Search

Abstract Oral Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), a class of advanced targeted systemic therapy, have demonstrated efficacy and safety in the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Like other small molecules, oral JAKi have the potential for off-target effects including laboratory-related adverse events (AEs). Product labels for oral JAKi recommend an initial laboratory assessment and follow-up 4–12 weeks later to monitor for potential changes, based on evidence from clinical trials across therapeutic indications for oral JAKi, which may not reflect a population of moderate-to-severe AD patients typically seen in routine clinical practice. To address this gap, a panel of eight dermatologists with clinical and research experience with oral JAKi for the management of AD conducted a targeted review of the literature focused on key laboratory-related AEs associated with oral JAKi in the moderate-to-severe AD population. Based on the synthesis of evidence and informed opinion, a set of best practice statements related to fundamental standards of care and consensus recommendations on laboratory monitoring were suggested, and level of agreement was ascertained using a Likert scale from 0 to 100. There was a high level of agreement on three of the four suggested recommendations related to assessment and monitoring of key laboratory parameters and to dose reduction or switching in response to laboratory changes; there was a lower level of agreement related to the frequency of ongoing laboratory monitoring. Appropriate patient selection and laboratory assessment is an important strategy to mitigate the potential risks associated with oral JAKi when treating AD.

Abstract Background Patients with treated solid tumours (TSTs) are a highly heterogeneous population at an increased risk for malignancy compared with the general population. When treating psoriasis in patients with a history of TSTs, clinicians are concerned about the immunosuppressive nature of psoriasis therapies, the possibility of augmenting cancer recurrence/progression, and infectious complications. No direct, high-level evidence exists to address these concerns. Objectives We aim to provide a structured framework supporting healthcare professional and patient discussions on the risks and benefits of systemic psoriasis therapy in patients with previously TSTs. Our goal was to address the clinically important question, “In patients with TSTs, does therapy with systemic agents used for psoriasis increase the risk of malignancy or malignancy recurrence?” Methods We implemented an inference-based approach relying on indirect evidence when direct clinical trial and real-world data were absent. We reviewed indirect evidence supporting inferences on the status of immune function in patients with TSTs. Recommendations on systemic psoriasis therapies in patients with TSTs were derived using an inferential heuristic. Results We identified five indirect indicators of iatrogenic immunosuppression informed by largely independent bodies of evidence: (1) overall survival, (2) rate of malignancies with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (3) rate of infections with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (4) common disease biochemical pathways for solid tumours and systemic psoriasis therapies, and (5) solid organ transplant outcomes. On the basis of review of the totality of this data, we provided inference-based conclusions and ascribed level of support for each statement. Conclusions Prior to considering new therapies for psoriasis, an understanding of cancer prognosis should be addressed. Patients with TSTs and a good cancer prognosis will have similar outcomes to non-TST patients when treated with systemic psoriasis therapies. For patients with TSTs and a poor cancer prognosis, the quality-of-life benefits of treating psoriasis may outweigh the theoretical risks.

Atopic dermatitis is a chronic skin condition for which a range of systemic treatments have recently been approved. A treat-to-target strategy has been developed previously alongside an algorithm to guide the management of patients with atopic dermatitis. Here, we review the strategy and algorithm in the context of the evolving therapeutic landscape, and identify areas for further refinement and development.

Abstract Background People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) have a similar prevalence of psoriasis as the general population, though incidence and severity correlate with HIV viral load. Adequately treating HIV early renders the infection a chronic medical condition and allows PLHIV with a suppressed viral load (PLHIV-s) to live normal lives. Despite this, safety concerns and a lack of high-level data have hindered the use of systemic psoriasis therapies in PLHIV-s. Objectives We aim to provide a structured framework that supports healthcare professionals and patients discussing the risks and benefits of systemic psoriasis therapy in PLHIV-s. Our goal was to address the primary question, are responses to systemic therapies for the treatment of psoriasis in PLHIV-s similar to those in the non-HIV population? Methods We implemented an inference-based approach relying on indirect evidence when direct clinical trial data were absent. In this instance, we reviewed indirect evidence supporting inferences on the status of immune function in PLHIV. Recommendations on systemic treatment for psoriasis in PLHIV were derived using an inferential heuristic. Results We identified seven indirect indicators of immune function informed by largely independent bodies of evidence: (1) functional assays, (2) vaccine response, (3) life expectancy, (4) psoriasis manifestations, (5) rate of infections, (6) rate of malignancies, and (7) organ transplant outcomes. Conclusions Drug-related benefits and risks when treating a patient with systemic psoriasis therapies are similar for non-HIV patients and PLHIV with a suppressed viral load and normalized CD4 counts. Prior to initiating psoriasis treatment in PLHIV, HIV replication should be addressed by an HIV specialist. Exercise additional caution for patients with a suppressed viral load and discordant CD4 responses on antiretroviral therapy.

