Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD

The excellent short-term efficacy of the drug was well maintained up to 48 weeks, with only a slight loss of efficacy over time. Abrocitinib is a small molecule. We wouldn't expect a loss of efficacy due to the anti-drug antibodies that we see for large-molecule biologic drugs. I suspect that the slight loss of efficacy over time is a form of tachyphylaxis that is, to my thinking, probably due to poor adherence. Shocking, I know! Patients may not be fully adherent to treatment, even in a clinical trial. I think we should encourage patients to use 7-day pill boxes to aid better long-term adherence and outcomes.

Long-term safety is a critical issue with any new drug, certainly with a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor. Reich and colleagues concluded, "The long-term safety profile was manageable and consistent with previous reports." That conclusion seems reasonable to me. The most common side effects were upper respiratory tract infections. There may be a slight signal for increased risk for oral herpes infection, particularly at the higher dose. If this safety profile endures with longer-term data in larger numbers of people, it will be very reassuring.

The study by Wan and colleagues is another extremely well-done, important study by the premier dermatoepidemiology research team at the University of Pennsylvania. The study used an outstanding database from the United Kingdom that encompassed the clinical care experience of hundreds of thousands of children and adults with atopic dermatitis and millions of control patients without atopic dermatitis. With this many patients, the study has tremendous power to detect risk differences between groups.

With all that power, this study’s findings are very reassuring that there is no meaningful overall increased risk for malignancy in children or adults with atopic dermatitis. And while there was a statistically significant increased risk for lymphoma in children with severe atopic dermatitis, that risk is small … very small. Similarly, adults with severe AD had a twofold higher risk for noncutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), but since non-CTCL is rare, patients with severe AD shouldn't lose any sleep over it..

Simpson and colleagues' study of the effect of dupilumab on Staphylococcus aureus surprised me. Of course, we could expect that S aureus counts would be reduced with dupilumab; as barrier function is restored, surely S aureus counts would go down too. But, fascinatingly, with dupilumab treatment, S aureus counts decreased almost immediately, at both 3 and 7 days, before there was apparent clinical improvement in the skin rash. Simpson and colleagues suggest that the drop in S aureus counts could be due to improvement in immune function when interleukins 4 and 13 are blocked. Whether or not that is true, it is striking how fast S aureus counts improved, long before normal skin barrier function is restored.

Here's a fun fact: Atopic dermatitis is a little less common, about 10% less common, in people born second or later in the birth order. Lisik and colleagues did a meta-analysis of 114 studies and found this marginally lower rate in those born second or later compared with those born first. I'm not sure that there is any clinically meaningful significance to this, but I found it interesting (even though I was born first, and my younger brother had atopic dermatitis).

The excellent short-term efficacy of the drug was well maintained up to 48 weeks, with only a slight loss of efficacy over time. Abrocitinib is a small molecule. We wouldn't expect a loss of efficacy due to the anti-drug antibodies that we see for large-molecule biologic drugs. I suspect that the slight loss of efficacy over time is a form of tachyphylaxis that is, to my thinking, probably due to poor adherence. Shocking, I know! Patients may not be fully adherent to treatment, even in a clinical trial. I think we should encourage patients to use 7-day pill boxes to aid better long-term adherence and outcomes.

Long-term safety is a critical issue with any new drug, certainly with a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor. Reich and colleagues concluded, "The long-term safety profile was manageable and consistent with previous reports." That conclusion seems reasonable to me. The most common side effects were upper respiratory tract infections. There may be a slight signal for increased risk for oral herpes infection, particularly at the higher dose. If this safety profile endures with longer-term data in larger numbers of people, it will be very reassuring.

The study by Wan and colleagues is another extremely well-done, important study by the premier dermatoepidemiology research team at the University of Pennsylvania. The study used an outstanding database from the United Kingdom that encompassed the clinical care experience of hundreds of thousands of children and adults with atopic dermatitis and millions of control patients without atopic dermatitis. With this many patients, the study has tremendous power to detect risk differences between groups.

With all that power, this study’s findings are very reassuring that there is no meaningful overall increased risk for malignancy in children or adults with atopic dermatitis. And while there was a statistically significant increased risk for lymphoma in children with severe atopic dermatitis, that risk is small … very small. Similarly, adults with severe AD had a twofold higher risk for noncutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), but since non-CTCL is rare, patients with severe AD shouldn't lose any sleep over it..

Simpson and colleagues' study of the effect of dupilumab on Staphylococcus aureus surprised me. Of course, we could expect that S aureus counts would be reduced with dupilumab; as barrier function is restored, surely S aureus counts would go down too. But, fascinatingly, with dupilumab treatment, S aureus counts decreased almost immediately, at both 3 and 7 days, before there was apparent clinical improvement in the skin rash. Simpson and colleagues suggest that the drop in S aureus counts could be due to improvement in immune function when interleukins 4 and 13 are blocked. Whether or not that is true, it is striking how fast S aureus counts improved, long before normal skin barrier function is restored.

Here's a fun fact: Atopic dermatitis is a little less common, about 10% less common, in people born second or later in the birth order. Lisik and colleagues did a meta-analysis of 114 studies and found this marginally lower rate in those born second or later compared with those born first. I'm not sure that there is any clinically meaningful significance to this, but I found it interesting (even though I was born first, and my younger brother had atopic dermatitis).

The excellent short-term efficacy of the drug was well maintained up to 48 weeks, with only a slight loss of efficacy over time. Abrocitinib is a small molecule. We wouldn't expect a loss of efficacy due to the anti-drug antibodies that we see for large-molecule biologic drugs. I suspect that the slight loss of efficacy over time is a form of tachyphylaxis that is, to my thinking, probably due to poor adherence. Shocking, I know! Patients may not be fully adherent to treatment, even in a clinical trial. I think we should encourage patients to use 7-day pill boxes to aid better long-term adherence and outcomes.

Long-term safety is a critical issue with any new drug, certainly with a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor. Reich and colleagues concluded, "The long-term safety profile was manageable and consistent with previous reports." That conclusion seems reasonable to me. The most common side effects were upper respiratory tract infections. There may be a slight signal for increased risk for oral herpes infection, particularly at the higher dose. If this safety profile endures with longer-term data in larger numbers of people, it will be very reassuring.

The study by Wan and colleagues is another extremely well-done, important study by the premier dermatoepidemiology research team at the University of Pennsylvania. The study used an outstanding database from the United Kingdom that encompassed the clinical care experience of hundreds of thousands of children and adults with atopic dermatitis and millions of control patients without atopic dermatitis. With this many patients, the study has tremendous power to detect risk differences between groups.

With all that power, this study’s findings are very reassuring that there is no meaningful overall increased risk for malignancy in children or adults with atopic dermatitis. And while there was a statistically significant increased risk for lymphoma in children with severe atopic dermatitis, that risk is small … very small. Similarly, adults with severe AD had a twofold higher risk for noncutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), but since non-CTCL is rare, patients with severe AD shouldn't lose any sleep over it..

Simpson and colleagues' study of the effect of dupilumab on Staphylococcus aureus surprised me. Of course, we could expect that S aureus counts would be reduced with dupilumab; as barrier function is restored, surely S aureus counts would go down too. But, fascinatingly, with dupilumab treatment, S aureus counts decreased almost immediately, at both 3 and 7 days, before there was apparent clinical improvement in the skin rash. Simpson and colleagues suggest that the drop in S aureus counts could be due to improvement in immune function when interleukins 4 and 13 are blocked. Whether or not that is true, it is striking how fast S aureus counts improved, long before normal skin barrier function is restored.

Here's a fun fact: Atopic dermatitis is a little less common, about 10% less common, in people born second or later in the birth order. Lisik and colleagues did a meta-analysis of 114 studies and found this marginally lower rate in those born second or later compared with those born first. I'm not sure that there is any clinically meaningful significance to this, but I found it interesting (even though I was born first, and my younger brother had atopic dermatitis).

Silverberg and colleagues described a very well-designed, vehicle-controlled, randomized 8-week study of a topical formulation of a purified strain of Nitrosomonas eutropha, an ammonia-oxidizing bacterium. In theory, this bacterium may reduce Staphylococcus aureus. The study compared two concentrations of the bacterium vs vehicle delivered as a spray twice per day. Study participants were adults with AD affecting 10%-40% of body surface area.

The study found "meaningful" improvements in itch and objective signs of disease, with clear separation between both doses of the bacterial spray compared with vehicle. At week 4, about 23% of participants treated with the bacterium were clear or almost clear (with a 2-point improvement) compared with 12% in the vehicle group (for comparison, in a phase 2 study comparing topical ruxolitinib with 0.1% triamcinolone cream, there was a 25% clear or almost clear rate [with 2-point improvement] in the triamcinolone-treated individuals).

Though an "all-natural" bacterial approach to managing AD may be appealing to some, it sounded like magic to me. But this well-done study makes it seem like the bacterial approach could be more promising than I had thought. This study also reported about twice as many adverse events (including gastrointestinal issues) with the bacterium-treated participants compared with those who received vehicle, adding to my belief that the bacterial product has efficacy. Whether any other topical will be more effective and safer than is topical triamcinolone remains to be seen. I'm still pessimistic about topicals because of patients' poor adherence to topical treatment, but perhaps an easy-to-use spray that isn't associated with patients' fear of "steroids" will be helpful.

Chen and colleagues. They analyzed data on hundreds of thousands of patients with and without AD. Adults with AD had a "significantly increased risk" of developing venous thromboembolism compared with adults without AD. The huge sample size of their study seems compelling. That huge sample size allows detection of effects so small that they may be clinically insignificant.

They report that patients with AD had a venous thromboembolism at a rate of 1.05/1000 patients-years; the rate was 0.82 for patients without AD. From that, we can calculate that there would be an additional 23 patients with venous thromboembolism for every 100,000 patient-years or about one more venous thromboembolism in the AD group in every 4000 patient-years. Though the finding was statistically significant, I don't think it is clinically meaningful.

The authors correctly conclude that "vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients with AD who present with relevant symptoms (eg, unexplained dyspnea, chest tightness, and limb swelling)." But it is probably also true that vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients without AD who present with those symptoms. I think the authors might have been on solid ground if they had concluded that there was a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increased risk for venous thromboembolism in patients with AD.

Eichenfeld and colleagues examined the use of topical crisaborole once per day as a maintenance treatment for patients with mild to moderate AD. The study compared patients given topical crisaborole with those randomly assigned to vehicle. The active treatment was effective because topical crisaborole treated patients had longer times to the first flare following treatment and fewer flares over the 1 year of treatment. The differences were not huge, but I think they were clinically meaningful. I'm guessing that the topical crisaborole maintenance treatment would have been even more effective had it been used regularly. The study did not, as far as I could tell, assess how well the treatment was used.

An interesting aspect of this study is that it began with nearly 500 participants who started on twice daily topical crisaborole. The 270 patients who responded to the treatment (achieving clear or almost clear with at least a 2-point improvement) were enrolled in the 1-year maintenance phase. Thus, the participants in the maintenance phase were preselected for patients who respond to topical crisaborole. We don't know why they were responders (I, of course, expect it is because they selected for patients who are better than others are at using a topical treatment), but it may be best not to try to generalize these results and assume this form of maintenance treatment would work equally well in a population who achieve initial success with an oral therapy regimen (for example, a quick course of oral prednisone).

Dupilumab was a revolutionary treatment for AD. I didn't think that I'd ever see a more effective treatment. It's so safe too! It has been a first-line treatment for AD since its introduction. Now, we also have oral Janus kinase inhibitor options. Blauvelt and colleagues examined what happens when patients who have been on dupilumab are switched to a high dose (30 mg/d) of upadacitinib (the standard starting dose of upadacitinib is 15 mg/d). Though dupilumab is very effective, upadacitinib is more so. After 4 weeks of switching to upadacitinib, nearly half the patients were completely clear of AD compared with only 16.0% after 24 weeks of dupilumab! The authors point out, optimistically, that "No new safety risks were observed." Though there were no cancers, gastrointestinal perforations, major adverse cardiovascular events, or venous thromboembolic events, there were cases of eczema herpeticum and zoster in patients treated with upadacitinib. Having upadacitinib available for patients who fail dupilumab is a clear benefit; the role of upadacitinib before dupilumab seems less clear.

Patients doing great on dupilumab for AD may be wondering: Do I still need to take it every 2 weeks? Spekhorst and colleagues may have the answer. They describe the response to tapering dupilumab in patients who had been on the drug for at least 1 year with well-controlled disease for at least 6 months. Patients in the study then continued dupilumab with the longest possible dosing interval while maintaining control of their AD.

