Psoriasis

Don’t underestimate the importance of baseline lab tests before starting psoriasis patients on biologics, said April Armstrong, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Keep class-specific considerations in mind when collecting baseline lab data to help support the success of biologics in treating psoriasis, Dr. Armstrong said at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium.

• Ustekinumab: Baseline HIV or pregnancy test, and a TB evaluation at baseline as well as annual monitoring.
• Etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab: Baseline TB evaluation and screening hepatitis panel, liver function tests, and blood count, with option to add pregnancy test or HIV test. A liver function test/hepatitis panel is indicated annually, and TB should be monitored annually. Be cautious about using this class of drugs in patients with heart failure, and verify the absence of demyelinating disease in patients prior to prescribing this class of drugs.
• Guselkumab: Baseline TB evaluation, possible pregnancy or HIV tests, followed by annual TB evaluation.
• Secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab: Baseline TB evaluation, consider HIV or pregnancy tests, followed by annual TB evaluation. Be cautious about using this class of drugs in patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease; assess and counsel for increased risk of suicidality when considering brodalumab.

Beyond the general considerations, several other factors can help maximize success with particular biologics, Dr. Armstrong said at the meeting, which is jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education.

The number of injections given in the first year, which range from 5 (ustekinumab) to 64 (etanercept) is an important consideration for some patients, Dr. Armstrong noted; the number of injections for the remaining biologics are guselkumab, 8; ixekizumab, 17; brodalumab and adalimumab, both 27, and secukinumab, 32. In addition, the IL-17 inhibitors carry some risk of oral candidiasis and inflammatory bowel disease.

This publication and the Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by Frontline Medical News.

Dr. Armstrong disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Lilly, Regeneron, Sanofi, Modernizing Medicine, and Valeant.

[email protected]

Don’t underestimate the importance of baseline lab tests before starting psoriasis patients on biologics, said April Armstrong, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Keep class-specific considerations in mind when collecting baseline lab data to help support the success of biologics in treating psoriasis, Dr. Armstrong said at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium.

• Ustekinumab: Baseline HIV or pregnancy test, and a TB evaluation at baseline as well as annual monitoring.
• Etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab: Baseline TB evaluation and screening hepatitis panel, liver function tests, and blood count, with option to add pregnancy test or HIV test. A liver function test/hepatitis panel is indicated annually, and TB should be monitored annually. Be cautious about using this class of drugs in patients with heart failure, and verify the absence of demyelinating disease in patients prior to prescribing this class of drugs.
• Guselkumab: Baseline TB evaluation, possible pregnancy or HIV tests, followed by annual TB evaluation.
• Secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab: Baseline TB evaluation, consider HIV or pregnancy tests, followed by annual TB evaluation. Be cautious about using this class of drugs in patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease; assess and counsel for increased risk of suicidality when considering brodalumab.

Beyond the general considerations, several other factors can help maximize success with particular biologics, Dr. Armstrong said at the meeting, which is jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education.

The number of injections given in the first year, which range from 5 (ustekinumab) to 64 (etanercept) is an important consideration for some patients, Dr. Armstrong noted; the number of injections for the remaining biologics are guselkumab, 8; ixekizumab, 17; brodalumab and adalimumab, both 27, and secukinumab, 32. In addition, the IL-17 inhibitors carry some risk of oral candidiasis and inflammatory bowel disease.

This publication and the Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by Frontline Medical News.

Dr. Armstrong disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Lilly, Regeneron, Sanofi, Modernizing Medicine, and Valeant.

[email protected]

Don’t underestimate the importance of baseline lab tests before starting psoriasis patients on biologics, said April Armstrong, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Keep class-specific considerations in mind when collecting baseline lab data to help support the success of biologics in treating psoriasis, Dr. Armstrong said at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium.

• Ustekinumab: Baseline HIV or pregnancy test, and a TB evaluation at baseline as well as annual monitoring.
• Etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab: Baseline TB evaluation and screening hepatitis panel, liver function tests, and blood count, with option to add pregnancy test or HIV test. A liver function test/hepatitis panel is indicated annually, and TB should be monitored annually. Be cautious about using this class of drugs in patients with heart failure, and verify the absence of demyelinating disease in patients prior to prescribing this class of drugs.
• Guselkumab: Baseline TB evaluation, possible pregnancy or HIV tests, followed by annual TB evaluation.
• Secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab: Baseline TB evaluation, consider HIV or pregnancy tests, followed by annual TB evaluation. Be cautious about using this class of drugs in patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease; assess and counsel for increased risk of suicidality when considering brodalumab.

Beyond the general considerations, several other factors can help maximize success with particular biologics, Dr. Armstrong said at the meeting, which is jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education.

The number of injections given in the first year, which range from 5 (ustekinumab) to 64 (etanercept) is an important consideration for some patients, Dr. Armstrong noted; the number of injections for the remaining biologics are guselkumab, 8; ixekizumab, 17; brodalumab and adalimumab, both 27, and secukinumab, 32. In addition, the IL-17 inhibitors carry some risk of oral candidiasis and inflammatory bowel disease.

This publication and the Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by Frontline Medical News.

Dr. Armstrong disclosed relationships with multiple companies including AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Lilly, Regeneron, Sanofi, Modernizing Medicine, and Valeant.

[email protected]

The pathogenesis theories and treatment approaches to psoriasis have evolved over the past 3 decades, and the latest treatments continue to show safety and effectiveness, according to Alan Menter, MD, chairman of dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas.

Before the 1980s, psoriasis was seen as a disease of keratinocyte dysfunction, with treatments that included methotrexate, UVB, and retinoids, Dr. Menter said in a presentation at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. In the 1980s, it was considered an immunologic disease, and then an interleukin (IL)–12/Th1–mediated disease, with anti-CD2, anti-CD11a, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha blocker treatments from 1990 to 2004.

The pathogenesis theories and treatment approaches to psoriasis have evolved over the past 3 decades, and the latest treatments continue to show safety and effectiveness, according to Alan Menter, MD, chairman of dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas.

Before the 1980s, psoriasis was seen as a disease of keratinocyte dysfunction, with treatments that included methotrexate, UVB, and retinoids, Dr. Menter said in a presentation at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. In the 1980s, it was considered an immunologic disease, and then an interleukin (IL)–12/Th1–mediated disease, with anti-CD2, anti-CD11a, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha blocker treatments from 1990 to 2004.

The pathogenesis theories and treatment approaches to psoriasis have evolved over the past 3 decades, and the latest treatments continue to show safety and effectiveness, according to Alan Menter, MD, chairman of dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas.

Before the 1980s, psoriasis was seen as a disease of keratinocyte dysfunction, with treatments that included methotrexate, UVB, and retinoids, Dr. Menter said in a presentation at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. In the 1980s, it was considered an immunologic disease, and then an interleukin (IL)–12/Th1–mediated disease, with anti-CD2, anti-CD11a, and tumor necrosis factor–alpha blocker treatments from 1990 to 2004.

Treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors was associated with fewer adverse events (AEs) than with methotrexate, in an international, retrospective study of children with psoriasis.

“Patients with pediatric psoriasis treated with methotrexate had a greater risk of having one or more AEs than those treated with TNF-I [tumor necrosis factor inhibitors], although fewer AEs occurred with methotrexate or TNF-I than with other drug classes,” Inge M.G.J. Bronckers, MD, of the department of dermatology at Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and his coauthors reported.

eenevski/Thinkstock

Among those treated with methotrexate, administration of folic acid six to seven times a week was more protective against methotrexate-associated gastrointestinal AEs, than when administered only once a week. The study was published on Sept. 13 in JAMA Dermatology (2017. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.3029).

The study evaluated 390 children with moderate to severe psoriasis, treated with at least one systemic medication at 20 centers in Canada, Europe, and the United States, during December 1990-September 2014. They were diagnosed at a mean age of about 8 years, and started systemic therapy a mean of 3 years later. Of the 390 children treated for psoriasis, 270 were treated with methotrexate and 106 were treated with biologics, most often the TNF inhibitor etanercept. The remaining treatments were acitretin, cyclosporine, and fumaric acid esters; almost 19% were treated with more than one medication.

