman said of Dr. Moltó’s study. “As guidelines currently recommend continuing TNFi, studies like this help demonstrate that the guideline changes do not appear to be associated with an increase in adverse events.”

Dr. Moltó and Ms. Flatman disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tedeschi has worked as a consultant for Novartis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Continuing a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) during pregnancy does not increase risk of worse fetal or obstetric outcomes, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Patients who continued a TNFi also had fewer severe infections requiring hospitalization, compared with those who stopped taking the medication during their pregnancy.

Lucy Hicks/Medscape Medical News

“The main message is that patients continuing were not doing worse than the patients stopping. It’s an important clinical message for rheumatologists who are not really confident in dealing with these drugs during pregnancy,” said Anna Moltó, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Cochin Hospital, Paris, who led the research. “It adds to the data that it seems to be safe,” she added in an interview.

Previous research, largely from pregnant patients with inflammatory bowel disease, suggests that taking a TNFi during pregnancy is safe, and 2020 ACR guidelines conditionally recommend continuing therapy prior to and during pregnancy; however, many people still stop taking the drugs during pregnancy for fear of potentially harming the fetus.

To better understand how TNFi use affected pregnancy outcomes, Dr. Moltó and colleagues analyzed data from a French nationwide health insurance database to identify adult women with chronic rheumatic inflammatory disease. All women included in the cohort had a singleton pregnancy between 2008 and 2017 and were taking a TNFi upon pregnancy diagnosis.

Patients who restarted TNFi after initially pausing because of pregnancy were included in the continuation group.

Researchers identified more than 2,000 pregnancies, including 1,503 in individuals with spondyloarthritis and 579 individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Patients were, on average, 31 years old and were diagnosed with a rheumatic disease 4 years prior to their pregnancy.

About 72% (n = 1,497) discontinued TNFi after learning they were pregnant, and 584 individuals continued treatment. Dr. Moltó noted that data from more recent years might have captured lower discontinuation rates among pregnant individuals, but those data were not available for the study.

There was no difference in unfavorable obstetrical or infant outcomes, including spontaneous abortion, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, major congenital malformation, and severe infection of the infant requiring hospitalization. Somewhat surprisingly, the data showed that women who discontinued a TNFi were more likely to be hospitalized for infection either during their pregnancy or up to 6 weeks after delivery, compared with those who continued therapy (1.3% vs. 0.2%, respectively).

Dr. Moltó is currently looking into what could be behind this counterintuitive result, but she hypothesizes that patients who had stopped TNFi may have been taking more glucocorticoids.

“At our institution, there is generally a comfort level with continuing TNF inhibitors during pregnancy, at least until about 36 weeks,” said Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Sometimes, there is concern for risk of infection to the infant, depending on the type of TNFi being used, she added during a press conference.

“I think that these are really informative and supportive data to let women know that they probably have a really good chance of doing very well during the pregnancy if they continue” their TNFi, said Dr. Tedeschi, who was not involved with the study.
 

TNF discontinuation on the decline

In a related study, researchers at McGill University, Montreal, found that TNFi discontinuation prior to pregnancy had decreased over time in individuals with chronic inflammatory diseases.

Using a database of U.S. insurance claims, they identified 3,372 women with RA, ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and/or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who previously used a TNFi and gave birth between 2011 and 2019. A patient was considered to have used a TNFi if she had filled a prescription or had an infusion procedure insurance claim within 12 weeks before the gestational period or anytime during pregnancy. Researchers did not have time-specific data to account for women who stopped treatment at pregnancy diagnosis.

Nearly half (47%) of all identified pregnancies were in individuals with IBD, and the rest included patients with RA (24%), psoriasis or PsA (16%), AS (3%), or more than one diagnosis (10%).

In total, 14% of women discontinued TNFi use in the 12 weeks before becoming pregnant and did not restart. From 2011 to 2013, 19% of patients stopped their TNFi, but this proportion decreased overtime, with 10% of patients stopping therapy from 2017 to 2019 (P < .0001).

Lucy Hicks/Medscape Medical News

This decline “possibly reflects the increase in real-world evidence about the safety of TNFi in pregnancy. That research, in turn, led to new guidelines recommending the continuation of TNFi during pregnancy,” first author Leah Flatman, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at McGill, said in an interview. “I think we can see this potentially as good news.”

More patients with RA, psoriasis/PsA, and AS discontinued TNFi therapy prior to conception (23%-25%), compared with those with IBD (5%).

Ms. Flatman noted that her study and Moltó’s study complement each other by providing data on individuals stopping TNFi prior to conception versus those stopping treatment after pregnancy diagnosis.

“These findings demonstrate that continuing TNFi during pregnancy appears not to be associated with an increase in adverse obstetrical or infant outcomes,” Ms. Flatman said of Dr. Moltó’s study. “As guidelines currently recommend continuing TNFi, studies like this help demonstrate that the guideline changes do not appear to be associated with an increase in adverse events.”

Dr. Moltó and Ms. Flatman disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tedeschi has worked as a consultant for Novartis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON – The approval last year of the interleukin (IL)-36 receptor antagonist spesolimab for treating generalized pustular psoriasis flares brightened the treatment landscape for this rare condition, and a recently published phase 2 study suggests a potential role of spesolimab for flare prevention. But when it comes to pustular disease localized to the hands and feet – palmoplantar pustulosis – treatment options have only modest efficacy, and spesolimab appears not to work, according to speakers at the annual research symposium of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

“The IL-36 receptor antagonists don’t seem to be quite the answer for [palmoplantar pustulosis] that they are for generalized pustular psoriasis [GPP],” Megan H. Noe, MD, MPH, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and a dermatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said at the meeting.

Psoriasis affecting the hands and feet – both pustular and nonpustular – has a higher impact on quality of life and higher functional disability than does non-acral psoriasis, is less responsive to treatment, and has a “very confusing nomenclature” that complicates research and thus management, said Jason Ezra Hawkes, MD, a dermatologist in Rocklin, Calif., and former faculty member of several departments of dermatology. Both he and Dr. Noe spoke during a tough-to-treat session at the NPF meeting.

IL-17 and IL-23 blockade, as well as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibition, are effective overall for palmoplantar psoriasis (nonpustular), but in general, responses are lower than for plaque psoriasis. Apremilast (Otezla), a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, has some efficacy for pustular variants, but for hyperkeratotic variants it “does not perform as well as more selective inhibition of IL-17 and IL-23 blockade,” he said.

Dr. Hawkes

Palmoplantar pustulosis, and a word on generalized disease

Dermatologists are using a variety of treatments for palmoplantar pustulosis, with no clear first-line choices, Dr. Noe said. In a case series of almost 200 patients with palmoplantar pustulosis across 20 dermatology practices, published in JAMA Dermatology, 35% of patients received a systemic therapy prescription at their initial encounter – most commonly acitretin, followed by methotrexate and phototherapy. “Biologics were used, but use was varied and not as often as with oral agents,” said Dr. Noe, a coauthor of the study.

TNF blockers led to improvements ranging from 57% to 84%, depending on the agent, in a 2020 retrospective study of patients with palmoplantar pustulosis or acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau, Dr. Noe noted. However, rates of complete clearance were only 20%-29%.

Apremilast showed modest efficacy after 5 months of treatment, with 62% of patients achieving at least a 50% improvement in the Palmoplantar Pustulosis Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PPPASI) in a 2021 open-label, phase 2 study involving 21 patients. “This may represent a potential treatment option,” Dr. Noe said. “It’s something, but not what we’re used to seeing in our plaque psoriasis patients.”

A 2021 phase 2a, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of spesolimab in patients with palmoplantar pustulosis, meanwhile, failed to meet its primary endpoint, with only 32% of patients achieving a 50% improvement at 16 weeks, compared with 24% of patients in the placebo arm. And a recently published network meta-analysis found that none of the five drugs studied in seven randomized controlled trials – biologic or oral – was more effective than placebo for clearance or improvement of palmoplantar pustulosis.

The spesolimab (Spevigo) results have been disappointing considering the biologic’s newfound efficacy and role as the first Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy for generalized pustular disease, according to Dr. Noe. The ability of a single 900-mg intravenous dose of the IL-36 receptor antagonist to completely clear pustules at 1 week in 54% of patients with generalized disease, compared with 6% of the placebo group, was “groundbreaking,” she said, referring to results of the pivotal trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

And given that “preventing GPP flares is ultimately what we want,” she said, more good news was reported this year in The Lancet: The finding from an international, randomized, placebo-controlled study that high-dose subcutaneous spesolimab significantly reduced the risk of a flare over 48 weeks. “There are lots of ongoing studies right now to understand the best way to dose spesolimab,” she said.