Currently no treat-to-target framework to guide systemic treatment in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis exists. We sought to reach international consensus through an eDelphi process on a core set of recommendations for such an approach. Recommendations were developed by an international Steering Committee, spanning 3 areas (Guiding Principles, Decision Making, and Outcome Thresholds) and 2 specific time-points; an initial acceptable target at 3 months and an optimal target at 6 months, each based on improvements in patient global assessment plus at least one specific outcome domain. These treat-to-target- orientated recommendations were evaluated by an extended international panel of physicians, nurses and patients. Proposed recommendations were rated using a 9-point Likert scale; for each recommendation, consensus agreement was reached if ≥ 75% of all respondents rated agreement as ≥ 7. Consensus on 16 core recommendations was reached over 2 eDelphi rounds. These provide a framework for shared decision-making on systemic treatment continuation, modification, or discontinuation.

Upadacitinib is a selective reversible Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor with established efficacy in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). We evaluated the safety of upadacitinib in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. Integrated safety data from the 16-week placebo-controlled periods of 1 phase 2b and 3 ongoing phase 3 studies (16 weeks) and longer-term safety data from patients receiving upadacitinib during the blinded extension periods of the three phase 3 studies were analyzed (all upadacitinib exposure). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were presented as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (PY). Safety results were similar between the 16-week and all upadacitinib exposure groups. The latter group included 2485 patients (333 adolescents), receiving upadacitinib 15 mg (n = 1239) or 30 mg (n = 1246) for a mean duration of approximately 1 year. Upadacitinib was well tolerated by both adults and adolescents. TEAEs and discontinuation due to AEs were reported more frequently in patients receiving 30 mg upadacitinib (respectively, 311.9 and 5.7 events per 100 PY) versus 15 mg (respectively, 274.6 and 4.4 events per 100 PY). Serious adverse event rates (15/30 mg, 7.1/7.7 events per 100 PY) were similar in both groups. Acne was the most frequently reported adverse event (15/30 mg, 13.3/20.2 events per 100 PY). Serious infection rates were similar across treatment groups. Adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular event and venous thromboembolic event rates were ≤0.1 events per 100 PY. Rates of malignant neoplasms were within the expected range for the general population. Upadacitinib was well tolerated, and no new important safety risks were observed among adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe AD treated for approximately 1 year compared to the known safety profile of upadacitinib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction/Background Efficacy of upadacitinib has been assessed in trials including Measure Up 1 (NCT03569293), Measure Up 2 (NCT03607422), and Heads Up (NCT03738397). Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 assessed efficacy of upadacitinib 30mg and upadacitinib 15mg against placebo, while Heads Up assessed efficacy of upadacitinib 30mg in a head-tohead trial against dupilumab 300mg. Network meta-analysis has shown that upadacitinib 30mg and upadacitinib 15mg are among the most efficacious targeted systemic therapies, but prior indirect comparisons have not evaluated stringent and composite measures of efficacy. Objectives: To indirectly compare upadacitinib and dupilumab on stringent and composite measures of skin clearance and itch resolution. Methods: A population-adjusted indirect comparison using covariate adjustment as a treatment effect calibration was conducted using individual patient data from Measure Up 1 and 2 and Heads Up. Specifically, the indirect comparison model estimated how upadacitinib 15 mg would have performed if included in Heads Up by adjusting for patient-level covariates (age, gender, race, country, previous use of systemic therapy, disease duration, baseline validated Investigator Global Assessment scale for AD score, and baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI]). Absolute response rates at weeks 4 and 16 were estimated for the following outcomes: no/minimal itch (Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale [WP-NRS] score of 0/1), 100% improvement in EASI (EASI 100), achievement of both =90% improvement in EASI (EASI 90) and WP-NRS 0/1, and achievement of both EASI 100 and WP-NRS 0/1. The analysis was conducted on adult patients, aligned with the intention-to-treat population for the clinical trials, and utilized non-responder imputation. Results: Across all outcomes assessed, the estimated absolute response rates were greatest for upadacitinib 30 mg, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg, and then dupilumab. This pattern was observed at week 4 on the achievement of WP-NRS 0/1 (upadacitinib 30 mg: 34.2% | upadacitinib 15 mg: 18.2% | dupilumab: 7.9%), EASI 100 (8.5% | 4.7% | 1.8%), EASI 90 & WP-NRS 0/1 (21.9% | 10.6% | 3.3%), and EASI 100 & WP-NRS 0/1 (6.4% | 3.5% | 1.2%). This ranking was maintained at week 16 for WP-NRS 0/1 (35.4% | 22.5% | 16.2%), EASI 100 (28.4% | 22.2% | 7.9%), EASI 90 & WP-NRS 0/1 (32.2% | 19.6% | 12.4%), and EASI 100 & WP-NRS 0/1 (19.6% | 12.7% | 4.2%). Conclusions: For adults with moderate-to-severe AD, upadacitinib 30 mg appears to be the most efficacious treatment in attaining stringent and composite outcomes after 4 and 16 