Of those treated with methotrexate, 130 (48.1%) experienced one or more treatment-related AEs, compared with 41 (38.7%) of those treated with a biologic agent (odds ratio, 1.76; P = .03). Almost 25% of those on methotrexate had GI-related AEs, the most common AE; other AEs included elevated transaminase levels and fatigue. Among those on biologics, injection site reactions were the most common (in 18.9%); 12 patients (11.3%) of those on biologics had infections, primarily airway infections.

Compared with those on a TNF inhibitor, patients on methotrexate were more likely to experience GI-related AEs (OR, 11.49; P less than .001) or to discontinue treatment (OR, 5.69; P = .02), the investigators said. But associated infections were more common with TNF inhibitors (OR, 0.36; P = .03), compared with methotrexate. There were no cases of malignancies or tuberculosis.

Folic acid was prescribed to 239 patients receiving methotrexate in one of three regimens: once weekly; six times weekly, avoiding the methotrexate day; and seven times weekly, according to the investigators. Compared with once-weekly treatment, administration six or seven times weekly was associated with a lower probability of developing a GI-related AE (OR, 0.16; P less than .001; OR, 0.21; P = .003, respectively).

“Data are sparse on the relative use of systemic agents and their toxic effects in the pediatric population,” Dr. Bronckers and his coauthors wrote, adding that standardized guidelines and more data concerning children are needed. “Our data suggest that a weekly administration of folic acid could be replaced with a daily or six times weekly administration to reduce GI AEs, although the potential efficacy of six vs. seven times weekly dosing deserves further investigation,” they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from the International Psoriasis Council. Of the 23 authors, 11 had financial disclosures with various pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors was associated with fewer adverse events (AEs) than with methotrexate, in an international, retrospective study of children with psoriasis.

“Patients with pediatric psoriasis treated with methotrexate had a greater risk of having one or more AEs than those treated with TNF-I [tumor necrosis factor inhibitors], although fewer AEs occurred with methotrexate or TNF-I than with other drug classes,” Inge M.G.J. Bronckers, MD, of the department of dermatology at Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and his coauthors reported.

eenevski/Thinkstock

Among those treated with methotrexate, administration of folic acid six to seven times a week was more protective against methotrexate-associated gastrointestinal AEs, than when administered only once a week. The study was published on Sept. 13 in JAMA Dermatology (2017. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.3029).

The study evaluated 390 children with moderate to severe psoriasis, treated with at least one systemic medication at 20 centers in Canada, Europe, and the United States, during December 1990-September 2014. They were diagnosed at a mean age of about 8 years, and started systemic therapy a mean of 3 years later. Of the 390 children treated for psoriasis, 270 were treated with methotrexate and 106 were treated with biologics, most often the TNF inhibitor etanercept. The remaining treatments were acitretin, cyclosporine, and fumaric acid esters; almost 19% were treated with more than one medication.

Of those treated with methotrexate, 130 (48.1%) experienced one or more treatment-related AEs, compared with 41 (38.7%) of those treated with a biologic agent (odds ratio, 1.76; P = .03). Almost 25% of those on methotrexate had GI-related AEs, the most common AE; other AEs included elevated transaminase levels and fatigue. Among those on biologics, injection site reactions were the most common (in 18.9%); 12 patients (11.3%) of those on biologics had infections, primarily airway infections.

Compared with those on a TNF inhibitor, patients on methotrexate were more likely to experience GI-related AEs (OR, 11.49; P less than .001) or to discontinue treatment (OR, 5.69; P = .02), the investigators said. But associated infections were more common with TNF inhibitors (OR, 0.36; P = .03), compared with methotrexate. There were no cases of malignancies or tuberculosis.

Folic acid was prescribed to 239 patients receiving methotrexate in one of three regimens: once weekly; six times weekly, avoiding the methotrexate day; and seven times weekly, according to the investigators. Compared with once-weekly treatment, administration six or seven times weekly was associated with a lower probability of developing a GI-related AE (OR, 0.16; P less than .001; OR, 0.21; P = .003, respectively).

“Data are sparse on the relative use of systemic agents and their toxic effects in the pediatric population,” Dr. Bronckers and his coauthors wrote, adding that standardized guidelines and more data concerning children are needed. “Our data suggest that a weekly administration of folic acid could be replaced with a daily or six times weekly administration to reduce GI AEs, although the potential efficacy of six vs. seven times weekly dosing deserves further investigation,” they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from the International Psoriasis Council. Of the 23 authors, 11 had financial disclosures with various pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Treatment with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors was associated with fewer adverse events (AEs) than with methotrexate, in an international, retrospective study of children with psoriasis.

“Patients with pediatric psoriasis treated with methotrexate had a greater risk of having one or more AEs than those treated with TNF-I [tumor necrosis factor inhibitors], although fewer AEs occurred with methotrexate or TNF-I than with other drug classes,” Inge M.G.J. Bronckers, MD, of the department of dermatology at Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and his coauthors reported.

eenevski/Thinkstock

Among those treated with methotrexate, administration of folic acid six to seven times a week was more protective against methotrexate-associated gastrointestinal AEs, than when administered only once a week. The study was published on Sept. 13 in JAMA Dermatology (2017. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.3029).

The study evaluated 390 children with moderate to severe psoriasis, treated with at least one systemic medication at 20 centers in Canada, Europe, and the United States, during December 1990-September 2014. They were diagnosed at a mean age of about 8 years, and started systemic therapy a mean of 3 years later. Of the 390 children treated for psoriasis, 270 were treated with methotrexate and 106 were treated with biologics, most often the TNF inhibitor etanercept. The remaining treatments were acitretin, cyclosporine, and fumaric acid esters; almost 19% were treated with more than one medication.

Of those treated with methotrexate, 130 (48.1%) experienced one or more treatment-related AEs, compared with 41 (38.7%) of those treated with a biologic agent (odds ratio, 1.76; P = .03). Almost 25% of those on methotrexate had GI-related AEs, the most common AE; other AEs included elevated transaminase levels and fatigue. Among those on biologics, injection site reactions were the most common (in 18.9%); 12 patients (11.3%) of those on biologics had infections, primarily airway infections.

Compared with those on a TNF inhibitor, patients on methotrexate were more likely to experience GI-related AEs (OR, 11.49; P less than .001) or to discontinue treatment (OR, 5.69; P = .02), the investigators said. But associated infections were more common with TNF inhibitors (OR, 0.36; P = .03), compared with methotrexate. There were no cases of malignancies or tuberculosis.

Folic acid was prescribed to 239 patients receiving methotrexate in one of three regimens: once weekly; six times weekly, avoiding the methotrexate day; and seven times weekly, according to the investigators. Compared with once-weekly treatment, administration six or seven times weekly was associated with a lower probability of developing a GI-related AE (OR, 0.16; P less than .001; OR, 0.21; P = .003, respectively).

“Data are sparse on the relative use of systemic agents and their toxic effects in the pediatric population,” Dr. Bronckers and his coauthors wrote, adding that standardized guidelines and more data concerning children are needed. “Our data suggest that a weekly administration of folic acid could be replaced with a daily or six times weekly administration to reduce GI AEs, although the potential efficacy of six vs. seven times weekly dosing deserves further investigation,” they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from the International Psoriasis Council. Of the 23 authors, 11 had financial disclosures with various pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Amgen, maker of the adalimumab biosimilar Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) has reached an agreement with AbbVie, manufacturer of the originator adalimumab Humira, that halts marketing of Amjevita in the United States until 2023 and in Europe until 2018, according to a company statement.

The deal between the two manufacturers settles a patent infringement lawsuit that AbbVie brought against Amgen after it received Food and Drug Administration approval in September 2016 for seven of Humira’s nine indications: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, plaque psoriasis, and polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Amjevita is not approved for two of Humira’s indications, hidradenitis suppurativa and uveitis.

Amgen said in its statement that AbbVie will grant patent licenses for the use and sale of Amjevita worldwide, on a country-by-country basis, with current expectations that marketing will begin in Europe on Oct. 16, 2018, and in the United States on Jan. 31, 2023. Amjevita is named Amgevita in Europe.

[email protected]

Amgen, maker of the adalimumab biosimilar Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) has reached an agreement with AbbVie, manufacturer of the originator adalimumab Humira, that halts marketing of Amjevita in the United States until 2023 and in Europe until 2018, according to a company statement.