Moreover, another IL-36 receptor antagonist, imsidolimab, is being investigated in a phase 3 trial for generalized pustular disease, she noted. A phase 2, open-label study of patients with GPP found that “more than half of patients were very much improved at 4 weeks, and some patients started showing improvement at day 3,” Dr. Noe said.

An area of research she is interested in is the potential for Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors as a treatment for palmoplantar pustulosis. For pustulosis on the hands and feet, recent case reports describing the efficacy of JAK inhibitors have caught her eye. “Right now, all we have is this case report data, mostly with tofacitinib, but I think it’s exciting,” she said, noting a recently published report in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Palmoplantar psoriasis

Pustular psoriatic disease can be localized to the hand and/or feet only, or can co-occur with generalized pustular disease, just as palmoplantar psoriasis can be localized to the hands and/or feet or, more commonly, can co-occur with widespread plaque psoriasis. Research has shown, Dr. Hawkes said, that with both types of acral disease, many patients have or have had plaque psoriasis outside of acral sites.

The nomenclature and acronyms for palmoplantar psoriatic disease have complicated patient education, communication, and research, Dr. Hawkes said. Does PPP refer to palmoplantar psoriasis, or palmoplantar pustulosis, for instance? What is the difference between palmoplantar pustulosis (coined PPP) and palmoplantar pustular psoriasis (referred to as PPPP)?

What if disease is only on the hands, only on the feet, or only on the backs of the hands? And at what point is disease not classified as palmoplantar psoriasis, but plaque psoriasis with involvement of the hands and feet? Inconsistencies and lack of clarification lead to “confusing” literature, he said.

Heterogeneity in populations across trials resulting from “inconsistent categorization and phenotype inclusion” may partly account for the recalcitrance to treatment reported in the literature, he said. Misdiagnosis as psoriasis in cases of localized disease (confusion with eczema, for instance), and the fact that hands and feet are subject to increased trauma and injury, compared with non-acral sites, are also at play.

Trials may also allow insufficient time for improvement, compared with non-acral sites. “What we’ve learned about the hands and feet is that it takes a much longer time for disease to improve,” Dr. Hawkes said, so primary endpoints must take this into account.

There is unique immunologic signaling in palmoplantar disease that differs from the predominant signaling in traditional plaque psoriasis, he emphasized, and “mixed immunophenotypes” that need to be unraveled.

Dr. Hawkes disclosed ties with AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, LEO, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB. Dr. Noe disclosed ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb and Boehringer Ingelheim.

WASHINGTON – The approval last year of the interleukin (IL)-36 receptor antagonist spesolimab for treating generalized pustular psoriasis flares brightened the treatment landscape for this rare condition, and a recently published phase 2 study suggests a potential role of spesolimab for flare prevention. But when it comes to pustular disease localized to the hands and feet – palmoplantar pustulosis – treatment options have only modest efficacy, and spesolimab appears not to work, according to speakers at the annual research symposium of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

“The IL-36 receptor antagonists don’t seem to be quite the answer for [palmoplantar pustulosis] that they are for generalized pustular psoriasis [GPP],” Megan H. Noe, MD, MPH, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and a dermatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said at the meeting.

Psoriasis affecting the hands and feet – both pustular and nonpustular – has a higher impact on quality of life and higher functional disability than does non-acral psoriasis, is less responsive to treatment, and has a “very confusing nomenclature” that complicates research and thus management, said Jason Ezra Hawkes, MD, a dermatologist in Rocklin, Calif., and former faculty member of several departments of dermatology. Both he and Dr. Noe spoke during a tough-to-treat session at the NPF meeting.

IL-17 and IL-23 blockade, as well as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibition, are effective overall for palmoplantar psoriasis (nonpustular), but in general, responses are lower than for plaque psoriasis. Apremilast (Otezla), a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, has some efficacy for pustular variants, but for hyperkeratotic variants it “does not perform as well as more selective inhibition of IL-17 and IL-23 blockade,” he said.

Dr. Hawkes

Palmoplantar pustulosis, and a word on generalized disease

Dermatologists are using a variety of treatments for palmoplantar pustulosis, with no clear first-line choices, Dr. Noe said. In a case series of almost 200 patients with palmoplantar pustulosis across 20 dermatology practices, published in JAMA Dermatology, 35% of patients received a systemic therapy prescription at their initial encounter – most commonly acitretin, followed by methotrexate and phototherapy. “Biologics were used, but use was varied and not as often as with oral agents,” said Dr. Noe, a coauthor of the study.

TNF blockers led to improvements ranging from 57% to 84%, depending on the agent, in a 2020 retrospective study of patients with palmoplantar pustulosis or acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau, Dr. Noe noted. However, rates of complete clearance were only 20%-29%.

Apremilast showed modest efficacy after 5 months of treatment, with 62% of patients achieving at least a 50% improvement in the Palmoplantar Pustulosis Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PPPASI) in a 2021 open-label, phase 2 study involving 21 patients. “This may represent a potential treatment option,” Dr. Noe said. “It’s something, but not what we’re used to seeing in our plaque psoriasis patients.”

A 2021 phase 2a, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of spesolimab in patients with palmoplantar pustulosis, meanwhile, failed to meet its primary endpoint, with only 32% of patients achieving a 50% improvement at 16 weeks, compared with 24% of patients in the placebo arm. And a recently published network meta-analysis found that none of the five drugs studied in seven randomized controlled trials – biologic or oral – was more effective than placebo for clearance or improvement of palmoplantar pustulosis.

The spesolimab (Spevigo) results have been disappointing considering the biologic’s newfound efficacy and role as the first Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy for generalized pustular disease, according to Dr. Noe. The ability of a single 900-mg intravenous dose of the IL-36 receptor antagonist to completely clear pustules at 1 week in 54% of patients with generalized disease, compared with 6% of the placebo group, was “groundbreaking,” she said, referring to results of the pivotal trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

And given that “preventing GPP flares is ultimately what we want,” she said, more good news was reported this year in The Lancet: The finding from an international, randomized, placebo-controlled study that high-dose subcutaneous spesolimab significantly reduced the risk of a flare over 48 weeks. “There are lots of ongoing studies right now to understand the best way to dose spesolimab,” she said.

Moreover, another IL-36 receptor antagonist, imsidolimab, is being investigated in a phase 3 trial for generalized pustular disease, she noted. A phase 2, open-label study of patients with GPP found that “more than half of patients were very much improved at 4 weeks, and some patients started showing improvement at day 3,” Dr. Noe said.

An area of research she is interested in is the potential for Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors as a treatment for palmoplantar pustulosis. For pustulosis on the hands and feet, recent case reports describing the efficacy of JAK inhibitors have caught her eye. “Right now, all we have is this case report data, mostly with tofacitinib, but I think it’s exciting,” she said, noting a recently published report in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Palmoplantar psoriasis

Pustular psoriatic disease can be localized to the hand and/or feet only, or can co-occur with generalized pustular disease, just as palmoplantar psoriasis can be localized to the hands and/or feet or, more commonly, can co-occur with widespread plaque psoriasis. Research has shown, Dr. Hawkes said, that with both types of acral disease, many patients have or have had plaque psoriasis outside of acral sites.

The nomenclature and acronyms for palmoplantar psoriatic disease have complicated patient education, communication, and research, Dr. Hawkes said. Does PPP refer to palmoplantar psoriasis, or palmoplantar pustulosis, for instance? What is the difference between palmoplantar pustulosis (coined PPP) and palmoplantar pustular psoriasis (referred to as PPPP)?

What if disease is only on the hands, only on the feet, or only on the backs of the hands? And at what point is disease not classified as palmoplantar psoriasis, but plaque psoriasis with involvement of the hands and feet? Inconsistencies and lack of clarification lead to “confusing” literature, he said.

Heterogeneity in populations across trials resulting from “inconsistent categorization and phenotype inclusion” may partly account for the recalcitrance to treatment reported in the literature, he said. Misdiagnosis as psoriasis in cases of localized disease (confusion with eczema, for instance), and the fact that hands and feet are subject to increased trauma and injury, compared with non-acral sites, are also at play.

Trials may also allow insufficient time for improvement, compared with non-acral sites. “What we’ve learned about the hands and feet is that it takes a much longer time for disease to improve,” Dr. Hawkes said, so primary endpoints must take this into account.

There is unique immunologic signaling in palmoplantar disease that differs from the predominant signaling in traditional plaque psoriasis, he emphasized, and “mixed immunophenotypes” that need to be unraveled.

Dr. Hawkes disclosed ties with AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, LEO, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB. Dr. Noe disclosed ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb and Boehringer Ingelheim.

