Dermatology

TOPLINE:

Uptake of infliximab biosimilars rose slowly across private insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare when two were available in the United States during 2016-2020 but increased significantly through 2022 after the third biosimilar became available in July 2020. However, prescriptions in Medicare still lagged behind those in private insurance and Medicaid.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed electronic health records from over 1100 US rheumatologists who participated in a national registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE), for all infliximab administrations (bio-originator or biosimilar) to patients older than 18 years from April 2016 to September 2022.
• They conducted an interrupted time series to account for autocorrelation and model the effect of each infliximab biosimilar release (infliximab-dyyb in November 2016, infliximab-abda in July 2017, and infliximab-axxq in July 2020) on uptake across Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers identified 659,988 infliximab administrations for 37,560 unique patients, with 52% on Medicare, 4.8% on Medicaid, and 43% on private insurance.
• Biosimilar uptake rose slowly with average annual increases < 5% from 2016 to June 2020 (Medicare, 3.2%; Medicaid, 5.2%; private insurance, 1.8%).
• After the third biosimilar release in July 2020, the average annual increase reached 13% for Medicaid and 16.4% for private insurance but remained low for Medicare (5.6%).
• By September 2022, biosimilar uptake was higher for Medicaid (43.8%) and private insurance (38.5%) than for Medicare (24%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest policymakers may need to do more to allow biosimilars to get a foothold in the market by incentivizing the development and entry of multiple biosimilars, address anticompetitive pricing strategies, and may need to amend Medicare policy to [incentivize] uptake in order to ensure a competitive and sustainable biosimilar market that gradually reduces total drug expenditures and out-of-pocket costs over time,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric T. Roberts, PhD, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on July 30, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

First, while the biosimilar introductions are likely catalysts for many changes in the market, some changes in slopes may also be attributable to the natural growth of the market over time. Second, this study may neither be generalizable to academic medical centers, which are underrepresented in RISE, nor be generalizable to infliximab prescriptions from other specialties. Third, uptake among privately insured patients changed shortly after November-December 2020, raising the possibility that the delay reflected negotiations between insurance companies and relevant entities regarding formulary coverage.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and grant funding from AstraZeneca, the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, and Aurinia.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Uptake of infliximab biosimilars rose slowly across private insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare when two were available in the United States during 2016-2020 but increased significantly through 2022 after the third biosimilar became available in July 2020. However, prescriptions in Medicare still lagged behind those in private insurance and Medicaid.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed electronic health records from over 1100 US rheumatologists who participated in a national registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE), for all infliximab administrations (bio-originator or biosimilar) to patients older than 18 years from April 2016 to September 2022.
• They conducted an interrupted time series to account for autocorrelation and model the effect of each infliximab biosimilar release (infliximab-dyyb in November 2016, infliximab-abda in July 2017, and infliximab-axxq in July 2020) on uptake across Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers identified 659,988 infliximab administrations for 37,560 unique patients, with 52% on Medicare, 4.8% on Medicaid, and 43% on private insurance.
• Biosimilar uptake rose slowly with average annual increases < 5% from 2016 to June 2020 (Medicare, 3.2%; Medicaid, 5.2%; private insurance, 1.8%).
• After the third biosimilar release in July 2020, the average annual increase reached 13% for Medicaid and 16.4% for private insurance but remained low for Medicare (5.6%).
• By September 2022, biosimilar uptake was higher for Medicaid (43.8%) and private insurance (38.5%) than for Medicare (24%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest policymakers may need to do more to allow biosimilars to get a foothold in the market by incentivizing the development and entry of multiple biosimilars, address anticompetitive pricing strategies, and may need to amend Medicare policy to [incentivize] uptake in order to ensure a competitive and sustainable biosimilar market that gradually reduces total drug expenditures and out-of-pocket costs over time,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric T. Roberts, PhD, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on July 30, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

First, while the biosimilar introductions are likely catalysts for many changes in the market, some changes in slopes may also be attributable to the natural growth of the market over time. Second, this study may neither be generalizable to academic medical centers, which are underrepresented in RISE, nor be generalizable to infliximab prescriptions from other specialties. Third, uptake among privately insured patients changed shortly after November-December 2020, raising the possibility that the delay reflected negotiations between insurance companies and relevant entities regarding formulary coverage.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and grant funding from AstraZeneca, the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, and Aurinia.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Uptake of infliximab biosimilars rose slowly across private insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare when two were available in the United States during 2016-2020 but increased significantly through 2022 after the third biosimilar became available in July 2020. However, prescriptions in Medicare still lagged behind those in private insurance and Medicaid.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed electronic health records from over 1100 US rheumatologists who participated in a national registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE), for all infliximab administrations (bio-originator or biosimilar) to patients older than 18 years from April 2016 to September 2022.
• They conducted an interrupted time series to account for autocorrelation and model the effect of each infliximab biosimilar release (infliximab-dyyb in November 2016, infliximab-abda in July 2017, and infliximab-axxq in July 2020) on uptake across Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers identified 659,988 infliximab administrations for 37,560 unique patients, with 52% on Medicare, 4.8% on Medicaid, and 43% on private insurance.
• Biosimilar uptake rose slowly with average annual increases < 5% from 2016 to June 2020 (Medicare, 3.2%; Medicaid, 5.2%; private insurance, 1.8%).
• After the third biosimilar release in July 2020, the average annual increase reached 13% for Medicaid and 16.4% for private insurance but remained low for Medicare (5.6%).
• By September 2022, biosimilar uptake was higher for Medicaid (43.8%) and private insurance (38.5%) than for Medicare (24%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest policymakers may need to do more to allow biosimilars to get a foothold in the market by incentivizing the development and entry of multiple biosimilars, address anticompetitive pricing strategies, and may need to amend Medicare policy to [incentivize] uptake in order to ensure a competitive and sustainable biosimilar market that gradually reduces total drug expenditures and out-of-pocket costs over time,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric T. Roberts, PhD, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on July 30, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

First, while the biosimilar introductions are likely catalysts for many changes in the market, some changes in slopes may also be attributable to the natural growth of the market over time. Second, this study may neither be generalizable to academic medical centers, which are underrepresented in RISE, nor be generalizable to infliximab prescriptions from other specialties. Third, uptake among privately insured patients changed shortly after November-December 2020, raising the possibility that the delay reflected negotiations between insurance companies and relevant entities regarding formulary coverage.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and grant funding from AstraZeneca, the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, and Aurinia.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Published data on laser treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is encouraging, although the therapy is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and www.clinicaltrials.gov, researchers systematically reviewed 50 unique published articles that evaluated the role of laser therapy for NMSC.
• Of the 50 studies, 37 focused on lasers for the treatment of basal cell carcinoma (BCC), 10 on lasers for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and three on the treatment of both tumor types.
• The analysis was limited to studies published in English from the first data available through May 1, 2023.

TAKEAWAY:

• Data was strongest for the use of lasers for treating BCC, especially pulsed-dye lasers (PDL). Of 11 unique studies on PDL as monotherapy for managing BCCs, clearance rates ranged from 14.3% to 90.0%.
• For SCCs, 13 studies were identified that evaluated the use of lasers alone or in combination with PDL for treating SCC in situ. Among case reports that used PDL and thulium lasers separately, clearance rates of 100% were reported, while several case series that used the CO₂ laser reported response rates that ranged from 61.5% to 100%.
• The best evidence for clearing both BCC and SCC tumors was observed when ablative lasers such as the CO₂ or erbium yttrium aluminum garnet are combined with methyl aminolevulinate–photodynamic therapy (PDT) or 5-aminolevulinic acid–PDT, “likely due to increased delivery of the photosensitizing compound to neoplastic cells,” the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Additional investigations with longer follow-up periods are needed to determine optimal laser parameters, number of treatment sessions required, and recurrence rates (using complete histologic analysis through step sectioning) before lasers can fully be adopted into clinical practice,” the authors wrote. “Surgical excision, specifically Mohs micrographic surgery,” they added, “persists as the gold standard for high-risk and cosmetically sensitive tumors, offering the highest cure rates in a single office visit.”

SOURCE:

Amanda Rosenthal, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center in California, and colleagues conducted the review. The study was published in the August 2024 issue of Dermatologic Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

Laser therapy is not FDA approved for the treatment of NMSC and remains an alternative treatment option. Also, most published studies focus on BCCs, while studies on cutaneous SCCs are more limited.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Published data on laser treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is encouraging, although the therapy is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and www.clinicaltrials.gov, researchers systematically reviewed 50 unique published articles that evaluated the role of laser therapy for NMSC.
• Of the 50 studies, 37 focused on lasers for the treatment of basal cell carcinoma (BCC), 10 on lasers for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and three on the treatment of both tumor types.
• The analysis was limited to studies published in English from the first data available through May 1, 2023.

TAKEAWAY:

• Data was strongest for the use of lasers for treating BCC, especially pulsed-dye lasers (PDL). Of 11 unique studies on PDL as monotherapy for managing BCCs, clearance rates ranged from 14.3% to 90.0%.
• For SCCs, 13 studies were identified that evaluated the use of lasers alone or in combination with PDL for treating SCC in situ. Among case reports that used PDL and thulium lasers separately, clearance rates of 100% were reported, while several case series that used the CO₂ laser reported response rates that ranged from 61.5% to 100%.
• The best evidence for clearing both BCC and SCC tumors was observed when ablative lasers such as the CO₂ or erbium yttrium aluminum garnet are combined with methyl aminolevulinate–photodynamic therapy (PDT) or 5-aminolevulinic acid–PDT, “likely due to increased delivery of the photosensitizing compound to neoplastic cells,” the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Additional investigations with longer follow-up periods are needed to determine optimal laser parameters, number of treatment sessions required, and recurrence rates (using complete histologic analysis through step sectioning) before lasers can fully be adopted into clinical practice,” the authors wrote. “Surgical excision, specifically Mohs micrographic surgery,” they added, “persists as the gold standard for high-risk and cosmetically sensitive tumors, offering the highest cure rates in a single office visit.”