The deal between the two manufacturers settles a patent infringement lawsuit that AbbVie brought against Amgen after it received Food and Drug Administration approval in September 2016 for seven of Humira’s nine indications: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, plaque psoriasis, and polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Amjevita is not approved for two of Humira’s indications, hidradenitis suppurativa and uveitis.

Amgen said in its statement that AbbVie will grant patent licenses for the use and sale of Amjevita worldwide, on a country-by-country basis, with current expectations that marketing will begin in Europe on Oct. 16, 2018, and in the United States on Jan. 31, 2023. Amjevita is named Amgevita in Europe.

[email protected]

Amgen, maker of the adalimumab biosimilar Amjevita (adalimumab-atto) has reached an agreement with AbbVie, manufacturer of the originator adalimumab Humira, that halts marketing of Amjevita in the United States until 2023 and in Europe until 2018, according to a company statement.

The deal between the two manufacturers settles a patent infringement lawsuit that AbbVie brought against Amgen after it received Food and Drug Administration approval in September 2016 for seven of Humira’s nine indications: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, plaque psoriasis, and polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Amjevita is not approved for two of Humira’s indications, hidradenitis suppurativa and uveitis.

Amgen said in its statement that AbbVie will grant patent licenses for the use and sale of Amjevita worldwide, on a country-by-country basis, with current expectations that marketing will begin in Europe on Oct. 16, 2018, and in the United States on Jan. 31, 2023. Amjevita is named Amgevita in Europe.

[email protected]

Obese patients who undergo bariatric surgery have a lower risk of later developing psoriasis, according to results of nonrandomized, longitudinal intervention trial.

Cristina Maglio, MD, of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, and her associates found that over a 26-year follow-up period, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of developing psoriasis was 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.89; P = .008) for patients who underwent bariatric surgery, compared with those who received conventional, nonsurgical obesity treatments. Psoriasis developed in 3.6% of 1,991 patients in the surgery group during follow-up and in 5.1% of 2,018 control patients during follow-up.

Conversely, the difference in the risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA), experienced by up to one-third of patients with psoriasis, was not statistically significant (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.43-1.37; P = .287). PsA developed in 1% of subjects from the surgery group and 1.3% from the control group.

©Vasilis Varsakelis/Fotolia

This study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Swedish Rheumatism association, the Swedish Research Council, the University of Gothenburg, and the Swedish federal government. Dr. Anna Rudin reported that part of her salary at Sahlgrenska University is supported by a grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Lena M.S. Carlsson has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck Sharp and Dohme. Dr. Maglio and Dr. Markku Peltonen had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Maglio et al. Obesity. 2017. Dec; 25[12]:2068-73.

Obese patients who undergo bariatric surgery have a lower risk of later developing psoriasis, according to results of nonrandomized, longitudinal intervention trial.

Cristina Maglio, MD, of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, and her associates found that over a 26-year follow-up period, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of developing psoriasis was 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.89; P = .008) for patients who underwent bariatric surgery, compared with those who received conventional, nonsurgical obesity treatments. Psoriasis developed in 3.6% of 1,991 patients in the surgery group during follow-up and in 5.1% of 2,018 control patients during follow-up.

Conversely, the difference in the risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA), experienced by up to one-third of patients with psoriasis, was not statistically significant (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.43-1.37; P = .287). PsA developed in 1% of subjects from the surgery group and 1.3% from the control group.

©Vasilis Varsakelis/Fotolia

This study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Swedish Rheumatism association, the Swedish Research Council, the University of Gothenburg, and the Swedish federal government. Dr. Anna Rudin reported that part of her salary at Sahlgrenska University is supported by a grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Lena M.S. Carlsson has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck Sharp and Dohme. Dr. Maglio and Dr. Markku Peltonen had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Maglio et al. Obesity. 2017. Dec; 25[12]:2068-73.

Obese patients who undergo bariatric surgery have a lower risk of later developing psoriasis, according to results of nonrandomized, longitudinal intervention trial.

Cristina Maglio, MD, of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, and her associates found that over a 26-year follow-up period, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of developing psoriasis was 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.89; P = .008) for patients who underwent bariatric surgery, compared with those who received conventional, nonsurgical obesity treatments. Psoriasis developed in 3.6% of 1,991 patients in the surgery group during follow-up and in 5.1% of 2,018 control patients during follow-up.

Conversely, the difference in the risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA), experienced by up to one-third of patients with psoriasis, was not statistically significant (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.43-1.37; P = .287). PsA developed in 1% of subjects from the surgery group and 1.3% from the control group.

©Vasilis Varsakelis/Fotolia

This study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Swedish Rheumatism association, the Swedish Research Council, the University of Gothenburg, and the Swedish federal government. Dr. Anna Rudin reported that part of her salary at Sahlgrenska University is supported by a grant from AstraZeneca. Dr. Lena M.S. Carlsson has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck Sharp and Dohme. Dr. Maglio and Dr. Markku Peltonen had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Maglio et al. Obesity. 2017. Dec; 25[12]:2068-73.

Current and former smokers were significantly more likely to have psoriasis than were nonsmokers in an analysis of the Korean National Health Insurance database.

Multivariate analyses produced adjusted incidence rates of 1.14 for current smokers (n = 132,566) and 1.11 for former smokers (n = 47,477), compared with nonsmokers (n = 320,435), indicating “that smoking status is an independent potential risk factor for psoriasis,” reported Eun Joo Lee, PhD, of the National Health Insurance Service in Wonjusi, South Korea, and associates (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77[3]:573-5).

[email protected]

Current and former smokers were significantly more likely to have psoriasis than were nonsmokers in an analysis of the Korean National Health Insurance database.

Multivariate analyses produced adjusted incidence rates of 1.14 for current smokers (n = 132,566) and 1.11 for former smokers (n = 47,477), compared with nonsmokers (n = 320,435), indicating “that smoking status is an independent potential risk factor for psoriasis,” reported Eun Joo Lee, PhD, of the National Health Insurance Service in Wonjusi, South Korea, and associates (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77[3]:573-5).

[email protected]

Current and former smokers were significantly more likely to have psoriasis than were nonsmokers in an analysis of the Korean National Health Insurance database.

Multivariate analyses produced adjusted incidence rates of 1.14 for current smokers (n = 132,566) and 1.11 for former smokers (n = 47,477), compared with nonsmokers (n = 320,435), indicating “that smoking status is an independent potential risk factor for psoriasis,” reported Eun Joo Lee, PhD, of the National Health Insurance Service in Wonjusi, South Korea, and associates (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77[3]:573-5).

[email protected]

The world in pediatric dermatology has changed in incredible ways since 1967. In fact, pediatric dermatology was not an organized specialty until years later! This article will look back at some of the history of pediatric dermatology, exploring how different the field was 50 years ago, and how it has evolved into the vibrant field that it is. By looking at some disease states, and differences in practice in relation to the care of dermatologic conditions in children both by pediatricians and dermatologists, we can see the tremendous evolution in our understanding and management of pediatric skin conditions, and perhaps gain insight into the future.

Pediatric dermatology was fairly “neonatal” 50 years ago, with only a few practitioners in the field. Recognizing that up to 30% of pediatric primary care visits include a skin-related problem, and that there was limited training about skin diseases among primary care practitioners and inconsistent training amongst dermatologists, there was a clinical need for establishing the subspecialty of pediatric dermatology. The first international symposium was held in Mexico City in October 1972, and with this meeting the International Society of Pediatric Dermatology was founded. The Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD) began in 1973, with Alvin Jacobs, MD, Samuel Weinberg, MD, Nancy Esterly, MD, Sidney Hurwitz, MD, William Weston, MD, and Coleman Jacobson, MD, as some of the initial “founding mothers and fathers.” The journal Pediatric Dermatology released its first issue in 1982 (35 years ago), and the American Academy of Pediatrics did not have a section of dermatology until 1986.

Lori Farmer/Frontline Medical News

Pediatrics and dermatology: The interface

Many of the first generation of pediatric dermatologists trained as pediatricians prior to pursuing their dermatology work, with some being “assigned” dermatology as pediatric experts, while others did formal residencies in dermatology. This history is important, as pediatric dermatology was, and remains, integrated with pediatrics, even while training in dermatology residencies became standard practice. An important part of the development of the field has been the education of pediatricians and dermatologists by pediatric dermatologists, with a strong sensibility that improved training for both generalists and specialists about pediatric skin disease would yield better care for patients and families.