WASHINGTON – The approval last year of the interleukin (IL)-36 receptor antagonist spesolimab for treating generalized pustular psoriasis flares brightened the treatment landscape for this rare condition, and a recently published phase 2 study suggests a potential role of spesolimab for flare prevention. But when it comes to pustular disease localized to the hands and feet – palmoplantar pustulosis – treatment options have only modest efficacy, and spesolimab appears not to work, according to speakers at the annual research symposium of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

“The IL-36 receptor antagonists don’t seem to be quite the answer for [palmoplantar pustulosis] that they are for generalized pustular psoriasis [GPP],” Megan H. Noe, MD, MPH, assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and a dermatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said at the meeting.

Psoriasis affecting the hands and feet – both pustular and nonpustular – has a higher impact on quality of life and higher functional disability than does non-acral psoriasis, is less responsive to treatment, and has a “very confusing nomenclature” that complicates research and thus management, said Jason Ezra Hawkes, MD, a dermatologist in Rocklin, Calif., and former faculty member of several departments of dermatology. Both he and Dr. Noe spoke during a tough-to-treat session at the NPF meeting.

IL-17 and IL-23 blockade, as well as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibition, are effective overall for palmoplantar psoriasis (nonpustular), but in general, responses are lower than for plaque psoriasis. Apremilast (Otezla), a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, has some efficacy for pustular variants, but for hyperkeratotic variants it “does not perform as well as more selective inhibition of IL-17 and IL-23 blockade,” he said.

Dr. Hawkes

Palmoplantar pustulosis, and a word on generalized disease

Dermatologists are using a variety of treatments for palmoplantar pustulosis, with no clear first-line choices, Dr. Noe said. In a case series of almost 200 patients with palmoplantar pustulosis across 20 dermatology practices, published in JAMA Dermatology, 35% of patients received a systemic therapy prescription at their initial encounter – most commonly acitretin, followed by methotrexate and phototherapy. “Biologics were used, but use was varied and not as often as with oral agents,” said Dr. Noe, a coauthor of the study.

TNF blockers led to improvements ranging from 57% to 84%, depending on the agent, in a 2020 retrospective study of patients with palmoplantar pustulosis or acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau, Dr. Noe noted. However, rates of complete clearance were only 20%-29%.

Apremilast showed modest efficacy after 5 months of treatment, with 62% of patients achieving at least a 50% improvement in the Palmoplantar Pustulosis Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PPPASI) in a 2021 open-label, phase 2 study involving 21 patients. “This may represent a potential treatment option,” Dr. Noe said. “It’s something, but not what we’re used to seeing in our plaque psoriasis patients.”

A 2021 phase 2a, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of spesolimab in patients with palmoplantar pustulosis, meanwhile, failed to meet its primary endpoint, with only 32% of patients achieving a 50% improvement at 16 weeks, compared with 24% of patients in the placebo arm. And a recently published network meta-analysis found that none of the five drugs studied in seven randomized controlled trials – biologic or oral – was more effective than placebo for clearance or improvement of palmoplantar pustulosis.

The spesolimab (Spevigo) results have been disappointing considering the biologic’s newfound efficacy and role as the first Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy for generalized pustular disease, according to Dr. Noe. The ability of a single 900-mg intravenous dose of the IL-36 receptor antagonist to completely clear pustules at 1 week in 54% of patients with generalized disease, compared with 6% of the placebo group, was “groundbreaking,” she said, referring to results of the pivotal trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

And given that “preventing GPP flares is ultimately what we want,” she said, more good news was reported this year in The Lancet: The finding from an international, randomized, placebo-controlled study that high-dose subcutaneous spesolimab significantly reduced the risk of a flare over 48 weeks. “There are lots of ongoing studies right now to understand the best way to dose spesolimab,” she said.

Moreover, another IL-36 receptor antagonist, imsidolimab, is being investigated in a phase 3 trial for generalized pustular disease, she noted. A phase 2, open-label study of patients with GPP found that “more than half of patients were very much improved at 4 weeks, and some patients started showing improvement at day 3,” Dr. Noe said.

An area of research she is interested in is the potential for Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors as a treatment for palmoplantar pustulosis. For pustulosis on the hands and feet, recent case reports describing the efficacy of JAK inhibitors have caught her eye. “Right now, all we have is this case report data, mostly with tofacitinib, but I think it’s exciting,” she said, noting a recently published report in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Palmoplantar psoriasis

Pustular psoriatic disease can be localized to the hand and/or feet only, or can co-occur with generalized pustular disease, just as palmoplantar psoriasis can be localized to the hands and/or feet or, more commonly, can co-occur with widespread plaque psoriasis. Research has shown, Dr. Hawkes said, that with both types of acral disease, many patients have or have had plaque psoriasis outside of acral sites.

The nomenclature and acronyms for palmoplantar psoriatic disease have complicated patient education, communication, and research, Dr. Hawkes said. Does PPP refer to palmoplantar psoriasis, or palmoplantar pustulosis, for instance? What is the difference between palmoplantar pustulosis (coined PPP) and palmoplantar pustular psoriasis (referred to as PPPP)?

What if disease is only on the hands, only on the feet, or only on the backs of the hands? And at what point is disease not classified as palmoplantar psoriasis, but plaque psoriasis with involvement of the hands and feet? Inconsistencies and lack of clarification lead to “confusing” literature, he said.

Heterogeneity in populations across trials resulting from “inconsistent categorization and phenotype inclusion” may partly account for the recalcitrance to treatment reported in the literature, he said. Misdiagnosis as psoriasis in cases of localized disease (confusion with eczema, for instance), and the fact that hands and feet are subject to increased trauma and injury, compared with non-acral sites, are also at play.

Trials may also allow insufficient time for improvement, compared with non-acral sites. “What we’ve learned about the hands and feet is that it takes a much longer time for disease to improve,” Dr. Hawkes said, so primary endpoints must take this into account.

There is unique immunologic signaling in palmoplantar disease that differs from the predominant signaling in traditional plaque psoriasis, he emphasized, and “mixed immunophenotypes” that need to be unraveled.

Dr. Hawkes disclosed ties with AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, LEO, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB. Dr. Noe disclosed ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb and Boehringer Ingelheim.

TOPLINE:

Use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors is associated with a nearly fourfold increase in risk of acne compared with placebo, according to an analysis of 25 JAK inhibitor studies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Acne has been reported to be an adverse effect of JAK inhibitors, but not much is known about how common acne is overall and how incidence differs between different JAK inhibitors and the disease being treated.
• For the systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers identified 25 phase 2 or 3 randomized, controlled trials that reported acne as an adverse event associated with the use of JAK inhibitors.
• The study population included 10,839 participants (54% male, 46% female).
• The primary outcome was the incidence of acne following a period of JAK inhibitor use.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the risk of acne was significantly higher among those treated with JAK inhibitors in comparison with patients given placebo in a pooled analysis (odds ratio [OR], 3.83).
• The risk of acne was highest with abrocitinib (OR, 13.47), followed by baricitinib (OR, 4.96), upadacitinib (OR, 4.79), deuruxolitinib (OR, 3.30), and deucravacitinib (OR, 2.64). By JAK inhibitor class, results were as follows: JAK1-specific inhibitors (OR, 4.69), combined JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitors (OR, 3.43), and tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitors (OR, 2.64).
• In a subgroup analysis, risk of acne was higher among patients using JAK inhibitors for dermatologic conditions in comparison with those using JAK inhibitors for nondermatologic conditions (OR, 4.67 vs 1.18).
• Age and gender had no apparent impact on the effect of JAK inhibitor use on acne risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“The occurrence of acne following treatment with certain classes of JAK inhibitors is of potential concern, as this adverse effect may jeopardize treatment adherence among some patients,” the researchers wrote. More studies are needed “to characterize the underlying mechanism of acne with JAK inhibitor use and to identify best practices for treatment,” they added.

SOURCE:

The lead author was Jeremy Martinez, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The review was limited by the variable classification and reporting of acne across studies, the potential exclusion of relevant studies, and the small number of studies for certain drugs.