weeks, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg, and then dupilumab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Network meta-analysis (NMA) provides useful information for medical decision makers via comprehensive indirect comparisons across therapies. As the targeted systemic therapy options for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) continue to grow, it is critical to update NMAs as well. Objectives: To assess the comparative efficacy of targeted systemic therapies with concomitant topical corticosteroids (TCS) in moderate-to-severe AD by including the latest Phase 3 combination therapy data for abrocitinib, lebrikizumab, and dupilumab in the NMA presented in Thyssen et al, 2021. Methods: Data from the Phase 3 combination therapy trial for lebrikizumab in moderate-to-severe AD (ADhere [NCT04250337]) as well as an additional abrocitinib-dupilumab head-to-head Phase 3 trial (JADE DARE [NCT04345367]) were included in the analyses along with other eligible trials for abrocitinib, baricitinib, dupilumab, tralokinumab, and upadacitinib identified through a systematic literature review in Thyssen et al., 2021. Outcomes included ≥90% and ≥75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 90, EASI 75) from baseline, ≥4-point improvement in Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from baseline (ΔNRS ≥4), and Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) with a ≥2-point reduction from baseline (IGA 0/1), at the week 16 timepoint of each study. Bayesian NMA was performed with fixed and random effects models, with and without baseline risk-adjustment; fit statistics were assessed. Inconsistency was assessed via unrelated mean relative effects models. Odds ratio (OR), number needed to treat (NNT), placebo-unadjusted absolute response rate (ARR), and Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking curve (SUCRA) scores were estimated. Statistical significance was assessed by OR 95% credible intervals excluding 1. Results: The updated NMA analyzed 8 unique placebo-controlled trials and 1 active-controlled trial involving 4391 patients in 23 arms across 6 targeted therapies. Fit statistics supported fixed effects models across outcomes. All therapies were statistically more efficacious than placebo across all outcomes except baricitinib 2 mg for EASI-90. For EASI-90, upadacitinib 30 mg had the most favorable response estimates (ARR=63.2%, OR=11.3, NNT=2.0, SUCRA=98.3%), followed by abrocitinib 200 mg (ARR=55.8%, OR=8.3, NNT=2.4, SUCRA=90.0%), dupilumab 300 mg (ARR=44.8%, OR=5.3, NNT=3.2, SUCRA=68.3%), abrocitinib 100 mg (ARR=44.0%, OR=5.2, NNT=3.3, SUCRA=65.8%), upadacitinib 15 mg (ARR=42.9%, OR=4.9, NNT=3.4, SUCRA=64.3%), and the newly added lebrikizumab 250 mg (ARR=28.9%, OR=2.7, NNT=6.6, SUCRA=39.9%). The rank order for EASI-75 was similar (upadacitinib 30 mg [ARR=78.3%, OR=9.5, NNT=2.0, SUCRA=98.5%], abrocitinib 200 mg [ARR=73.0%, OR=7.1, NNT=2.3, SUCRA=89.1%], upadacitinib 15 mg [ARR=66.1%, OR=5.1, NNT=2.7, SUCRA=71.0%], dupilumab 300 mg [ARR=65.3%, OR=5.0, NNT=2.7, SUCRA=69.2%], abrocitinib 100 mg [ARR=60.3%, OR=4.0, NNT=3.2, SUCRA=54.0%], and lebrikizumab 250 mg [ARR=54.5%, OR=3.1, NNT=3.8, SUCRA=41.2%]). For ΔNRS ≥4, upadacitinib 30 mg had the most favorable response (ARR=68.9%, OR=10.0, NNT=2.1, SUCRA=99.9%), followed by upadacitinib 15 mg (ARR=56.6%, OR=5.9, NNT=2.7, SUCRA=84.0%), abrocitinib 200 mg (ARR=51.6%, OR=4.8, NNT=3.1, SUCRA=75.6%), dupilumab 300 mg (ARR=49.3%, OR=4.4, NNT=3.3, SUCRA=67.0%), baricitinib 4 mg (ARR=44.4%, OR=3.6, NNT=4.0, SUCRA=57.7%), and abrocitinib 100 mg (ARR=35.9%, OR=2.5, NNT=5.9, SUCRA=36.1%); lebrikizumab 250 mg ranked eighth (ARR=33.4%, OR=2.3, NNT=7.0, SUCRA=31.3%). For IGA 0/1, upadacitinib 30 mg (ARR=66.5%, OR=11.7, NNT=2.0, SUCRA=99.6%) had the most favorable estimates, followed by abrocitinib 200 mg (ARR=53.5%, OR=6.8, NNT=2.6, SUCRA=86.6%), upadacitinib 15 mg (ARR=48.0%, OR=5.4, NNT=3.0, SUCRA=76.2%), dupilumab 300 mg (ARR=42.1%, OR=4.3, NNT=3.7, SUCRA=64.7%), abrocitinib 100 mg (ARR=39.1%, OR=3.8, NNT=4.1, SUCRA=56.1%), and baricitinib 4 mg (ARR=30.6%, OR=2.6, NNT=6.4, SUCRA=39.9%); lebrikizumab 250 mg ranked seventh (ARR=29.2%, OR=2.4, NNT=7.0, SUCRA=35.8%). Baricitinib 2 mg and tralokinumab 300 mg were generally ranked lower across outcomes. Conclusions: Among targeted therapies for moderate-to-severe AD used with concomitant TCS for 16 weeks, upadacitinib 30 mg remained the most efficacious therapy in this NMA, generally followed by abrocitinib 200 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg or dupilumab 300 mg, abrocitinib 100 mg, and baricitinib 4 mg or lebrikizumab 250 mg. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction/Background Tralokinumab, a high-affinity, monoclonal antibody that targets IL-13, is approved in the EU and Canada for adolescents (aged ≥12 years) with inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), and it does not require laboratory monitoring. The phase 3 ECZTRA 6 (NCT03526861) clinical trial demonstrated efficacy and safety up to 52 weeks in that population. Objectives: To further characterize the safety profile of tralokinumab by evaluating laboratory parameters of adolescents in the ECZTRA 6 trial. Methods: ECZTRA 6 subjects received tralokinumab 150mg (n=98), 300mg (n=97) or placebo (n=94) every 2 weeks (Q2W) from week 0-16 after a loading dose at week 0 (twice the subsequent dose), and then randomized to maintenance [original tralokinumab dose either Q2W or every 4 weeks (Q4W) or placebo Q2W] or open-label (tralokinumab 300mg Q2W) until week 52. Laboratory parameters included hematology, serum biochemistry, and urinalysis throughout the trial (weeks 0, 8, 16, 28, and 52). Results: Overall (n= 289 subjects), laboratory baseline parameters were similar across