Commentary: Medication Timing and Other Dupilumab Concerns, March 2024

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 03/13/2024 - 14:26
Dr. Feldman scans the journals, so you don’t have to!

Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD
Ahn and colleagues found that having atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with a higher risk for subsequent autoimmune disease. Is it a significant increased risk? What do we mean by "significant"? If we mean that the difference they observed wasn't likely due to chance alone, then yes, the observed difference was significant in the sense of being statistically significant. But what we really want to know is whether the difference they saw was large enough that someone with AD should lose sleep over it; I don't think they should. About six in 1000 patients per year without AD had a subsequent autoimmune disease; about eight in 1000 patients per year with AD had a subsequent autoimmune disease. There may be some genetic propensity to autoimmune disease in people with AD, but the great majority of people with AD, like the great majority of people in general, will not develop a subsequent autoimmune disease.

When skin diseases affect the palm or sole, they can have a disproportionately large negative effect on patients' lives. Hand and foot dermatitis can be disabling. Simpson and colleagues find that dupilumab is an effective treatment for AD of the hands and feet. Having safe and effective treatment for hand and foot dermatitis will be life-changing for many of our patients.

Patients often do very well with biologic treatment. When they do, they often wonder, Do I need to continue taking the medication? Lasheras-Pérez and colleagues found that the great majority of patients doing well taking dupilumab for AD could stretch out their dosing interval. I suspect a lot of our patients are doing this already. I used to worry that stretching out the dosing interval might lead to antidrug antibodies and loss of activity. Such loss of activity doesn't appear common. Because we also have multiple alternative treatments for severe AD, I think it may be quite reasonable for patients to try spreading out their doses after their disease has been well controlled for a good long time.

Superficial skin infections aren't rare in children, particularly children with AD. Paller and colleagues' study is informative about the safety of dupilumab in children. The drug, which blocks a pathway of the immune system, was associated with fewer infections. This is good news. The reduction in infections could be through restoring "immune balance" (whatever that means) or by improving skin barrier function. Perhaps the low rate of infection explains why dupilumab is not considered immunosuppressive.

I love studies of drug survival because I think that knowing the percentage of patients who stay with drug treatment is a good measure of overall safety and efficacy. Pezzolo and colleagues found — perhaps not surprisingly given the extraordinary efficacy of upadacitinib for AD — that almost no one discontinued the drug over 1.5 years due to lack of efficacy. There were patients who discontinued due to adverse events (and additional patients lost to follow-up who perhaps also discontinued the drug), but 80% of patients were still in the study at the end of 1.5 years. Three patients who weren't vaccinated for shingles developed shingles; encouraging patients to get the shingles vaccine may be a prudent measure when starting patients taking upadacitinib. 
 

Author and Disclosure Information

Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD
Professor of Dermatology, Pathology and Social Sciences & Health Policy Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC

Publications
Topics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD
Professor of Dermatology, Pathology and Social Sciences & Health Policy Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC

Author and Disclosure Information

Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD
Professor of Dermatology, Pathology and Social Sciences & Health Policy Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC

Dr. Feldman scans the journals, so you don’t have to!
Dr. Feldman scans the journals, so you don’t have to!

Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD
Ahn and colleagues found that having atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with a higher risk for subsequent autoimmune disease. Is it a significant increased risk? What do we mean by "significant"? If we mean that the difference they observed wasn't likely due to chance alone, then yes, the observed difference was significant in the sense of being statistically significant. But what we really want to know is whether the difference they saw was large enough that someone with AD should lose sleep over it; I don't think they should. About six in 1000 patients per year without AD had a subsequent autoimmune disease; about eight in 1000 patients per year with AD had a subsequent autoimmune disease. There may be some genetic propensity to autoimmune disease in people with AD, but the great majority of people with AD, like the great majority of people in general, will not develop a subsequent autoimmune disease.

When skin diseases affect the palm or sole, they can have a disproportionately large negative effect on patients' lives. Hand and foot dermatitis can be disabling. Simpson and colleagues find that dupilumab is an effective treatment for AD of the hands and feet. Having safe and effective treatment for hand and foot dermatitis will be life-changing for many of our patients.