SOURCE:

Amanda Rosenthal, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center in California, and colleagues conducted the review. The study was published in the August 2024 issue of Dermatologic Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

Laser therapy is not FDA approved for the treatment of NMSC and remains an alternative treatment option. Also, most published studies focus on BCCs, while studies on cutaneous SCCs are more limited.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Published data on laser treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) is encouraging, although the therapy is not yet approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and www.clinicaltrials.gov, researchers systematically reviewed 50 unique published articles that evaluated the role of laser therapy for NMSC.
• Of the 50 studies, 37 focused on lasers for the treatment of basal cell carcinoma (BCC), 10 on lasers for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and three on the treatment of both tumor types.
• The analysis was limited to studies published in English from the first data available through May 1, 2023.

TAKEAWAY:

• Data was strongest for the use of lasers for treating BCC, especially pulsed-dye lasers (PDL). Of 11 unique studies on PDL as monotherapy for managing BCCs, clearance rates ranged from 14.3% to 90.0%.
• For SCCs, 13 studies were identified that evaluated the use of lasers alone or in combination with PDL for treating SCC in situ. Among case reports that used PDL and thulium lasers separately, clearance rates of 100% were reported, while several case series that used the CO₂ laser reported response rates that ranged from 61.5% to 100%.
• The best evidence for clearing both BCC and SCC tumors was observed when ablative lasers such as the CO₂ or erbium yttrium aluminum garnet are combined with methyl aminolevulinate–photodynamic therapy (PDT) or 5-aminolevulinic acid–PDT, “likely due to increased delivery of the photosensitizing compound to neoplastic cells,” the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Additional investigations with longer follow-up periods are needed to determine optimal laser parameters, number of treatment sessions required, and recurrence rates (using complete histologic analysis through step sectioning) before lasers can fully be adopted into clinical practice,” the authors wrote. “Surgical excision, specifically Mohs micrographic surgery,” they added, “persists as the gold standard for high-risk and cosmetically sensitive tumors, offering the highest cure rates in a single office visit.”

SOURCE:

Amanda Rosenthal, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center in California, and colleagues conducted the review. The study was published in the August 2024 issue of Dermatologic Surgery.

LIMITATIONS:

Laser therapy is not FDA approved for the treatment of NMSC and remains an alternative treatment option. Also, most published studies focus on BCCs, while studies on cutaneous SCCs are more limited.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Nemolizumab, an interleukin 31 receptor antagonist, was well tolerated and significantly improved inflammation and pruritus in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted two 48-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials, ARCADIA 1 (n = 941; 47% women) and ARCADIA 2 (n = 787; 52% women), involving patients aged 12 and older with moderate to severe AD.
• Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either 30 mg nemolizumab (with a 60-mg loading dose) or placebo, along with background topical corticosteroids with or without topical calcineurin inhibitors. The mean age range was 33.3-35.2 years.
• The coprimary endpoints were Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) success (score of 0 or 1 with at least a two-point improvement from baseline) and at least a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) at week 16.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 16, significantly more patients receiving nemolizumab vs placebo achieved IGA success in both the ARCADIA 1 (36% vs 25%; P = .0003) and ARCADIA 2 (38% vs 26%; P = .0006) trials.
• EASI-75 response rates were also significantly higher in the nemolizumab group than in the placebo group in both trials: ARCADIA 1 (44% vs 29%; P < .0001) and 2 (42% vs 30%; P = .0006).
• Significant improvements in pruritus were observed as early as week 1, with a greater proportion of participants in the nemolizumab vs placebo group achieving at least a four-point reduction in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score in both trials.
• Rates of adverse events were similar between the nemolizumab and placebo groups, with severe treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in 2%-4% of patients.

IN PRACTICE:

“Nemolizumab showed statistically and clinically significant improvements in inflammation and pruritus in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and a rapid effect in reducing pruritus, as one of the primary complaints of patients. As such, nemolizumab might offer a valuable extension of the therapeutic armament if approved,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, from the Department of Dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, DC. It was published online in The Lancet.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included the absence of longer-term safety data. Additionally, the predominantly White population of the trials may limit the generalizability of the findings to other racial and ethnic groups. The use of concomitant topical therapy might have influenced the placebo response.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Galderma. Dr. Silverberg received honoraria from pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, and his institution also received grants from Galderma, Incyte, and Pfizer. Four authors were employees of Galderma. Other authors also declared having ties with pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, outside this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nemolizumab, an interleukin 31 receptor antagonist, was well tolerated and significantly improved inflammation and pruritus in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted two 48-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials, ARCADIA 1 (n = 941; 47% women) and ARCADIA 2 (n = 787; 52% women), involving patients aged 12 and older with moderate to severe AD.
• Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either 30 mg nemolizumab (with a 60-mg loading dose) or placebo, along with background topical corticosteroids with or without topical calcineurin inhibitors. The mean age range was 33.3-35.2 years.
• The coprimary endpoints were Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) success (score of 0 or 1 with at least a two-point improvement from baseline) and at least a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) at week 16.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 16, significantly more patients receiving nemolizumab vs placebo achieved IGA success in both the ARCADIA 1 (36% vs 25%; P = .0003) and ARCADIA 2 (38% vs 26%; P = .0006) trials.
• EASI-75 response rates were also significantly higher in the nemolizumab group than in the placebo group in both trials: ARCADIA 1 (44% vs 29%; P < .0001) and 2 (42% vs 30%; P = .0006).
• Significant improvements in pruritus were observed as early as week 1, with a greater proportion of participants in the nemolizumab vs placebo group achieving at least a four-point reduction in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score in both trials.
• Rates of adverse events were similar between the nemolizumab and placebo groups, with severe treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in 2%-4% of patients.

IN PRACTICE:

“Nemolizumab showed statistically and clinically significant improvements in inflammation and pruritus in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and a rapid effect in reducing pruritus, as one of the primary complaints of patients. As such, nemolizumab might offer a valuable extension of the therapeutic armament if approved,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, from the Department of Dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, DC. It was published online in The Lancet.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included the absence of longer-term safety data. Additionally, the predominantly White population of the trials may limit the generalizability of the findings to other racial and ethnic groups. The use of concomitant topical therapy might have influenced the placebo response.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Galderma. Dr. Silverberg received honoraria from pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, and his institution also received grants from Galderma, Incyte, and Pfizer. Four authors were employees of Galderma. Other authors also declared having ties with pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, outside this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nemolizumab, an interleukin 31 receptor antagonist, was well tolerated and significantly improved inflammation and pruritus in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted two 48-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials, ARCADIA 1 (n = 941; 47% women) and ARCADIA 2 (n = 787; 52% women), involving patients aged 12 and older with moderate to severe AD.
• Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either 30 mg nemolizumab (with a 60-mg loading dose) or placebo, along with background topical corticosteroids with or without topical calcineurin inhibitors. The mean age range was 33.3-35.2 years.
• The coprimary endpoints were Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) success (score of 0 or 1 with at least a two-point improvement from baseline) and at least a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) at week 16.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 16, significantly more patients receiving nemolizumab vs placebo achieved IGA success in both the ARCADIA 1 (36% vs 25%; P = .0003) and ARCADIA 2 (38% vs 26%; P = .0006) trials.
• EASI-75 response rates were also significantly higher in the nemolizumab group than in the placebo group in both trials: ARCADIA 1 (44% vs 29%; P < .0001) and 2 (42% vs 30%; P = .0006).
• Significant improvements in pruritus were observed as early as week 1, with a greater proportion of participants in the nemolizumab vs placebo group achieving at least a four-point reduction in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score in both trials.
• Rates of adverse events were similar between the nemolizumab and placebo groups, with severe treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in 2%-4% of patients.

IN PRACTICE:

“Nemolizumab showed statistically and clinically significant improvements in inflammation and pruritus in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and a rapid effect in reducing pruritus, as one of the primary complaints of patients. As such, nemolizumab might offer a valuable extension of the therapeutic armament if approved,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, from the Department of Dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, DC. It was published online in The Lancet.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included the absence of longer-term safety data. Additionally, the predominantly White population of the trials may limit the generalizability of the findings to other racial and ethnic groups. The use of concomitant topical therapy might have influenced the placebo response.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Galderma. Dr. Silverberg received honoraria from pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, and his institution also received grants from Galderma, Incyte, and Pfizer. Four authors were employees of Galderma. Other authors also declared having ties with pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, outside this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TORONTO — When it comes to using artificial intelligence (AI) in your practice, pediatric dermatologist Albert Yan, MD, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, suggests that dermatologists “just jump in” and become familiar with the various AI models.

He reminds doctors that many of their colleagues and patients and their families are already using these systems, “and you don’t want to be left behind.”

In an interview following his presentation on AI at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD), Dr. Yan discussed his tips for using AI.
 

Changing Fast 

From the outset, most generative AI systems have been very good at processing language — for example, generating letters of medical necessity and summarizing disease processes into lay terms. But now they’re becoming “truly multimodal,” said Dr. Yan. “You can enter images; you could have it process audio; you can even start to have it refine video.”

To get started, he recommends signing up for a free account with ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, and/or Microsoft Copilot. “To make the best choice, you have to try them out yourself because they each have their own kind of flavor and strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Yan.

Personally, he finds that ChatGPT is the most versatile, Gemini perhaps a little better in terms of image generation, and Perplexity probably the best at references because it was designed as an online library.

Once you figure out which platforms you prefer, consider signing up for a premium subscription, which is typically month to month and can be canceled at any time, Dr. Yan said. “This will allow you to get the most out of the AI model.”

As these AI systems are based on large language models, they are excellent at text, Dr. Yan noted. He suggests asking one to generate a letter or patient instruction sheet. “If you have a premium model, give it a PDF to summarize an article or take a photo of something that you want its opinion on.”

Privacy Critical

Always pay attention to privacy issues and avoid entering any private health information that would violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), he said.

“We have to be very careful about how we interact with AI,” said Dr. Yan. “We can’t be posting private patient health information into these systems, no matter how useful these systems are.” Many academic institutions are creating “walled gardens” — private areas of AI access that don’t allow patient information to “leak out,” he said. “These AI models may have HIPAA protections in place and come with specific guidelines of use.”

The AI “scribe,” which helps with electronic health record documentation, is one of the most useful tools for clinicians, he said. He referred to a recent study showing that an AI scribe saved users an average of 1 hour at the keyboard every day, and a small patient survey showing 71% reported that it led to spending more time with their physician.