Generally, patients maintained good control of their AD, with only a small increase in mean disease severity and in concomitant use of topical steroids. For the patients who attempted prolongation, 83% successfully continued dupilumab treatment with a prolonged interval. Not at all surprisingly, the authors calculated that prolonging the interval between dosing led to large savings in cost.

One of the nice features of dupilumab treatment is that loss of response over time seems unusual. Perhaps there is a low propensity for forming antidrug antibodies when dupilumab is used in the standard every 2-week dosing regimen. I don't know whether antidrug antibodies would be more likely with the intermittent dosing regimen. But now that we have other good systemic treatment options for AD, losing dupilumab efficacy would not be as critical a problem as it used to be. I also want to point out that patients' adherence to injection treatment, though better than adherence to topicals, is far from perfect. It's likely that many patients have already been prolonging the interval between taking their treatments. If you want to know, just ask them. The way I like to phrase the question is: "Are you keeping the extra injectors you've accumulated refrigerated like you are supposed to?"

Silverberg and colleagues described a very well-designed, vehicle-controlled, randomized 8-week study of a topical formulation of a purified strain of Nitrosomonas eutropha, an ammonia-oxidizing bacterium. In theory, this bacterium may reduce Staphylococcus aureus. The study compared two concentrations of the bacterium vs vehicle delivered as a spray twice per day. Study participants were adults with AD affecting 10%-40% of body surface area.

The study found "meaningful" improvements in itch and objective signs of disease, with clear separation between both doses of the bacterial spray compared with vehicle. At week 4, about 23% of participants treated with the bacterium were clear or almost clear (with a 2-point improvement) compared with 12% in the vehicle group (for comparison, in a phase 2 study comparing topical ruxolitinib with 0.1% triamcinolone cream, there was a 25% clear or almost clear rate [with 2-point improvement] in the triamcinolone-treated individuals).

Though an "all-natural" bacterial approach to managing AD may be appealing to some, it sounded like magic to me. But this well-done study makes it seem like the bacterial approach could be more promising than I had thought. This study also reported about twice as many adverse events (including gastrointestinal issues) with the bacterium-treated participants compared with those who received vehicle, adding to my belief that the bacterial product has efficacy. Whether any other topical will be more effective and safer than is topical triamcinolone remains to be seen. I'm still pessimistic about topicals because of patients' poor adherence to topical treatment, but perhaps an easy-to-use spray that isn't associated with patients' fear of "steroids" will be helpful.

Chen and colleagues. They analyzed data on hundreds of thousands of patients with and without AD. Adults with AD had a "significantly increased risk" of developing venous thromboembolism compared with adults without AD. The huge sample size of their study seems compelling. That huge sample size allows detection of effects so small that they may be clinically insignificant.

They report that patients with AD had a venous thromboembolism at a rate of 1.05/1000 patients-years; the rate was 0.82 for patients without AD. From that, we can calculate that there would be an additional 23 patients with venous thromboembolism for every 100,000 patient-years or about one more venous thromboembolism in the AD group in every 4000 patient-years. Though the finding was statistically significant, I don't think it is clinically meaningful.

The authors correctly conclude that "vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients with AD who present with relevant symptoms (eg, unexplained dyspnea, chest tightness, and limb swelling)." But it is probably also true that vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients without AD who present with those symptoms. I think the authors might have been on solid ground if they had concluded that there was a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increased risk for venous thromboembolism in patients with AD.

Eichenfeld and colleagues examined the use of topical crisaborole once per day as a maintenance treatment for patients with mild to moderate AD. The study compared patients given topical crisaborole with those randomly assigned to vehicle. The active treatment was effective because topical crisaborole treated patients had longer times to the first flare following treatment and fewer flares over the 1 year of treatment. The differences were not huge, but I think they were clinically meaningful. I'm guessing that the topical crisaborole maintenance treatment would have been even more effective had it been used regularly. The study did not, as far as I could tell, assess how well the treatment was used.

An interesting aspect of this study is that it began with nearly 500 participants who started on twice daily topical crisaborole. The 270 patients who responded to the treatment (achieving clear or almost clear with at least a 2-point improvement) were enrolled in the 1-year maintenance phase. Thus, the participants in the maintenance phase were preselected for patients who respond to topical crisaborole. We don't know why they were responders (I, of course, expect it is because they selected for patients who are better than others are at using a topical treatment), but it may be best not to try to generalize these results and assume this form of maintenance treatment would work equally well in a population who achieve initial success with an oral therapy regimen (for example, a quick course of oral prednisone).

Dupilumab was a revolutionary treatment for AD. I didn't think that I'd ever see a more effective treatment. It's so safe too! It has been a first-line treatment for AD since its introduction. Now, we also have oral Janus kinase inhibitor options. Blauvelt and colleagues examined what happens when patients who have been on dupilumab are switched to a high dose (30 mg/d) of upadacitinib (the standard starting dose of upadacitinib is 15 mg/d). Though dupilumab is very effective, upadacitinib is more so. After 4 weeks of switching to upadacitinib, nearly half the patients were completely clear of AD compared with only 16.0% after 24 weeks of dupilumab! The authors point out, optimistically, that "No new safety risks were observed." Though there were no cancers, gastrointestinal perforations, major adverse cardiovascular events, or venous thromboembolic events, there were cases of eczema herpeticum and zoster in patients treated with upadacitinib. Having upadacitinib available for patients who fail dupilumab is a clear benefit; the role of upadacitinib before dupilumab seems less clear.

Patients doing great on dupilumab for AD may be wondering: Do I still need to take it every 2 weeks? Spekhorst and colleagues may have the answer. They describe the response to tapering dupilumab in patients who had been on the drug for at least 1 year with well-controlled disease for at least 6 months. Patients in the study then continued dupilumab with the longest possible dosing interval while maintaining control of their AD.

Generally, patients maintained good control of their AD, with only a small increase in mean disease severity and in concomitant use of topical steroids. For the patients who attempted prolongation, 83% successfully continued dupilumab treatment with a prolonged interval. Not at all surprisingly, the authors calculated that prolonging the interval between dosing led to large savings in cost.

One of the nice features of dupilumab treatment is that loss of response over time seems unusual. Perhaps there is a low propensity for forming antidrug antibodies when dupilumab is used in the standard every 2-week dosing regimen. I don't know whether antidrug antibodies would be more likely with the intermittent dosing regimen. But now that we have other good systemic treatment options for AD, losing dupilumab efficacy would not be as critical a problem as it used to be. I also want to point out that patients' adherence to injection treatment, though better than adherence to topicals, is far from perfect. It's likely that many patients have already been prolonging the interval between taking their treatments. If you want to know, just ask them. The way I like to phrase the question is: "Are you keeping the extra injectors you've accumulated refrigerated like you are supposed to?"

Silverberg and colleagues described a very well-designed, vehicle-controlled, randomized 8-week study of a topical formulation of a purified strain of Nitrosomonas eutropha, an ammonia-oxidizing bacterium. In theory, this bacterium may reduce Staphylococcus aureus. The study compared two concentrations of the bacterium vs vehicle delivered as a spray twice per day. Study participants were adults with AD affecting 10%-40% of body surface area.

The study found "meaningful" improvements in itch and objective signs of disease, with clear separation between both doses of the bacterial spray compared with vehicle. At week 4, about 23% of participants treated with the bacterium were clear or almost clear (with a 2-point improvement) compared with 12% in the vehicle group (for comparison, in a phase 2 study comparing topical ruxolitinib with 0.1% triamcinolone cream, there was a 25% clear or almost clear rate [with 2-point improvement] in the triamcinolone-treated individuals).

Though an "all-natural" bacterial approach to managing AD may be appealing to some, it sounded like magic to me. But this well-done study makes it seem like the bacterial approach could be more promising than I had thought. This study also reported about twice as many adverse events (including gastrointestinal issues) with the bacterium-treated participants compared with those who received vehicle, adding to my belief that the bacterial product has efficacy. Whether any other topical will be more effective and safer than is topical triamcinolone remains to be seen. I'm still pessimistic about topicals because of patients' poor adherence to topical treatment, but perhaps an easy-to-use spray that isn't associated with patients' fear of "steroids" will be helpful.

Chen and colleagues. They analyzed data on hundreds of thousands of patients with and without AD. Adults with AD had a "significantly increased risk" of developing venous thromboembolism compared with adults without AD. The huge sample size of their study seems compelling. That huge sample size allows detection of effects so small that they may be clinically insignificant.

They report that patients with AD had a venous thromboembolism at a rate of 1.05/1000 patients-years; the rate was 0.82 for patients without AD. From that, we can calculate that there would be an additional 23 patients with venous thromboembolism for every 100,000 patient-years or about one more venous thromboembolism in the AD group in every 4000 patient-years. Though the finding was statistically significant, I don't think it is clinically meaningful.

The authors correctly conclude that "vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients with AD who present with relevant symptoms (eg, unexplained dyspnea, chest tightness, and limb swelling)." But it is probably also true that vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients without AD who present with those symptoms. I think the authors might have been on solid ground if they had concluded that there was a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increased risk for venous thromboembolism in patients with AD.

Eichenfeld and colleagues examined the use of topical crisaborole once per day as a maintenance treatment for patients with mild to moderate AD. The study compared patients given topical crisaborole with those randomly assigned to vehicle. The active treatment was effective because topical crisaborole treated patients had longer times to the first flare following treatment and fewer flares over the 1 year of treatment. The differences were not huge, but I think they were clinically meaningful. I'm guessing that the topical crisaborole maintenance treatment would have been even more effective had it been used regularly. The study did not, as far as I could tell, assess how well the treatment was used.

An interesting aspect of this study is that it began with nearly 500 participants who started on twice daily topical crisaborole. The 270 patients who responded to the treatment (achieving clear or almost clear with at least a 2-point improvement) were enrolled in the 1-year maintenance phase. Thus, the participants in the maintenance phase were preselected for patients who respond to topical crisaborole. We don't know why they were responders (I, of course, expect it is because they selected for patients who are better than others are at using a topical treatment), but it may be best not to try to generalize these results and assume this form of maintenance treatment would work equally well in a population who achieve initial success with an oral therapy regimen (for example, a quick course of oral prednisone).

Dupilumab was a revolutionary treatment for AD. I didn't think that I'd ever see a more effective treatment. It's so safe too! It has been a first-line treatment for AD since its introduction. Now, we also have oral Janus kinase inhibitor options. Blauvelt and colleagues examined what happens when patients who have been on dupilumab are switched to a high dose (30 mg/d) of upadacitinib (the standard starting dose of upadacitinib is 15 mg/d). Though dupilumab is very effective, upadacitinib is more so. After 4 weeks of switching to upadacitinib, nearly half the patients were completely clear of AD compared with only 16.0% after 24 weeks of dupilumab! The authors point out, optimistically, that "No new safety risks were observed." Though there were no cancers, gastrointestinal perforations, major adverse cardiovascular events, or venous thromboembolic events, there were cases of eczema herpeticum and zoster in patients treated with upadacitinib. Having upadacitinib available for patients who fail dupilumab is a clear benefit; the role of upadacitinib before dupilumab seems less clear.

Patients doing great on dupilumab for AD may be wondering: Do I still need to take it every 2 weeks? Spekhorst and colleagues may have the answer. They describe the response to tapering dupilumab in patients who had been on the drug for at least 1 year with well-controlled disease for at least 6 months. Patients in the study then continued dupilumab with the longest possible dosing interval while maintaining control of their AD.

Generally, patients maintained good control of their AD, with only a small increase in mean disease severity and in concomitant use of topical steroids. For the patients who attempted prolongation, 83% successfully continued dupilumab treatment with a prolonged interval. Not at all surprisingly, the authors calculated that prolonging the interval between dosing led to large savings in cost.

One of the nice features of dupilumab treatment is that loss of response over time seems unusual. Perhaps there is a low propensity for forming antidrug antibodies when dupilumab is used in the standard every 2-week dosing regimen. I don't know whether antidrug antibodies would be more likely with the intermittent dosing regimen. But now that we have other good systemic treatment options for AD, losing dupilumab efficacy would not be as critical a problem as it used to be. I also want to point out that patients' adherence to injection treatment, though better than adherence to topicals, is far from perfect. It's likely that many patients have already been prolonging the interval between taking their treatments. If you want to know, just ask them. The way I like to phrase the question is: "Are you keeping the extra injectors you've accumulated refrigerated like you are supposed to?"