DISCLOSURES:

The studies were mainly funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Martinez disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have ties with Dexcel Pharma Technologies, AbbVie, Concert, Pfizer, 3Derm Systems, Incyte, Aclaris, Eli Lilly, Concert, Equillium, ASLAN, ACOM, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors is associated with a nearly fourfold increase in risk of acne compared with placebo, according to an analysis of 25 JAK inhibitor studies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Acne has been reported to be an adverse effect of JAK inhibitors, but not much is known about how common acne is overall and how incidence differs between different JAK inhibitors and the disease being treated.
• For the systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers identified 25 phase 2 or 3 randomized, controlled trials that reported acne as an adverse event associated with the use of JAK inhibitors.
• The study population included 10,839 participants (54% male, 46% female).
• The primary outcome was the incidence of acne following a period of JAK inhibitor use.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the risk of acne was significantly higher among those treated with JAK inhibitors in comparison with patients given placebo in a pooled analysis (odds ratio [OR], 3.83).
• The risk of acne was highest with abrocitinib (OR, 13.47), followed by baricitinib (OR, 4.96), upadacitinib (OR, 4.79), deuruxolitinib (OR, 3.30), and deucravacitinib (OR, 2.64). By JAK inhibitor class, results were as follows: JAK1-specific inhibitors (OR, 4.69), combined JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitors (OR, 3.43), and tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitors (OR, 2.64).
• In a subgroup analysis, risk of acne was higher among patients using JAK inhibitors for dermatologic conditions in comparison with those using JAK inhibitors for nondermatologic conditions (OR, 4.67 vs 1.18).
• Age and gender had no apparent impact on the effect of JAK inhibitor use on acne risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“The occurrence of acne following treatment with certain classes of JAK inhibitors is of potential concern, as this adverse effect may jeopardize treatment adherence among some patients,” the researchers wrote. More studies are needed “to characterize the underlying mechanism of acne with JAK inhibitor use and to identify best practices for treatment,” they added.

SOURCE:

The lead author was Jeremy Martinez, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The review was limited by the variable classification and reporting of acne across studies, the potential exclusion of relevant studies, and the small number of studies for certain drugs.

DISCLOSURES:

The studies were mainly funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Martinez disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have ties with Dexcel Pharma Technologies, AbbVie, Concert, Pfizer, 3Derm Systems, Incyte, Aclaris, Eli Lilly, Concert, Equillium, ASLAN, ACOM, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors is associated with a nearly fourfold increase in risk of acne compared with placebo, according to an analysis of 25 JAK inhibitor studies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Acne has been reported to be an adverse effect of JAK inhibitors, but not much is known about how common acne is overall and how incidence differs between different JAK inhibitors and the disease being treated.
• For the systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers identified 25 phase 2 or 3 randomized, controlled trials that reported acne as an adverse event associated with the use of JAK inhibitors.
• The study population included 10,839 participants (54% male, 46% female).
• The primary outcome was the incidence of acne following a period of JAK inhibitor use.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the risk of acne was significantly higher among those treated with JAK inhibitors in comparison with patients given placebo in a pooled analysis (odds ratio [OR], 3.83).
• The risk of acne was highest with abrocitinib (OR, 13.47), followed by baricitinib (OR, 4.96), upadacitinib (OR, 4.79), deuruxolitinib (OR, 3.30), and deucravacitinib (OR, 2.64). By JAK inhibitor class, results were as follows: JAK1-specific inhibitors (OR, 4.69), combined JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitors (OR, 3.43), and tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitors (OR, 2.64).
• In a subgroup analysis, risk of acne was higher among patients using JAK inhibitors for dermatologic conditions in comparison with those using JAK inhibitors for nondermatologic conditions (OR, 4.67 vs 1.18).
• Age and gender had no apparent impact on the effect of JAK inhibitor use on acne risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“The occurrence of acne following treatment with certain classes of JAK inhibitors is of potential concern, as this adverse effect may jeopardize treatment adherence among some patients,” the researchers wrote. More studies are needed “to characterize the underlying mechanism of acne with JAK inhibitor use and to identify best practices for treatment,” they added.

SOURCE:

The lead author was Jeremy Martinez, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The review was limited by the variable classification and reporting of acne across studies, the potential exclusion of relevant studies, and the small number of studies for certain drugs.

DISCLOSURES:

The studies were mainly funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Martinez disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have ties with Dexcel Pharma Technologies, AbbVie, Concert, Pfizer, 3Derm Systems, Incyte, Aclaris, Eli Lilly, Concert, Equillium, ASLAN, ACOM, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON – Multiple biologic failure in a minority of patients with psoriasis may have several causes, from genetic endotypes and immunologic factors to lower serum drug levels, the presence of anti-drug antibody levels, female sex, and certain comorbidities, Wilson Liao, MD, said at the annual research symposium of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

“Tough-to-treat psoriasis remains a challenge despite newer therapies ... Why do we still have this sub-population of patients who seem to be refractory?” said Dr. Liao, professor and associate vice chair of research in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, who coauthored a 2015-2022 prospective cohort analysis that documented about 6% of patients failing two or more biologic agents of different mechanistic classes.

“These patients are really suffering,” he said. “We need to have better guidelines and treatment algorithms for these patients.”

A significant number of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), meanwhile, are inadequate responders to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibition, Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, PhD, professor of medicine in the division of allergy/immunology and rheumatology and the Center of Musculoskeletal Research at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), said during another session at the meeting.

The long-term “persistence,” or usage, of first-line biologics in patients with PsA – and of second-line biologics in patients who failed one TNF-inhibitor – is low, but the literature offers little information on the reasons for TNF-inhibitor discontinuation, said Dr. Ritchlin, who coauthored a perspective piece in Arthritis & Rheumatology on managing the patient with PsA who fails one TNF inhibitor.

Dr. Ritchlin and his coauthors were asked to provide evidence-informed advice and algorithms, but the task was difficult. “It’s hard to know what to recommend for the next step if we don’t know why patients failed the first,” he said. “The point is, we need more data. [Clinical trials] are not recording the kind of information we need.”
 

Anti-drug antibodies, genetics, other factors in psoriasis

Research shows that in large cohorts, “all the biologics do seem to lose efficacy over time,” said Dr. Liao, who directs the UCSF Psoriasis and Skin Treatment Center. “Some are better than others, but we do see a loss of effectiveness over time.”

A cohort study published in 2022 in JAMA Dermatology, for instance, documented declining “drug survival” associated with ineffectiveness during 2 years of treatment for each of five biologics studied (adalimumab [Humira], ustekinumab [Stelara], secukinumab [Cosentyx], guselkumab [Tremfya], and ixekizumab [Taltz]).

“There have been a number of theories put forward” as to why that’s the case, including lower serum drug levels, “which of course can be related to anti-drug antibody production,” he said.

He pointed to two studies of ustekinumab: One prospective observational cohort study that reported an association of lower early drug levels of the IL-12/23 receptor antagonist with lower Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores, and another observational study that documented an association between anti-drug antibody positivity with lower ustekinumab levels and impaired clinical response.

“We also now know ... that there are genetic endotypes in psoriasis, and that patients who are [HLA-C*06:02]-positive tend to respond a little better to drugs like ustekinumab, and those who are [HLA-C*06:02]-negative tend to do a little better with the TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Liao said. The human leukocyte antigen (HLA) allele HLA-C*06:02 is associated with susceptibility to psoriasis.

In a study using a national psoriasis registry, HLA-C*06:02-negative patients were 3 times more likely to achieve PASI90 status in response to adalimumab, a TNF-alpha inhibitor, than with ustekinumab treatment. And in a meta-analysis covering eight studies with more than 1,000 patients with psoriasis, the median PASI75 response rate after 6 months of ustekinumab therapy was 92% in the HLA-C*06:02-positive group and 67% in HLA-C*06:02-negative patients.

The recently published cohort study showing a 6% rate of multiple biologic failure evaluated patients in the multicenter CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry who initiated their first biologic between 2015 and 2020 and were followed for 2 or more years. Investigators looked for sociodemographic and clinical differences between the patients who continued use of their first biologic for at least 2 years (“good response”), and those who discontinued two or more biologics of different classes, each used for at least 90 days, because of inadequate efficacy.

Of 1,039 evaluated patients, 490 (47.2%) had good clinical response to their first biologic and 65 (6.3%) had multiple biologic failure. All biologic classes were represented among those who failed multiple biologics. The first and second biologic classes used were attempted for a mean duration of 10 months – “an adequate trial” of each, Dr. Liao said.

In multivariable regression analysis, six variables were significantly associated with multiple biologic failure: female sex at birth, shorter disease duration, earlier year of biologic initiation, prior nonbiologic systemic therapy, having Medicaid insurance, and a history of hyperlipidemia. The latter is “interesting because other studies have shown that metabolic syndrome, of which hyperlipidemia is a component, can also relate to poor response to biologics,” Dr. Liao said.

The most common sequences of first-to-second biologics among those with multiple biologic failure were TNF inhibitor to IL-17 inhibitor (30.8%); IL-12/23 inhibitor to IL-17 inhibitor (21.5%); TNF inhibitor to IL-12/23 inhibitor (12.3%); and IL-17 inhibitor to IL-23 inhibitor (10.8%).

The vast majority of patients failed more than two biologics, however, and “more than 20% had five or more biologics tried over a relatively short period,” Dr. Liao said.
 

Comorbidities and biologic failure in psoriasis, PsA

In practice, it was said during a discussion period, biologic failures in psoriasis can be of two types: a primary inadequate response or initial failure, or a secondary failure with initial improvement followed by declining or no response. “I agree 100% that these probably represent two different endotypes,” Dr. Liao said. “There’s research emerging that psoriasis isn’t necessarily a clean phenotype.”