When entering requests into a prompt line with an AI system, Dr. Yan stressed that these prompts need to be clear and concise. For a complicated calculation or multistep problem, try adding the words “let’s do this step by step,” he said. “This is a technique invoking a ‘chain of thought’ that allows the system to enhance its accuracy when solving problems.”

If the response is not satisfactory, try being more detailed in the request, he advised, and consider giving the system examples of what you’re looking for and telling it what you don’t want in the output.

“For instance, if you’re asking for a differential diagnosis of rashes that affect the hands and feet, you can stipulate that you only want rashes that are vesicular or that arise in neonates, so you can get a more focused answer,” said Dr. Yan.

If there are “long-winded verbose” responses, add the phrase “be concise,” and it will shorten the response by about 50%, he added.
 

AI Hallucinations

Dr. Yan broached an issue that occasionally comes up, AI hallucinations, which refer to inaccurate or misleading responses on the basis of incomplete training or intrinsic biases within the model. He pointed to the case of a doctor discussing issues related to a patient’s hands, feet, and mouth, which the AI-generated model summarized as “the patient being diagnosed with hand, foot, and mouth disease.”

Another example he provided was a request to generate a letter of medical necessity for using ustekinumab (Stelara) for treating hidradenitis suppurative in a child that included references for its effectiveness and safety in children. The AI system generated “false references that sounded like they should be real because the authors are often people who have written in that field or on that subject,” said Dr. Yan.

When pressed, the system did acknowledge the references were hypothetical but were meant to illustrate the types of studies that would typically support the use of this drug in pediatric patients with HS. “ It’s well meaning, in the sense that it’s trying to help you achieve your goals using this training system,” said Dr. Yan.

“If you’re skeptical about a response, double-check the answer with a Google search or run the response through another AI [tool] asking it to check if the response is accurate,” he added.

While AI systems won’t replace the clinician, they are continuing to improve and becoming more sophisticated. Dr. Yan advises keeping up with emerging developments and engaging and adapting the most appropriate AI tool for an individual clinician’s work.

Asked to comment on the presentation at the SPD meeting, Sheilagh Maguiness, MD, director of the Division of Pediatric Dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who, like other doctors, is increasingly testing AI, said she foresees a time when AI scribes fully replace humans for completing tasks during patient interactions.

“The hope is that if the AI scribes get good enough, we can just open our phone, have them translate the interaction, and create the notes for us.”

While she likes the idea of using ChatGPT to help with tasks like letters of recommendation for medications, Dr. Yan’s comments reiterated the importance of “checking and double-checking ChatGPT because it’s not correct all the time.” She particularly welcomed the advice “that we can just go back and ask it again to clarify, and that may improve its answers.”

Dr. Yan’s disclosures included an investment portfolio that includes companies working in the AI space, including Google, Apple, Nvidia, Amazon, Microsoft, and Arm. Dr. Maguiness had no relevant disclosures.

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

TORONTO — When it comes to using artificial intelligence (AI) in your practice, pediatric dermatologist Albert Yan, MD, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, suggests that dermatologists “just jump in” and become familiar with the various AI models.

He reminds doctors that many of their colleagues and patients and their families are already using these systems, “and you don’t want to be left behind.”

In an interview following his presentation on AI at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD), Dr. Yan discussed his tips for using AI.
 

Changing Fast 

From the outset, most generative AI systems have been very good at processing language — for example, generating letters of medical necessity and summarizing disease processes into lay terms. But now they’re becoming “truly multimodal,” said Dr. Yan. “You can enter images; you could have it process audio; you can even start to have it refine video.”

To get started, he recommends signing up for a free account with ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, and/or Microsoft Copilot. “To make the best choice, you have to try them out yourself because they each have their own kind of flavor and strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Yan.

Personally, he finds that ChatGPT is the most versatile, Gemini perhaps a little better in terms of image generation, and Perplexity probably the best at references because it was designed as an online library.

Once you figure out which platforms you prefer, consider signing up for a premium subscription, which is typically month to month and can be canceled at any time, Dr. Yan said. “This will allow you to get the most out of the AI model.”

As these AI systems are based on large language models, they are excellent at text, Dr. Yan noted. He suggests asking one to generate a letter or patient instruction sheet. “If you have a premium model, give it a PDF to summarize an article or take a photo of something that you want its opinion on.”

Privacy Critical

Always pay attention to privacy issues and avoid entering any private health information that would violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), he said.

“We have to be very careful about how we interact with AI,” said Dr. Yan. “We can’t be posting private patient health information into these systems, no matter how useful these systems are.” Many academic institutions are creating “walled gardens” — private areas of AI access that don’t allow patient information to “leak out,” he said. “These AI models may have HIPAA protections in place and come with specific guidelines of use.”

The AI “scribe,” which helps with electronic health record documentation, is one of the most useful tools for clinicians, he said. He referred to a recent study showing that an AI scribe saved users an average of 1 hour at the keyboard every day, and a small patient survey showing 71% reported that it led to spending more time with their physician.

When entering requests into a prompt line with an AI system, Dr. Yan stressed that these prompts need to be clear and concise. For a complicated calculation or multistep problem, try adding the words “let’s do this step by step,” he said. “This is a technique invoking a ‘chain of thought’ that allows the system to enhance its accuracy when solving problems.”

If the response is not satisfactory, try being more detailed in the request, he advised, and consider giving the system examples of what you’re looking for and telling it what you don’t want in the output.

“For instance, if you’re asking for a differential diagnosis of rashes that affect the hands and feet, you can stipulate that you only want rashes that are vesicular or that arise in neonates, so you can get a more focused answer,” said Dr. Yan.

If there are “long-winded verbose” responses, add the phrase “be concise,” and it will shorten the response by about 50%, he added.
 

AI Hallucinations

Dr. Yan broached an issue that occasionally comes up, AI hallucinations, which refer to inaccurate or misleading responses on the basis of incomplete training or intrinsic biases within the model. He pointed to the case of a doctor discussing issues related to a patient’s hands, feet, and mouth, which the AI-generated model summarized as “the patient being diagnosed with hand, foot, and mouth disease.”

Another example he provided was a request to generate a letter of medical necessity for using ustekinumab (Stelara) for treating hidradenitis suppurative in a child that included references for its effectiveness and safety in children. The AI system generated “false references that sounded like they should be real because the authors are often people who have written in that field or on that subject,” said Dr. Yan.

When pressed, the system did acknowledge the references were hypothetical but were meant to illustrate the types of studies that would typically support the use of this drug in pediatric patients with HS. “ It’s well meaning, in the sense that it’s trying to help you achieve your goals using this training system,” said Dr. Yan.

“If you’re skeptical about a response, double-check the answer with a Google search or run the response through another AI [tool] asking it to check if the response is accurate,” he added.

While AI systems won’t replace the clinician, they are continuing to improve and becoming more sophisticated. Dr. Yan advises keeping up with emerging developments and engaging and adapting the most appropriate AI tool for an individual clinician’s work.

Asked to comment on the presentation at the SPD meeting, Sheilagh Maguiness, MD, director of the Division of Pediatric Dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who, like other doctors, is increasingly testing AI, said she foresees a time when AI scribes fully replace humans for completing tasks during patient interactions.

“The hope is that if the AI scribes get good enough, we can just open our phone, have them translate the interaction, and create the notes for us.”

While she likes the idea of using ChatGPT to help with tasks like letters of recommendation for medications, Dr. Yan’s comments reiterated the importance of “checking and double-checking ChatGPT because it’s not correct all the time.” She particularly welcomed the advice “that we can just go back and ask it again to clarify, and that may improve its answers.”

Dr. Yan’s disclosures included an investment portfolio that includes companies working in the AI space, including Google, Apple, Nvidia, Amazon, Microsoft, and Arm. Dr. Maguiness had no relevant disclosures.

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

TORONTO — When it comes to using artificial intelligence (AI) in your practice, pediatric dermatologist Albert Yan, MD, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, suggests that dermatologists “just jump in” and become familiar with the various AI models.

He reminds doctors that many of their colleagues and patients and their families are already using these systems, “and you don’t want to be left behind.”

In an interview following his presentation on AI at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology (SPD), Dr. Yan discussed his tips for using AI.
 

Changing Fast 

From the outset, most generative AI systems have been very good at processing language — for example, generating letters of medical necessity and summarizing disease processes into lay terms. But now they’re becoming “truly multimodal,” said Dr. Yan. “You can enter images; you could have it process audio; you can even start to have it refine video.”

To get started, he recommends signing up for a free account with ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, and/or Microsoft Copilot. “To make the best choice, you have to try them out yourself because they each have their own kind of flavor and strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Yan.

Personally, he finds that ChatGPT is the most versatile, Gemini perhaps a little better in terms of image generation, and Perplexity probably the best at references because it was designed as an online library.

Once you figure out which platforms you prefer, consider signing up for a premium subscription, which is typically month to month and can be canceled at any time, Dr. Yan said. “This will allow you to get the most out of the AI model.”

As these AI systems are based on large language models, they are excellent at text, Dr. Yan noted. He suggests asking one to generate a letter or patient instruction sheet. “If you have a premium model, give it a PDF to summarize an article or take a photo of something that you want its opinion on.”

Privacy Critical

Always pay attention to privacy issues and avoid entering any private health information that would violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), he said.

“We have to be very careful about how we interact with AI,” said Dr. Yan. “We can’t be posting private patient health information into these systems, no matter how useful these systems are.” Many academic institutions are creating “walled gardens” — private areas of AI access that don’t allow patient information to “leak out,” he said. “These AI models may have HIPAA protections in place and come with specific guidelines of use.”

The AI “scribe,” which helps with electronic health record documentation, is one of the most useful tools for clinicians, he said. He referred to a recent study showing that an AI scribe saved users an average of 1 hour at the keyboard every day, and a small patient survey showing 71% reported that it led to spending more time with their physician.

When entering requests into a prompt line with an AI system, Dr. Yan stressed that these prompts need to be clear and concise. For a complicated calculation or multistep problem, try adding the words “let’s do this step by step,” he said. “This is a technique invoking a ‘chain of thought’ that allows the system to enhance its accuracy when solving problems.”