treatment groups. Mean and median changes of most hematology parameters showed minor fluctuations within the normal ranges through week 52, except for eosinophils. At baseline, elevated mean eosinophil counts (>0.5 109/L) were observed for 40.8% (tralokinumab 150mg), 48.5% (tralokinumab 300mg), and 43.6% (placebo) of subjects in each respective treatment group. Some tralokinumab-treated patients had small transient increases in eosinophils (maximum mean change from baseline 0.2×109/L) before week 16. Continued treatment with tralokinumab or placebo did not correspond with further increase in eosinophil levels over time, and no adverse events of eosinophilia were reported. Mean levels of most biochemistry parameters, including electrolytes, renal and liver function parameters, and lipid panel, were within normal range at baseline, and mean and median changes showed minor fluctuations within normal ranges in all treatment arms. Mean lactate dehydrogenase levels were around or above the upper limit of normal at baseline and decreased to within the normal ranges during the trial across all groups. Overall, no clinically meaningful differences were observed in hematology, biochemistry, or urinalysis parameters between active treatment groups or placebo. Conclusions: Similar to findings in adult trials, no meaningful changes in laboratory parameters were observed in adolescents through week 52 with tralokinumab treatment. No routine laboratory monitoring is needed for adult or adolescent AD patients treated with tralokinumab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the monotherapy phase 3 trial (ECZTRA 6, NCT03526861) in adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) treated with tralokinumab, IGA of clear/almost clear skin (IGA 0/1) at week 16 was a primary endpoint. IGA 0/1 can be a high standard to achieve for patients with moder - ate-to-severe AD and may not fully reflect achievement of other clinically meaningful parameters, such as improvement in signs, symptoms and/or quality-of-life (QoL). To assess the impact of tralokinumab (150 or 300 mg) vs. placebo on other clinically meaningful parameters at week 16 in the sub - set of patients who did not achieve IGA 0/1 at week 16 and/ or used rescue medication. Adolescents (12–17 years) were randomized to subcutaneous tralokinumab 150 or 300 mg, or placebo, every 2 weeks. Patients who did not achieve IGA 0/1 at week 16 and/or utilized rescue therapy were included in this post-hoc analysis. Non-responder imputation was used for patients who utilized rescue therapy or had missing data. Clinically meaningful responses were defined as EASI50, ≥ 3-point improvement in pruritus NRS, or ≥6-point improvement in CDLQI. At week 16, 78.6% and 82.5% of tralokinumab-treated patients (150 mg/300 mg) vs. 95.7% (placebo) exhibited IGA >1 and/or used rescue therapy. 36.4% (150 mg) and 52.5% (300 mg) of patients with IGA >1 in the tralokinumab arms, compared to 21.1% (placebo), achieved clinically meaningful responses in at least one measure: EASI-50, pruritus NRS, or CDLQI. Greater proportions of tralokinumab-treated patients (150/300 mg vs. placebo) achieved EASI-50 (31.2%/41.3% vs. 10.0%) and ≥3-point improvement in pruritus NRS (21.6%/22.8% vs. 8.0%). A greater proportion of tralokinumab 300 mg patients vs. placebo (35.2% vs. 15.0%) achieved ≥6-point improvement in CDLQI. Many tralokinumab-treated adolescents who did not achieve IGA 0/1 at week 16 and/or used rescue therapy still achieved clinically meaningful improvements in AD signs, symptoms, and/or QoL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, pruritic inflammatory skin disease resulting from defects in skin barrier and aberrant immune responses. AD significantly affects the quality of life. Not all patients respond to topical therapies, and often systemic therapy is required to control the disease. Objective: To review the treatment options for adult AD patients including those options for patients who do not respond adequately or have contraindications to oral systemic therapy. Methods: A working group of clinicians with experience managing AD was convened to review the current literature on treatment options for adult AD patients. This review is based on the best available evidence from a published systematic review and an additional literature search. Results: Current treatments for AD are reviewed, including options for adult AD patients who do not respond or have contraindications to current systemic therapies. A new approach with targeted therapies is reviewed based on best available evidence. Conclusion: Many AD patients respond satisfactorily to topical or systemic treatments, but for those patients who do not respond or have contraindications, new biologic agents appear to be promising therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Cutaneous Medicine & Surgery is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background A third-generation microwave-based device has been developed to treat axillary hyperhidrosis by selectively heating the interface between the skin and underlying fat where the sweat glands reside. Materials and Methods Thirty-one (31) adults with primary axillary hyperhidrosis were enrolled. All subjects had one to three procedure sessions over a 6-month period to treat both axillae fully. Efficacy was assessed using the Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Scale ( HDSS), gravimetric weight of sweat, and the Dermatologic Life Quality Index ( DLQI), a dermatology-specific quality-of-life scale. Subject safety was assessed at each visit. Subjects were followed for 12 months after all procedure sessions were complete. Results At the 12-month follow-up visit, 90.3% had HDSS scores of 1 or 2, 90.3% had at least a 50% reduction in