The option of focusing on comorbidities in the face of biologic failure was another point of discussion. “Maybe the next biologic is not the answer,” a meeting participant said. “Maybe we should focus on metabolic syndrome.”

“I agree,” Dr. Liao said. “In clinic, there are people who may not respond to therapies but have other comorbidities and factors that make it difficult to manage [their psoriasis] ... that may be causative for psoriasis. Maybe if we treat the comorbidities, it will make it easier to treat the psoriasis.”

Addressing comorbidities and “extra-articular traits” such as poorly controlled diabetes, centralized pain, anxiety and depression, and obesity is something Dr. Ritchlin advocates for PsA. “Centralized pain, I believe, is a major driver of nonresponse,” he said at the meeting. “We have to be careful about blaming nonresponse and lack of efficacy of biologics when it could be a wholly different mechanism the biologic won’t treat ... for example, centralized pain.”

As with psoriasis, the emergence of antidrug antibodies may be one reason for the secondary failure of biologic agents for PsA, Dr. Ritchlin and his coauthors wrote in their paper on management of PsA after failure of one TNF inhibitor. Other areas to consider in evaluating failure, they wrote, are compliance and time of dosing, and financial barriers.

Low long-term persistence of second-line biologics for patients with PsA was demonstrated in a national cohort study utilizing the French health insurance database, Dr. Ritchlin noted at the research meeting. 

The French study covered almost 3,000 patients who started a second biologic after discontinuing a TNF inhibitor during 2015-2020. Overall, 1-year and 3-year persistence rates were 42% and 17%, respectively.

Dr. Liao disclosed research grant funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Trex Bio. Dr. Ritchlin reported no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Multiple biologic failure in a minority of patients with psoriasis may have several causes, from genetic endotypes and immunologic factors to lower serum drug levels, the presence of anti-drug antibody levels, female sex, and certain comorbidities, Wilson Liao, MD, said at the annual research symposium of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

“Tough-to-treat psoriasis remains a challenge despite newer therapies ... Why do we still have this sub-population of patients who seem to be refractory?” said Dr. Liao, professor and associate vice chair of research in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, who coauthored a 2015-2022 prospective cohort analysis that documented about 6% of patients failing two or more biologic agents of different mechanistic classes.

“These patients are really suffering,” he said. “We need to have better guidelines and treatment algorithms for these patients.”

A significant number of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), meanwhile, are inadequate responders to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibition, Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, PhD, professor of medicine in the division of allergy/immunology and rheumatology and the Center of Musculoskeletal Research at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), said during another session at the meeting.

The long-term “persistence,” or usage, of first-line biologics in patients with PsA – and of second-line biologics in patients who failed one TNF-inhibitor – is low, but the literature offers little information on the reasons for TNF-inhibitor discontinuation, said Dr. Ritchlin, who coauthored a perspective piece in Arthritis & Rheumatology on managing the patient with PsA who fails one TNF inhibitor.

Dr. Ritchlin and his coauthors were asked to provide evidence-informed advice and algorithms, but the task was difficult. “It’s hard to know what to recommend for the next step if we don’t know why patients failed the first,” he said. “The point is, we need more data. [Clinical trials] are not recording the kind of information we need.”
 

Anti-drug antibodies, genetics, other factors in psoriasis

Research shows that in large cohorts, “all the biologics do seem to lose efficacy over time,” said Dr. Liao, who directs the UCSF Psoriasis and Skin Treatment Center. “Some are better than others, but we do see a loss of effectiveness over time.”

A cohort study published in 2022 in JAMA Dermatology, for instance, documented declining “drug survival” associated with ineffectiveness during 2 years of treatment for each of five biologics studied (adalimumab [Humira], ustekinumab [Stelara], secukinumab [Cosentyx], guselkumab [Tremfya], and ixekizumab [Taltz]).

“There have been a number of theories put forward” as to why that’s the case, including lower serum drug levels, “which of course can be related to anti-drug antibody production,” he said.

He pointed to two studies of ustekinumab: One prospective observational cohort study that reported an association of lower early drug levels of the IL-12/23 receptor antagonist with lower Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores, and another observational study that documented an association between anti-drug antibody positivity with lower ustekinumab levels and impaired clinical response.

“We also now know ... that there are genetic endotypes in psoriasis, and that patients who are [HLA-C*06:02]-positive tend to respond a little better to drugs like ustekinumab, and those who are [HLA-C*06:02]-negative tend to do a little better with the TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Liao said. The human leukocyte antigen (HLA) allele HLA-C*06:02 is associated with susceptibility to psoriasis.

In a study using a national psoriasis registry, HLA-C*06:02-negative patients were 3 times more likely to achieve PASI90 status in response to adalimumab, a TNF-alpha inhibitor, than with ustekinumab treatment. And in a meta-analysis covering eight studies with more than 1,000 patients with psoriasis, the median PASI75 response rate after 6 months of ustekinumab therapy was 92% in the HLA-C*06:02-positive group and 67% in HLA-C*06:02-negative patients.

The recently published cohort study showing a 6% rate of multiple biologic failure evaluated patients in the multicenter CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry who initiated their first biologic between 2015 and 2020 and were followed for 2 or more years. Investigators looked for sociodemographic and clinical differences between the patients who continued use of their first biologic for at least 2 years (“good response”), and those who discontinued two or more biologics of different classes, each used for at least 90 days, because of inadequate efficacy.

Of 1,039 evaluated patients, 490 (47.2%) had good clinical response to their first biologic and 65 (6.3%) had multiple biologic failure. All biologic classes were represented among those who failed multiple biologics. The first and second biologic classes used were attempted for a mean duration of 10 months – “an adequate trial” of each, Dr. Liao said.

In multivariable regression analysis, six variables were significantly associated with multiple biologic failure: female sex at birth, shorter disease duration, earlier year of biologic initiation, prior nonbiologic systemic therapy, having Medicaid insurance, and a history of hyperlipidemia. The latter is “interesting because other studies have shown that metabolic syndrome, of which hyperlipidemia is a component, can also relate to poor response to biologics,” Dr. Liao said.

The most common sequences of first-to-second biologics among those with multiple biologic failure were TNF inhibitor to IL-17 inhibitor (30.8%); IL-12/23 inhibitor to IL-17 inhibitor (21.5%); TNF inhibitor to IL-12/23 inhibitor (12.3%); and IL-17 inhibitor to IL-23 inhibitor (10.8%).

The vast majority of patients failed more than two biologics, however, and “more than 20% had five or more biologics tried over a relatively short period,” Dr. Liao said.
 

Comorbidities and biologic failure in psoriasis, PsA

In practice, it was said during a discussion period, biologic failures in psoriasis can be of two types: a primary inadequate response or initial failure, or a secondary failure with initial improvement followed by declining or no response. “I agree 100% that these probably represent two different endotypes,” Dr. Liao said. “There’s research emerging that psoriasis isn’t necessarily a clean phenotype.”

The option of focusing on comorbidities in the face of biologic failure was another point of discussion. “Maybe the next biologic is not the answer,” a meeting participant said. “Maybe we should focus on metabolic syndrome.”

“I agree,” Dr. Liao said. “In clinic, there are people who may not respond to therapies but have other comorbidities and factors that make it difficult to manage [their psoriasis] ... that may be causative for psoriasis. Maybe if we treat the comorbidities, it will make it easier to treat the psoriasis.”

Addressing comorbidities and “extra-articular traits” such as poorly controlled diabetes, centralized pain, anxiety and depression, and obesity is something Dr. Ritchlin advocates for PsA. “Centralized pain, I believe, is a major driver of nonresponse,” he said at the meeting. “We have to be careful about blaming nonresponse and lack of efficacy of biologics when it could be a wholly different mechanism the biologic won’t treat ... for example, centralized pain.”

As with psoriasis, the emergence of antidrug antibodies may be one reason for the secondary failure of biologic agents for PsA, Dr. Ritchlin and his coauthors wrote in their paper on management of PsA after failure of one TNF inhibitor. Other areas to consider in evaluating failure, they wrote, are compliance and time of dosing, and financial barriers.

Low long-term persistence of second-line biologics for patients with PsA was demonstrated in a national cohort study utilizing the French health insurance database, Dr. Ritchlin noted at the research meeting. 

The French study covered almost 3,000 patients who started a second biologic after discontinuing a TNF inhibitor during 2015-2020. Overall, 1-year and 3-year persistence rates were 42% and 17%, respectively.