If the response is not satisfactory, try being more detailed in the request, he advised, and consider giving the system examples of what you’re looking for and telling it what you don’t want in the output.

“For instance, if you’re asking for a differential diagnosis of rashes that affect the hands and feet, you can stipulate that you only want rashes that are vesicular or that arise in neonates, so you can get a more focused answer,” said Dr. Yan.

If there are “long-winded verbose” responses, add the phrase “be concise,” and it will shorten the response by about 50%, he added.
 

AI Hallucinations

Dr. Yan broached an issue that occasionally comes up, AI hallucinations, which refer to inaccurate or misleading responses on the basis of incomplete training or intrinsic biases within the model. He pointed to the case of a doctor discussing issues related to a patient’s hands, feet, and mouth, which the AI-generated model summarized as “the patient being diagnosed with hand, foot, and mouth disease.”

Another example he provided was a request to generate a letter of medical necessity for using ustekinumab (Stelara) for treating hidradenitis suppurative in a child that included references for its effectiveness and safety in children. The AI system generated “false references that sounded like they should be real because the authors are often people who have written in that field or on that subject,” said Dr. Yan.

When pressed, the system did acknowledge the references were hypothetical but were meant to illustrate the types of studies that would typically support the use of this drug in pediatric patients with HS. “ It’s well meaning, in the sense that it’s trying to help you achieve your goals using this training system,” said Dr. Yan.

“If you’re skeptical about a response, double-check the answer with a Google search or run the response through another AI [tool] asking it to check if the response is accurate,” he added.

While AI systems won’t replace the clinician, they are continuing to improve and becoming more sophisticated. Dr. Yan advises keeping up with emerging developments and engaging and adapting the most appropriate AI tool for an individual clinician’s work.

Asked to comment on the presentation at the SPD meeting, Sheilagh Maguiness, MD, director of the Division of Pediatric Dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, who, like other doctors, is increasingly testing AI, said she foresees a time when AI scribes fully replace humans for completing tasks during patient interactions.

“The hope is that if the AI scribes get good enough, we can just open our phone, have them translate the interaction, and create the notes for us.”

While she likes the idea of using ChatGPT to help with tasks like letters of recommendation for medications, Dr. Yan’s comments reiterated the importance of “checking and double-checking ChatGPT because it’s not correct all the time.” She particularly welcomed the advice “that we can just go back and ask it again to clarify, and that may improve its answers.”

Dr. Yan’s disclosures included an investment portfolio that includes companies working in the AI space, including Google, Apple, Nvidia, Amazon, Microsoft, and Arm. Dr. Maguiness had no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Elevated depression symptoms are linked to an increased risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. This risk is mitigated by geriatric assessment (GA)-driven interventions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
• A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
• Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
• Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
• The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
• The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
• No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
• The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
• An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”

SOURCE:

Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer. 

LIMITATIONS:

The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Elevated depression symptoms are linked to an increased risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. This risk is mitigated by geriatric assessment (GA)-driven interventions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
• A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
• Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
• Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
• The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
• The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
• No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
• The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
• An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”

SOURCE:

Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer. 

LIMITATIONS:

The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Elevated depression symptoms are linked to an increased risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer. This risk is mitigated by geriatric assessment (GA)-driven interventions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether greater reductions in grade 3 chemotherapy-related toxicities occurred with geriatric assessment-driven interventions vs standard care.
• A total of 605 patients aged 65 years and older with any stage of solid malignancy were included, with 402 randomized to the intervention arm and 203 to the standard-of-care arm.
• Mental health was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory 13, and chemotherapy toxicity was graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.
• Patients in the intervention arm received recommendations from a multidisciplinary team based on their baseline GA, while those in the standard-of-care arm received only the baseline assessment results.
• The study was conducted at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California, and patients were followed throughout treatment or for up to 6 months from starting chemotherapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• According to the authors, patients with depression had increased chemotherapy toxicity in the standard-of-care arm (70.7% vs 54.3%; P = .02) but not in the GA-driven intervention arm (54.3% vs 48.5%; P = .27).
• The association between depression and chemotherapy toxicity was also seen after adjustment for the Cancer and Aging Research Group toxicity score (odds ratio, [OR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65) and for demographic, disease, and treatment factors (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.03-3.85).
• No significant association was found between anxiety and chemotherapy toxicity in either the standard-of-care arm (univariate OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.88) or the GA-driven intervention arm (univariate OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.78-1.71).
• The authors stated that depression was associated with increased odds of hematologic-only toxicities (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.13-5.56) in the standard-of-care arm.
• An analysis of a small subgroup found associations between elevated anxiety symptoms and increased risk for hematologic and nonhematologic chemotherapy toxicities.

IN PRACTICE:

“The current study showed that elevated depression symptoms are associated with increased risk of severe chemotherapy toxicities in older adults with cancer. This risk was mitigated in those in the GA intervention arm, which suggests that addressing elevated depression symptoms may lower the risk of toxicities,” the authors wrote. “Overall, elevated anxiety symptoms were not associated with risk for severe chemotherapy toxicity.”

SOURCE:

Reena V. Jayani, MD, MSCI, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, was the first and corresponding author for this paper. This study was published online August 4, 2024, in Cancer. 

LIMITATIONS:

The thresholds for depression and anxiety used in the Mental Health Inventory 13 were based on an English-speaking population, which may not be fully applicable to Chinese- and Spanish-speaking patients included in the study. Depression and anxiety were not evaluated by a mental health professional or with a structured interview to assess formal diagnostic criteria. Psychiatric medication used at the time of baseline GA was not included in the analysis. The study is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial, and it is not known which components of the interventions affected mental health.

DISCLOSURES:

This research project was supported by the UniHealth Foundation, the City of Hope Center for Cancer and Aging, and the National Institutes of Health. One coauthor disclosed receiving institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics and consulting for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Adagene, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals. William Dale, MD, PhD, of City of Hope National Medical Center, served as senior author and a principal investigator. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Immunoglobulin E (IgE) and eosinophils appeared to be reliable biomarkers of type 2 inflammation in chronic pruritus of unknown origin (CPUO) and predictors of a positive response to immunomodulatory therapies, Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, said at the ElderDerm conference on dermatology in older patients hosted by the GW School of Medicine & Health Sciences.

“We found a few years ago that eosinophils seem to differentiate this group, and now we’re finding that IgE and CBC [complete blood count] differential can help you get a little better sense of who has an immune-driven itch vs something more neuropathic,” said Dr. Kwatra, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, who founded and directed the Johns Hopkins Itch Center before coming to the University of Maryland in 2023. Not all patients with immune-driven itch will have these biomarkers, “but it’s a helpful tool,” he said.

Dr. Kwatra

CPUO is the term that is increasingly being used, he said, to describe intense, chronic pruritus without primary skin lesions or rashes and without any known systemic cause. It becomes more common as people get older and is sometimes debilitating. The initial evaluation should be kept “simple and straightforward,” he advised, with heightened concern for underlying malignancy in those who present with an itch of less than 12 months’ duration.
 

Biologics, JAK Inhibitors: Case Reports, Ongoing Research 

Research conducted by Dr. Kwatra and Jaya Manjunath, a fourth-year medical student at The George Washington University, Washington, documented higher levels of Th2-associated cytokines and inflammatory markers in patients with CPUO who had elevated IgE or eosinophil levels, or both than in patients with itch who had low IgE and eosinophil levels. The patients with higher levels also had a greater response to off-label treatment with immunomodulatory therapy.

“Multiple Th2-related inflammatory markers, like IL [interleukin]-5 and eotaxin-3, were reduced after dupilumab” in patients who responded to the therapy, said Ms. Manjunath, who co-presented the meeting session on chronic itch with Dr. Kwatra. Other changes in the plasma cytokine profile included a reduction in the serum level of thymus and activation-regulated chemokine, which is a biomarker for atopic dermatitis. The research is under review for publication.

Meanwhile, a phase 3 trial (LIBERTY-CPUO-CHIC) of dupilumab for CPUO is currently underway, Dr. Kwatra noted. Investigators are randomizing patients with severe pruritus (Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale [WI-NRS] ≥ 7) to dupilumab or placebo for 12 or 24 weeks.

In one of several cases shared by Dr. Kwatra and Ms. Manjunath, a 71-year-old Black woman with a 6-month history of generalized itch (WI-NRS = 10) and a history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease was found to have elevated eosinophil levels and a negative malignancy workup. Previous therapies included antihistamines and topical steroids. She was started on a 600-mg loading dose of subcutaneous dupilumab followed by 300 mg every 14 days. At the 2-month follow-up, her WI-NRS score was 0.

Because “dupilumab is off label right now for this form of itch, oftentimes our first line is methotrexate,” Dr. Kwatra said. Patients “can have a good response with this therapeutic.”

He also described the case of a 72-year-old Black woman with total body itch for 2 years (WI-NRS = 10) and a history of seasonal allergies, thyroid disease, and hypertension. Previous therapies included prednisone, antihistamines, topical steroids, and gabapentin. The patient was found to have high IgE (447 kU/L) and eosinophil levels (4.9%), was started on methotrexate, and had an itch score of 0 at the 8-month follow-up.

JAK inhibitors may also have a role in the management of CPUO. A phase 2 nonrandomized controlled trial of abrocitinib for adults with prurigo nodularis (PN) or CPUO, recently published in JAMA Dermatology, showed itch scores decreased by 53.7% in the CPUO group (and 78.3% in the PN group) after 12 weeks of treatment with oral abrocitinib 200 mg daily. Patients had significant improvements in quality of life and no serious adverse events, said Dr. Kwatra, the lead author of the paper.

One of these patients was a 73-year-old White man who had experienced total body itch for 1.5 years (predominantly affecting his upper extremities; WI-NRS = 10) and a history of ascending aortic aneurysm, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Previous failed therapies included dupilumab (> 6 months), topical steroids, tacrolimus, and antihistamines. Labs showed elevated IgE (456 kU/L) and eosinophil levels (11.7%). After 12 weeks of treatment with abrocitinib, the WI-NRS decreased to 2.
 