Initially, there were very few pediatric or dermatology programs in the United States that had pediatric dermatologists. Over the succeeding decades, this is now less common, although even now there are still dermatology and pediatric residency programs that do not have a pediatric dermatologist for either training or to serve their patients. The founding leaders of the SPD set a tone of collaboration nationally and internationally, reaching out to pediatric colleagues and dermatology associates from around the world, and establishing superb educational programs for the exchange of ideas, presentation of challenging cases, and promoting state of the art knowledge of the field. Through annual meetings of the SPD, conferences immediately preceding the American Academy of Dermatology annual meetings, the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology, and other regional and international meetings, the field developed as the number of practitioners grew, and as the specialized published literature reflected new knowledge in diagnosis and therapy.

LucaLorenzelli/Thinkstock

Examples of changing perspectives: hemangiomas

A good way to look at evolution of the field is take a look at some of the similarities and differences in clinical practice in relation to common and uncommon disease states.

A great example is hemangiomas. Some of the first natural history studies on hemangiomas were done in the early 1960s, establishing that many lesions had a typical clinical course of fairly rapid growth, plateau, and involution over time. Of course, the identification of hemangiomas of infancy (or “HOI” in the trade), was confused with vascular malformations, and no one had recognized variant tumors that were distinct, such as rapidly involuting and noninvoluting congenital hemangiomas (RICHs or NICHs), tufted angiomas, and hemangioendotheliomas. PHACE syndrome (posterior fossa brain malformations) had yet to be described (that was done in 1996 by Ilona Frieden and her colleagues). For a time period, hemangiomas were treated with X-rays, before the negative impact of such radiation was acknowledged. For many years after that, even deforming and functionally significant lesions were “followed clinically” for natural involution, presumably a backlash from the radiation therapy interventions.

Courtesy of RegionalDerm.com

Procedural pediatric dermatology: Tremendous revolution in surgery and laser

The first generation of pediatric dermatologists were considered medical dermatologist specialists. And how important this specialty work was! Acne, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, diaper and seborrheic dermatitis, and rare genetic syndromes, these conditions were a major part of the work of early pediatric dermatologists (and remain so now). What was not common was for pediatric dermatologists to have procedural or surgical practices, while this now is routinely part of the work of specialists in the field. How did this shift occur?

The fundamental shift began to occur with the introduction of the pulsed dye laser in 1989 and the publication of a seminal article in the New England Journal of Medicine (1989 Feb 16;320[7]:416-21) on its utility in treating port-wine stains in children with minimal scarring. Vascular lesions including port-wine stains were common, and pediatric dermatologists managed these patients for both diagnosis and medical management. Also, dermatology residencies at this time offered training in cutaneous surgery, excisions (including Mohs surgery) and repairs, and trainees in pediatric dermatology were “trained up” to high levels of expertise. As lasers were incorporated into dermatology residency work and practices, pediatric dermatologists had the exposure and skill to do this work. An added advantage was having the pediatric knowledge of how to handle children and adolescents in an age appropriate manner, and consideration of methods to minimize the pain and anxiety of procedures. Within a few years, pediatric dermatologists were at the forefront of the use of topical anesthetics (EMLA and liposomal lidocaine) and had general anesthesia privileges for laser and excisional surgery.

So while pediatric dermatologists still do “small procedures” every hour in most practices (cryotherapy for warts, cantharidin for molluscum, shave and punch biopsies), a subset now have extensive procedural practices, which in recent years has extended to pigment lesion lasers (to treat nevus of Ota), hair lasers (to treat perineal areas to prevent pilonidal cyst recurrence or to treat hirsutism), and combinations of lasers to treat hypertrophic, constrictive, and/or deforming scars).

Inflammatory skin disorders: Bread and butter ... and peanut butter?

The care of pediatric inflammatory skin disorders has evolved, but more slowly for some diseases than others. Acne vulgaris now is recognized as much more common under age 12 years than previously, presumably reflecting earlier pubertal changes in our preteens. Over the past 30 years, therapy has evolved with the use of topical retinoids (still underused by pediatricians, considered a “practice gap”), hormonal therapy with combined oral contraceptives, and oral isotretinoin, a powerful but highly effective systemic agent for severe and refractory acne. Specific pediatric guidelines came much later. Pediatric acne expert recommendations were formulated by the American Acne and Rosacea Society and endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2013 (Pediatrics. 2013;131:S163-86). Over the past few years, there is a push by experts for more judicious use of antibiotics for acne (oral and topical) to minimize the emergence of bacterial resistance.

Psoriasis has been a condition that has been “behind the revolution,” in that no biologic agent was approved for pediatric psoriasis in the United States until several months ago, lagging behind Europe and elsewhere in the world by almost a decade. Adult psoriasis has been recognized to be associated with a broad set of comorbidities, including obesity and early heart disease, and there is now research on how children are at risk as well, and new recommendations on how to screen children with psoriasis. Moderate to severe psoriasis in adults is now tremendously controllable with biologic agents targeting TNF-alpha, IL 12/23, and IL-17. Etanercept has been approved for children with psoriasis aged 4 years and older, and other biologic agents are under study.

Atopic dermatitis now is ready for its revolution! AD has increased in prevalence from around 5% of the pediatric population 30-plus years ago to 10%-15%. Treatment of most individuals has remained the same over the decades: Good skin care, frequent moisturizers, topical corticosteroids for flares, management of infection if noted. The topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) broadened the therapeutic approach when introduced in 2000 and 2001, but the boxed warning resulted in some practitioners minimizing their utilization of these useful agents.

The future

Where will pediatric skin disease, or more importantly, skin health over a lifetime be in 50 years? Can we cure or prevent the consequences of our lethal and life altering genetic diseases such as epidermolysis bullosa or our neurocutaneous disorders? Will our new insights into birthmarks (they are mostly somatic mutations) allow us to form specific, personalized therapies to minimize their impact? Will we be using computers equipped with imaging devices and algorithms to assess our patients’ moles, papules, and nodules? Will our vaccines have wiped out warts, molluscum, and perhaps, acne? Will we have cured our inflammatory skin disorders, or perhaps prevented them by interventions in the neonatal period? No predictions will be offered here, other than that we can look forward to incredible changes for our future generations of health care practitioners, patients, and families.

Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield has served as a consultant for Anacor/Pfizer and Regeneron/Sanofi. Email him at [email protected].

The world in pediatric dermatology has changed in incredible ways since 1967. In fact, pediatric dermatology was not an organized specialty until years later! This article will look back at some of the history of pediatric dermatology, exploring how different the field was 50 years ago, and how it has evolved into the vibrant field that it is. By looking at some disease states, and differences in practice in relation to the care of dermatologic conditions in children both by pediatricians and dermatologists, we can see the tremendous evolution in our understanding and management of pediatric skin conditions, and perhaps gain insight into the future.

Pediatric dermatology was fairly “neonatal” 50 years ago, with only a few practitioners in the field. Recognizing that up to 30% of pediatric primary care visits include a skin-related problem, and that there was limited training about skin diseases among primary care practitioners and inconsistent training amongst dermatologists, there was a clinical need for establishing the subspecialty of pediatric dermatology. The first international symposium was held in Mexico City in October 1972, and with this meeting the International Society of Pediatric Dermatology was founded. The Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD) began in 1973, with Alvin Jacobs, MD, Samuel Weinberg, MD, Nancy Esterly, MD, Sidney Hurwitz, MD, William Weston, MD, and Coleman Jacobson, MD, as some of the initial “founding mothers and fathers.” The journal Pediatric Dermatology released its first issue in 1982 (35 years ago), and the American Academy of Pediatrics did not have a section of dermatology until 1986.

Lori Farmer/Frontline Medical News

Pediatrics and dermatology: The interface

Many of the first generation of pediatric dermatologists trained as pediatricians prior to pursuing their dermatology work, with some being “assigned” dermatology as pediatric experts, while others did formal residencies in dermatology. This history is important, as pediatric dermatology was, and remains, integrated with pediatrics, even while training in dermatology residencies became standard practice. An important part of the development of the field has been the education of pediatricians and dermatologists by pediatric dermatologists, with a strong sensibility that improved training for both generalists and specialists about pediatric skin disease would yield better care for patients and families.