There is a tremendous amount of atopic dermatitis (AD) research underway. This month, we have several interesting articles to present.

Silverberg and colleagues described a very well-designed, vehicle-controlled, randomized 8-week study of a topical formulation of a purified strain of Nitrosomonas eutropha, an ammonia-oxidizing bacterium. In theory, this bacterium may reduce Staphylococcus aureus. The study compared two concentrations of the bacterium vs vehicle delivered as a spray twice per day. Study participants were adults with AD affecting 10%-40% of body surface area.

The study found "meaningful" improvements in itch and objective signs of disease, with clear separation between both doses of the bacterial spray compared with vehicle. At week 4, about 23% of participants treated with the bacterium were clear or almost clear (with a 2-point improvement) compared with 12% in the vehicle group (for comparison, in a phase 2 study comparing topical ruxolitinib with 0.1% triamcinolone cream, there was a 25% clear or almost clear rate [with 2-point improvement] in the triamcinolone-treated individuals).

Though an "all-natural" bacterial approach to managing AD may be appealing to some, it sounded like magic to me. But this well-done study makes it seem like the bacterial approach could be more promising than I had thought. This study also reported about twice as many adverse events (including gastrointestinal issues) with the bacterium-treated participants compared with those who received vehicle, adding to my belief that the bacterial product has efficacy. Whether any other topical will be more effective and safer than is topical triamcinolone remains to be seen. I'm still pessimistic about topicals because of patients' poor adherence to topical treatment, but perhaps an easy-to-use spray that isn't associated with patients' fear of "steroids" will be helpful.

I love articles like this one from Chen and colleagues. They analyzed data on hundreds of thousands of patients with and without AD. Adults with AD had a "significantly increased risk" of developing venous thromboembolism compared with adults without AD. The huge sample size of their study seems compelling. That huge sample size allows detection of effects so small that they may be clinically insignificant.

They report that patients with AD had a venous thromboembolism at a rate of 1.05/1000 patients-years; the rate was 0.82 for patients without AD. From that, we can calculate that there would be an additional 23 patients with venous thromboembolism for every 100,000 patient-years or about one more venous thromboembolism in the AD group in every 4000 patient-years. Though the finding was statistically significant, I don't think it is clinically meaningful.

The authors correctly conclude that "vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients with AD who present with relevant symptoms (eg, unexplained dyspnea, chest tightness, and limb swelling)." But it is probably also true that vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients without AD who present with those symptoms. I think the authors might have been on solid ground if they had concluded that there was a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increased risk for venous thromboembolism in patients with AD.

Eichenfeld and colleagues examined the use of topical crisaborole once per day as a maintenance treatment for patients with mild to moderate AD. The study compared patients given topical crisaborole with those randomly assigned to vehicle. The active treatment was effective because topical crisaborole treated patients had longer times to the first flare following treatment and fewer flares over the 1 year of treatment. The differences were not huge, but I think they were clinically meaningful. I'm guessing that the topical crisaborole maintenance treatment would have been even more effective had it been used regularly. The study did not, as far as I could tell, assess how well the treatment was used.

An interesting aspect of this study is that it began with nearly 500 participants who started on twice daily topical crisaborole. The 270 patients who responded to the treatment (achieving clear or almost clear with at least a 2-point improvement) were enrolled in the 1-year maintenance phase. Thus, the participants in the maintenance phase were preselected for patients who respond to topical crisaborole. We don't know why they were responders (I, of course, expect it is because they selected for patients who are better than others are at using a topical treatment), but it may be best not to try to generalize these results and assume this form of maintenance treatment would work equally well in a population who achieve initial success with an oral therapy regimen (for example, a quick course of oral prednisone).

Dupilumab was a revolutionary treatment for AD. I didn't think that I'd ever see a more effective treatment. It's so safe too! It has been a first-line treatment for AD since its introduction. Now, we also have oral Janus kinase inhibitor options. Blauvelt and colleagues examined what happens when patients who have been on dupilumab are switched to a high dose (30 mg/d) of upadacitinib (the standard starting dose of upadacitinib is 15 mg/d). Though dupilumab is very effective, upadacitinib is more so. After 4 weeks of switching to upadacitinib, nearly half the patients were completely clear of AD compared with only 16.0% after 24 weeks of dupilumab! The authors point out, optimistically, that "No new safety risks were observed." Though there were no cancers, gastrointestinal perforations, major adverse cardiovascular events, or venous thromboembolic events, there were cases of eczema herpeticum and zoster in patients treated with upadacitinib. Having upadacitinib available for patients who fail dupilumab is a clear benefit; the role of upadacitinib before dupilumab seems less clear.

Patients doing great on dupilumab for AD may be wondering: Do I still need to take it every 2 weeks? Spekhorst and colleagues may have the answer. They describe the response to tapering dupilumab in patients who had been on the drug for at least 1 year with well-controlled disease for at least 6 months. Patients in the study then continued dupilumab with the longest possible dosing interval while maintaining control of their AD.

Generally, patients maintained good control of their AD, with only a small increase in mean disease severity and in concomitant use of topical steroids. For the patients who attempted prolongation, 83% successfully continued dupilumab treatment with a prolonged interval. Not at all surprisingly, the authors calculated that prolonging the interval between dosing led to large savings in cost.

One of the nice features of dupilumab treatment is that loss of response over time seems unusual. Perhaps there is a low propensity for forming antidrug antibodies when dupilumab is used in the standard every 2-week dosing regimen. I don't know whether antidrug antibodies would be more likely with the intermittent dosing regimen. But now that we have other good systemic treatment options for AD, losing dupilumab efficacy would not be as critical a problem as it used to be. I also want to point out that patients' adherence to injection treatment, though better than adherence to topicals, is far from perfect. It's likely that many patients have already been prolonging the interval between taking their treatments. If you want to know, just ask them. The way I like to phrase the question is: "Are you keeping the extra injectors you've accumulated refrigerated like you are supposed to?"

There is a tremendous amount of atopic dermatitis (AD) research underway. This month, we have several interesting articles to present.

Silverberg and colleagues described a very well-designed, vehicle-controlled, randomized 8-week study of a topical formulation of a purified strain of Nitrosomonas eutropha, an ammonia-oxidizing bacterium. In theory, this bacterium may reduce Staphylococcus aureus. The study compared two concentrations of the bacterium vs vehicle delivered as a spray twice per day. Study participants were adults with AD affecting 10%-40% of body surface area.

The study found "meaningful" improvements in itch and objective signs of disease, with clear separation between both doses of the bacterial spray compared with vehicle. At week 4, about 23% of participants treated with the bacterium were clear or almost clear (with a 2-point improvement) compared with 12% in the vehicle group (for comparison, in a phase 2 study comparing topical ruxolitinib with 0.1% triamcinolone cream, there was a 25% clear or almost clear rate [with 2-point improvement] in the triamcinolone-treated individuals).

Though an "all-natural" bacterial approach to managing AD may be appealing to some, it sounded like magic to me. But this well-done study makes it seem like the bacterial approach could be more promising than I had thought. This study also reported about twice as many adverse events (including gastrointestinal issues) with the bacterium-treated participants compared with those who received vehicle, adding to my belief that the bacterial product has efficacy. Whether any other topical will be more effective and safer than is topical triamcinolone remains to be seen. I'm still pessimistic about topicals because of patients' poor adherence to topical treatment, but perhaps an easy-to-use spray that isn't associated with patients' fear of "steroids" will be helpful.

I love articles like this one from Chen and colleagues. They analyzed data on hundreds of thousands of patients with and without AD. Adults with AD had a "significantly increased risk" of developing venous thromboembolism compared with adults without AD. The huge sample size of their study seems compelling. That huge sample size allows detection of effects so small that they may be clinically insignificant.

They report that patients with AD had a venous thromboembolism at a rate of 1.05/1000 patients-years; the rate was 0.82 for patients without AD. From that, we can calculate that there would be an additional 23 patients with venous thromboembolism for every 100,000 patient-years or about one more venous thromboembolism in the AD group in every 4000 patient-years. Though the finding was statistically significant, I don't think it is clinically meaningful.

The authors correctly conclude that "vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients with AD who present with relevant symptoms (eg, unexplained dyspnea, chest tightness, and limb swelling)." But it is probably also true that vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients without AD who present with those symptoms. I think the authors might have been on solid ground if they had concluded that there was a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increased risk for venous thromboembolism in patients with AD.

Eichenfeld and colleagues examined the use of topical crisaborole once per day as a maintenance treatment for patients with mild to moderate AD. The study compared patients given topical crisaborole with those randomly assigned to vehicle. The active treatment was effective because topical crisaborole treated patients had longer times to the first flare following treatment and fewer flares over the 1 year of treatment. The differences were not huge, but I think they were clinically meaningful. I'm guessing that the topical crisaborole maintenance treatment would have been even more effective had it been used regularly. The study did not, as far as I could tell, assess how well the treatment was used.

An interesting aspect of this study is that it began with nearly 500 participants who started on twice daily topical crisaborole. The 270 patients who responded to the treatment (achieving clear or almost clear with at least a 2-point improvement) were enrolled in the 1-year maintenance phase. Thus, the participants in the maintenance phase were preselected for patients who respond to topical crisaborole. We don't know why they were responders (I, of course, expect it is because they selected for patients who are better than others are at using a topical treatment), but it may be best not to try to generalize these results and assume this form of maintenance treatment would work equally well in a population who achieve initial success with an oral therapy regimen (for example, a quick course of oral prednisone).

Dupilumab was a revolutionary treatment for AD. I didn't think that I'd ever see a more effective treatment. It's so safe too! It has been a first-line treatment for AD since its introduction. Now, we also have oral Janus kinase inhibitor options. Blauvelt and colleagues examined what happens when patients who have been on dupilumab are switched to a high dose (30 mg/d) of upadacitinib (the standard starting dose of upadacitinib is 15 mg/d). Though dupilumab is very effective, upadacitinib is more so. After 4 weeks of switching to upadacitinib, nearly half the patients were completely clear of AD compared with only 16.0% after 24 weeks of dupilumab! The authors point out, optimistically, that "No new safety risks were observed." Though there were no cancers, gastrointestinal perforations, major adverse cardiovascular events, or venous thromboembolic events, there were cases of eczema herpeticum and zoster in patients treated with upadacitinib. Having upadacitinib available for patients who fail dupilumab is a clear benefit; the role of upadacitinib before dupilumab seems less clear.

Patients doing great on dupilumab for AD may be wondering: Do I still need to take it every 2 weeks? Spekhorst and colleagues may have the answer. They describe the response to tapering dupilumab in patients who had been on the drug for at least 1 year with well-controlled disease for at least 6 months. Patients in the study then continued dupilumab with the longest possible dosing interval while maintaining control of their AD.

Generally, patients maintained good control of their AD, with only a small increase in mean disease severity and in concomitant use of topical steroids. For the patients who attempted prolongation, 83% successfully continued dupilumab treatment with a prolonged interval. Not at all surprisingly, the authors calculated that prolonging the interval between dosing led to large savings in cost.

One of the nice features of dupilumab treatment is that loss of response over time seems unusual. Perhaps there is a low propensity for forming antidrug antibodies when dupilumab is used in the standard every 2-week dosing regimen. I don't know whether antidrug antibodies would be more likely with the intermittent dosing regimen. But now that we have other good systemic treatment options for AD, losing dupilumab efficacy would not be as critical a problem as it used to be. I also want to point out that patients' adherence to injection treatment, though better than adherence to topicals, is far from perfect. It's likely that many patients have already been prolonging the interval between taking their treatments. If you want to know, just ask them. The way I like to phrase the question is: "Are you keeping the extra injectors you've accumulated refrigerated like you are supposed to?"

There is a tremendous amount of atopic dermatitis (AD) research underway. This month, we have several interesting articles to present.

Silverberg and colleagues described a very well-designed, vehicle-controlled, randomized 8-week study of a topical formulation of a purified strain of Nitrosomonas eutropha, an ammonia-oxidizing bacterium. In theory, this bacterium may reduce Staphylococcus aureus. The study compared two concentrations of the bacterium vs vehicle delivered as a spray twice per day. Study participants were adults with AD affecting 10%-40% of body surface area.