PD-1 Inhibitors As a Trigger

Chronic pruritus caused by the anticancer PD-1 inhibitors is becoming more common as the utilization of these immune checkpoint inhibitors increases, Dr. Kwatra noted. “You don’t see much in the skin, but [these patients have] very high IgE and eosinophils,” he said. “We’ve been seeing more reports recently of utilizing agents that target type 2 inflammation off label for PD-1 inhibitor–related skin manifestations.”

One such patient with PD-1 inhibitor–induced pruritus was a 65-year-old White man with metastatic melanoma who reported a 6-month history of itching that began 3 weeks after the start of treatment with the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab. His WI-NRS score was 10 despite treatment with topical steroids and antihistamines. He had a history of psoriasis. Labs showed elevated IgE (1350 kU/L) and eosinophil levels (4.5%). At a 4-month follow-up after treatment with off-label dupilumab (a 600-mg subcutaneous loading dose followed by 300 mg every 14 days), his WI-NRS score was 0.

In a paper recently published in JAAD International, Dr. Kwatra, Ms. Manjunath, and coinvestigators reported on a series of 15 patients who developed chronic pruritus following an immune stimulus exposure, including immunotherapy and vaccination (2024 Apr 7:16:97-102. doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2024.03.022). Most immunotherapy-treated patients experienced pruritus during treatment or after 21-60 days of receiving treatment, and the patients with vaccine-stimulated pruritus (after Tdap and messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccination) developed pruritus within a week of vaccination.

In addition to the elevated levels of IgE and eosinophils, plasma cytokine analysis showed elevated levels of IL-5, thymic stromal lymphopoietin, and other Th2-related cytokines and inflammatory markers in patients with immune-stimulated pruritus compared with healthy controls, Ms. Manjunath said at the meeting.

When a Malignancy Workup Becomes Important

The initial part of any diagnostic workup for CPUO should include CBC with differential, liver function tests, renal function tests, and thyroid function testing, said Kwatra, referring to a diagnostic algorithm he developed, which was published as part of a CME review in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in 2022.

Then, as indicated by risk factors in the history and physical, one could order other tests such as HIV serology, hepatitis B/C serologies, bullous pemphigoid testing, chest x-rays, evaluation for gammopathies, stool examination for ova and parasites, or heavy metal testing. “Do you do everything at once? We like to keep it straightforward,” Dr. Kwatra said. “Depending on the patient’s risk factors, you could order more or less.”

A malignancy workup should be strongly considered in patients whose itch duration is less than 12 months — and especially if the duration is less than 3 months — with an emphasis on cancers more frequently associated with itch: Hematologic and hepatobiliary cancers. This is “when concern should be heightened ... when there should be a lower threshold for workup,” he said.

The 12-month recommendation stems from a Danish cohort study published in 2014 that demonstrated a twofold increased incidence of cancer among patients with pruritus in the first 3 months after the diagnosis of pruritus. The 1-year absolute cancer risk was 1.63%.

Other risk factors for underlying malignancy or malignancy development in patients with CPUO include age older than 60 years, male sex, liver disease, and current or prior smoking, according to another study, noted Dr. Kwatra.

Dr. Kwatra disclosed that he is an advisory board member/consultant for Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and other companies and an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Manjunath served as the codirector of the ElderDerm conference.
 

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

WASHINGTON — Immunoglobulin E (IgE) and eosinophils appeared to be reliable biomarkers of type 2 inflammation in chronic pruritus of unknown origin (CPUO) and predictors of a positive response to immunomodulatory therapies, Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, said at the ElderDerm conference on dermatology in older patients hosted by the GW School of Medicine & Health Sciences.

“We found a few years ago that eosinophils seem to differentiate this group, and now we’re finding that IgE and CBC [complete blood count] differential can help you get a little better sense of who has an immune-driven itch vs something more neuropathic,” said Dr. Kwatra, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, who founded and directed the Johns Hopkins Itch Center before coming to the University of Maryland in 2023. Not all patients with immune-driven itch will have these biomarkers, “but it’s a helpful tool,” he said.

Dr. Kwatra

CPUO is the term that is increasingly being used, he said, to describe intense, chronic pruritus without primary skin lesions or rashes and without any known systemic cause. It becomes more common as people get older and is sometimes debilitating. The initial evaluation should be kept “simple and straightforward,” he advised, with heightened concern for underlying malignancy in those who present with an itch of less than 12 months’ duration.
 

Biologics, JAK Inhibitors: Case Reports, Ongoing Research 

Research conducted by Dr. Kwatra and Jaya Manjunath, a fourth-year medical student at The George Washington University, Washington, documented higher levels of Th2-associated cytokines and inflammatory markers in patients with CPUO who had elevated IgE or eosinophil levels, or both than in patients with itch who had low IgE and eosinophil levels. The patients with higher levels also had a greater response to off-label treatment with immunomodulatory therapy.

“Multiple Th2-related inflammatory markers, like IL [interleukin]-5 and eotaxin-3, were reduced after dupilumab” in patients who responded to the therapy, said Ms. Manjunath, who co-presented the meeting session on chronic itch with Dr. Kwatra. Other changes in the plasma cytokine profile included a reduction in the serum level of thymus and activation-regulated chemokine, which is a biomarker for atopic dermatitis. The research is under review for publication.

Meanwhile, a phase 3 trial (LIBERTY-CPUO-CHIC) of dupilumab for CPUO is currently underway, Dr. Kwatra noted. Investigators are randomizing patients with severe pruritus (Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale [WI-NRS] ≥ 7) to dupilumab or placebo for 12 or 24 weeks.

In one of several cases shared by Dr. Kwatra and Ms. Manjunath, a 71-year-old Black woman with a 6-month history of generalized itch (WI-NRS = 10) and a history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease was found to have elevated eosinophil levels and a negative malignancy workup. Previous therapies included antihistamines and topical steroids. She was started on a 600-mg loading dose of subcutaneous dupilumab followed by 300 mg every 14 days. At the 2-month follow-up, her WI-NRS score was 0.

Because “dupilumab is off label right now for this form of itch, oftentimes our first line is methotrexate,” Dr. Kwatra said. Patients “can have a good response with this therapeutic.”

He also described the case of a 72-year-old Black woman with total body itch for 2 years (WI-NRS = 10) and a history of seasonal allergies, thyroid disease, and hypertension. Previous therapies included prednisone, antihistamines, topical steroids, and gabapentin. The patient was found to have high IgE (447 kU/L) and eosinophil levels (4.9%), was started on methotrexate, and had an itch score of 0 at the 8-month follow-up.

JAK inhibitors may also have a role in the management of CPUO. A phase 2 nonrandomized controlled trial of abrocitinib for adults with prurigo nodularis (PN) or CPUO, recently published in JAMA Dermatology, showed itch scores decreased by 53.7% in the CPUO group (and 78.3% in the PN group) after 12 weeks of treatment with oral abrocitinib 200 mg daily. Patients had significant improvements in quality of life and no serious adverse events, said Dr. Kwatra, the lead author of the paper.

One of these patients was a 73-year-old White man who had experienced total body itch for 1.5 years (predominantly affecting his upper extremities; WI-NRS = 10) and a history of ascending aortic aneurysm, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Previous failed therapies included dupilumab (> 6 months), topical steroids, tacrolimus, and antihistamines. Labs showed elevated IgE (456 kU/L) and eosinophil levels (11.7%). After 12 weeks of treatment with abrocitinib, the WI-NRS decreased to 2.
 

PD-1 Inhibitors As a Trigger

Chronic pruritus caused by the anticancer PD-1 inhibitors is becoming more common as the utilization of these immune checkpoint inhibitors increases, Dr. Kwatra noted. “You don’t see much in the skin, but [these patients have] very high IgE and eosinophils,” he said. “We’ve been seeing more reports recently of utilizing agents that target type 2 inflammation off label for PD-1 inhibitor–related skin manifestations.”

One such patient with PD-1 inhibitor–induced pruritus was a 65-year-old White man with metastatic melanoma who reported a 6-month history of itching that began 3 weeks after the start of treatment with the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab. His WI-NRS score was 10 despite treatment with topical steroids and antihistamines. He had a history of psoriasis. Labs showed elevated IgE (1350 kU/L) and eosinophil levels (4.5%). At a 4-month follow-up after treatment with off-label dupilumab (a 600-mg subcutaneous loading dose followed by 300 mg every 14 days), his WI-NRS score was 0.

In a paper recently published in JAAD International, Dr. Kwatra, Ms. Manjunath, and coinvestigators reported on a series of 15 patients who developed chronic pruritus following an immune stimulus exposure, including immunotherapy and vaccination (2024 Apr 7:16:97-102. doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2024.03.022). Most immunotherapy-treated patients experienced pruritus during treatment or after 21-60 days of receiving treatment, and the patients with vaccine-stimulated pruritus (after Tdap and messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccination) developed pruritus within a week of vaccination.

In addition to the elevated levels of IgE and eosinophils, plasma cytokine analysis showed elevated levels of IL-5, thymic stromal lymphopoietin, and other Th2-related cytokines and inflammatory markers in patients with immune-stimulated pruritus compared with healthy controls, Ms. Manjunath said at the meeting.

When a Malignancy Workup Becomes Important

The initial part of any diagnostic workup for CPUO should include CBC with differential, liver function tests, renal function tests, and thyroid function testing, said Kwatra, referring to a diagnostic algorithm he developed, which was published as part of a CME review in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in 2022.

Then, as indicated by risk factors in the history and physical, one could order other tests such as HIV serology, hepatitis B/C serologies, bullous pemphigoid testing, chest x-rays, evaluation for gammopathies, stool examination for ova and parasites, or heavy metal testing. “Do you do everything at once? We like to keep it straightforward,” Dr. Kwatra said. “Depending on the patient’s risk factors, you could order more or less.”

A malignancy workup should be strongly considered in patients whose itch duration is less than 12 months — and especially if the duration is less than 3 months — with an emphasis on cancers more frequently associated with itch: Hematologic and hepatobiliary cancers. This is “when concern should be heightened ... when there should be a lower threshold for workup,” he said.