Dr. Liao disclosed research grant funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Trex Bio. Dr. Ritchlin reported no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Multiple biologic failure in a minority of patients with psoriasis may have several causes, from genetic endotypes and immunologic factors to lower serum drug levels, the presence of anti-drug antibody levels, female sex, and certain comorbidities, Wilson Liao, MD, said at the annual research symposium of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

“Tough-to-treat psoriasis remains a challenge despite newer therapies ... Why do we still have this sub-population of patients who seem to be refractory?” said Dr. Liao, professor and associate vice chair of research in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, who coauthored a 2015-2022 prospective cohort analysis that documented about 6% of patients failing two or more biologic agents of different mechanistic classes.

“These patients are really suffering,” he said. “We need to have better guidelines and treatment algorithms for these patients.”

A significant number of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), meanwhile, are inadequate responders to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibition, Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, PhD, professor of medicine in the division of allergy/immunology and rheumatology and the Center of Musculoskeletal Research at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), said during another session at the meeting.

The long-term “persistence,” or usage, of first-line biologics in patients with PsA – and of second-line biologics in patients who failed one TNF-inhibitor – is low, but the literature offers little information on the reasons for TNF-inhibitor discontinuation, said Dr. Ritchlin, who coauthored a perspective piece in Arthritis & Rheumatology on managing the patient with PsA who fails one TNF inhibitor.

Dr. Ritchlin and his coauthors were asked to provide evidence-informed advice and algorithms, but the task was difficult. “It’s hard to know what to recommend for the next step if we don’t know why patients failed the first,” he said. “The point is, we need more data. [Clinical trials] are not recording the kind of information we need.”
 

Anti-drug antibodies, genetics, other factors in psoriasis

Research shows that in large cohorts, “all the biologics do seem to lose efficacy over time,” said Dr. Liao, who directs the UCSF Psoriasis and Skin Treatment Center. “Some are better than others, but we do see a loss of effectiveness over time.”

A cohort study published in 2022 in JAMA Dermatology, for instance, documented declining “drug survival” associated with ineffectiveness during 2 years of treatment for each of five biologics studied (adalimumab [Humira], ustekinumab [Stelara], secukinumab [Cosentyx], guselkumab [Tremfya], and ixekizumab [Taltz]).

“There have been a number of theories put forward” as to why that’s the case, including lower serum drug levels, “which of course can be related to anti-drug antibody production,” he said.

He pointed to two studies of ustekinumab: One prospective observational cohort study that reported an association of lower early drug levels of the IL-12/23 receptor antagonist with lower Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores, and another observational study that documented an association between anti-drug antibody positivity with lower ustekinumab levels and impaired clinical response.

“We also now know ... that there are genetic endotypes in psoriasis, and that patients who are [HLA-C*06:02]-positive tend to respond a little better to drugs like ustekinumab, and those who are [HLA-C*06:02]-negative tend to do a little better with the TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Liao said. The human leukocyte antigen (HLA) allele HLA-C*06:02 is associated with susceptibility to psoriasis.

In a study using a national psoriasis registry, HLA-C*06:02-negative patients were 3 times more likely to achieve PASI90 status in response to adalimumab, a TNF-alpha inhibitor, than with ustekinumab treatment. And in a meta-analysis covering eight studies with more than 1,000 patients with psoriasis, the median PASI75 response rate after 6 months of ustekinumab therapy was 92% in the HLA-C*06:02-positive group and 67% in HLA-C*06:02-negative patients.

The recently published cohort study showing a 6% rate of multiple biologic failure evaluated patients in the multicenter CorEvitas Psoriasis Registry who initiated their first biologic between 2015 and 2020 and were followed for 2 or more years. Investigators looked for sociodemographic and clinical differences between the patients who continued use of their first biologic for at least 2 years (“good response”), and those who discontinued two or more biologics of different classes, each used for at least 90 days, because of inadequate efficacy.

Of 1,039 evaluated patients, 490 (47.2%) had good clinical response to their first biologic and 65 (6.3%) had multiple biologic failure. All biologic classes were represented among those who failed multiple biologics. The first and second biologic classes used were attempted for a mean duration of 10 months – “an adequate trial” of each, Dr. Liao said.

In multivariable regression analysis, six variables were significantly associated with multiple biologic failure: female sex at birth, shorter disease duration, earlier year of biologic initiation, prior nonbiologic systemic therapy, having Medicaid insurance, and a history of hyperlipidemia. The latter is “interesting because other studies have shown that metabolic syndrome, of which hyperlipidemia is a component, can also relate to poor response to biologics,” Dr. Liao said.

The most common sequences of first-to-second biologics among those with multiple biologic failure were TNF inhibitor to IL-17 inhibitor (30.8%); IL-12/23 inhibitor to IL-17 inhibitor (21.5%); TNF inhibitor to IL-12/23 inhibitor (12.3%); and IL-17 inhibitor to IL-23 inhibitor (10.8%).

The vast majority of patients failed more than two biologics, however, and “more than 20% had five or more biologics tried over a relatively short period,” Dr. Liao said.
 

Comorbidities and biologic failure in psoriasis, PsA

In practice, it was said during a discussion period, biologic failures in psoriasis can be of two types: a primary inadequate response or initial failure, or a secondary failure with initial improvement followed by declining or no response. “I agree 100% that these probably represent two different endotypes,” Dr. Liao said. “There’s research emerging that psoriasis isn’t necessarily a clean phenotype.”

The option of focusing on comorbidities in the face of biologic failure was another point of discussion. “Maybe the next biologic is not the answer,” a meeting participant said. “Maybe we should focus on metabolic syndrome.”

“I agree,” Dr. Liao said. “In clinic, there are people who may not respond to therapies but have other comorbidities and factors that make it difficult to manage [their psoriasis] ... that may be causative for psoriasis. Maybe if we treat the comorbidities, it will make it easier to treat the psoriasis.”

Addressing comorbidities and “extra-articular traits” such as poorly controlled diabetes, centralized pain, anxiety and depression, and obesity is something Dr. Ritchlin advocates for PsA. “Centralized pain, I believe, is a major driver of nonresponse,” he said at the meeting. “We have to be careful about blaming nonresponse and lack of efficacy of biologics when it could be a wholly different mechanism the biologic won’t treat ... for example, centralized pain.”

As with psoriasis, the emergence of antidrug antibodies may be one reason for the secondary failure of biologic agents for PsA, Dr. Ritchlin and his coauthors wrote in their paper on management of PsA after failure of one TNF inhibitor. Other areas to consider in evaluating failure, they wrote, are compliance and time of dosing, and financial barriers.

Low long-term persistence of second-line biologics for patients with PsA was demonstrated in a national cohort study utilizing the French health insurance database, Dr. Ritchlin noted at the research meeting. 

The French study covered almost 3,000 patients who started a second biologic after discontinuing a TNF inhibitor during 2015-2020. Overall, 1-year and 3-year persistence rates were 42% and 17%, respectively.

Dr. Liao disclosed research grant funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Trex Bio. Dr. Ritchlin reported no disclosures.

TOPLINE:

Most patients with psoriasis are not participating in highly shared decision-making (SDM) with clinicians about their care.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers drew from the 2014-2017 and 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) to identify 3,715,027 patients with psoriasis, to evaluate the association between SDM (a patient-centered approach to selecting treatment on the basis of a discussion between the clinician and patient) and satisfaction with care.
• SDM was determined by patient responses on a 4-point Likert scale to seven MEPS variables, including the question, “How often did doctors or other health providers listen carefully to you?”
• Patient satisfaction with care was measured with a MEPS variable that asked respondents to rate their health care providers on a scale of 1-10.
• Researchers used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between SDM and demographic and clinical characteristics in patients with psoriasis, and multiple linear regression analysis to assess the association between SDM and patient satisfaction with care.

TAKEAWAY:

• The average SDM score was 3.6 out of 4, and the average satisfaction with care score was 8.6 out of 10.
• However, only about 42% of the cohort reported a high SDM, defined as a score of 3.9 or greater.
• After adjusting for covariates, the researchers found that patients who had high SDM had, on average, 85% higher satisfaction with care (P < .001).
• Compared with men, women had about 27% higher satisfaction with care (P = .023), whereas non-Hispanic patients had lower satisfaction with care compared with Hispanic patients (P = .037).

IN PRACTICE:

“It is important to construct a framework for carrying out SDM with patients with psoriasis to enhance clinician-patient communication and improve patient outcomes,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, chief of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, led the research. The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The ability to measure SDM in patients with psoriasis was limited by the seven items from MEPS. The diagnosis of psoriasis was based on self-report.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr. Armstrong disclosed that she has served as a research investigator and/or scientific adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Arcutis, ASLAN, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, EPI, Incyte, Leo, UCB, Janssen, Lilly, Nimbus, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun, Dermavant, Dermira, Sanofi, Regeneron, Pfizer, and Modmed.