The study found "meaningful" improvements in itch and objective signs of disease, with clear separation between both doses of the bacterial spray compared with vehicle. At week 4, about 23% of participants treated with the bacterium were clear or almost clear (with a 2-point improvement) compared with 12% in the vehicle group (for comparison, in a phase 2 study comparing topical ruxolitinib with 0.1% triamcinolone cream, there was a 25% clear or almost clear rate [with 2-point improvement] in the triamcinolone-treated individuals).

Though an "all-natural" bacterial approach to managing AD may be appealing to some, it sounded like magic to me. But this well-done study makes it seem like the bacterial approach could be more promising than I had thought. This study also reported about twice as many adverse events (including gastrointestinal issues) with the bacterium-treated participants compared with those who received vehicle, adding to my belief that the bacterial product has efficacy. Whether any other topical will be more effective and safer than is topical triamcinolone remains to be seen. I'm still pessimistic about topicals because of patients' poor adherence to topical treatment, but perhaps an easy-to-use spray that isn't associated with patients' fear of "steroids" will be helpful.

I love articles like this one from Chen and colleagues. They analyzed data on hundreds of thousands of patients with and without AD. Adults with AD had a "significantly increased risk" of developing venous thromboembolism compared with adults without AD. The huge sample size of their study seems compelling. That huge sample size allows detection of effects so small that they may be clinically insignificant.

They report that patients with AD had a venous thromboembolism at a rate of 1.05/1000 patients-years; the rate was 0.82 for patients without AD. From that, we can calculate that there would be an additional 23 patients with venous thromboembolism for every 100,000 patient-years or about one more venous thromboembolism in the AD group in every 4000 patient-years. Though the finding was statistically significant, I don't think it is clinically meaningful.

The authors correctly conclude that "vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients with AD who present with relevant symptoms (eg, unexplained dyspnea, chest tightness, and limb swelling)." But it is probably also true that vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients without AD who present with those symptoms. I think the authors might have been on solid ground if they had concluded that there was a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increased risk for venous thromboembolism in patients with AD.

Eichenfeld and colleagues examined the use of topical crisaborole once per day as a maintenance treatment for patients with mild to moderate AD. The study compared patients given topical crisaborole with those randomly assigned to vehicle. The active treatment was effective because topical crisaborole treated patients had longer times to the first flare following treatment and fewer flares over the 1 year of treatment. The differences were not huge, but I think they were clinically meaningful. I'm guessing that the topical crisaborole maintenance treatment would have been even more effective had it been used regularly. The study did not, as far as I could tell, assess how well the treatment was used.

An interesting aspect of this study is that it began with nearly 500 participants who started on twice daily topical crisaborole. The 270 patients who responded to the treatment (achieving clear or almost clear with at least a 2-point improvement) were enrolled in the 1-year maintenance phase. Thus, the participants in the maintenance phase were preselected for patients who respond to topical crisaborole. We don't know why they were responders (I, of course, expect it is because they selected for patients who are better than others are at using a topical treatment), but it may be best not to try to generalize these results and assume this form of maintenance treatment would work equally well in a population who achieve initial success with an oral therapy regimen (for example, a quick course of oral prednisone).

Dupilumab was a revolutionary treatment for AD. I didn't think that I'd ever see a more effective treatment. It's so safe too! It has been a first-line treatment for AD since its introduction. Now, we also have oral Janus kinase inhibitor options. Blauvelt and colleagues examined what happens when patients who have been on dupilumab are switched to a high dose (30 mg/d) of upadacitinib (the standard starting dose of upadacitinib is 15 mg/d). Though dupilumab is very effective, upadacitinib is more so. After 4 weeks of switching to upadacitinib, nearly half the patients were completely clear of AD compared with only 16.0% after 24 weeks of dupilumab! The authors point out, optimistically, that "No new safety risks were observed." Though there were no cancers, gastrointestinal perforations, major adverse cardiovascular events, or venous thromboembolic events, there were cases of eczema herpeticum and zoster in patients treated with upadacitinib. Having upadacitinib available for patients who fail dupilumab is a clear benefit; the role of upadacitinib before dupilumab seems less clear.

Patients doing great on dupilumab for AD may be wondering: Do I still need to take it every 2 weeks? Spekhorst and colleagues may have the answer. They describe the response to tapering dupilumab in patients who had been on the drug for at least 1 year with well-controlled disease for at least 6 months. Patients in the study then continued dupilumab with the longest possible dosing interval while maintaining control of their AD.

Generally, patients maintained good control of their AD, with only a small increase in mean disease severity and in concomitant use of topical steroids. For the patients who attempted prolongation, 83% successfully continued dupilumab treatment with a prolonged interval. Not at all surprisingly, the authors calculated that prolonging the interval between dosing led to large savings in cost.

One of the nice features of dupilumab treatment is that loss of response over time seems unusual. Perhaps there is a low propensity for forming antidrug antibodies when dupilumab is used in the standard every 2-week dosing regimen. I don't know whether antidrug antibodies would be more likely with the intermittent dosing regimen. But now that we have other good systemic treatment options for AD, losing dupilumab efficacy would not be as critical a problem as it used to be. I also want to point out that patients' adherence to injection treatment, though better than adherence to topicals, is far from perfect. It's likely that many patients have already been prolonging the interval between taking their treatments. If you want to know, just ask them. The way I like to phrase the question is: "Are you keeping the extra injectors you've accumulated refrigerated like you are supposed to?"

The most common adverse events were acne, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) level elevations, and nasopharyngitis. I'm confident that none of my patients will have CPK elevations detected, because I won't be testing for it. I suspect that CPK elevations come from people being more physically active when their skin clears up.

I have the sense that our comfort with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibition will grow rapidly as we use the drug for patients with vitiligo, alopecia areata, resistant atopic dermatitis, and other diseases. Many of us are comfortable with methotrexate, dapsone, cyclosporine, and mycophenolate; our comfort with JAK inhibitors for our patients who need it will almost surely follow.

Williams and colleagues did a meta-analysis looking at the relationship between AD and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They claim that “patients with AD had significantly increased odds of comorbid RA.” This claim should not be taken at face value. What they found was that the observed rate of RA was higher in patients with AD than in controls, and the difference was not something you would see by chance very often. But that does not make something significant. To truly be significant, you'd expect it to be clinically meaningful. The relationship they found — even if not due to chance or to some unmeasured bias — wasn't clinically relevant, in my opinion. RA is a relatively rare phenomenon. If it is barely more common in patients with AD than in controls, it is still rare in AD patients. We don't need to screen for RA in AD patients. We don't need to do anything with this apparent association.

The bottom line is to be wary when you see an article that reports a “significant” finding, especially when it is based on a higher relative risk, like an odds ratio. What we need to know is what the absolute magnitude of the risk is. We need to know how many patients with AD you'd have to see before you'd see one more case of RA due to AD. Williams and colleagues' study doesn't report the information we need as clinicians.

Fijan and colleagues did a meta-analysis to assess the effects of single-strain probiotic lactobacilli on atopic dermatitis. The found a “significant” (meaning, statistically significant) reduction with the lactobacilli treatment compared with placebo. They used the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index as the outcome. There was a mean 4.5-unit improvement.

For comparison, Wollenberg and colleagues¹ reported the SCORAD improvement seen with dupilumab: 49- and 46-unit improvements in children and adolescents, respectively.

While I'm sure that patients would love a safe, effective, “all natural” probiotic option for atopic dermatitis, I'm not optimistic that this gut magic is going to work.

Additional Reference

1. Wollenberg A, Marcoux D, Silverberg JI, et al. Dupilumab provides rapid and sustained improvement in SCORing Atopic Dermatitis outcomes in paediatric patients with atopic dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol. 2022;102:adv00726. doi: 10.2340/actadv.v102.854

The most common adverse events were acne, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) level elevations, and nasopharyngitis. I'm confident that none of my patients will have CPK elevations detected, because I won't be testing for it. I suspect that CPK elevations come from people being more physically active when their skin clears up.

I have the sense that our comfort with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibition will grow rapidly as we use the drug for patients with vitiligo, alopecia areata, resistant atopic dermatitis, and other diseases. Many of us are comfortable with methotrexate, dapsone, cyclosporine, and mycophenolate; our comfort with JAK inhibitors for our patients who need it will almost surely follow.

Williams and colleagues did a meta-analysis looking at the relationship between AD and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They claim that “patients with AD had significantly increased odds of comorbid RA.” This claim should not be taken at face value. What they found was that the observed rate of RA was higher in patients with AD than in controls, and the difference was not something you would see by chance very often. But that does not make something significant. To truly be significant, you'd expect it to be clinically meaningful. The relationship they found — even if not due to chance or to some unmeasured bias — wasn't clinically relevant, in my opinion. RA is a relatively rare phenomenon. If it is barely more common in patients with AD than in controls, it is still rare in AD patients. We don't need to screen for RA in AD patients. We don't need to do anything with this apparent association.

The bottom line is to be wary when you see an article that reports a “significant” finding, especially when it is based on a higher relative risk, like an odds ratio. What we need to know is what the absolute magnitude of the risk is. We need to know how many patients with AD you'd have to see before you'd see one more case of RA due to AD. Williams and colleagues' study doesn't report the information we need as clinicians.

Fijan and colleagues did a meta-analysis to assess the effects of single-strain probiotic lactobacilli on atopic dermatitis. The found a “significant” (meaning, statistically significant) reduction with the lactobacilli treatment compared with placebo. They used the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index as the outcome. There was a mean 4.5-unit improvement.

For comparison, Wollenberg and colleagues¹ reported the SCORAD improvement seen with dupilumab: 49- and 46-unit improvements in children and adolescents, respectively.

While I'm sure that patients would love a safe, effective, “all natural” probiotic option for atopic dermatitis, I'm not optimistic that this gut magic is going to work.

Additional Reference

1. Wollenberg A, Marcoux D, Silverberg JI, et al. Dupilumab provides rapid and sustained improvement in SCORing Atopic Dermatitis outcomes in paediatric patients with atopic dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol. 2022;102:adv00726. doi: 10.2340/actadv.v102.854

The most common adverse events were acne, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) level elevations, and nasopharyngitis. I'm confident that none of my patients will have CPK elevations detected, because I won't be testing for it. I suspect that CPK elevations come from people being more physically active when their skin clears up.

I have the sense that our comfort with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibition will grow rapidly as we use the drug for patients with vitiligo, alopecia areata, resistant atopic dermatitis, and other diseases. Many of us are comfortable with methotrexate, dapsone, cyclosporine, and mycophenolate; our comfort with JAK inhibitors for our patients who need it will almost surely follow.

Williams and colleagues did a meta-analysis looking at the relationship between AD and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They claim that “patients with AD had significantly increased odds of comorbid RA.” This claim should not be taken at face value. What they found was that the observed rate of RA was higher in patients with AD than in controls, and the difference was not something you would see by chance very often. But that does not make something significant. To truly be significant, you'd expect it to be clinically meaningful. The relationship they found — even if not due to chance or to some unmeasured bias — wasn't clinically relevant, in my opinion. RA is a relatively rare phenomenon. If it is barely more common in patients with AD than in controls, it is still rare in AD patients. We don't need to screen for RA in AD patients. We don't need to do anything with this apparent association.

The bottom line is to be wary when you see an article that reports a “significant” finding, especially when it is based on a higher relative risk, like an odds ratio. What we need to know is what the absolute magnitude of the risk is. We need to know how many patients with AD you'd have to see before you'd see one more case of RA due to AD. Williams and colleagues' study doesn't report the information we need as clinicians.

Fijan and colleagues did a meta-analysis to assess the effects of single-strain probiotic lactobacilli on atopic dermatitis. The found a “significant” (meaning, statistically significant) reduction with the lactobacilli treatment compared with placebo. They used the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index as the outcome. There was a mean 4.5-unit improvement.

For comparison, Wollenberg and colleagues¹ reported the SCORAD improvement seen with dupilumab: 49- and 46-unit improvements in children and adolescents, respectively.

While I'm sure that patients would love a safe, effective, “all natural” probiotic option for atopic dermatitis, I'm not optimistic that this gut magic is going to work.

Additional Reference

1. Wollenberg A, Marcoux D, Silverberg JI, et al. Dupilumab provides rapid and sustained improvement in SCORing Atopic Dermatitis outcomes in paediatric patients with atopic dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol. 2022;102:adv00726. doi: 10.2340/actadv.v102.854

Torrelo and colleagues described the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in combination with topical corticosteroids in pediatric patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. At the high dose of 4 mg daily, the IGA success rate was about 40%, similar to what we expect for adults treated with dupilumab and less than what we might expect with upadacitinib.