The 12-month recommendation stems from a Danish cohort study published in 2014 that demonstrated a twofold increased incidence of cancer among patients with pruritus in the first 3 months after the diagnosis of pruritus. The 1-year absolute cancer risk was 1.63%.

Other risk factors for underlying malignancy or malignancy development in patients with CPUO include age older than 60 years, male sex, liver disease, and current or prior smoking, according to another study, noted Dr. Kwatra.

Dr. Kwatra disclosed that he is an advisory board member/consultant for Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and other companies and an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Manjunath served as the codirector of the ElderDerm conference.
 

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

WASHINGTON — Immunoglobulin E (IgE) and eosinophils appeared to be reliable biomarkers of type 2 inflammation in chronic pruritus of unknown origin (CPUO) and predictors of a positive response to immunomodulatory therapies, Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, said at the ElderDerm conference on dermatology in older patients hosted by the GW School of Medicine & Health Sciences.

“We found a few years ago that eosinophils seem to differentiate this group, and now we’re finding that IgE and CBC [complete blood count] differential can help you get a little better sense of who has an immune-driven itch vs something more neuropathic,” said Dr. Kwatra, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, who founded and directed the Johns Hopkins Itch Center before coming to the University of Maryland in 2023. Not all patients with immune-driven itch will have these biomarkers, “but it’s a helpful tool,” he said.

Dr. Kwatra

CPUO is the term that is increasingly being used, he said, to describe intense, chronic pruritus without primary skin lesions or rashes and without any known systemic cause. It becomes more common as people get older and is sometimes debilitating. The initial evaluation should be kept “simple and straightforward,” he advised, with heightened concern for underlying malignancy in those who present with an itch of less than 12 months’ duration.
 

Biologics, JAK Inhibitors: Case Reports, Ongoing Research 

Research conducted by Dr. Kwatra and Jaya Manjunath, a fourth-year medical student at The George Washington University, Washington, documented higher levels of Th2-associated cytokines and inflammatory markers in patients with CPUO who had elevated IgE or eosinophil levels, or both than in patients with itch who had low IgE and eosinophil levels. The patients with higher levels also had a greater response to off-label treatment with immunomodulatory therapy.

“Multiple Th2-related inflammatory markers, like IL [interleukin]-5 and eotaxin-3, were reduced after dupilumab” in patients who responded to the therapy, said Ms. Manjunath, who co-presented the meeting session on chronic itch with Dr. Kwatra. Other changes in the plasma cytokine profile included a reduction in the serum level of thymus and activation-regulated chemokine, which is a biomarker for atopic dermatitis. The research is under review for publication.

Meanwhile, a phase 3 trial (LIBERTY-CPUO-CHIC) of dupilumab for CPUO is currently underway, Dr. Kwatra noted. Investigators are randomizing patients with severe pruritus (Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale [WI-NRS] ≥ 7) to dupilumab or placebo for 12 or 24 weeks.

In one of several cases shared by Dr. Kwatra and Ms. Manjunath, a 71-year-old Black woman with a 6-month history of generalized itch (WI-NRS = 10) and a history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease was found to have elevated eosinophil levels and a negative malignancy workup. Previous therapies included antihistamines and topical steroids. She was started on a 600-mg loading dose of subcutaneous dupilumab followed by 300 mg every 14 days. At the 2-month follow-up, her WI-NRS score was 0.

Because “dupilumab is off label right now for this form of itch, oftentimes our first line is methotrexate,” Dr. Kwatra said. Patients “can have a good response with this therapeutic.”

He also described the case of a 72-year-old Black woman with total body itch for 2 years (WI-NRS = 10) and a history of seasonal allergies, thyroid disease, and hypertension. Previous therapies included prednisone, antihistamines, topical steroids, and gabapentin. The patient was found to have high IgE (447 kU/L) and eosinophil levels (4.9%), was started on methotrexate, and had an itch score of 0 at the 8-month follow-up.

JAK inhibitors may also have a role in the management of CPUO. A phase 2 nonrandomized controlled trial of abrocitinib for adults with prurigo nodularis (PN) or CPUO, recently published in JAMA Dermatology, showed itch scores decreased by 53.7% in the CPUO group (and 78.3% in the PN group) after 12 weeks of treatment with oral abrocitinib 200 mg daily. Patients had significant improvements in quality of life and no serious adverse events, said Dr. Kwatra, the lead author of the paper.

One of these patients was a 73-year-old White man who had experienced total body itch for 1.5 years (predominantly affecting his upper extremities; WI-NRS = 10) and a history of ascending aortic aneurysm, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Previous failed therapies included dupilumab (> 6 months), topical steroids, tacrolimus, and antihistamines. Labs showed elevated IgE (456 kU/L) and eosinophil levels (11.7%). After 12 weeks of treatment with abrocitinib, the WI-NRS decreased to 2.
 

PD-1 Inhibitors As a Trigger

Chronic pruritus caused by the anticancer PD-1 inhibitors is becoming more common as the utilization of these immune checkpoint inhibitors increases, Dr. Kwatra noted. “You don’t see much in the skin, but [these patients have] very high IgE and eosinophils,” he said. “We’ve been seeing more reports recently of utilizing agents that target type 2 inflammation off label for PD-1 inhibitor–related skin manifestations.”

One such patient with PD-1 inhibitor–induced pruritus was a 65-year-old White man with metastatic melanoma who reported a 6-month history of itching that began 3 weeks after the start of treatment with the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab. His WI-NRS score was 10 despite treatment with topical steroids and antihistamines. He had a history of psoriasis. Labs showed elevated IgE (1350 kU/L) and eosinophil levels (4.5%). At a 4-month follow-up after treatment with off-label dupilumab (a 600-mg subcutaneous loading dose followed by 300 mg every 14 days), his WI-NRS score was 0.

In a paper recently published in JAAD International, Dr. Kwatra, Ms. Manjunath, and coinvestigators reported on a series of 15 patients who developed chronic pruritus following an immune stimulus exposure, including immunotherapy and vaccination (2024 Apr 7:16:97-102. doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2024.03.022). Most immunotherapy-treated patients experienced pruritus during treatment or after 21-60 days of receiving treatment, and the patients with vaccine-stimulated pruritus (after Tdap and messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccination) developed pruritus within a week of vaccination.

In addition to the elevated levels of IgE and eosinophils, plasma cytokine analysis showed elevated levels of IL-5, thymic stromal lymphopoietin, and other Th2-related cytokines and inflammatory markers in patients with immune-stimulated pruritus compared with healthy controls, Ms. Manjunath said at the meeting.

When a Malignancy Workup Becomes Important

The initial part of any diagnostic workup for CPUO should include CBC with differential, liver function tests, renal function tests, and thyroid function testing, said Kwatra, referring to a diagnostic algorithm he developed, which was published as part of a CME review in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in 2022.

Then, as indicated by risk factors in the history and physical, one could order other tests such as HIV serology, hepatitis B/C serologies, bullous pemphigoid testing, chest x-rays, evaluation for gammopathies, stool examination for ova and parasites, or heavy metal testing. “Do you do everything at once? We like to keep it straightforward,” Dr. Kwatra said. “Depending on the patient’s risk factors, you could order more or less.”

A malignancy workup should be strongly considered in patients whose itch duration is less than 12 months — and especially if the duration is less than 3 months — with an emphasis on cancers more frequently associated with itch: Hematologic and hepatobiliary cancers. This is “when concern should be heightened ... when there should be a lower threshold for workup,” he said.

The 12-month recommendation stems from a Danish cohort study published in 2014 that demonstrated a twofold increased incidence of cancer among patients with pruritus in the first 3 months after the diagnosis of pruritus. The 1-year absolute cancer risk was 1.63%.

Other risk factors for underlying malignancy or malignancy development in patients with CPUO include age older than 60 years, male sex, liver disease, and current or prior smoking, according to another study, noted Dr. Kwatra.

Dr. Kwatra disclosed that he is an advisory board member/consultant for Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and other companies and an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Manjunath served as the codirector of the ElderDerm conference.
 

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

TOPLINE:

A study found significant associations between melasma and several comorbidities, including hypertension and hormonal contraception use, which were the most common.

METHODOLOGY:

• Melasma predominantly affects young women of color and often worsens in hyperestrogen states; understanding the association with comorbidities can improve surveillance and treatment strategies.
• Researchers evaluated 41,283 patients with melasma (mean age, 48.8 years; 93% women) from the TriNetX database and an equal number of matched control individuals.
• The main outcome was comorbidities including allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, anticonvulsants, diabetes, hormonal contraceptives, hypothyroidism, hypertension, lupus, rosacea, skin cancer, and malignancy.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those with melasma, 25% had hypertension and 24% used hormonal contraception, the two most commonly associated risk factors identified.
• Rosacea (odds ratio [OR], 5.1), atopic dermatitis (OR, 3.3), lupus (OR, 2.5), history of skin cancer (OR, 2.5), and history of internal malignancy (OR, 2.1) were associated with the highest risk of developing melasma (P < .01 for all).
• Asian (OR, 2.0; P < .01) and “other/unknown” races (OR, 1.7; P < .01) and Hispanic ethnicity (OR, 1.3; P < .01) were also significantly associated with melasma, while the odds were slightly lower among White, Black/African American, and “not Hispanic” groups (ORs, 0.8; P < .01 for all groups).

IN PRACTICE:

“Understanding the potential associations between these risk factors and melasma will better improve the management and monitoring of the most susceptible patients,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ajay N. Sharma, MD, MBA, of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, was published online in Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations included the retrospective design, potential misclassification of diagnoses, and the inability to establish causality.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not disclose any funding sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A study found significant associations between melasma and several comorbidities, including hypertension and hormonal contraception use, which were the most common.