Initially, there were very few pediatric or dermatology programs in the United States that had pediatric dermatologists. Over the succeeding decades, this is now less common, although even now there are still dermatology and pediatric residency programs that do not have a pediatric dermatologist for either training or to serve their patients. The founding leaders of the SPD set a tone of collaboration nationally and internationally, reaching out to pediatric colleagues and dermatology associates from around the world, and establishing superb educational programs for the exchange of ideas, presentation of challenging cases, and promoting state of the art knowledge of the field. Through annual meetings of the SPD, conferences immediately preceding the American Academy of Dermatology annual meetings, the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology, and other regional and international meetings, the field developed as the number of practitioners grew, and as the specialized published literature reflected new knowledge in diagnosis and therapy.

LucaLorenzelli/Thinkstock

Examples of changing perspectives: hemangiomas

A good way to look at evolution of the field is take a look at some of the similarities and differences in clinical practice in relation to common and uncommon disease states.

A great example is hemangiomas. Some of the first natural history studies on hemangiomas were done in the early 1960s, establishing that many lesions had a typical clinical course of fairly rapid growth, plateau, and involution over time. Of course, the identification of hemangiomas of infancy (or “HOI” in the trade), was confused with vascular malformations, and no one had recognized variant tumors that were distinct, such as rapidly involuting and noninvoluting congenital hemangiomas (RICHs or NICHs), tufted angiomas, and hemangioendotheliomas. PHACE syndrome (posterior fossa brain malformations) had yet to be described (that was done in 1996 by Ilona Frieden and her colleagues). For a time period, hemangiomas were treated with X-rays, before the negative impact of such radiation was acknowledged. For many years after that, even deforming and functionally significant lesions were “followed clinically” for natural involution, presumably a backlash from the radiation therapy interventions.

Courtesy of RegionalDerm.com

Procedural pediatric dermatology: Tremendous revolution in surgery and laser

The first generation of pediatric dermatologists were considered medical dermatologist specialists. And how important this specialty work was! Acne, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, diaper and seborrheic dermatitis, and rare genetic syndromes, these conditions were a major part of the work of early pediatric dermatologists (and remain so now). What was not common was for pediatric dermatologists to have procedural or surgical practices, while this now is routinely part of the work of specialists in the field. How did this shift occur?

The fundamental shift began to occur with the introduction of the pulsed dye laser in 1989 and the publication of a seminal article in the New England Journal of Medicine (1989 Feb 16;320[7]:416-21) on its utility in treating port-wine stains in children with minimal scarring. Vascular lesions including port-wine stains were common, and pediatric dermatologists managed these patients for both diagnosis and medical management. Also, dermatology residencies at this time offered training in cutaneous surgery, excisions (including Mohs surgery) and repairs, and trainees in pediatric dermatology were “trained up” to high levels of expertise. As lasers were incorporated into dermatology residency work and practices, pediatric dermatologists had the exposure and skill to do this work. An added advantage was having the pediatric knowledge of how to handle children and adolescents in an age appropriate manner, and consideration of methods to minimize the pain and anxiety of procedures. Within a few years, pediatric dermatologists were at the forefront of the use of topical anesthetics (EMLA and liposomal lidocaine) and had general anesthesia privileges for laser and excisional surgery.

So while pediatric dermatologists still do “small procedures” every hour in most practices (cryotherapy for warts, cantharidin for molluscum, shave and punch biopsies), a subset now have extensive procedural practices, which in recent years has extended to pigment lesion lasers (to treat nevus of Ota), hair lasers (to treat perineal areas to prevent pilonidal cyst recurrence or to treat hirsutism), and combinations of lasers to treat hypertrophic, constrictive, and/or deforming scars).

Inflammatory skin disorders: Bread and butter ... and peanut butter?

The care of pediatric inflammatory skin disorders has evolved, but more slowly for some diseases than others. Acne vulgaris now is recognized as much more common under age 12 years than previously, presumably reflecting earlier pubertal changes in our preteens. Over the past 30 years, therapy has evolved with the use of topical retinoids (still underused by pediatricians, considered a “practice gap”), hormonal therapy with combined oral contraceptives, and oral isotretinoin, a powerful but highly effective systemic agent for severe and refractory acne. Specific pediatric guidelines came much later. Pediatric acne expert recommendations were formulated by the American Acne and Rosacea Society and endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2013 (Pediatrics. 2013;131:S163-86). Over the past few years, there is a push by experts for more judicious use of antibiotics for acne (oral and topical) to minimize the emergence of bacterial resistance.

Psoriasis has been a condition that has been “behind the revolution,” in that no biologic agent was approved for pediatric psoriasis in the United States until several months ago, lagging behind Europe and elsewhere in the world by almost a decade. Adult psoriasis has been recognized to be associated with a broad set of comorbidities, including obesity and early heart disease, and there is now research on how children are at risk as well, and new recommendations on how to screen children with psoriasis. Moderate to severe psoriasis in adults is now tremendously controllable with biologic agents targeting TNF-alpha, IL 12/23, and IL-17. Etanercept has been approved for children with psoriasis aged 4 years and older, and other biologic agents are under study.

Atopic dermatitis now is ready for its revolution! AD has increased in prevalence from around 5% of the pediatric population 30-plus years ago to 10%-15%. Treatment of most individuals has remained the same over the decades: Good skin care, frequent moisturizers, topical corticosteroids for flares, management of infection if noted. The topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) broadened the therapeutic approach when introduced in 2000 and 2001, but the boxed warning resulted in some practitioners minimizing their utilization of these useful agents.

The future

Where will pediatric skin disease, or more importantly, skin health over a lifetime be in 50 years? Can we cure or prevent the consequences of our lethal and life altering genetic diseases such as epidermolysis bullosa or our neurocutaneous disorders? Will our new insights into birthmarks (they are mostly somatic mutations) allow us to form specific, personalized therapies to minimize their impact? Will we be using computers equipped with imaging devices and algorithms to assess our patients’ moles, papules, and nodules? Will our vaccines have wiped out warts, molluscum, and perhaps, acne? Will we have cured our inflammatory skin disorders, or perhaps prevented them by interventions in the neonatal period? No predictions will be offered here, other than that we can look forward to incredible changes for our future generations of health care practitioners, patients, and families.

Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield has served as a consultant for Anacor/Pfizer and Regeneron/Sanofi. Email him at [email protected].

The world in pediatric dermatology has changed in incredible ways since 1967. In fact, pediatric dermatology was not an organized specialty until years later! This article will look back at some of the history of pediatric dermatology, exploring how different the field was 50 years ago, and how it has evolved into the vibrant field that it is. By looking at some disease states, and differences in practice in relation to the care of dermatologic conditions in children both by pediatricians and dermatologists, we can see the tremendous evolution in our understanding and management of pediatric skin conditions, and perhaps gain insight into the future.

Pediatric dermatology was fairly “neonatal” 50 years ago, with only a few practitioners in the field. Recognizing that up to 30% of pediatric primary care visits include a skin-related problem, and that there was limited training about skin diseases among primary care practitioners and inconsistent training amongst dermatologists, there was a clinical need for establishing the subspecialty of pediatric dermatology. The first international symposium was held in Mexico City in October 1972, and with this meeting the International Society of Pediatric Dermatology was founded. The Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD) began in 1973, with Alvin Jacobs, MD, Samuel Weinberg, MD, Nancy Esterly, MD, Sidney Hurwitz, MD, William Weston, MD, and Coleman Jacobson, MD, as some of the initial “founding mothers and fathers.” The journal Pediatric Dermatology released its first issue in 1982 (35 years ago), and the American Academy of Pediatrics did not have a section of dermatology until 1986.

Lori Farmer/Frontline Medical News

Pediatrics and dermatology: The interface

Many of the first generation of pediatric dermatologists trained as pediatricians prior to pursuing their dermatology work, with some being “assigned” dermatology as pediatric experts, while others did formal residencies in dermatology. This history is important, as pediatric dermatology was, and remains, integrated with pediatrics, even while training in dermatology residencies became standard practice. An important part of the development of the field has been the education of pediatricians and dermatologists by pediatric dermatologists, with a strong sensibility that improved training for both generalists and specialists about pediatric skin disease would yield better care for patients and families.