Studies have already been done on efficacy and safety of baricitinib in adults with atopic dermatitis. But baricitinib is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with severe alopecia areata and is not currently indicated as a treatment for anyone with atopic dermatitis, at least not in the United States. At this time, I think the most useful aspect of Torrelo and colleagues' findings is being able to tell our adult patients with alopecia areata that baricitinib was safe enough that they could test it in children as young as 2 years old with eczema.

Perälä and colleagues' report comparing topical tacrolimus and topical corticosteroids (1% hydrocortisone acetate or, if needed, 0.1% hydrocortisone butyrate ointment) in young children with atopic dermatitis is fascinating. They saw patients back at 1 week and followed them for 3 years. In just 1 week, both groups had massive and similar improvement in their atopic dermatitis, and that improvement continued throughout the study. Here are some take-home points:

• Atopic dermatitis responds rapidly to low-to-medium–strength topical steroids.
• Bringing patients back at 1 week may have been a critical aspect of this study, as adherence to topicals can be abysmal; bringing patients back at 1 week probably enables them to use their treatment much better than they would otherwise.
• If we need a nonsteroidal topical, we have an excellent one available at low cost in the form of topical tacrolimus.

Perälä and colleagues also did this study to see whether good treatment of atopic dermatitis in these young children would have long-term benefits on atopic airway issues. Because the researchers didn't have a placebo group (and considered it unethical to have one), we cannot tell whether the topical treatment provided any benefit in that regard.

Yamamoto-Hanada and colleaguesexamined whether "enhanced" topical steroid treatment would prevent food allergy in children with eczema compared with standard topical steroid treatment. Perhaps a better word than "enhanced" would be "aggressive." The enhanced treatment entailed having infants receive alclometasone dipropionate for the whole face and betamethasone valerate for the whole body except face and scalp. While the researchers saw a reduction in egg allergy (from roughly 40% to 30%), they also saw reduced body weight and height. A key take-home message is that with extensive use of topical steroids, we can see systemic effects.

Torrelo and colleagues described the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in combination with topical corticosteroids in pediatric patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. At the high dose of 4 mg daily, the IGA success rate was about 40%, similar to what we expect for adults treated with dupilumab and less than what we might expect with upadacitinib.

Studies have already been done on efficacy and safety of baricitinib in adults with atopic dermatitis. But baricitinib is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with severe alopecia areata and is not currently indicated as a treatment for anyone with atopic dermatitis, at least not in the United States. At this time, I think the most useful aspect of Torrelo and colleagues' findings is being able to tell our adult patients with alopecia areata that baricitinib was safe enough that they could test it in children as young as 2 years old with eczema.

Perälä and colleagues' report comparing topical tacrolimus and topical corticosteroids (1% hydrocortisone acetate or, if needed, 0.1% hydrocortisone butyrate ointment) in young children with atopic dermatitis is fascinating. They saw patients back at 1 week and followed them for 3 years. In just 1 week, both groups had massive and similar improvement in their atopic dermatitis, and that improvement continued throughout the study. Here are some take-home points:

• Atopic dermatitis responds rapidly to low-to-medium–strength topical steroids.
• Bringing patients back at 1 week may have been a critical aspect of this study, as adherence to topicals can be abysmal; bringing patients back at 1 week probably enables them to use their treatment much better than they would otherwise.
• If we need a nonsteroidal topical, we have an excellent one available at low cost in the form of topical tacrolimus.

Perälä and colleagues also did this study to see whether good treatment of atopic dermatitis in these young children would have long-term benefits on atopic airway issues. Because the researchers didn't have a placebo group (and considered it unethical to have one), we cannot tell whether the topical treatment provided any benefit in that regard.

Yamamoto-Hanada and colleaguesexamined whether "enhanced" topical steroid treatment would prevent food allergy in children with eczema compared with standard topical steroid treatment. Perhaps a better word than "enhanced" would be "aggressive." The enhanced treatment entailed having infants receive alclometasone dipropionate for the whole face and betamethasone valerate for the whole body except face and scalp. While the researchers saw a reduction in egg allergy (from roughly 40% to 30%), they also saw reduced body weight and height. A key take-home message is that with extensive use of topical steroids, we can see systemic effects.

Torrelo and colleagues described the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in combination with topical corticosteroids in pediatric patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. At the high dose of 4 mg daily, the IGA success rate was about 40%, similar to what we expect for adults treated with dupilumab and less than what we might expect with upadacitinib.

Studies have already been done on efficacy and safety of baricitinib in adults with atopic dermatitis. But baricitinib is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with severe alopecia areata and is not currently indicated as a treatment for anyone with atopic dermatitis, at least not in the United States. At this time, I think the most useful aspect of Torrelo and colleagues' findings is being able to tell our adult patients with alopecia areata that baricitinib was safe enough that they could test it in children as young as 2 years old with eczema.

Perälä and colleagues' report comparing topical tacrolimus and topical corticosteroids (1% hydrocortisone acetate or, if needed, 0.1% hydrocortisone butyrate ointment) in young children with atopic dermatitis is fascinating. They saw patients back at 1 week and followed them for 3 years. In just 1 week, both groups had massive and similar improvement in their atopic dermatitis, and that improvement continued throughout the study. Here are some take-home points:

• Atopic dermatitis responds rapidly to low-to-medium–strength topical steroids.
• Bringing patients back at 1 week may have been a critical aspect of this study, as adherence to topicals can be abysmal; bringing patients back at 1 week probably enables them to use their treatment much better than they would otherwise.
• If we need a nonsteroidal topical, we have an excellent one available at low cost in the form of topical tacrolimus.

Perälä and colleagues also did this study to see whether good treatment of atopic dermatitis in these young children would have long-term benefits on atopic airway issues. Because the researchers didn't have a placebo group (and considered it unethical to have one), we cannot tell whether the topical treatment provided any benefit in that regard.

Yamamoto-Hanada and colleaguesexamined whether "enhanced" topical steroid treatment would prevent food allergy in children with eczema compared with standard topical steroid treatment. Perhaps a better word than "enhanced" would be "aggressive." The enhanced treatment entailed having infants receive alclometasone dipropionate for the whole face and betamethasone valerate for the whole body except face and scalp. While the researchers saw a reduction in egg allergy (from roughly 40% to 30%), they also saw reduced body weight and height. A key take-home message is that with extensive use of topical steroids, we can see systemic effects.

Good news! There's not a lot to say about this. Dupilumab is so easy. No blood work, no immunosuppression. Dupilumab is highly effective and very safe. It's safe enough for children as young as 6 months! It's so effective that if it is not working, I question my diagnosis (Could it be contact dermatitis or mycosis fungoides instead?) and whether the patient is taking the medication properly.

Boesjes and colleagues describe in Acta Dermato-Venereologica the Dutch experience with upadacitinib in patients who have not been successfully treated with dupilumab or baricitinib. Presumably, such patients, because treatment with dupilumab or baricitinib or both was unsuccessful, have very resistant atopic dermatitis (either due to strong genetic propensity or perhaps because they don't take their medications). Despite having such refractory disease, most patients did well on the treatment with rapid disease improvement. Upadacitinib didn't work for everyone, though. About 30% of the patients discontinued upadacitinib treatment due to ineffectiveness, adverse events, or both (8.5%, 14.9%, and 6.4%, respectively).

How much of that ineffectiveness was due to poor adherence to taking the treatment was not assessed. Upadacitinib is extraordinarily effective for atopic dermatitis. I didn't think I would ever see a drug more effective than dupilumab for atopic dermatitis, but a low dose of upadacitinib (15 mg/day) seems about twice as effective as dupilumab for complete clearing of atopic dermatitis. The higher dose of 30 mg may be 3.5 times as effective as dupiliumab at getting atopic dermatitis completely clear.¹

I dislike the word significant. Significant is ambiguous. It could mean that an observed association would not be likely to occur by chance, or it could mean that an observed association is clinically meaningful. Smith and colleagues in "Association between electronic cigarette use and atopic dermatitis among United States adults" reported finding a "significant" association between e-cigarette use and atopic dermatitis. A total of 23% of 2119 e-cigarette users had atopic dermatitis vs 17.1% of 26,444 nonusers. Clearly, the observed association was statistically significant (the 6% difference was not likely to occur due to chance alone). Is the finding clinically meaningful? I don't think it would affect our practice in any way.

The authors made the point that the study doesn't tell us whether e-cigarette use causes atopic dermatitis or if atopic dermatitis causes people to smoke. I wonder if just being younger (or some other factor) might make people more likely to use e-cigarettes and more likely to have atopic dermatitis (assuming atopic dermatitis gradually subsides over time, a dogma that may not be true).

Kabashima and colleagues report on the efficacy of the interleukin (IL)–31 antagonist nemolizumab. IL-31 mediates itch and having a new drug to block IL-31 may be a great treatment for our itchy patients. In this study, patients who had greater itch reduction had greater improvement in eczema and in quality of life. I'm quite sure that reducing itch improves patients' quality of life. But when it comes to the itch and the inflammation, I'm not sure which comes first. Does controlling the itch make the inflammation better? Maybe. Does controlling inflammation make itch better? Certainly.

For atopic patients with inflammation, controlling that inflammation seems to me to be the best approach, and we don't need more new treatments to accomplish that. For those patients who have a lot of itch and little inflammation, an IL-31 antagonist may be a revolutionary addition to our treatment options.

Additional References

1. Blauvelt A, Teixeira HD, Simpson EL, et al. Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib vs dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157:1047-1055. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.3023. Erratum in: JAMA Dermatol. 2022;158:219. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.5451

Good news! There's not a lot to say about this. Dupilumab is so easy. No blood work, no immunosuppression. Dupilumab is highly effective and very safe. It's safe enough for children as young as 6 months! It's so effective that if it is not working, I question my diagnosis (Could it be contact dermatitis or mycosis fungoides instead?) and whether the patient is taking the medication properly.

Boesjes and colleagues describe in Acta Dermato-Venereologica the Dutch experience with upadacitinib in patients who have not been successfully treated with dupilumab or baricitinib. Presumably, such patients, because treatment with dupilumab or baricitinib or both was unsuccessful, have very resistant atopic dermatitis (either due to strong genetic propensity or perhaps because they don't take their medications). Despite having such refractory disease, most patients did well on the treatment with rapid disease improvement. Upadacitinib didn't work for everyone, though. About 30% of the patients discontinued upadacitinib treatment due to ineffectiveness, adverse events, or both (8.5%, 14.9%, and 6.4%, respectively).

How much of that ineffectiveness was due to poor adherence to taking the treatment was not assessed. Upadacitinib is extraordinarily effective for atopic dermatitis. I didn't think I would ever see a drug more effective than dupilumab for atopic dermatitis, but a low dose of upadacitinib (15 mg/day) seems about twice as effective as dupilumab for complete clearing of atopic dermatitis. The higher dose of 30 mg may be 3.5 times as effective as dupiliumab at getting atopic dermatitis completely clear.¹

I dislike the word significant. Significant is ambiguous. It could mean that an observed association would not be likely to occur by chance, or it could mean that an observed association is clinically meaningful. Smith and colleagues in "Association between electronic cigarette use and atopic dermatitis among United States adults" reported finding a "significant" association between e-cigarette use and atopic dermatitis. A total of 23% of 2119 e-cigarette users had atopic dermatitis vs 17.1% of 26,444 nonusers. Clearly, the observed association was statistically significant (the 6% difference was not likely to occur due to chance alone). Is the finding clinically meaningful? I don't think it would affect our practice in any way.

The authors made the point that the study doesn't tell us whether e-cigarette use causes atopic dermatitis or if atopic dermatitis causes people to smoke. I wonder if just being younger (or some other factor) might make people more likely to use e-cigarettes and more likely to have atopic dermatitis (assuming atopic dermatitis gradually subsides over time, a dogma that may not be true).

Kabashima and colleagues report on the efficacy of the interleukin (IL)–31 antagonist nemolizumab. IL-31 mediates itch and having a new drug to block IL-31 may be a great treatment for our itchy patients. In this study, patients who had greater itch reduction had greater improvement in eczema and in quality of life. I'm quite sure that reducing itch improves patients' quality of life. But when it comes to the itch and the inflammation, I'm not sure which comes first. Does controlling the itch make the inflammation better? Maybe. Does controlling inflammation make itch better? Certainly.

For atopic patients with inflammation, controlling that inflammation seems to me to be the best approach, and we don't need more new treatments to accomplish that. For those patients who have a lot of itch and little inflammation, an IL-31 antagonist may be a revolutionary addition to our treatment options.