axillary sweat from baseline, and 85.2% had a reduction of at least 5 points on the DLQI. All subjects experienced transient effects in the treatment area such as swelling, discomfort, and numbness. The most common adverse event (12 subjects) was the presence of altered sensation in the skin of the arm that resolved in all subjects. Conclusion The device tested provided efficacious and durable treatment for axillary hyperhidrosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Cutaneous Medicine & Surgery is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Cutaneous metastases are an uncommon phenomenon that occurs in a few patients with metastatic disease. Early recognition of a cutaneous metastasis is important as it may be the presenting sign of an underlying malignancy. These metastases usually indicate advanced disease and carry a poor prognosis. Objectives: We present two cases with cutaneous metastasis from primary non-small cell lung cancer. We seek to familiarize dermatologists with the unusual presentations of cutaneous metastases. Conclusion: In our two cases, the diagnosis of the metastatic cutaneous lesion ultimately led to the correct diagnosis of an underlying malignancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the study on the long-term efficacy and the quality of life assessment for the treatment of axillary hyperhidrosis with microwave device. It states that the study was conducted on 31 adult patients with axillary hyperhidrosis. It mentions that the overall efficacy measure was the percentage of subjects who reduced Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Scale (HDSS).

Abstract Introduction Efficacy of upadacitinib has been assessed in trials including Measure Up 1 (NCT03569293), Measure Up 2 (NCT03607422), and Heads Up (NCT03738397). Measure Up 1 and 2 assessed efficacy of upadacitinib 30 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg against placebo, while Heads Up assessed efficacy of upadacitinib 30 mg in a head-to-head trial against dupilumab 300 mg. A head-to-head trial of upadacitinib 15 mg against dupilumab 300 mg has not been conducted. Network meta-analysis has shown that upadacitinib 30 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg are among the most efficacious targeted systemic therapies, but prior indirect comparisons have not evaluated more stringent outcomes. Methods A population-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted using post hoc individual patient data from Measure Up 1 and 2 and Heads Up to estimate how upadacitinib 15 mg would have performed if included in Heads Up by adjusting for patient-level covariates. Absolute response rates at weeks 4, 16, and 24 were estimated for the following outcomes: no/minimal itch [Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (WP-NRS) score of 0/1], Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of ≤ 3 (EASI ≤ 3), 100% improvement in EASI (EASI 100), both ≥ 90% improvement in EASI (EASI 90) and WP-NRS 0/1, both EASI ≤ 3 and WP-NRS 0/1, and both EASI 100 and WP-NRS 0/1. The analysis was conducted on adult patients, aligned with the intention-to treat population for the clinical trials, and used non-responder imputation. Results Across all outcomes assessed, the estimated absolute response rates were greatest for upadacitinib 30 mg, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg and then dupilumab. This pattern was observed at week 4, week 16, and week 24. Conclusions For adults with moderate-to-severe AD, upadacitinib 30 mg appears to be the most efficacious treatment in attaining more stringent and composite outcomes across multiple timepoints, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg and then dupilumab 300 mg.

Abstract Introduction Atopic dermatitis (AD) affects multiple areas of the body, some of which may be more refractory to treatment. We evaluated improvements in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) by body region and clinical signs for each body region in lebrikizumab-treated patients with moderate-to-severe AD. Methods ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2 compared lebrikizumab 250 mg as monotherapy every 2 weeks versus placebo for 16 weeks. Efficacy measures included EASI, which rates the extent and severity of four clinical signs (erythema, edema/papulation, excoriation, lichenification) in four body regions (head/neck, upper extremities, trunk, lower extremities). Analyses are post hoc. Results Mean baseline EASI, body region EASI subscores, and the severity of clinical signs were consistent across both studies (EASI ranging from 16.0 to 72.0). At week 16 in both studies, patients treated with lebrikizumab showed significantly greater percent improvement in EASI across all body regions versus placebo (p ≤ 0.001), with improvements as early as week 2. In ADvocate 1, all clinical signs significantly improved across all body regions at week 16 with lebrikizumab (51.4–71.6% improvement) versus placebo (23.1–43.5%, p ≤ 0.001), with significant improvements as early as week 2 for all signs. Significant improvements for all clinical signs at week 16 were also seen in ADvocate 2 for lebrikizumab (53.5–75.6%) versus placebo (28.5–41.2%, p ≤ 0.001) and as early as week 2 for all body regions and signs except head/neck erythema and lower extremity erythema, edema/papulation, and lichenification, which showed significant improvement by week 4. Conclusions Lebrikizumab as monotherapy consistently and rapidly reduced the extent of involvement and severity of AD in all EASI clinical signs and body regions, including the head and neck region and clinical sign of lichenification, compared with placebo. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ADvocate 1 (NCT04146363) and ADvocate 2 (NCT04178967).