Initially, there were very few pediatric or dermatology programs in the United States that had pediatric dermatologists. Over the succeeding decades, this is now less common, although even now there are still dermatology and pediatric residency programs that do not have a pediatric dermatologist for either training or to serve their patients. The founding leaders of the SPD set a tone of collaboration nationally and internationally, reaching out to pediatric colleagues and dermatology associates from around the world, and establishing superb educational programs for the exchange of ideas, presentation of challenging cases, and promoting state of the art knowledge of the field. Through annual meetings of the SPD, conferences immediately preceding the American Academy of Dermatology annual meetings, the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology, and other regional and international meetings, the field developed as the number of practitioners grew, and as the specialized published literature reflected new knowledge in diagnosis and therapy.

LucaLorenzelli/Thinkstock

Examples of changing perspectives: hemangiomas

A good way to look at evolution of the field is take a look at some of the similarities and differences in clinical practice in relation to common and uncommon disease states.

A great example is hemangiomas. Some of the first natural history studies on hemangiomas were done in the early 1960s, establishing that many lesions had a typical clinical course of fairly rapid growth, plateau, and involution over time. Of course, the identification of hemangiomas of infancy (or “HOI” in the trade), was confused with vascular malformations, and no one had recognized variant tumors that were distinct, such as rapidly involuting and noninvoluting congenital hemangiomas (RICHs or NICHs), tufted angiomas, and hemangioendotheliomas. PHACE syndrome (posterior fossa brain malformations) had yet to be described (that was done in 1996 by Ilona Frieden and her colleagues). For a time period, hemangiomas were treated with X-rays, before the negative impact of such radiation was acknowledged. For many years after that, even deforming and functionally significant lesions were “followed clinically” for natural involution, presumably a backlash from the radiation therapy interventions.

Courtesy of RegionalDerm.com

Procedural pediatric dermatology: Tremendous revolution in surgery and laser

The first generation of pediatric dermatologists were considered medical dermatologist specialists. And how important this specialty work was! Acne, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, diaper and seborrheic dermatitis, and rare genetic syndromes, these conditions were a major part of the work of early pediatric dermatologists (and remain so now). What was not common was for pediatric dermatologists to have procedural or surgical practices, while this now is routinely part of the work of specialists in the field. How did this shift occur?

The fundamental shift began to occur with the introduction of the pulsed dye laser in 1989 and the publication of a seminal article in the New England Journal of Medicine (1989 Feb 16;320[7]:416-21) on its utility in treating port-wine stains in children with minimal scarring. Vascular lesions including port-wine stains were common, and pediatric dermatologists managed these patients for both diagnosis and medical management. Also, dermatology residencies at this time offered training in cutaneous surgery, excisions (including Mohs surgery) and repairs, and trainees in pediatric dermatology were “trained up” to high levels of expertise. As lasers were incorporated into dermatology residency work and practices, pediatric dermatologists had the exposure and skill to do this work. An added advantage was having the pediatric knowledge of how to handle children and adolescents in an age appropriate manner, and consideration of methods to minimize the pain and anxiety of procedures. Within a few years, pediatric dermatologists were at the forefront of the use of topical anesthetics (EMLA and liposomal lidocaine) and had general anesthesia privileges for laser and excisional surgery.

So while pediatric dermatologists still do “small procedures” every hour in most practices (cryotherapy for warts, cantharidin for molluscum, shave and punch biopsies), a subset now have extensive procedural practices, which in recent years has extended to pigment lesion lasers (to treat nevus of Ota), hair lasers (to treat perineal areas to prevent pilonidal cyst recurrence or to treat hirsutism), and combinations of lasers to treat hypertrophic, constrictive, and/or deforming scars).

Inflammatory skin disorders: Bread and butter ... and peanut butter?

The care of pediatric inflammatory skin disorders has evolved, but more slowly for some diseases than others. Acne vulgaris now is recognized as much more common under age 12 years than previously, presumably reflecting earlier pubertal changes in our preteens. Over the past 30 years, therapy has evolved with the use of topical retinoids (still underused by pediatricians, considered a “practice gap”), hormonal therapy with combined oral contraceptives, and oral isotretinoin, a powerful but highly effective systemic agent for severe and refractory acne. Specific pediatric guidelines came much later. Pediatric acne expert recommendations were formulated by the American Acne and Rosacea Society and endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2013 (Pediatrics. 2013;131:S163-86). Over the past few years, there is a push by experts for more judicious use of antibiotics for acne (oral and topical) to minimize the emergence of bacterial resistance.

Psoriasis has been a condition that has been “behind the revolution,” in that no biologic agent was approved for pediatric psoriasis in the United States until several months ago, lagging behind Europe and elsewhere in the world by almost a decade. Adult psoriasis has been recognized to be associated with a broad set of comorbidities, including obesity and early heart disease, and there is now research on how children are at risk as well, and new recommendations on how to screen children with psoriasis. Moderate to severe psoriasis in adults is now tremendously controllable with biologic agents targeting TNF-alpha, IL 12/23, and IL-17. Etanercept has been approved for children with psoriasis aged 4 years and older, and other biologic agents are under study.

Atopic dermatitis now is ready for its revolution! AD has increased in prevalence from around 5% of the pediatric population 30-plus years ago to 10%-15%. Treatment of most individuals has remained the same over the decades: Good skin care, frequent moisturizers, topical corticosteroids for flares, management of infection if noted. The topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) broadened the therapeutic approach when introduced in 2000 and 2001, but the boxed warning resulted in some practitioners minimizing their utilization of these useful agents.

The future

Where will pediatric skin disease, or more importantly, skin health over a lifetime be in 50 years? Can we cure or prevent the consequences of our lethal and life altering genetic diseases such as epidermolysis bullosa or our neurocutaneous disorders? Will our new insights into birthmarks (they are mostly somatic mutations) allow us to form specific, personalized therapies to minimize their impact? Will we be using computers equipped with imaging devices and algorithms to assess our patients’ moles, papules, and nodules? Will our vaccines have wiped out warts, molluscum, and perhaps, acne? Will we have cured our inflammatory skin disorders, or perhaps prevented them by interventions in the neonatal period? No predictions will be offered here, other than that we can look forward to incredible changes for our future generations of health care practitioners, patients, and families.

Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield has served as a consultant for Anacor/Pfizer and Regeneron/Sanofi. Email him at [email protected].

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm) for multiple conditions.

Cyltezo is an injectable tumor necrosis factor blocker, and is a biosimilar to adalimumab (Humira). The drug is indicated to treat moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis, active psoriatic arthritis, active ankylosing spondylitis, moderate to severe active Crohn’s disease, moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis, moderately to severely active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in patients 4 years of age and older, and moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm) for multiple conditions.

Cyltezo is an injectable tumor necrosis factor blocker, and is a biosimilar to adalimumab (Humira). The drug is indicated to treat moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis, active psoriatic arthritis, active ankylosing spondylitis, moderate to severe active Crohn’s disease, moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis, moderately to severely active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in patients 4 years of age and older, and moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm) for multiple conditions.

Cyltezo is an injectable tumor necrosis factor blocker, and is a biosimilar to adalimumab (Humira). The drug is indicated to treat moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis, active psoriatic arthritis, active ankylosing spondylitis, moderate to severe active Crohn’s disease, moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis, moderately to severely active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in patients 4 years of age and older, and moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

[email protected]

A noninvasive test for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and hepatic fibrosis could be used to help detect worsening hepatic fibrosis in psoriasis patients who are on long-term methotrexate therapy, according to the authors of a retrospective study published online Aug. 23.

To evaluate the use of the noninvasive test to monitor for hepatic fibrosis in this group of patients and guide the management of methotrexate (MTX) without a liver biopsy, investigators conducted an analysis of 107 patients with psoriasis who were on long-term MTX treatment, for whom the NASH FibroSure test was used between January 2007 and December 2013. All the patients were white, fifty were men, the mean age was 83 years, and almost all of the patients had a body mass index of 28 or more (16% had a BMI between 28 and 30, and 81% had a BMI over 30).

The NASH FibroSure test, which was developed for use in patients suspected of having nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), combines analyses of 10 biochemical markers combined with age, sex, height, and weight to calculate the degree of hepatic fibrosis. The test has a reported sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 78% in detecting risk of significant fibrosis, according to Bruce Bauer, MD, of Pariser Dermatology Specialists, Norfolk, Va., and his coinvestigators (JAMA Dermatol. 2017 Aug 23. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.2083).