Additional References

1. Blauvelt A, Teixeira HD, Simpson EL, et al. Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib vs dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157:1047-1055. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.3023. Erratum in: JAMA Dermatol. 2022;158:219. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.5451

Good news! There's not a lot to say about this. Dupilumab is so easy. No blood work, no immunosuppression. Dupilumab is highly effective and very safe. It's safe enough for children as young as 6 months! It's so effective that if it is not working, I question my diagnosis (Could it be contact dermatitis or mycosis fungoides instead?) and whether the patient is taking the medication properly.

Boesjes and colleagues describe in Acta Dermato-Venereologica the Dutch experience with upadacitinib in patients who have not been successfully treated with dupilumab or baricitinib. Presumably, such patients, because treatment with dupilumab or baricitinib or both was unsuccessful, have very resistant atopic dermatitis (either due to strong genetic propensity or perhaps because they don't take their medications). Despite having such refractory disease, most patients did well on the treatment with rapid disease improvement. Upadacitinib didn't work for everyone, though. About 30% of the patients discontinued upadacitinib treatment due to ineffectiveness, adverse events, or both (8.5%, 14.9%, and 6.4%, respectively).

How much of that ineffectiveness was due to poor adherence to taking the treatment was not assessed. Upadacitinib is extraordinarily effective for atopic dermatitis. I didn't think I would ever see a drug more effective than dupilumab for atopic dermatitis, but a low dose of upadacitinib (15 mg/day) seems about twice as effective as dupilumab for complete clearing of atopic dermatitis. The higher dose of 30 mg may be 3.5 times as effective as dupiliumab at getting atopic dermatitis completely clear.¹

I dislike the word significant. Significant is ambiguous. It could mean that an observed association would not be likely to occur by chance, or it could mean that an observed association is clinically meaningful. Smith and colleagues in "Association between electronic cigarette use and atopic dermatitis among United States adults" reported finding a "significant" association between e-cigarette use and atopic dermatitis. A total of 23% of 2119 e-cigarette users had atopic dermatitis vs 17.1% of 26,444 nonusers. Clearly, the observed association was statistically significant (the 6% difference was not likely to occur due to chance alone). Is the finding clinically meaningful? I don't think it would affect our practice in any way.

The authors made the point that the study doesn't tell us whether e-cigarette use causes atopic dermatitis or if atopic dermatitis causes people to smoke. I wonder if just being younger (or some other factor) might make people more likely to use e-cigarettes and more likely to have atopic dermatitis (assuming atopic dermatitis gradually subsides over time, a dogma that may not be true).

Kabashima and colleagues report on the efficacy of the interleukin (IL)–31 antagonist nemolizumab. IL-31 mediates itch and having a new drug to block IL-31 may be a great treatment for our itchy patients. In this study, patients who had greater itch reduction had greater improvement in eczema and in quality of life. I'm quite sure that reducing itch improves patients' quality of life. But when it comes to the itch and the inflammation, I'm not sure which comes first. Does controlling the itch make the inflammation better? Maybe. Does controlling inflammation make itch better? Certainly.

For atopic patients with inflammation, controlling that inflammation seems to me to be the best approach, and we don't need more new treatments to accomplish that. For those patients who have a lot of itch and little inflammation, an IL-31 antagonist may be a revolutionary addition to our treatment options.

Additional References

1. Blauvelt A, Teixeira HD, Simpson EL, et al. Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib vs dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157:1047-1055. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.3023. Erratum in: JAMA Dermatol. 2022;158:219. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.5451

Another study caught my attention this month for having presented a lot of information with no clinically important conclusions. In "Mode of Delivery and Offspring Atopic Dermatitis in a Swedish Nationwide Study," Mubanga and colleagues studied 1.4 million children! With that many participants, they were almost certain to find associations that were statistically significant and clinically irrelevant. They reported that children born by instrumental vaginal delivery, emergency caesarean section, and elective caesarean section were at a higher risk for AD compared with those born by uncomplicated vaginal delivery. They failed to report the absolute magnitude of the associations, which were undoubtedly so small as to be clinically meaningless. Even if the observed association were not due to some hidden bias, the association is not anything that would change treatment in any way.

On the other hand, the small, open label registry analysis, "Experiences From Daily Practice of Upadacitinib Treatment on Atopic Dermatitis With a Focus on Hand Eczema: Results From the BioDay Registry," published by Kamphuis and colleagues, is of much greater value, reporting the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib on hand eczema. Not surprisingly, there were large improvements in the investigators' assessments of the dermatitis and in patients' quality of life. This small study is informative about efficacy; it is too small, though, to evaluate how frequently rare severe adverse events occur.

The use of probiotics to safely improve skin disease is such an appealing concept, yet it sounds a lot like hocus-pocus to me. Feíto-Rodríguez and colleagues report in the journal Clinical and Experimental Dermatology that a probiotic mixture of Bifidobacterium lactis, Bifidobacterium longum, and Lactobacillus casei improved atopic dermatitis more than did placebo. The findings are not compelling. Differences were small. Rates of being clear or almost clear weren't reported. We can get atopic dermatitis to clear up in a few days with topical triamcinolone (if we can get patients to use it); so far, the effects of probiotics on the presumed gut-immune system-skin axis seem very much underwhelming.

Another study caught my attention this month for having presented a lot of information with no clinically important conclusions. In "Mode of Delivery and Offspring Atopic Dermatitis in a Swedish Nationwide Study," Mubanga and colleagues studied 1.4 million children! With that many participants, they were almost certain to find associations that were statistically significant and clinically irrelevant. They reported that children born by instrumental vaginal delivery, emergency caesarean section, and elective caesarean section were at a higher risk for AD compared with those born by uncomplicated vaginal delivery. They failed to report the absolute magnitude of the associations, which were undoubtedly so small as to be clinically meaningless. Even if the observed association were not due to some hidden bias, the association is not anything that would change treatment in any way.

On the other hand, the small, open label registry analysis, "Experiences From Daily Practice of Upadacitinib Treatment on Atopic Dermatitis With a Focus on Hand Eczema: Results From the BioDay Registry," published by Kamphuis and colleagues, is of much greater value, reporting the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib on hand eczema. Not surprisingly, there were large improvements in the investigators' assessments of the dermatitis and in patients' quality of life. This small study is informative about efficacy; it is too small, though, to evaluate how frequently rare severe adverse events occur.

The use of probiotics to safely improve skin disease is such an appealing concept, yet it sounds a lot like hocus-pocus to me. Feíto-Rodríguez and colleagues report in the journal Clinical and Experimental Dermatology that a probiotic mixture of Bifidobacterium lactis, Bifidobacterium longum, and Lactobacillus casei improved atopic dermatitis more than did placebo. The findings are not compelling. Differences were small. Rates of being clear or almost clear weren't reported. We can get atopic dermatitis to clear up in a few days with topical triamcinolone (if we can get patients to use it); so far, the effects of probiotics on the presumed gut-immune system-skin axis seem very much underwhelming.

Another study caught my attention this month for having presented a lot of information with no clinically important conclusions. In "Mode of Delivery and Offspring Atopic Dermatitis in a Swedish Nationwide Study," Mubanga and colleagues studied 1.4 million children! With that many participants, they were almost certain to find associations that were statistically significant and clinically irrelevant. They reported that children born by instrumental vaginal delivery, emergency caesarean section, and elective caesarean section were at a higher risk for AD compared with those born by uncomplicated vaginal delivery. They failed to report the absolute magnitude of the associations, which were undoubtedly so small as to be clinically meaningless. Even if the observed association were not due to some hidden bias, the association is not anything that would change treatment in any way.

On the other hand, the small, open label registry analysis, "Experiences From Daily Practice of Upadacitinib Treatment on Atopic Dermatitis With a Focus on Hand Eczema: Results From the BioDay Registry," published by Kamphuis and colleagues, is of much greater value, reporting the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib on hand eczema. Not surprisingly, there were large improvements in the investigators' assessments of the dermatitis and in patients' quality of life. This small study is informative about efficacy; it is too small, though, to evaluate how frequently rare severe adverse events occur.

The use of probiotics to safely improve skin disease is such an appealing concept, yet it sounds a lot like hocus-pocus to me. Feíto-Rodríguez and colleagues report in the journal Clinical and Experimental Dermatology that a probiotic mixture of Bifidobacterium lactis, Bifidobacterium longum, and Lactobacillus casei improved atopic dermatitis more than did placebo. The findings are not compelling. Differences were small. Rates of being clear or almost clear weren't reported. We can get atopic dermatitis to clear up in a few days with topical triamcinolone (if we can get patients to use it); so far, the effects of probiotics on the presumed gut-immune system-skin axis seem very much underwhelming.

New treatments for psoriasis constitute an embarrassment of riches compared to any other area of dermatology. Despite the many advances over the last 25 years, additional topical and systemic treatments have recently become available. Gosh, it’s great!

In May 2022, once-daily tapinarof cream 1% was approved for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults.¹ Tapinarof was identified as a metabolite made by bacteria symbiotic to a nematode, allowing the nematode to infect insects.² Tapinarof’s anti-inflammatory effect extends to mammals. The drug works by activating the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, downregulating proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-17, and normalizing the expression of skin barrier proteins such as filaggrin.² In two 12-week, phase 3, randomized trials with 510 and 515 patients, respectively, 35% to 40% of tapinarof-treated psoriasis patients were clear or almost clear compared with only 6% of patients in the placebo group. The drug appears safe; common adverse events (AEs) included folliculitis, nasopharyngitis, contact dermatitis, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, and pruritus.³

A second new topical treatment for plaque psoriasis was approved in July 2022—once-daily roflumilast 0.3% cream—for patients 12 years and older.⁴ Similar to apremilast, roflumilast is a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor that blocks the degradation of cAMP and reduces the downstream production of inflammatory molecules implicated in psoriasis.⁵ In two 8-week, phase 3 clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers NCT04211363 and NCT04211389)(N=881), approximately 40% of roflumilast-treated patients were clear or almost clear vs approximately 6% in the placebo group. Topical roflumilast was well-tolerated; the most common AEs included diarrhea, headache, insomnia, nausea, application-site pain, upper respiratory tract infection, and urinary tract infection.⁶

We have so many patients—and many more people with psoriasis who are not yet patients—with limited psoriasis who would be amenable to topical treatment but who are not responding to current treatments. There is considerable enthusiasm for the new topicals, but it is still questionable how much they will help our patients. The main reason the current topicals fail is poor adherence to the treatment. If we give these new treatments to patients who used existing topicals and failed, thereby inadvertently selecting patients with poor adherence to topicals, it will be surprising if the new treatments live up to expectations. Perhaps tapinarof and roflumilast will revolutionize the management of localized psoriasis; perhaps their impact will be similar to topical crisaborole— exciting in trials and less practical in real life. It may be that apremilast, which is now approved for psoriasis of any severity, will make a bigger difference for patients who can access it for limited psoriasis.

Deucravacitinib is a once-daily oral selective tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor that blocks IL-23 and type I interferon signaling. It was approved for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in September 2021.⁷ We know patients want oral treatment; they ask for apremilast even though injections may be much more potent. In a 16-week, phase 3 clinical trial comparing daily deucravacitinib (n=332), apremilast (n=168), and placebo (n=166), rates of clear or almost clear were approximately 55% in the deucravacitinib group, 32% in the apremilast group, and 7% with placebo. The most common AEs included nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, diarrhea, and nausea.⁸ Although deucravacitinib is much more effective than apremilast, deucravacitinib will require monitoring and may have some risk for viral reactivation of herpes simplex and zoster (and hopefully not much else). Whether physicians view it as a replacement for apremilast, which requires no laboratory monitoring, remains to be seen.

Bimekizumab, a humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody expected to receive US Food and Drug Administration approval in the coming months, inhibits both IL-17A and IL-17F and may become our most effective treatment of psoriasis. Although we are probably not hungering for a more effective psoriasis treatment (given our current embarrassment of riches), bimekizumab’s remarkably high efficacy for psoriatic arthritis may be a quantum leap forward, especially if no new safety signals are identified; bimekizumab treatment is associated with a higher risk of oral candidiasis than other currently available IL-17 antagonists.⁹ Biosimilars may reduce the cost of psoriasis management to the health system, but it seems unlikely that biosimilars will allow us to help patients who we cannot already help with the existing extensive psoriasis treatment armamentarium.