AbstractBackground Lebrikizumab, a high-affinity monoclonal antibody targeting IL-13, previously demonstrated clinical efficacy in three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 trials that included adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD): ADvocate1, ADvocate2, and ADhere.Aim This subset analysis evaluated 16-week physician- and patient-reported outcomes of lebrikizumab in the adolescent patients enrolled in these three trials.Methods Eligible adolescents (≥12 to

Abstract Introduction When assessing the effect of a therapy for psoriasis (PsO), it is important to consider speed of response and cumulative response. However, responses among biologics may differ by body regions. This post hoc analysis compares speed of response and cumulative response for ixekizumab (IXE), an interleukin-17A antagonist, and guselkumab (GUS), an interleukin-23p19 inhibitor, in different body regions of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque PsO participating in the IXORA-R study, up to week 24. Methods The IXORA-R design has been previously described. Patients received the respective on-label dosing of IXE or GUS. The median time to first Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 50, 75, 90, and 100 response (50%, 75%, 90%, and 100% improvement from baseline, respectively) and the cumulative days with clear skin for PASI 50, 75, 90, and 100 responses were assessed in four body regions: head, trunk, upper extremities, and lower extremities. Results A total of 1027 patients were enrolled and received IXE (N = 520) or GUS (N = 507). Median time to first PASI 50, 75, 90, and 100 response was shortest in the head region, followed by the remaining body regions in both IXE and GUS cohorts. In each body region, IXE was significantly faster than GUS (p

Abstract Introduction The treatment landscape for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) continues to expand. This network meta-analysis (NMA) updates a previously conducted NMA to include data from the most recent phase 3 trials to assess the comparative efficacy of targeted systemic therapies without the addition of topical corticosteroids (TCS) and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. Methods Data from recent phase 3 monotherapy trials of lebrikizumab, ADvocate1 (NCT04146363) and ADvocate2 (NCT04178967), were included in the analyses, along with other eligible phase 3/4 randomized placebo-controlled trials for abrocitinib, baricitinib, dupilumab, tralokinumab, and upadacitinib identified through a systemic literature review in Silverberg et al. (Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) 12(5):1181–1196, 2022). The proportion of patients achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) improvement ≥ 90% from baseline (EASI-90), EASI improvement ≥ 75% from baseline (EASI-75), ≥ 4-point improvement on Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from baseline (ΔNRS ≥ 4), and Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) and reduction of ≥ 2 points from baseline (IGA 0/1) were evaluated using a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Results The updated NMA analyzed 13 unique placebo-controlled trials involving 7105 patients in 32 arms across 6 targeted therapies. Upadacitinib 30 mg was the most efficacious therapy across all endpoints at the primary timepoint (week 12 or 16) and at earlier timepoints, generally followed by abrocitinib 200 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, dupilumab 300 mg, and lebrikizumab 250 mg or abrocitinib 100 mg. Baricitinib 2 mg and tralokinumab were generally ranked lower across outcomes. Conclusions Many factors need to be considered for treatment selection for AD, especially as new treatments continue to emerge. After incorporating recent placebo-controlled phase 3 data of lebrikizumab, upadacitinib 30 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, and abrocitinib 200 mg remain the most efficacious targeted systemic therapies over 12–16 weeks of therapy in AD. These updated findings can help healthcare providers when creating a patient’s personalized treatment plan.