Among the 107 patients, the investigators found a statistically significant correlation “between worsening fibrosis scores and cumulative methotrexate” dose among women (P = .02), but not among men (P = .11). In addition, women with a BMI of 28 or more were more likely to have worsening fibrosis scores (P = .03). “There were no differences between men and women with regard to prevalence of a BMI of 28 or more, diabetes, age older than 65 years, or chronic kidney disease,” which they said, suggests that among women, “obesity influences the progression of fibrosis scores.”

The investigators advised providers not to disregard any potential warning signs when using FibroSure on men. “No differences between the cohorts were observed that would explain the association of worsening fibrosis scores and cumulative MTX dose among women but not men,” they wrote. “However, given the implications of the progression of hepatic fibrosis, we still recommend discontinuing MTX for male patients who demonstrate worsening fibrosis scores.”

While the test may not be able to replace liver biopsy, based on these results, the investigators noted that noninvasive tests such as this one could help significantly reduce the number of liver biopsies needed.

They pointed out that because the study was conducted at one center, the next step is to conduct “a prospective, randomized, multi-institutional analysis of NASH FibroSure and liver biopsies for patients with psoriasis receiving MTX vs. other treatments, including a larger cohort of men and women with different racial and ethnic backgrounds.”

One of the four authors reported receiving research funding from T2 Biosystems. Dr. Bauer and the two other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by the Marshfield Clinic Resident Research Program.

[email protected]

On Twitter @eaztweets

A noninvasive test for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and hepatic fibrosis could be used to help detect worsening hepatic fibrosis in psoriasis patients who are on long-term methotrexate therapy, according to the authors of a retrospective study published online Aug. 23.

To evaluate the use of the noninvasive test to monitor for hepatic fibrosis in this group of patients and guide the management of methotrexate (MTX) without a liver biopsy, investigators conducted an analysis of 107 patients with psoriasis who were on long-term MTX treatment, for whom the NASH FibroSure test was used between January 2007 and December 2013. All the patients were white, fifty were men, the mean age was 83 years, and almost all of the patients had a body mass index of 28 or more (16% had a BMI between 28 and 30, and 81% had a BMI over 30).

The NASH FibroSure test, which was developed for use in patients suspected of having nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), combines analyses of 10 biochemical markers combined with age, sex, height, and weight to calculate the degree of hepatic fibrosis. The test has a reported sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 78% in detecting risk of significant fibrosis, according to Bruce Bauer, MD, of Pariser Dermatology Specialists, Norfolk, Va., and his coinvestigators (JAMA Dermatol. 2017 Aug 23. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.2083).

Among the 107 patients, the investigators found a statistically significant correlation “between worsening fibrosis scores and cumulative methotrexate” dose among women (P = .02), but not among men (P = .11). In addition, women with a BMI of 28 or more were more likely to have worsening fibrosis scores (P = .03). “There were no differences between men and women with regard to prevalence of a BMI of 28 or more, diabetes, age older than 65 years, or chronic kidney disease,” which they said, suggests that among women, “obesity influences the progression of fibrosis scores.”

The investigators advised providers not to disregard any potential warning signs when using FibroSure on men. “No differences between the cohorts were observed that would explain the association of worsening fibrosis scores and cumulative MTX dose among women but not men,” they wrote. “However, given the implications of the progression of hepatic fibrosis, we still recommend discontinuing MTX for male patients who demonstrate worsening fibrosis scores.”

While the test may not be able to replace liver biopsy, based on these results, the investigators noted that noninvasive tests such as this one could help significantly reduce the number of liver biopsies needed.

They pointed out that because the study was conducted at one center, the next step is to conduct “a prospective, randomized, multi-institutional analysis of NASH FibroSure and liver biopsies for patients with psoriasis receiving MTX vs. other treatments, including a larger cohort of men and women with different racial and ethnic backgrounds.”

One of the four authors reported receiving research funding from T2 Biosystems. Dr. Bauer and the two other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by the Marshfield Clinic Resident Research Program.

[email protected]

On Twitter @eaztweets

A noninvasive test for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and hepatic fibrosis could be used to help detect worsening hepatic fibrosis in psoriasis patients who are on long-term methotrexate therapy, according to the authors of a retrospective study published online Aug. 23.

To evaluate the use of the noninvasive test to monitor for hepatic fibrosis in this group of patients and guide the management of methotrexate (MTX) without a liver biopsy, investigators conducted an analysis of 107 patients with psoriasis who were on long-term MTX treatment, for whom the NASH FibroSure test was used between January 2007 and December 2013. All the patients were white, fifty were men, the mean age was 83 years, and almost all of the patients had a body mass index of 28 or more (16% had a BMI between 28 and 30, and 81% had a BMI over 30).

The NASH FibroSure test, which was developed for use in patients suspected of having nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), combines analyses of 10 biochemical markers combined with age, sex, height, and weight to calculate the degree of hepatic fibrosis. The test has a reported sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 78% in detecting risk of significant fibrosis, according to Bruce Bauer, MD, of Pariser Dermatology Specialists, Norfolk, Va., and his coinvestigators (JAMA Dermatol. 2017 Aug 23. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.2083).

Among the 107 patients, the investigators found a statistically significant correlation “between worsening fibrosis scores and cumulative methotrexate” dose among women (P = .02), but not among men (P = .11). In addition, women with a BMI of 28 or more were more likely to have worsening fibrosis scores (P = .03). “There were no differences between men and women with regard to prevalence of a BMI of 28 or more, diabetes, age older than 65 years, or chronic kidney disease,” which they said, suggests that among women, “obesity influences the progression of fibrosis scores.”

The investigators advised providers not to disregard any potential warning signs when using FibroSure on men. “No differences between the cohorts were observed that would explain the association of worsening fibrosis scores and cumulative MTX dose among women but not men,” they wrote. “However, given the implications of the progression of hepatic fibrosis, we still recommend discontinuing MTX for male patients who demonstrate worsening fibrosis scores.”

While the test may not be able to replace liver biopsy, based on these results, the investigators noted that noninvasive tests such as this one could help significantly reduce the number of liver biopsies needed.

They pointed out that because the study was conducted at one center, the next step is to conduct “a prospective, randomized, multi-institutional analysis of NASH FibroSure and liver biopsies for patients with psoriasis receiving MTX vs. other treatments, including a larger cohort of men and women with different racial and ethnic backgrounds.”

One of the four authors reported receiving research funding from T2 Biosystems. Dr. Bauer and the two other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. The study was funded by the Marshfield Clinic Resident Research Program.

[email protected]

On Twitter @eaztweets

The agenda for this year’s Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) annual meeting included sessions on juvenile psoriatic arthritis (PsA), the microbiome in psoriasis and PsA, and setting up longitudinal cohort studies. There was also a workshop to define the clinical fit and feasibility of PsA outcome measures for clinical trials and updates on several GRAPPA-associated projects.

The meeting, held July 13-15 in Amsterdam, opened with the annual trainee session. This year’s trainee session attracted more than 40 abstracts, of which 6 were selected for oral presentations on a variety of topics including outcome measure assessment, imaging, the microbiome in PsA, and T-cell subsets in synovial fluid.

Among the most intriguing sessions at the GRAPPA meeting was a series of three talks by Jose Scher, MD, Hok Bing Thio, MD, PhD, and Dirk Elewaut, PhD, that introduced the audience to the complexity of the micro-organisms that call the human host “home” and the potential role in the development of inflammatory conditions, in particular psoriasis and PsA. These talks touched on the potential uses of the microbiome of the gut, skin, and oral mucosa in predicting therapy response and modulating the immune system.

Dafna Gladman, MD, led a session on “how to set up a cohort.” In this session, speakers provided a road map for setting up a longitudinal cohort and discussed opportunities and challenges along the way. This session provided a foundation for a meeting that followed the annual meeting, the GRAPPA Research Collaborative Network meeting (held July 15-16). The RCN meeting aimed to develop a plan for a GRAPPA research network supporting collaborative research to identify biomarkers and outcomes in psoriasis and PsA. Speakers/panelists from academics and industry kicked off the meeting with a discussion of prior experiences in establishing international cohort studies. Subsequent sessions presented individual aspects of beginning a longitudinal cohort study for biomarkers, including methods for sample collection, regulatory processes, and data collected at potential sites; capturing and harmonizing clinical data for such studies; and policies for publication of RCN studies.