New treatments for psoriasis constitute an embarrassment of riches compared to any other area of dermatology. Despite the many advances over the last 25 years, additional topical and systemic treatments have recently become available. Gosh, it’s great!

In May 2022, once-daily tapinarof cream 1% was approved for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults.¹ Tapinarof was identified as a metabolite made by bacteria symbiotic to a nematode, allowing the nematode to infect insects.² Tapinarof’s anti-inflammatory effect extends to mammals. The drug works by activating the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, downregulating proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-17, and normalizing the expression of skin barrier proteins such as filaggrin.² In two 12-week, phase 3, randomized trials with 510 and 515 patients, respectively, 35% to 40% of tapinarof-treated psoriasis patients were clear or almost clear compared with only 6% of patients in the placebo group. The drug appears safe; common adverse events (AEs) included folliculitis, nasopharyngitis, contact dermatitis, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, and pruritus.³

A second new topical treatment for plaque psoriasis was approved in July 2022—once-daily roflumilast 0.3% cream—for patients 12 years and older.⁴ Similar to apremilast, roflumilast is a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor that blocks the degradation of cAMP and reduces the downstream production of inflammatory molecules implicated in psoriasis.⁵ In two 8-week, phase 3 clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers NCT04211363 and NCT04211389)(N=881), approximately 40% of roflumilast-treated patients were clear or almost clear vs approximately 6% in the placebo group. Topical roflumilast was well-tolerated; the most common AEs included diarrhea, headache, insomnia, nausea, application-site pain, upper respiratory tract infection, and urinary tract infection.⁶

We have so many patients—and many more people with psoriasis who are not yet patients—with limited psoriasis who would be amenable to topical treatment but who are not responding to current treatments. There is considerable enthusiasm for the new topicals, but it is still questionable how much they will help our patients. The main reason the current topicals fail is poor adherence to the treatment. If we give these new treatments to patients who used existing topicals and failed, thereby inadvertently selecting patients with poor adherence to topicals, it will be surprising if the new treatments live up to expectations. Perhaps tapinarof and roflumilast will revolutionize the management of localized psoriasis; perhaps their impact will be similar to topical crisaborole— exciting in trials and less practical in real life. It may be that apremilast, which is now approved for psoriasis of any severity, will make a bigger difference for patients who can access it for limited psoriasis.

Deucravacitinib is a once-daily oral selective tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor that blocks IL-23 and type I interferon signaling. It was approved for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in September 2021.⁷ We know patients want oral treatment; they ask for apremilast even though injections may be much more potent. In a 16-week, phase 3 clinical trial comparing daily deucravacitinib (n=332), apremilast (n=168), and placebo (n=166), rates of clear or almost clear were approximately 55% in the deucravacitinib group, 32% in the apremilast group, and 7% with placebo. The most common AEs included nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, diarrhea, and nausea.⁸ Although deucravacitinib is much more effective than apremilast, deucravacitinib will require monitoring and may have some risk for viral reactivation of herpes simplex and zoster (and hopefully not much else). Whether physicians view it as a replacement for apremilast, which requires no laboratory monitoring, remains to be seen.

Bimekizumab, a humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody expected to receive US Food and Drug Administration approval in the coming months, inhibits both IL-17A and IL-17F and may become our most effective treatment of psoriasis. Although we are probably not hungering for a more effective psoriasis treatment (given our current embarrassment of riches), bimekizumab’s remarkably high efficacy for psoriatic arthritis may be a quantum leap forward, especially if no new safety signals are identified; bimekizumab treatment is associated with a higher risk of oral candidiasis than other currently available IL-17 antagonists.⁹ Biosimilars may reduce the cost of psoriasis management to the health system, but it seems unlikely that biosimilars will allow us to help patients who we cannot already help with the existing extensive psoriasis treatment armamentarium.

New treatments for psoriasis constitute an embarrassment of riches compared to any other area of dermatology. Despite the many advances over the last 25 years, additional topical and systemic treatments have recently become available. Gosh, it’s great!

In May 2022, once-daily tapinarof cream 1% was approved for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults.¹ Tapinarof was identified as a metabolite made by bacteria symbiotic to a nematode, allowing the nematode to infect insects.² Tapinarof’s anti-inflammatory effect extends to mammals. The drug works by activating the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, downregulating proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-17, and normalizing the expression of skin barrier proteins such as filaggrin.² In two 12-week, phase 3, randomized trials with 510 and 515 patients, respectively, 35% to 40% of tapinarof-treated psoriasis patients were clear or almost clear compared with only 6% of patients in the placebo group. The drug appears safe; common adverse events (AEs) included folliculitis, nasopharyngitis, contact dermatitis, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, and pruritus.³

A second new topical treatment for plaque psoriasis was approved in July 2022—once-daily roflumilast 0.3% cream—for patients 12 years and older.⁴ Similar to apremilast, roflumilast is a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor that blocks the degradation of cAMP and reduces the downstream production of inflammatory molecules implicated in psoriasis.⁵ In two 8-week, phase 3 clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers NCT04211363 and NCT04211389)(N=881), approximately 40% of roflumilast-treated patients were clear or almost clear vs approximately 6% in the placebo group. Topical roflumilast was well-tolerated; the most common AEs included diarrhea, headache, insomnia, nausea, application-site pain, upper respiratory tract infection, and urinary tract infection.⁶

We have so many patients—and many more people with psoriasis who are not yet patients—with limited psoriasis who would be amenable to topical treatment but who are not responding to current treatments. There is considerable enthusiasm for the new topicals, but it is still questionable how much they will help our patients. The main reason the current topicals fail is poor adherence to the treatment. If we give these new treatments to patients who used existing topicals and failed, thereby inadvertently selecting patients with poor adherence to topicals, it will be surprising if the new treatments live up to expectations. Perhaps tapinarof and roflumilast will revolutionize the management of localized psoriasis; perhaps their impact will be similar to topical crisaborole— exciting in trials and less practical in real life. It may be that apremilast, which is now approved for psoriasis of any severity, will make a bigger difference for patients who can access it for limited psoriasis.

Deucravacitinib is a once-daily oral selective tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor that blocks IL-23 and type I interferon signaling. It was approved for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in September 2021.⁷ We know patients want oral treatment; they ask for apremilast even though injections may be much more potent. In a 16-week, phase 3 clinical trial comparing daily deucravacitinib (n=332), apremilast (n=168), and placebo (n=166), rates of clear or almost clear were approximately 55% in the deucravacitinib group, 32% in the apremilast group, and 7% with placebo. The most common AEs included nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, diarrhea, and nausea.⁸ Although deucravacitinib is much more effective than apremilast, deucravacitinib will require monitoring and may have some risk for viral reactivation of herpes simplex and zoster (and hopefully not much else). Whether physicians view it as a replacement for apremilast, which requires no laboratory monitoring, remains to be seen.

Bimekizumab, a humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody expected to receive US Food and Drug Administration approval in the coming months, inhibits both IL-17A and IL-17F and may become our most effective treatment of psoriasis. Although we are probably not hungering for a more effective psoriasis treatment (given our current embarrassment of riches), bimekizumab’s remarkably high efficacy for psoriatic arthritis may be a quantum leap forward, especially if no new safety signals are identified; bimekizumab treatment is associated with a higher risk of oral candidiasis than other currently available IL-17 antagonists.⁹ Biosimilars may reduce the cost of psoriasis management to the health system, but it seems unlikely that biosimilars will allow us to help patients who we cannot already help with the existing extensive psoriasis treatment armamentarium.

I love registries! With large numbers of participants, registries can be very helpful to identify rare side effects and to assess the efficacy and safety of medications in populations that may not be fully represented in clinical trials. I also love dupilumab; it was revolutionary in the management of patients with AD.

Vittrup and colleagues have created a registry of 347 participants treated with dupilumab. This does not yet have the large number of participants needed to identify new issues that wouldn't have been detected in clinical trials, but the study is informative about real-life use. The dramatic improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score is consistent with the high efficacy of dupilumab. The high rate of treatment persistence is also consistent with dupilumab being a very effective and safe treatment (because if the drug wasn't working well or was causing a severe problem, patients would probably stop the treatment). Though the study reported persistent head and neck involvement, the residual involvement may be quite minimal.

The EASI-75 and Investigator Global Assessment response rates reported in dupilumab trials underestimate the value of this drug. With a 2-year persistence rate of nearly 90%, it's clear that dupilumab is making a huge difference in the lives of patients with AD.

Fatigue is a fascinating issue in AD. We might wonder if all the inflammation in patients with AD would directly cause fatigue. Almost certainly all the itching in AD adversely affects sleep and would cause tremendous fatigue. It surprised me that most of the children in the study by Rangel and colleagues were reported as having no or mild fatigue; severe fatigue was very uncommon. It leaves me wondering whether the assessments of fatigue fully capture what's happening. Also, since the fatigue score was reported by the parents, I (as the parent of a child with AD) am wondering whether the parents were projecting, with the score more reflective of the parents' fatigue than with that of the child; alternatively, perhaps the child's hyperactivity leaves parents thinking there is no fatigue when there actually is (and possibly even causing the perceived hyperactivity).

The lack of a control group without AD is another major limitation in our ability to interpret the study findings. Is fatigue more common or less common in children with AD than in children without AD? I cannot tell from these findings. Does fatigue warrant, as the authors suggest, more attention in clinical practice? I don't know. If we are already treating our patients based on patients' global impressions of how they are doing — combined, of course, with our observations of their objective disease severity — I'm not sure how asking about fatigue would change anything, even if future studies were to definitively show that AD is associated with fatigue.

I hate new drugs (well, maybe not hate, but I worry about unknown long-term risks). Clinical trials that help a drug get approved can tell us a lot about a drug's efficacy, but these studies are generally limited in what they tell us about a drug's safety. Clinical trials are generally not powered enough (not enough participants and not followed for long enough) to be informative about rare risks. I love long-term studies of new drugs in large numbers of people because those studies can be very reassuring about the risks of medications. Studying nearly 10,000 patients for 5 years is quite reassuring, confirming my impression that dupilumab has a remarkable, excellent safety profile (Owji et al). Blocking interleukin 4 and interleukin 13 seems to be very specific to AD. Finding no association to cancer is what I would have expected; being able to share this information with patients is likely to be reassuring to them.

Oh, lord help me, another study that claims we should change our disease management because they've identified an increased risk for something. When you compare 70,000 patients with 270,000 controls, you have huge power to detect statistically significant associations of no clinical consequence. Let's assume for the moment that the detected association the authors found between AD and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is real. The odds ratio is 2; the odds ratio for smoking causing cancer is on the order of 100.

In this study, over 99% of individuals in both AD and control groups did not have JIA. The difference between rates of JIA in patients with AD compared with controls was 0.3%! The authors conclude "it is important to inquire actively about symptoms not directly linked to the patients' skin disease"; based on the findings of this study, I would conclude that we don't need to worry about JIA in patients with AD even if there is a (marginally) higher prevalence of JIA in this group.

I love registries! With large numbers of participants, registries can be very helpful to identify rare side effects and to assess the efficacy and safety of medications in populations that may not be fully represented in clinical trials. I also love dupilumab; it was revolutionary in the management of patients with AD.

Vittrup and colleagues have created a registry of 347 participants treated with dupilumab. This does not yet have the large number of participants needed to identify new issues that wouldn't have been detected in clinical trials, but the study is informative about real-life use. The dramatic improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score is consistent with the high efficacy of dupilumab. The high rate of treatment persistence is also consistent with dupilumab being a very effective and safe treatment (because if the drug wasn't working well or was causing a severe problem, patients would probably stop the treatment). Though the study reported persistent head and neck involvement, the residual involvement may be quite minimal.

The EASI-75 and Investigator Global Assessment response rates reported in dupilumab trials underestimate the value of this drug. With a 2-year persistence rate of nearly 90%, it's clear that dupilumab is making a huge difference in the lives of patients with AD.

Fatigue is a fascinating issue in AD. We might wonder if all the inflammation in patients with AD would directly cause fatigue. Almost certainly all the itching in AD adversely affects sleep and would cause tremendous fatigue. It surprised me that most of the children in the study by Rangel and colleagues were reported as having no or mild fatigue; severe fatigue was very uncommon. It leaves me wondering whether the assessments of fatigue fully capture what's happening. Also, since the fatigue score was reported by the parents, I (as the parent of a child with AD) am wondering whether the parents were projecting, with the score more reflective of the parents' fatigue than with that of the child; alternatively, perhaps the child's hyperactivity leaves parents thinking there is no fatigue when there actually is (and possibly even causing the perceived hyperactivity).