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

TOPLINE:

Most patients with psoriasis are not participating in highly shared decision-making (SDM) with clinicians about their care.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers drew from the 2014-2017 and 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) to identify 3,715,027 patients with psoriasis, to evaluate the association between SDM (a patient-centered approach to selecting treatment on the basis of a discussion between the clinician and patient) and satisfaction with care.
• SDM was determined by patient responses on a 4-point Likert scale to seven MEPS variables, including the question, “How often did doctors or other health providers listen carefully to you?”
• Patient satisfaction with care was measured with a MEPS variable that asked respondents to rate their health care providers on a scale of 1-10.
• Researchers used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between SDM and demographic and clinical characteristics in patients with psoriasis, and multiple linear regression analysis to assess the association between SDM and patient satisfaction with care.

TAKEAWAY:

• The average SDM score was 3.6 out of 4, and the average satisfaction with care score was 8.6 out of 10.
• However, only about 42% of the cohort reported a high SDM, defined as a score of 3.9 or greater.
• After adjusting for covariates, the researchers found that patients who had high SDM had, on average, 85% higher satisfaction with care (P < .001).
• Compared with men, women had about 27% higher satisfaction with care (P = .023), whereas non-Hispanic patients had lower satisfaction with care compared with Hispanic patients (P = .037).

IN PRACTICE:

“It is important to construct a framework for carrying out SDM with patients with psoriasis to enhance clinician-patient communication and improve patient outcomes,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, chief of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, led the research. The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The ability to measure SDM in patients with psoriasis was limited by the seven items from MEPS. The diagnosis of psoriasis was based on self-report.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr. Armstrong disclosed that she has served as a research investigator and/or scientific adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Arcutis, ASLAN, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, EPI, Incyte, Leo, UCB, Janssen, Lilly, Nimbus, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun, Dermavant, Dermira, Sanofi, Regeneron, Pfizer, and Modmed.

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

TOPLINE:

Most patients with psoriasis are not participating in highly shared decision-making (SDM) with clinicians about their care.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers drew from the 2014-2017 and 2019 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) to identify 3,715,027 patients with psoriasis, to evaluate the association between SDM (a patient-centered approach to selecting treatment on the basis of a discussion between the clinician and patient) and satisfaction with care.
• SDM was determined by patient responses on a 4-point Likert scale to seven MEPS variables, including the question, “How often did doctors or other health providers listen carefully to you?”
• Patient satisfaction with care was measured with a MEPS variable that asked respondents to rate their health care providers on a scale of 1-10.
• Researchers used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between SDM and demographic and clinical characteristics in patients with psoriasis, and multiple linear regression analysis to assess the association between SDM and patient satisfaction with care.

TAKEAWAY:

• The average SDM score was 3.6 out of 4, and the average satisfaction with care score was 8.6 out of 10.
• However, only about 42% of the cohort reported a high SDM, defined as a score of 3.9 or greater.
• After adjusting for covariates, the researchers found that patients who had high SDM had, on average, 85% higher satisfaction with care (P < .001).
• Compared with men, women had about 27% higher satisfaction with care (P = .023), whereas non-Hispanic patients had lower satisfaction with care compared with Hispanic patients (P = .037).

IN PRACTICE:

“It is important to construct a framework for carrying out SDM with patients with psoriasis to enhance clinician-patient communication and improve patient outcomes,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, chief of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, led the research. The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The ability to measure SDM in patients with psoriasis was limited by the seven items from MEPS. The diagnosis of psoriasis was based on self-report.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr. Armstrong disclosed that she has served as a research investigator and/or scientific adviser to AbbVie, Almirall, Arcutis, ASLAN, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, EPI, Incyte, Leo, UCB, Janssen, Lilly, Nimbus, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun, Dermavant, Dermira, Sanofi, Regeneron, Pfizer, and Modmed.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of multiple inflammatory conditions. This is the first approval for a ustekinumab biosimilar in the United States.

Ustekinumab-auub was also granted an interchangeability designation, meaning that, depending on state law, a pharmacist may substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without consulting the prescribing provider.

“Today’s approval exemplifies the FDA’s longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products,” Sarah Yim, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “This approval can empower patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective, and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost.”

Ustekinumab, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, targets interleukin-12 and IL-23 and was first approved in 2009. Ustekinumab-auub was developed by Amgen.

Ustekinumab-auub is approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, active psoriatic arthritis, moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease, and moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis. It is also approved for pediatric patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy and active psoriatic arthritis.

The approval was based on “comprehensive review of scientific evidence,” including “comparisons of the products on an analytical level using an extensive battery of chemical and biological tests and biological assays that confirmed similarity in the structural and functional features of Wezlana and Stelara (including those known to impact safety and efficacy), and comparative human pharmacokinetic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data,” the FDA said.

Some common side effects of ustekinumab-auub include nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, fatigue, and nausea. The most severe side effect of the biosimilar, as with the reference drug ustekinumab, is infection.

The product launch of ustekinumab-auub will be delayed as a part of a settlement of Johnson & Johnson’s lawsuit against Amgen, according to Reuters. The details of the settlement are confidential, but it was stated that the biosimilar would be available by Jan. 1, 2025.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of multiple inflammatory conditions. This is the first approval for a ustekinumab biosimilar in the United States.

Ustekinumab-auub was also granted an interchangeability designation, meaning that, depending on state law, a pharmacist may substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without consulting the prescribing provider.

“Today’s approval exemplifies the FDA’s longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products,” Sarah Yim, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “This approval can empower patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective, and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost.”

Ustekinumab, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, targets interleukin-12 and IL-23 and was first approved in 2009. Ustekinumab-auub was developed by Amgen.

Ustekinumab-auub is approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, active psoriatic arthritis, moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease, and moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis. It is also approved for pediatric patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy and active psoriatic arthritis.

The approval was based on “comprehensive review of scientific evidence,” including “comparisons of the products on an analytical level using an extensive battery of chemical and biological tests and biological assays that confirmed similarity in the structural and functional features of Wezlana and Stelara (including those known to impact safety and efficacy), and comparative human pharmacokinetic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data,” the FDA said.

Some common side effects of ustekinumab-auub include nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, fatigue, and nausea. The most severe side effect of the biosimilar, as with the reference drug ustekinumab, is infection.

The product launch of ustekinumab-auub will be delayed as a part of a settlement of Johnson & Johnson’s lawsuit against Amgen, according to Reuters. The details of the settlement are confidential, but it was stated that the biosimilar would be available by Jan. 1, 2025.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of multiple inflammatory conditions. This is the first approval for a ustekinumab biosimilar in the United States.

Ustekinumab-auub was also granted an interchangeability designation, meaning that, depending on state law, a pharmacist may substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without consulting the prescribing provider.

“Today’s approval exemplifies the FDA’s longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products,” Sarah Yim, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “This approval can empower patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective, and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost.”

Ustekinumab, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, targets interleukin-12 and IL-23 and was first approved in 2009. Ustekinumab-auub was developed by Amgen.

Ustekinumab-auub is approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, active psoriatic arthritis, moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease, and moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis. It is also approved for pediatric patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy and active psoriatic arthritis.

The approval was based on “comprehensive review of scientific evidence,” including “comparisons of the products on an analytical level using an extensive battery of chemical and biological tests and biological assays that confirmed similarity in the structural and functional features of Wezlana and Stelara (including those known to impact safety and efficacy), and comparative human pharmacokinetic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data,” the FDA said.

Some common side effects of ustekinumab-auub include nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, fatigue, and nausea. The most severe side effect of the biosimilar, as with the reference drug ustekinumab, is infection.

The product launch of ustekinumab-auub will be delayed as a part of a settlement of Johnson & Johnson’s lawsuit against Amgen, according to Reuters. The details of the settlement are confidential, but it was stated that the biosimilar would be available by Jan. 1, 2025.

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

Short-term use of JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication appears to not be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolic events (VTE), results from a systematic literature review, and meta-analysis showed.

“There remains a knowledge gap regarding the risk of JAK inhibitor use and VTE and/or MACE in the dermatologic population,” researchers led by Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, wrote in their study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology . “Pooled safety studies suggest that the risk of MACE and VTE may be lower in patients treated with JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication than the risk observed in the ORAL Surveillance study, which may be related to the younger age and better health status of those enrolled in trials for dermatologic indications.” The results of that study, which included patients with rheumatoid arthritis only, resulted in the addition of a boxed warning in the labels for topical and oral JAK inhibitors regarding the increased risk of MACE, VTE, serious infections, malignancies, and death .

For the review – thought to be the first to specifically evaluate these risks for dermatologic indications – the researchers searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through April 1, 2023, for phase 3 dermatology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the risk of MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality with JAK inhibitors, compared with placebo or an active comparator in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory skin diseases. They followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used a random-effects model and the DerSimonian-Laird method to calculate adverse events with odds ratios.