This year’s workshop was focused on the GRAPPA-Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) working group’s plan to develop a Core Outcome Measure Set, a collection of outcome measurement instruments to be used in randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) for PsA. During the plenary session, the team presented a process for the group to evaluate instruments, including assessment of match to the domain or concept of interest, feasibility, construct validity, and discrimination (including reliability and the ability to distinguish between two groups such as responders and nonresponders). Breakout groups then discussed one of the six tools being considered and voted on match to the domain of interest and feasibility for RCTs.

In a skin session, ongoing efforts to standardize and simplify the measurement of skin psoriasis in both the clinic and RCTs were presented. While the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) is the current standard for measuring psoriasis severity and response to therapy in RCTs, the PASI is challenging for use in clinical practice. Joseph Merola, MD, presented data to support the use of the psoriasis Physician Global Assessment (PGA) x body surface area (BSA), a simpler measure than the PASI, as a potential substitute for the PASI. Updates from the International Dermatology Outcome Measures board included reporting of the psoriasis core domain set and a summary of the PsA symptoms working group’s efforts to identify patient-reported outcomes to identify and measure PsA among patients enrolled in psoriasis RCTs. April Armstrong, MD, discussed the National Psoriasis Foundation’s efforts to develop treat-to-target goals for psoriasis. Finally, Laura Coates, MBChB, PhD, presented a report on her efforts to examine a variety of psoriasis cut points for minimal disease activity and very low disease activity outcomes.
 

Dr. Ogdie is director of the Penn Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and is a member of the GRAPPA Steering Committee.

The agenda for this year’s Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) annual meeting included sessions on juvenile psoriatic arthritis (PsA), the microbiome in psoriasis and PsA, and setting up longitudinal cohort studies. There was also a workshop to define the clinical fit and feasibility of PsA outcome measures for clinical trials and updates on several GRAPPA-associated projects.

The meeting, held July 13-15 in Amsterdam, opened with the annual trainee session. This year’s trainee session attracted more than 40 abstracts, of which 6 were selected for oral presentations on a variety of topics including outcome measure assessment, imaging, the microbiome in PsA, and T-cell subsets in synovial fluid.

Among the most intriguing sessions at the GRAPPA meeting was a series of three talks by Jose Scher, MD, Hok Bing Thio, MD, PhD, and Dirk Elewaut, PhD, that introduced the audience to the complexity of the micro-organisms that call the human host “home” and the potential role in the development of inflammatory conditions, in particular psoriasis and PsA. These talks touched on the potential uses of the microbiome of the gut, skin, and oral mucosa in predicting therapy response and modulating the immune system.

Dafna Gladman, MD, led a session on “how to set up a cohort.” In this session, speakers provided a road map for setting up a longitudinal cohort and discussed opportunities and challenges along the way. This session provided a foundation for a meeting that followed the annual meeting, the GRAPPA Research Collaborative Network meeting (held July 15-16). The RCN meeting aimed to develop a plan for a GRAPPA research network supporting collaborative research to identify biomarkers and outcomes in psoriasis and PsA. Speakers/panelists from academics and industry kicked off the meeting with a discussion of prior experiences in establishing international cohort studies. Subsequent sessions presented individual aspects of beginning a longitudinal cohort study for biomarkers, including methods for sample collection, regulatory processes, and data collected at potential sites; capturing and harmonizing clinical data for such studies; and policies for publication of RCN studies.

This year’s workshop was focused on the GRAPPA-Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) working group’s plan to develop a Core Outcome Measure Set, a collection of outcome measurement instruments to be used in randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) for PsA. During the plenary session, the team presented a process for the group to evaluate instruments, including assessment of match to the domain or concept of interest, feasibility, construct validity, and discrimination (including reliability and the ability to distinguish between two groups such as responders and nonresponders). Breakout groups then discussed one of the six tools being considered and voted on match to the domain of interest and feasibility for RCTs.

In a skin session, ongoing efforts to standardize and simplify the measurement of skin psoriasis in both the clinic and RCTs were presented. While the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) is the current standard for measuring psoriasis severity and response to therapy in RCTs, the PASI is challenging for use in clinical practice. Joseph Merola, MD, presented data to support the use of the psoriasis Physician Global Assessment (PGA) x body surface area (BSA), a simpler measure than the PASI, as a potential substitute for the PASI. Updates from the International Dermatology Outcome Measures board included reporting of the psoriasis core domain set and a summary of the PsA symptoms working group’s efforts to identify patient-reported outcomes to identify and measure PsA among patients enrolled in psoriasis RCTs. April Armstrong, MD, discussed the National Psoriasis Foundation’s efforts to develop treat-to-target goals for psoriasis. Finally, Laura Coates, MBChB, PhD, presented a report on her efforts to examine a variety of psoriasis cut points for minimal disease activity and very low disease activity outcomes.
 

Dr. Ogdie is director of the Penn Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and is a member of the GRAPPA Steering Committee.

The agenda for this year’s Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) annual meeting included sessions on juvenile psoriatic arthritis (PsA), the microbiome in psoriasis and PsA, and setting up longitudinal cohort studies. There was also a workshop to define the clinical fit and feasibility of PsA outcome measures for clinical trials and updates on several GRAPPA-associated projects.

The meeting, held July 13-15 in Amsterdam, opened with the annual trainee session. This year’s trainee session attracted more than 40 abstracts, of which 6 were selected for oral presentations on a variety of topics including outcome measure assessment, imaging, the microbiome in PsA, and T-cell subsets in synovial fluid.

Among the most intriguing sessions at the GRAPPA meeting was a series of three talks by Jose Scher, MD, Hok Bing Thio, MD, PhD, and Dirk Elewaut, PhD, that introduced the audience to the complexity of the micro-organisms that call the human host “home” and the potential role in the development of inflammatory conditions, in particular psoriasis and PsA. These talks touched on the potential uses of the microbiome of the gut, skin, and oral mucosa in predicting therapy response and modulating the immune system.

Dafna Gladman, MD, led a session on “how to set up a cohort.” In this session, speakers provided a road map for setting up a longitudinal cohort and discussed opportunities and challenges along the way. This session provided a foundation for a meeting that followed the annual meeting, the GRAPPA Research Collaborative Network meeting (held July 15-16). The RCN meeting aimed to develop a plan for a GRAPPA research network supporting collaborative research to identify biomarkers and outcomes in psoriasis and PsA. Speakers/panelists from academics and industry kicked off the meeting with a discussion of prior experiences in establishing international cohort studies. Subsequent sessions presented individual aspects of beginning a longitudinal cohort study for biomarkers, including methods for sample collection, regulatory processes, and data collected at potential sites; capturing and harmonizing clinical data for such studies; and policies for publication of RCN studies.

This year’s workshop was focused on the GRAPPA-Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) working group’s plan to develop a Core Outcome Measure Set, a collection of outcome measurement instruments to be used in randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) for PsA. During the plenary session, the team presented a process for the group to evaluate instruments, including assessment of match to the domain or concept of interest, feasibility, construct validity, and discrimination (including reliability and the ability to distinguish between two groups such as responders and nonresponders). Breakout groups then discussed one of the six tools being considered and voted on match to the domain of interest and feasibility for RCTs.

In a skin session, ongoing efforts to standardize and simplify the measurement of skin psoriasis in both the clinic and RCTs were presented. While the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) is the current standard for measuring psoriasis severity and response to therapy in RCTs, the PASI is challenging for use in clinical practice. Joseph Merola, MD, presented data to support the use of the psoriasis Physician Global Assessment (PGA) x body surface area (BSA), a simpler measure than the PASI, as a potential substitute for the PASI. Updates from the International Dermatology Outcome Measures board included reporting of the psoriasis core domain set and a summary of the PsA symptoms working group’s efforts to identify patient-reported outcomes to identify and measure PsA among patients enrolled in psoriasis RCTs. April Armstrong, MD, discussed the National Psoriasis Foundation’s efforts to develop treat-to-target goals for psoriasis. Finally, Laura Coates, MBChB, PhD, presented a report on her efforts to examine a variety of psoriasis cut points for minimal disease activity and very low disease activity outcomes.
 

Dr. Ogdie is director of the Penn Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and is a member of the GRAPPA Steering Committee.