The lack of a control group without AD is another major limitation in our ability to interpret the study findings. Is fatigue more common or less common in children with AD than in children without AD? I cannot tell from these findings. Does fatigue warrant, as the authors suggest, more attention in clinical practice? I don't know. If we are already treating our patients based on patients' global impressions of how they are doing — combined, of course, with our observations of their objective disease severity — I'm not sure how asking about fatigue would change anything, even if future studies were to definitively show that AD is associated with fatigue.

I hate new drugs (well, maybe not hate, but I worry about unknown long-term risks). Clinical trials that help a drug get approved can tell us a lot about a drug's efficacy, but these studies are generally limited in what they tell us about a drug's safety. Clinical trials are generally not powered enough (not enough participants and not followed for long enough) to be informative about rare risks. I love long-term studies of new drugs in large numbers of people because those studies can be very reassuring about the risks of medications. Studying nearly 10,000 patients for 5 years is quite reassuring, confirming my impression that dupilumab has a remarkable, excellent safety profile (Owji et al). Blocking interleukin 4 and interleukin 13 seems to be very specific to AD. Finding no association to cancer is what I would have expected; being able to share this information with patients is likely to be reassuring to them.

Oh, lord help me, another study that claims we should change our disease management because they've identified an increased risk for something. When you compare 70,000 patients with 270,000 controls, you have huge power to detect statistically significant associations of no clinical consequence. Let's assume for the moment that the detected association the authors found between AD and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is real. The odds ratio is 2; the odds ratio for smoking causing cancer is on the order of 100.

In this study, over 99% of individuals in both AD and control groups did not have JIA. The difference between rates of JIA in patients with AD compared with controls was 0.3%! The authors conclude "it is important to inquire actively about symptoms not directly linked to the patients' skin disease"; based on the findings of this study, I would conclude that we don't need to worry about JIA in patients with AD even if there is a (marginally) higher prevalence of JIA in this group.

I love registries! With large numbers of participants, registries can be very helpful to identify rare side effects and to assess the efficacy and safety of medications in populations that may not be fully represented in clinical trials. I also love dupilumab; it was revolutionary in the management of patients with AD.

Vittrup and colleagues have created a registry of 347 participants treated with dupilumab. This does not yet have the large number of participants needed to identify new issues that wouldn't have been detected in clinical trials, but the study is informative about real-life use. The dramatic improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score is consistent with the high efficacy of dupilumab. The high rate of treatment persistence is also consistent with dupilumab being a very effective and safe treatment (because if the drug wasn't working well or was causing a severe problem, patients would probably stop the treatment). Though the study reported persistent head and neck involvement, the residual involvement may be quite minimal.

The EASI-75 and Investigator Global Assessment response rates reported in dupilumab trials underestimate the value of this drug. With a 2-year persistence rate of nearly 90%, it's clear that dupilumab is making a huge difference in the lives of patients with AD.

Fatigue is a fascinating issue in AD. We might wonder if all the inflammation in patients with AD would directly cause fatigue. Almost certainly all the itching in AD adversely affects sleep and would cause tremendous fatigue. It surprised me that most of the children in the study by Rangel and colleagues were reported as having no or mild fatigue; severe fatigue was very uncommon. It leaves me wondering whether the assessments of fatigue fully capture what's happening. Also, since the fatigue score was reported by the parents, I (as the parent of a child with AD) am wondering whether the parents were projecting, with the score more reflective of the parents' fatigue than with that of the child; alternatively, perhaps the child's hyperactivity leaves parents thinking there is no fatigue when there actually is (and possibly even causing the perceived hyperactivity).

The lack of a control group without AD is another major limitation in our ability to interpret the study findings. Is fatigue more common or less common in children with AD than in children without AD? I cannot tell from these findings. Does fatigue warrant, as the authors suggest, more attention in clinical practice? I don't know. If we are already treating our patients based on patients' global impressions of how they are doing — combined, of course, with our observations of their objective disease severity — I'm not sure how asking about fatigue would change anything, even if future studies were to definitively show that AD is associated with fatigue.

I hate new drugs (well, maybe not hate, but I worry about unknown long-term risks). Clinical trials that help a drug get approved can tell us a lot about a drug's efficacy, but these studies are generally limited in what they tell us about a drug's safety. Clinical trials are generally not powered enough (not enough participants and not followed for long enough) to be informative about rare risks. I love long-term studies of new drugs in large numbers of people because those studies can be very reassuring about the risks of medications. Studying nearly 10,000 patients for 5 years is quite reassuring, confirming my impression that dupilumab has a remarkable, excellent safety profile (Owji et al). Blocking interleukin 4 and interleukin 13 seems to be very specific to AD. Finding no association to cancer is what I would have expected; being able to share this information with patients is likely to be reassuring to them.

Oh, lord help me, another study that claims we should change our disease management because they've identified an increased risk for something. When you compare 70,000 patients with 270,000 controls, you have huge power to detect statistically significant associations of no clinical consequence. Let's assume for the moment that the detected association the authors found between AD and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is real. The odds ratio is 2; the odds ratio for smoking causing cancer is on the order of 100.

In this study, over 99% of individuals in both AD and control groups did not have JIA. The difference between rates of JIA in patients with AD compared with controls was 0.3%! The authors conclude "it is important to inquire actively about symptoms not directly linked to the patients' skin disease"; based on the findings of this study, I would conclude that we don't need to worry about JIA in patients with AD even if there is a (marginally) higher prevalence of JIA in this group.

When I hear about a new drug for inflammatory skin disease that has a novel target, the first thing I do is Google what happens when you have a deficiency in that pathway. For OX40, the first thing that comes up is "inherited human OX40 deficiency underlying classic Kaposi sarcoma of childhood."¹ That doesn't make this target seem appealing to me. While I might use a new drug targeting this pathway if other options fail, drugs targeting this pathway would not be my first choice, even if clinical trial safety data looked good. Clinical trials are powered to assess efficacy and common safety issues but tend not to be large enough to fully characterize rare risks.

Black box warnings on topical calcineurin inhibitors seem dumb to me. I think black box warnings on topical calcineurin inhibitors would be truly ridiculous, even laughable, except that laughing is not appropriate because these misguided warnings may be hurting our patients. These black box warnings on topical calcineurin inhibitors may exemplify the limitations of governmental bureaucracies. There doesn't seem to be a strong rationale for why these black box warnings were placed on topical calcineurin inhibitors initially. Why regulators haven't removed these black box warnings since then is baffling, as topical calcineurin inhibitors are considerably safer for patients than the alternative, topical corticosteroids. We have good evidence that topical calcineurin inhibitors do not cause cancer in our patients. The continued presence of black box warnings on these products may undermine the credibility of FDA-mandated black box warnings on other products.

Hedderson and colleagues state, in a study of cardiovascular events and atopic dermatitis, "VTE [venous thromboembolism] and DVT [deep vein thrombosis] IRs [incidence rates] were markedly higher in this study than have been observed in the general US adult population (VTE: 2.0 [current study] vs. 1.1; DVT: 1.6 [current study] vs. 0.66 per 1000 person-years." I think that's misleading. The difference of only 1 in 1000 doesn't seem like a markedly higher rate to me and it's also unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Even if there is some increased relative risk of some type of cardiovascular event, even if the rate is doubled, that doesn't mean we need to screen or intervene. We need to be mindful of the absolute risks and not be moved by relative risks. We need to see cost-effectiveness studies showing that an intervention is valuable before we conclude that we should be doing some screening or intervention to chase down and increase the relative risk for some potential adverse event.

Additional Reference

1. Byun M, Ma CS, Akçay A et al. Inherited human OX40 deficiency underlying classic Kaposi sarcoma of childhood. J Exp Med. 2013;210(9):1743–1759. Doi: 10.1084/jem.20130592

When I hear about a new drug for inflammatory skin disease that has a novel target, the first thing I do is Google what happens when you have a deficiency in that pathway. For OX40, the first thing that comes up is "inherited human OX40 deficiency underlying classic Kaposi sarcoma of childhood."¹ That doesn't make this target seem appealing to me. While I might use a new drug targeting this pathway if other options fail, drugs targeting this pathway would not be my first choice, even if clinical trial safety data looked good. Clinical trials are powered to assess efficacy and common safety issues but tend not to be large enough to fully characterize rare risks.

Black box warnings on topical calcineurin inhibitors seem dumb to me. I think black box warnings on topical calcineurin inhibitors would be truly ridiculous, even laughable, except that laughing is not appropriate because these misguided warnings may be hurting our patients. These black box warnings on topical calcineurin inhibitors may exemplify the limitations of governmental bureaucracies. There doesn't seem to be a strong rationale for why these black box warnings were placed on topical calcineurin inhibitors initially. Why regulators haven't removed these black box warnings since then is baffling, as topical calcineurin inhibitors are considerably safer for patients than the alternative, topical corticosteroids. We have good evidence that topical calcineurin inhibitors do not cause cancer in our patients. The continued presence of black box warnings on these products may undermine the credibility of FDA-mandated black box warnings on other products.

Hedderson and colleagues state, in a study of cardiovascular events and atopic dermatitis, "VTE [venous thromboembolism] and DVT [deep vein thrombosis] IRs [incidence rates] were markedly higher in this study than have been observed in the general US adult population (VTE: 2.0 [current study] vs. 1.1; DVT: 1.6 [current study] vs. 0.66 per 1000 person-years." I think that's misleading. The difference of only 1 in 1000 doesn't seem like a markedly higher rate to me and it's also unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Even if there is some increased relative risk of some type of cardiovascular event, even if the rate is doubled, that doesn't mean we need to screen or intervene. We need to be mindful of the absolute risks and not be moved by relative risks. We need to see cost-effectiveness studies showing that an intervention is valuable before we conclude that we should be doing some screening or intervention to chase down and increase the relative risk for some potential adverse event.

Additional Reference

1. Byun M, Ma CS, Akçay A et al. Inherited human OX40 deficiency underlying classic Kaposi sarcoma of childhood. J Exp Med. 2013;210(9):1743–1759. Doi: 10.1084/jem.20130592

When I hear about a new drug for inflammatory skin disease that has a novel target, the first thing I do is Google what happens when you have a deficiency in that pathway. For OX40, the first thing that comes up is "inherited human OX40 deficiency underlying classic Kaposi sarcoma of childhood."¹ That doesn't make this target seem appealing to me. While I might use a new drug targeting this pathway if other options fail, drugs targeting this pathway would not be my first choice, even if clinical trial safety data looked good. Clinical trials are powered to assess efficacy and common safety issues but tend not to be large enough to fully characterize rare risks.

Black box warnings on topical calcineurin inhibitors seem dumb to me. I think black box warnings on topical calcineurin inhibitors would be truly ridiculous, even laughable, except that laughing is not appropriate because these misguided warnings may be hurting our patients. These black box warnings on topical calcineurin inhibitors may exemplify the limitations of governmental bureaucracies. There doesn't seem to be a strong rationale for why these black box warnings were placed on topical calcineurin inhibitors initially. Why regulators haven't removed these black box warnings since then is baffling, as topical calcineurin inhibitors are considerably safer for patients than the alternative, topical corticosteroids. We have good evidence that topical calcineurin inhibitors do not cause cancer in our patients. The continued presence of black box warnings on these products may undermine the credibility of FDA-mandated black box warnings on other products.

Hedderson and colleagues state, in a study of cardiovascular events and atopic dermatitis, "VTE [venous thromboembolism] and DVT [deep vein thrombosis] IRs [incidence rates] were markedly higher in this study than have been observed in the general US adult population (VTE: 2.0 [current study] vs. 1.1; DVT: 1.6 [current study] vs. 0.66 per 1000 person-years." I think that's misleading. The difference of only 1 in 1000 doesn't seem like a markedly higher rate to me and it's also unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Even if there is some increased relative risk of some type of cardiovascular event, even if the rate is doubled, that doesn't mean we need to screen or intervene. We need to be mindful of the absolute risks and not be moved by relative risks. We need to see cost-effectiveness studies showing that an intervention is valuable before we conclude that we should be doing some screening or intervention to chase down and increase the relative risk for some potential adverse event.

Additional Reference

1. Byun M, Ma CS, Akçay A et al. Inherited human OX40 deficiency underlying classic Kaposi sarcoma of childhood. J Exp Med. 2013;210(9):1743–1759. Doi: 10.1084/jem.20130592