Background: Tapinarof cream is a topical aryl hydrocarbon receptor-modulating agent under investigation for the treatment of psoriasis. Tapinarof modulates the expression of interleukin-17 and the skin-barrier proteins filaggrin and loricrin.Methods: We conducted two identical phase 3 randomized trials of tapinarof in patients with mild-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Adults with a baseline Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) score of 2 (mild) to 4 (severe) (on a scale from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe psoriasis) and a percent of total body-surface area affected of 3 to 20% were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to use tapinarof 1% cream or vehicle cream once daily for 12 weeks. The primary end point, PGA response, was a PGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) and a decrease from baseline of at least 2 points at week 12. Secondary efficacy end points at week 12 were a reduction of at least 75% in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score, a PGA score of 0 or 1, the mean change from baseline in the percent of body-surface area affected, and a reduction of at least 90% in the PASI score. Patient-reported outcomes were the mean changes from baseline to week 12 in the proportion of patients who had a decrease of at least 4 points in the Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score (range, 0 [no itch] to 10 [worst imaginable itch]), the PP-NRS total score, the Dermatology Life Quality Index total score, and the Psoriasis Symptom Diary score.Results: In trials 1 and 2, a total of 692 and 674 patients, respectively, were screened, with 510 and 515 patients being enrolled. A PGA response occurred in 35.4% of the patients in the tapinarof group and in 6.0% of those in the vehicle group in trial 1 and in 40.2% and 6.3%, respectively, in trial 2 (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Results for secondary end points and patient-reported outcomes were generally in the same direction as those for the primary end point. Adverse events with tapinarof cream included folliculitis, nasopharyngitis, contact dermatitis, headache, upper respiratory tract infection, and pruritus.Conclusions: Tapinarof 1% cream once daily was superior to vehicle control in reducing the severity of plaque psoriasis over a period of 12 weeks but was associated with local adverse events and headache. Larger and longer trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tapinarof cream as compared with existing treatments for psoriasis. (Funded by Dermavant Sciences; PSOARING 1 and 2 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT03956355 and NCT03983980, respectively.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Atopic dermatitis is a chronic, relapsing and remitting disease that can be difficult to treat despite a recently approved biologic therapy targeting IL-4/IL-13 receptor. Oral janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) represent a novel therapeutic class of targeted therapy to treat moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).Objective: To review the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetic characteristics of oral JAKi in the treatment of AD.Methods: A PRISMA systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE (Ovid), and PubMed databases for studies assessing the efficacy, safety, and/or pharmacokinetic properties of oral forms of JAKi in the treatment of AD in pediatric or adult populations from inception to June 2021.Results: 496 papers were reviewed. Of 28 articles that underwent full text screening, 11 met our inclusion criteria for final qualitative review. Four studies examined abrocitinib; three studies examined baricitinib; three examined upadacitinib and one examined gusacitinib (ASN002). Significant clinical efficacy and a reassuring safety profile was reported for all JAKi agents reviewed. Rapid symptom control was reported for abrocitinib, baricitinib and upadacitinib.Limitations: Given the relatively limited evidence for each JAKi and the differences in patient eligibility criteria between studies, the data was not deemed suitable for a meta-analysis at this time.Conclusion: Given their ability to achieve rapid symptom control with a reassuring safety profile, we recommend considering the use of JAKi as a reliable systemic treatment option for adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD, who are unresponsive to topical or skin directed treatments.

Oral Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), a class of advanced targeted systemic therapy, have demonstrated efficacy and safety in the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Like other small molecules, oral JAKi have the potential for off-target effects including laboratory-related adverse events (AEs). Product labels for oral JAKi recommend an initial laboratory assessment and follow-up 4-12 weeks later to monitor for potential changes, based on evidence from clinical trials across therapeutic indications for oral JAKi, which may not reflect a population of moderate-to-severe AD patients typically seen in routine clinical practice. To address this gap, a panel of eight dermatologists with clinical and research experience with oral JAKi for the management of AD conducted a targeted review of the literature focused on key laboratory-related AEs associated with oral JAKi in the moderate-to-severe AD population. Based on the synthesis of evidence and informed opinion, a set of best practice statements related to fundamental standards of care and consensus recommendations on laboratory monitoring were suggested, and level of agreement was ascertained using a Likert scale from 0 to 100. There was a high level of agreement on three of the four suggested recommendations related to assessment and monitoring of key laboratory parameters and to dose reduction or switching in response to laboratory changes; there was a lower level of agreement related to the frequency of ongoing laboratory monitoring. Appropriate patient selection and laboratory assessment is an important strategy to mitigate the potential risks associated with oral JAKi when treating AD., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Dr Yeung has been an advisor, consultant, speaker, or investigator for AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Arcutis, Astellas, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Centocor, Coherus, Dermavant, Dermira, Forward, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Medimmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, Takeda, UCB, Valeant (Bausch Health), and Xenon. Dr Gooderham has been an investigator, speaker, or advisor for AbbVie, Amgen, Akros, Arcutis, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermira, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB. Dr Hong has been an investigator or has received honoraria for advisory board, speaker, and consultant services from AbbVie, Amgen, Bausch Health, Celgene, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron/Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB; and has received research grants for investigator services from AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, Arcutis, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Cutanea, Dermira, Dermavant, DS Biopharma, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Medimmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron/Sanofi, Roche, and UCB. Dr Lynde has been a speaker or consultant and principal investigator for AbbVie, Altius, Amgen, Aralez, Arcutis, Bausch Health, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Cipher, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Fresnius Kabi, GlaxoSmithKline, Innovaderm, Intega Skin, Janssen, Kyowa, La Roche Posay, LEO Pharma, L'Oreal, Medexus, Merck, Procter & Gamble, Pediapharm, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Sentrex, TEVA, Tribute, UCB, Valeant, Viatris, and Volo Health. Dr Prajapati served as an investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Arena, Asana, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Concert, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Nimbus Lakshmi, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Reistone, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, and Valeant; and as a consultant, advisor, or speaker for AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, Aralez, Arcutis, Aspen, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Cipher, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Homeocan, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, L'Oreal, Medexus, Novartis, Pediapharm, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, Tribute, UCB, and Valeant. Dr Lansang is or has been an investigator, consultant, speaker, or advisor for AbbVie, Amgen, Bausch, Bristol-Myers, Celgene, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB. Dr Turchin served as consultant, speaker, or investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Aristea, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Kiniksa, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB. Dr Wiseman received honoraria for presentations from AbbVie, Bausch Health, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB; and for participation to advisory boards from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, LEO Pharma, L'Oreal, Lyceum, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB. Dr Jack received grants, contracts, consulting fees, payment or honoraria, or participated on data safety monitoring or advisory board from AbbVie, Amgen, AntibioTx, Arcutis, Asana, Bausch, Boston, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Canadian Dermatology Foundation, Cara, Celgene, Concert, Dermavant, Eczema Society of Canada, Eli Lilly, Innovaderm Research, Incyte, Janssen, Kiniksa, LEO Pharma, McGill University Department of Medicine, MITACS, Neokera, Novartis, Pfizer, Ralexar, Sanofi, Sienna, Target PharmaSolutions, Valeant, and UCB. Dr Ramien has consulted for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and has a registered study with Sanofi. Dr Purdy received payment, honoraria, or participated in advisory boards from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Bausch, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, and UCB; and occupied leadership or fiduciary roles in CDA executive and the Eczema Society. Dr Grewal is or has been an investigator, consultant, speaker, advisor for or received research funding or honoraria from AbbVie, Aralez, Amgen, Arcutis, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Cipher, Dermira, Dermtek, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, LEO Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Tribute Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, and Vitae.