METHODOLOGY:

• Melasma predominantly affects young women of color and often worsens in hyperestrogen states; understanding the association with comorbidities can improve surveillance and treatment strategies.
• Researchers evaluated 41,283 patients with melasma (mean age, 48.8 years; 93% women) from the TriNetX database and an equal number of matched control individuals.
• The main outcome was comorbidities including allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, anticonvulsants, diabetes, hormonal contraceptives, hypothyroidism, hypertension, lupus, rosacea, skin cancer, and malignancy.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those with melasma, 25% had hypertension and 24% used hormonal contraception, the two most commonly associated risk factors identified.
• Rosacea (odds ratio [OR], 5.1), atopic dermatitis (OR, 3.3), lupus (OR, 2.5), history of skin cancer (OR, 2.5), and history of internal malignancy (OR, 2.1) were associated with the highest risk of developing melasma (P < .01 for all).
• Asian (OR, 2.0; P < .01) and “other/unknown” races (OR, 1.7; P < .01) and Hispanic ethnicity (OR, 1.3; P < .01) were also significantly associated with melasma, while the odds were slightly lower among White, Black/African American, and “not Hispanic” groups (ORs, 0.8; P < .01 for all groups).

IN PRACTICE:

“Understanding the potential associations between these risk factors and melasma will better improve the management and monitoring of the most susceptible patients,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ajay N. Sharma, MD, MBA, of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, was published online in Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations included the retrospective design, potential misclassification of diagnoses, and the inability to establish causality.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not disclose any funding sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

A study found significant associations between melasma and several comorbidities, including hypertension and hormonal contraception use, which were the most common.

METHODOLOGY:

• Melasma predominantly affects young women of color and often worsens in hyperestrogen states; understanding the association with comorbidities can improve surveillance and treatment strategies.
• Researchers evaluated 41,283 patients with melasma (mean age, 48.8 years; 93% women) from the TriNetX database and an equal number of matched control individuals.
• The main outcome was comorbidities including allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, anticonvulsants, diabetes, hormonal contraceptives, hypothyroidism, hypertension, lupus, rosacea, skin cancer, and malignancy.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those with melasma, 25% had hypertension and 24% used hormonal contraception, the two most commonly associated risk factors identified.
• Rosacea (odds ratio [OR], 5.1), atopic dermatitis (OR, 3.3), lupus (OR, 2.5), history of skin cancer (OR, 2.5), and history of internal malignancy (OR, 2.1) were associated with the highest risk of developing melasma (P < .01 for all).
• Asian (OR, 2.0; P < .01) and “other/unknown” races (OR, 1.7; P < .01) and Hispanic ethnicity (OR, 1.3; P < .01) were also significantly associated with melasma, while the odds were slightly lower among White, Black/African American, and “not Hispanic” groups (ORs, 0.8; P < .01 for all groups).

IN PRACTICE:

“Understanding the potential associations between these risk factors and melasma will better improve the management and monitoring of the most susceptible patients,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ajay N. Sharma, MD, MBA, of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California, Irvine, was published online in Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations included the retrospective design, potential misclassification of diagnoses, and the inability to establish causality.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not disclose any funding sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Upadacitinib, an oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor, showed an 80% complete response rate in patients with granulomatous cheilitis, with no serious adverse events, in a small retrospective case series.

METHODOLOGY:

• Granulomatous cheilitis is a rare, nonnecrotizing granulomatous inflammatory disorder characterized by intermittent or persistent swelling of the lips.
• In a retrospective case series of five patients (median age, 30 years; four women) with granulomatous cheilitis resistant to systemic treatments at a Belgian hospital between June 2023 and March 2024, all five were treated with a high dose of upadacitinib (30 mg daily).
• The primary endpoint was objective clinical improvement in lip swelling and infiltration over a median follow-up of 7.2 months.
• Three patients had concomitant dormant Crohn’s disease (CD); a secondary outcome was disease activity in these patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Upadacitinib treatment resulted in a complete response in four patients (80%) within a median of 3.8 months and a partial response in one patient.
• CD remained dormant in the three patients with CD.
• The safety profile of upadacitinib was favorable, and no serious adverse events were reported. Two patients experienced headaches, acne, mild changes in lipids, and/or transaminitis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Upadacitinib was effective in treating patients with recalcitrant and long-lasting granulomatous cheilitis, even in cases of concomitant CD, which could substantially improve the quality of life of affected patients,” the authors wrote. More studies are needed to confirm these results in larger groups of patients over longer periods of time, “and with other JAK inhibitors.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Axel De Greef, MD, Department of Dermatology, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Brussels, Belgium. It was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and short follow-up may limit the generalizability of the findings to a larger population of patients with granulomatous cheilitis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not report any funding sources. Some authors reported receiving nonfinancial support and personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Upadacitinib, an oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor, showed an 80% complete response rate in patients with granulomatous cheilitis, with no serious adverse events, in a small retrospective case series.

METHODOLOGY:

• Granulomatous cheilitis is a rare, nonnecrotizing granulomatous inflammatory disorder characterized by intermittent or persistent swelling of the lips.
• In a retrospective case series of five patients (median age, 30 years; four women) with granulomatous cheilitis resistant to systemic treatments at a Belgian hospital between June 2023 and March 2024, all five were treated with a high dose of upadacitinib (30 mg daily).
• The primary endpoint was objective clinical improvement in lip swelling and infiltration over a median follow-up of 7.2 months.
• Three patients had concomitant dormant Crohn’s disease (CD); a secondary outcome was disease activity in these patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Upadacitinib treatment resulted in a complete response in four patients (80%) within a median of 3.8 months and a partial response in one patient.
• CD remained dormant in the three patients with CD.
• The safety profile of upadacitinib was favorable, and no serious adverse events were reported. Two patients experienced headaches, acne, mild changes in lipids, and/or transaminitis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Upadacitinib was effective in treating patients with recalcitrant and long-lasting granulomatous cheilitis, even in cases of concomitant CD, which could substantially improve the quality of life of affected patients,” the authors wrote. More studies are needed to confirm these results in larger groups of patients over longer periods of time, “and with other JAK inhibitors.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Axel De Greef, MD, Department of Dermatology, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Brussels, Belgium. It was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and short follow-up may limit the generalizability of the findings to a larger population of patients with granulomatous cheilitis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not report any funding sources. Some authors reported receiving nonfinancial support and personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Upadacitinib, an oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor, showed an 80% complete response rate in patients with granulomatous cheilitis, with no serious adverse events, in a small retrospective case series.

METHODOLOGY:

• Granulomatous cheilitis is a rare, nonnecrotizing granulomatous inflammatory disorder characterized by intermittent or persistent swelling of the lips.
• In a retrospective case series of five patients (median age, 30 years; four women) with granulomatous cheilitis resistant to systemic treatments at a Belgian hospital between June 2023 and March 2024, all five were treated with a high dose of upadacitinib (30 mg daily).
• The primary endpoint was objective clinical improvement in lip swelling and infiltration over a median follow-up of 7.2 months.
• Three patients had concomitant dormant Crohn’s disease (CD); a secondary outcome was disease activity in these patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Upadacitinib treatment resulted in a complete response in four patients (80%) within a median of 3.8 months and a partial response in one patient.
• CD remained dormant in the three patients with CD.
• The safety profile of upadacitinib was favorable, and no serious adverse events were reported. Two patients experienced headaches, acne, mild changes in lipids, and/or transaminitis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Upadacitinib was effective in treating patients with recalcitrant and long-lasting granulomatous cheilitis, even in cases of concomitant CD, which could substantially improve the quality of life of affected patients,” the authors wrote. More studies are needed to confirm these results in larger groups of patients over longer periods of time, “and with other JAK inhibitors.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Axel De Greef, MD, Department of Dermatology, Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc, Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Brussels, Belgium. It was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and short follow-up may limit the generalizability of the findings to a larger population of patients with granulomatous cheilitis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not report any funding sources. Some authors reported receiving nonfinancial support and personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with alopecia areata (AA) had a higher prevalence of several psychiatric and autoimmune comorbidities at baseline and were at greater risk of developing those comorbidities after diagnosis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated 63,384 patients with AA and 3,309,107 individuals without AA (aged 12-64 years) from the Merative MarketScan Research Databases.
• The matched cohorts included 16,512 patients with AA and 66,048 control individuals.
• Outcomes were the prevalence of psychiatric and autoimmune diseases at baseline and the incidence of new-onset psychiatric and autoimmune diseases during the year after diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, patients with AA showed a greater prevalence of any psychiatric disease (30.9% vs 26.8%; P < .001) and any immune-mediated or autoimmune disease (16.1% vs 8.9%; P < .0001) than those with controls.
• In matched cohorts, patients with AA also showed a higher incidence of any new-onset psychiatric diseases (10.2% vs 6.8%; P < .001) or immune-mediated or autoimmune disease (6.2% vs 1.5%; P <.001) within the first 12 months of AA diagnosis than those with controls.
• Among patients with AA, the risk of developing a psychiatric comorbidity was higher (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.3; 95% CI, 1.3-1.4). The highest risks were seen for adjustment disorder (aHR, 1.5), panic disorder (aHR, 1.4), and sexual dysfunction (aHR, 1.4).
• Compared with controls, patients with AA were also at an increased risk of developing immune-mediated or autoimmune comorbidities (aHR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.5-2.8), with the highest for systemic lupus (aHR, 5.7), atopic dermatitis (aHR, 4.3), and vitiligo (aHR, 3.8).

IN PRACTICE:

“Routine monitoring of patients with AA, especially those at risk of developing comorbidities, may permit earlier and more effective intervention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston. It was published online on July 31, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Causality could not be inferred because of the retrospective nature of the study. Comorbidities were solely diagnosed on the basis of diagnostic codes, and researchers did not have access to characteristics such as lab values that could have indicated any underlying comorbidity before the AA diagnosis. This study also did not account for the varying levels of severity of the disease, which may have led to an underestimation of disease burden and the risk for comorbidities.