The database search yielded 35 RCTs with a total of 20,651 patients. Their mean age was 38.5 years, 54% were male, and the mean follow-up time was 4.9 months. Of the 35 trials, most (21) involved patients with atopic dermatitis, followed by psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (9 trials), alopecia areata (3 trials) and vitiligo (2 trials).

The researchers found no significant difference between JAK inhibitors and placebo/active comparator in composite MACE and all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.57) or in VTE (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.04).

In a secondary analysis, which included additional psoriatic arthritis RCTs, no significant differences between the treatment and placebo/active comparator groups were observed. Similarly, subgroup analyses of oral versus topical JAK inhibitors and a sensitivity analysis that excluded pediatric trials showed no significant differences between patients exposed to JAK inhibitors and those not exposed.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the review, including the lack of access to patient-level data, the fact that most trials only included short-term follow-up, and that the findings have limited generalizability to an older patient population. “It remains unclear if the cardiovascular risks of JAK inhibitors are primarily due to patient level cardiovascular risk factors or are drug mediated,” they concluded. “Dermatologists should carefully select patients and assess baseline cardiovascular risk factors when considering JAK therapy. Cardiovascular risk assessment should continue for the duration of treatment.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the center for eczema and itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study results, characterized the findings as reassuring to dermatologists who may be reluctant to initiate therapy with JAK inhibitors based on concerns about safety signals for MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality.

“These data systematically show that across medications and across conditions, there doesn’t appear to be an increased signal for these events during the short-term, placebo-controlled period which generally spans a few months in most studies,” he told this news organization. The findings, he added, “align well with our clinical experience to date for JAK inhibitor use in inflammatory skin disease. Short-term safety, particularly in relation to boxed warning events such MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality, have generally been favorable with real-world use. It’s good to have a rigorous statistical analysis to refer to when setting patient expectations.”

However, he noted that these data only examined short-term safety during the placebo or active comparator-controlled periods. “Considering that events like MACE or VTE may take many months or years to manifest, continued long-term data generation is needed to fully answer the question of risk,” he said.

Dr. Garshick disclosed that he received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Several other coauthors reported having advisory board roles and/or having received funding or support from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, investigator, and/or a member of the advisory board for several pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop JAK inhibitors.

Short-term use of JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication appears to not be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolic events (VTE), results from a systematic literature review, and meta-analysis showed.

“There remains a knowledge gap regarding the risk of JAK inhibitor use and VTE and/or MACE in the dermatologic population,” researchers led by Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, wrote in their study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology . “Pooled safety studies suggest that the risk of MACE and VTE may be lower in patients treated with JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication than the risk observed in the ORAL Surveillance study, which may be related to the younger age and better health status of those enrolled in trials for dermatologic indications.” The results of that study, which included patients with rheumatoid arthritis only, resulted in the addition of a boxed warning in the labels for topical and oral JAK inhibitors regarding the increased risk of MACE, VTE, serious infections, malignancies, and death .

For the review – thought to be the first to specifically evaluate these risks for dermatologic indications – the researchers searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through April 1, 2023, for phase 3 dermatology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the risk of MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality with JAK inhibitors, compared with placebo or an active comparator in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory skin diseases. They followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used a random-effects model and the DerSimonian-Laird method to calculate adverse events with odds ratios.

The database search yielded 35 RCTs with a total of 20,651 patients. Their mean age was 38.5 years, 54% were male, and the mean follow-up time was 4.9 months. Of the 35 trials, most (21) involved patients with atopic dermatitis, followed by psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (9 trials), alopecia areata (3 trials) and vitiligo (2 trials).

The researchers found no significant difference between JAK inhibitors and placebo/active comparator in composite MACE and all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.57) or in VTE (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.04).

In a secondary analysis, which included additional psoriatic arthritis RCTs, no significant differences between the treatment and placebo/active comparator groups were observed. Similarly, subgroup analyses of oral versus topical JAK inhibitors and a sensitivity analysis that excluded pediatric trials showed no significant differences between patients exposed to JAK inhibitors and those not exposed.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the review, including the lack of access to patient-level data, the fact that most trials only included short-term follow-up, and that the findings have limited generalizability to an older patient population. “It remains unclear if the cardiovascular risks of JAK inhibitors are primarily due to patient level cardiovascular risk factors or are drug mediated,” they concluded. “Dermatologists should carefully select patients and assess baseline cardiovascular risk factors when considering JAK therapy. Cardiovascular risk assessment should continue for the duration of treatment.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the center for eczema and itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study results, characterized the findings as reassuring to dermatologists who may be reluctant to initiate therapy with JAK inhibitors based on concerns about safety signals for MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality.

“These data systematically show that across medications and across conditions, there doesn’t appear to be an increased signal for these events during the short-term, placebo-controlled period which generally spans a few months in most studies,” he told this news organization. The findings, he added, “align well with our clinical experience to date for JAK inhibitor use in inflammatory skin disease. Short-term safety, particularly in relation to boxed warning events such MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality, have generally been favorable with real-world use. It’s good to have a rigorous statistical analysis to refer to when setting patient expectations.”

However, he noted that these data only examined short-term safety during the placebo or active comparator-controlled periods. “Considering that events like MACE or VTE may take many months or years to manifest, continued long-term data generation is needed to fully answer the question of risk,” he said.

Dr. Garshick disclosed that he received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Several other coauthors reported having advisory board roles and/or having received funding or support from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, investigator, and/or a member of the advisory board for several pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop JAK inhibitors.

Short-term use of JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication appears to not be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolic events (VTE), results from a systematic literature review, and meta-analysis showed.

“There remains a knowledge gap regarding the risk of JAK inhibitor use and VTE and/or MACE in the dermatologic population,” researchers led by Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, wrote in their study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology . “Pooled safety studies suggest that the risk of MACE and VTE may be lower in patients treated with JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication than the risk observed in the ORAL Surveillance study, which may be related to the younger age and better health status of those enrolled in trials for dermatologic indications.” The results of that study, which included patients with rheumatoid arthritis only, resulted in the addition of a boxed warning in the labels for topical and oral JAK inhibitors regarding the increased risk of MACE, VTE, serious infections, malignancies, and death .

For the review – thought to be the first to specifically evaluate these risks for dermatologic indications – the researchers searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through April 1, 2023, for phase 3 dermatology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the risk of MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality with JAK inhibitors, compared with placebo or an active comparator in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory skin diseases. They followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used a random-effects model and the DerSimonian-Laird method to calculate adverse events with odds ratios.

The database search yielded 35 RCTs with a total of 20,651 patients. Their mean age was 38.5 years, 54% were male, and the mean follow-up time was 4.9 months. Of the 35 trials, most (21) involved patients with atopic dermatitis, followed by psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (9 trials), alopecia areata (3 trials) and vitiligo (2 trials).

The researchers found no significant difference between JAK inhibitors and placebo/active comparator in composite MACE and all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.57) or in VTE (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.04).

In a secondary analysis, which included additional psoriatic arthritis RCTs, no significant differences between the treatment and placebo/active comparator groups were observed. Similarly, subgroup analyses of oral versus topical JAK inhibitors and a sensitivity analysis that excluded pediatric trials showed no significant differences between patients exposed to JAK inhibitors and those not exposed.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the review, including the lack of access to patient-level data, the fact that most trials only included short-term follow-up, and that the findings have limited generalizability to an older patient population. “It remains unclear if the cardiovascular risks of JAK inhibitors are primarily due to patient level cardiovascular risk factors or are drug mediated,” they concluded. “Dermatologists should carefully select patients and assess baseline cardiovascular risk factors when considering JAK therapy. Cardiovascular risk assessment should continue for the duration of treatment.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the center for eczema and itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study results, characterized the findings as reassuring to dermatologists who may be reluctant to initiate therapy with JAK inhibitors based on concerns about safety signals for MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality.

“These data systematically show that across medications and across conditions, there doesn’t appear to be an increased signal for these events during the short-term, placebo-controlled period which generally spans a few months in most studies,” he told this news organization. The findings, he added, “align well with our clinical experience to date for JAK inhibitor use in inflammatory skin disease. Short-term safety, particularly in relation to boxed warning events such MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality, have generally been favorable with real-world use. It’s good to have a rigorous statistical analysis to refer to when setting patient expectations.”

However, he noted that these data only examined short-term safety during the placebo or active comparator-controlled periods. “Considering that events like MACE or VTE may take many months or years to manifest, continued long-term data generation is needed to fully answer the question of risk,” he said.

Dr. Garshick disclosed that he received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Several other coauthors reported having advisory board roles and/or having received funding or support from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, investigator, and/or a member of the advisory board for several pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop JAK inhibitors.