Patients often do very well with biologic treatment. When they do, they often wonder, Do I need to continue taking the medication? Lasheras-Pérez and colleagues found that the great majority of patients doing well taking dupilumab for AD could stretch out their dosing interval. I suspect a lot of our patients are doing this already. I used to worry that stretching out the dosing interval might lead to antidrug antibodies and loss of activity. Such loss of activity doesn't appear common. Because we also have multiple alternative treatments for severe AD, I think it may be quite reasonable for patients to try spreading out their doses after their disease has been well controlled for a good long time.

Superficial skin infections aren't rare in children, particularly children with AD. Paller and colleagues' study is informative about the safety of dupilumab in children. The drug, which blocks a pathway of the immune system, was associated with fewer infections. This is good news. The reduction in infections could be through restoring "immune balance" (whatever that means) or by improving skin barrier function. Perhaps the low rate of infection explains why dupilumab is not considered immunosuppressive.

I love studies of drug survival because I think that knowing the percentage of patients who stay with drug treatment is a good measure of overall safety and efficacy. Pezzolo and colleagues found — perhaps not surprisingly given the extraordinary efficacy of upadacitinib for AD — that almost no one discontinued the drug over 1.5 years due to lack of efficacy. There were patients who discontinued due to adverse events (and additional patients lost to follow-up who perhaps also discontinued the drug), but 80% of patients were still in the study at the end of 1.5 years. Three patients who weren't vaccinated for shingles developed shingles; encouraging patients to get the shingles vaccine may be a prudent measure when starting patients taking upadacitinib. 
 

Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD
Ahn and colleagues found that having atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with a higher risk for subsequent autoimmune disease. Is it a significant increased risk? What do we mean by "significant"? If we mean that the difference they observed wasn't likely due to chance alone, then yes, the observed difference was significant in the sense of being statistically significant. But what we really want to know is whether the difference they saw was large enough that someone with AD should lose sleep over it; I don't think they should. About six in 1000 patients per year without AD had a subsequent autoimmune disease; about eight in 1000 patients per year with AD had a subsequent autoimmune disease. There may be some genetic propensity to autoimmune disease in people with AD, but the great majority of people with AD, like the great majority of people in general, will not develop a subsequent autoimmune disease.

When skin diseases affect the palm or sole, they can have a disproportionately large negative effect on patients' lives. Hand and foot dermatitis can be disabling. Simpson and colleagues find that dupilumab is an effective treatment for AD of the hands and feet. Having safe and effective treatment for hand and foot dermatitis will be life-changing for many of our patients.

Patients often do very well with biologic treatment. When they do, they often wonder, Do I need to continue taking the medication? Lasheras-Pérez and colleagues found that the great majority of patients doing well taking dupilumab for AD could stretch out their dosing interval. I suspect a lot of our patients are doing this already. I used to worry that stretching out the dosing interval might lead to antidrug antibodies and loss of activity. Such loss of activity doesn't appear common. Because we also have multiple alternative treatments for severe AD, I think it may be quite reasonable for patients to try spreading out their doses after their disease has been well controlled for a good long time.

Superficial skin infections aren't rare in children, particularly children with AD. Paller and colleagues' study is informative about the safety of dupilumab in children. The drug, which blocks a pathway of the immune system, was associated with fewer infections. This is good news. The reduction in infections could be through restoring "immune balance" (whatever that means) or by improving skin barrier function. Perhaps the low rate of infection explains why dupilumab is not considered immunosuppressive.

I love studies of drug survival because I think that knowing the percentage of patients who stay with drug treatment is a good measure of overall safety and efficacy. Pezzolo and colleagues found — perhaps not surprisingly given the extraordinary efficacy of upadacitinib for AD — that almost no one discontinued the drug over 1.5 years due to lack of efficacy. There were patients who discontinued due to adverse events (and additional patients lost to follow-up who perhaps also discontinued the drug), but 80% of patients were still in the study at the end of 1.5 years. Three patients who weren't vaccinated for shingles developed shingles; encouraging patients to get the shingles vaccine may be a prudent measure when starting patients taking upadacitinib. 
 

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Article Series
Clinical Edge Journal Scan: Atopic Dermatitis, March 2024
Gate On Date
Tue, 02/27/2024 - 13:15
Un-Gate On Date
Tue, 02/27/2024 - 13:15
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Tue, 02/27/2024 - 13:15
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Activity Salesforce Deliverable ID
400680.1
Activity ID
110501
Product Name
Clinical Edge Journal Scan
Product ID
124
Supporter Name /ID
RINVOQ [ 5260 ]