DISCLOSURES:

AbbVie provided funding for this study. Mostaghimi disclosed receiving personal fees from Abbvie and several other companies outside of this work. The other four authors were current or former employees of Abbvie and have or may have stock and/or stock options in AbbVie.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with alopecia areata (AA) had a higher prevalence of several psychiatric and autoimmune comorbidities at baseline and were at greater risk of developing those comorbidities after diagnosis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated 63,384 patients with AA and 3,309,107 individuals without AA (aged 12-64 years) from the Merative MarketScan Research Databases.
• The matched cohorts included 16,512 patients with AA and 66,048 control individuals.
• Outcomes were the prevalence of psychiatric and autoimmune diseases at baseline and the incidence of new-onset psychiatric and autoimmune diseases during the year after diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, patients with AA showed a greater prevalence of any psychiatric disease (30.9% vs 26.8%; P < .001) and any immune-mediated or autoimmune disease (16.1% vs 8.9%; P < .0001) than those with controls.
• In matched cohorts, patients with AA also showed a higher incidence of any new-onset psychiatric diseases (10.2% vs 6.8%; P < .001) or immune-mediated or autoimmune disease (6.2% vs 1.5%; P <.001) within the first 12 months of AA diagnosis than those with controls.
• Among patients with AA, the risk of developing a psychiatric comorbidity was higher (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.3; 95% CI, 1.3-1.4). The highest risks were seen for adjustment disorder (aHR, 1.5), panic disorder (aHR, 1.4), and sexual dysfunction (aHR, 1.4).
• Compared with controls, patients with AA were also at an increased risk of developing immune-mediated or autoimmune comorbidities (aHR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.5-2.8), with the highest for systemic lupus (aHR, 5.7), atopic dermatitis (aHR, 4.3), and vitiligo (aHR, 3.8).

IN PRACTICE:

“Routine monitoring of patients with AA, especially those at risk of developing comorbidities, may permit earlier and more effective intervention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston. It was published online on July 31, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Causality could not be inferred because of the retrospective nature of the study. Comorbidities were solely diagnosed on the basis of diagnostic codes, and researchers did not have access to characteristics such as lab values that could have indicated any underlying comorbidity before the AA diagnosis. This study also did not account for the varying levels of severity of the disease, which may have led to an underestimation of disease burden and the risk for comorbidities.

DISCLOSURES:

AbbVie provided funding for this study. Mostaghimi disclosed receiving personal fees from Abbvie and several other companies outside of this work. The other four authors were current or former employees of Abbvie and have or may have stock and/or stock options in AbbVie.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with alopecia areata (AA) had a higher prevalence of several psychiatric and autoimmune comorbidities at baseline and were at greater risk of developing those comorbidities after diagnosis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated 63,384 patients with AA and 3,309,107 individuals without AA (aged 12-64 years) from the Merative MarketScan Research Databases.
• The matched cohorts included 16,512 patients with AA and 66,048 control individuals.
• Outcomes were the prevalence of psychiatric and autoimmune diseases at baseline and the incidence of new-onset psychiatric and autoimmune diseases during the year after diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, patients with AA showed a greater prevalence of any psychiatric disease (30.9% vs 26.8%; P < .001) and any immune-mediated or autoimmune disease (16.1% vs 8.9%; P < .0001) than those with controls.
• In matched cohorts, patients with AA also showed a higher incidence of any new-onset psychiatric diseases (10.2% vs 6.8%; P < .001) or immune-mediated or autoimmune disease (6.2% vs 1.5%; P <.001) within the first 12 months of AA diagnosis than those with controls.
• Among patients with AA, the risk of developing a psychiatric comorbidity was higher (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.3; 95% CI, 1.3-1.4). The highest risks were seen for adjustment disorder (aHR, 1.5), panic disorder (aHR, 1.4), and sexual dysfunction (aHR, 1.4).
• Compared with controls, patients with AA were also at an increased risk of developing immune-mediated or autoimmune comorbidities (aHR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.5-2.8), with the highest for systemic lupus (aHR, 5.7), atopic dermatitis (aHR, 4.3), and vitiligo (aHR, 3.8).

IN PRACTICE:

“Routine monitoring of patients with AA, especially those at risk of developing comorbidities, may permit earlier and more effective intervention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston. It was published online on July 31, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Causality could not be inferred because of the retrospective nature of the study. Comorbidities were solely diagnosed on the basis of diagnostic codes, and researchers did not have access to characteristics such as lab values that could have indicated any underlying comorbidity before the AA diagnosis. This study also did not account for the varying levels of severity of the disease, which may have led to an underestimation of disease burden and the risk for comorbidities.

DISCLOSURES:

AbbVie provided funding for this study. Mostaghimi disclosed receiving personal fees from Abbvie and several other companies outside of this work. The other four authors were current or former employees of Abbvie and have or may have stock and/or stock options in AbbVie.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tirbanibulin ointment 1% shows good safety and tolerability in the treatment of actinic keratosis (AK) in fields of up to 100 cm2 on the face and scalp.

METHODOLOGY:

• This phase 3 multicenter, single-arm trial evaluated the safety and tolerability of tirbanibulin ointment 1% in 105 adults with 4-12 clinically typical, visible, and discrete AKs on the face or balding scalp from June to December 2022 in the United States. (In June 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved a supplemental new drug application for tirbanibulin 1%, a microtubule inhibitor, allowing the expansion of the surface area treated for AKs of the face or scalp from 25 cm² to 100 cm².)
• Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment 1% once daily for 5 days over a treatment field of about 100 cm² on the face or balding scalp. A total of 102 patients completed the study.
• Safety and tolerability were evaluated with reports of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and a composite score of six local tolerability signs on days 5, 8, 15, and 29, and on completion of the evaluation period on day 57.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most common local effects of treatment were erythema (96.1% of patients) and flaking or scaling (84.4%), with severe cases reported in 5.8% and 8.7% of the patients, respectively.
• The mean maximum local tolerability composite score was 4.1 out of 18, which peaked around day 8 and returned to baseline by day 29.
• TEAEs considered related to the treatment were reported in 18.1% of patients; the most frequent were application site pruritus (10.5%) and application site pain (8.6%). No adverse events led to the discontinuation of treatment.
• The mean percent reduction in the lesion count from baseline was 77.8% at day 57, with a mean lesion count of 1.8 at the end of the study.

IN PRACTICE:

In this study, “local tolerability and safety profiles were well characterized in patients with 4-12 clinically typical, visible, and discrete AK lesions in a field of 100 cm² and were consistent with those previously reported in patients with AK treated in pivotal trials with tirbanibulin over a smaller field (25 cm²),” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Neal Bhatia, MD, of Therapeutics Clinical Research, San Diego, was published online in JAAD International.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the lack of a placebo group and the absence of long-term follow-up. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Almirall. Five authors reported being employees of Almirall. Other authors declared having ties with various other sources, including Almirall.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tirbanibulin ointment 1% shows good safety and tolerability in the treatment of actinic keratosis (AK) in fields of up to 100 cm2 on the face and scalp.

METHODOLOGY:

• This phase 3 multicenter, single-arm trial evaluated the safety and tolerability of tirbanibulin ointment 1% in 105 adults with 4-12 clinically typical, visible, and discrete AKs on the face or balding scalp from June to December 2022 in the United States. (In June 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved a supplemental new drug application for tirbanibulin 1%, a microtubule inhibitor, allowing the expansion of the surface area treated for AKs of the face or scalp from 25 cm² to 100 cm².)
• Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment 1% once daily for 5 days over a treatment field of about 100 cm² on the face or balding scalp. A total of 102 patients completed the study.
• Safety and tolerability were evaluated with reports of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and a composite score of six local tolerability signs on days 5, 8, 15, and 29, and on completion of the evaluation period on day 57.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most common local effects of treatment were erythema (96.1% of patients) and flaking or scaling (84.4%), with severe cases reported in 5.8% and 8.7% of the patients, respectively.
• The mean maximum local tolerability composite score was 4.1 out of 18, which peaked around day 8 and returned to baseline by day 29.
• TEAEs considered related to the treatment were reported in 18.1% of patients; the most frequent were application site pruritus (10.5%) and application site pain (8.6%). No adverse events led to the discontinuation of treatment.
• The mean percent reduction in the lesion count from baseline was 77.8% at day 57, with a mean lesion count of 1.8 at the end of the study.

IN PRACTICE:

In this study, “local tolerability and safety profiles were well characterized in patients with 4-12 clinically typical, visible, and discrete AK lesions in a field of 100 cm² and were consistent with those previously reported in patients with AK treated in pivotal trials with tirbanibulin over a smaller field (25 cm²),” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Neal Bhatia, MD, of Therapeutics Clinical Research, San Diego, was published online in JAAD International.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the lack of a placebo group and the absence of long-term follow-up. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Almirall. Five authors reported being employees of Almirall. Other authors declared having ties with various other sources, including Almirall.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tirbanibulin ointment 1% shows good safety and tolerability in the treatment of actinic keratosis (AK) in fields of up to 100 cm2 on the face and scalp.

METHODOLOGY:

• This phase 3 multicenter, single-arm trial evaluated the safety and tolerability of tirbanibulin ointment 1% in 105 adults with 4-12 clinically typical, visible, and discrete AKs on the face or balding scalp from June to December 2022 in the United States. (In June 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved a supplemental new drug application for tirbanibulin 1%, a microtubule inhibitor, allowing the expansion of the surface area treated for AKs of the face or scalp from 25 cm² to 100 cm².)
• Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment 1% once daily for 5 days over a treatment field of about 100 cm² on the face or balding scalp. A total of 102 patients completed the study.
• Safety and tolerability were evaluated with reports of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and a composite score of six local tolerability signs on days 5, 8, 15, and 29, and on completion of the evaluation period on day 57.

TAKEAWAY:

• The most common local effects of treatment were erythema (96.1% of patients) and flaking or scaling (84.4%), with severe cases reported in 5.8% and 8.7% of the patients, respectively.
• The mean maximum local tolerability composite score was 4.1 out of 18, which peaked around day 8 and returned to baseline by day 29.
• TEAEs considered related to the treatment were reported in 18.1% of patients; the most frequent were application site pruritus (10.5%) and application site pain (8.6%). No adverse events led to the discontinuation of treatment.
• The mean percent reduction in the lesion count from baseline was 77.8% at day 57, with a mean lesion count of 1.8 at the end of the study.

IN PRACTICE:

In this study, “local tolerability and safety profiles were well characterized in patients with 4-12 clinically typical, visible, and discrete AK lesions in a field of 100 cm² and were consistent with those previously reported in patients with AK treated in pivotal trials with tirbanibulin over a smaller field (25 cm²),” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Neal Bhatia, MD, of Therapeutics Clinical Research, San Diego, was published online in JAAD International.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the lack of a placebo group and the absence of long-term follow-up. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Almirall. Five authors reported being employees of Almirall. Other authors declared having ties with various other sources, including Almirall.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.