With the increasing number of options for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, clinicians need guidance on a practical approach to selecting a systemic agent for specific patient populations. We convened an expert panel consisting of 12 members to conduct a literature review and summarize relevant data related to six scenarios of clinical interest: comorbid asthma, ocular surface disease, history of cancer, past and ongoing infections of interest (including herpes simplex virus, herpes zoster, hepatitis B, and tuberculosis), pregnancy and lactation, and the elderly. We performed a literature search and examined each clinical scenario with respect to three major categories of available systemic agents: traditional systemics (azathioprine, cyclosporine A, methotrexate, and mycophenolate mofetil), Janus kinase inhibitors (abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib), and biologics (dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab). The expert panel and steering committee met virtually to review the data and discuss the drafted consensus statements. A modified Delphi process was used to arrive at a set of final consensus statements related to the systemic treatment of AD in these specific patient populations. To provide practical guidance on the choice of systemic therapy for atopic dermatitis in these six topics of clinical interest, 25 expert consensus statements and a summary of the supporting data are presented herein., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: Patients with treated solid tumours (TSTs) are a highly heterogeneous population at an increased risk for malignancy compared with the general population. When treating psoriasis in patients with a history of TSTs, clinicians are concerned about the immunosuppressive nature of psoriasis therapies, the possibility of augmenting cancer recurrence/progression, and infectious complications. No direct, high-level evidence exists to address these concerns., Objectives: We aim to provide a structured framework supporting healthcare professional and patient discussions on the risks and benefits of systemic psoriasis therapy in patients with previously TSTs. Our goal was to address the clinically important question, "In patients with TSTs, does therapy with systemic agents used for psoriasis increase the risk of malignancy or malignancy recurrence?", Methods: We implemented an inference-based approach relying on indirect evidence when direct clinical trial and real-world data were absent. We reviewed indirect evidence supporting inferences on the status of immune function in patients with TSTs. Recommendations on systemic psoriasis therapies in patients with TSTs were derived using an inferential heuristic., Results: We identified five indirect indicators of iatrogenic immunosuppression informed by largely independent bodies of evidence: (1) overall survival, (2) rate of malignancies with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (3) rate of infections with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (4) common disease biochemical pathways for solid tumours and systemic psoriasis therapies, and (5) solid organ transplant outcomes. On the basis of review of the totality of this data, we provided inference-based conclusions and ascribed level of support for each statement., Conclusions: Prior to considering new therapies for psoriasis, an understanding of cancer prognosis should be addressed. Patients with TSTs and a good cancer prognosis will have similar outcomes to non-TST patients when treated with systemic psoriasis therapies. For patients with TSTs and a poor cancer prognosis, the quality-of-life benefits of treating psoriasis may outweigh the theoretical risks., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Cytokines in the interleukin (IL)-23/IL-17 axis are central to psoriasis pathogenesis. Janus kinase (JAK) signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) regulates intracellular signalling of several cytokines (including IL-12, 23, 22, 6, 17, and interferon (IFN)-γ) in the IL-23/IL-17 axis, and, as a result, has become a therapeutic target for psoriasis treatment. Although several JAK1-3 inhibitors, with varying degrees of selectivity, have been developed for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, use in psoriasis is limited by a low therapeutic index as anticipated by signals from other disease indications. More selective inhibition of the JAK family is an area of interest. Specifically, selective tyrosine kinase (TYK)2 inhibition suppresses IL-23/IL-17 axis signalling, and at therapeutic doses, has a favorable safety profile compared to therapeutic doses of JAK1-3 inhibitors. Phase III efficacy and safety data for the selective allosteric TYK2-inhibitor, deucravacitinib, in adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis is promising. Furthermore, phase II clinical trials for ropsacitinib (PF-06826647), a selective TYK2 inhibitor, and brepocitinib (PF-06700841), a JAK1/TYK2 inhibitor, have also demonstrated efficacy and an acceptable safety profile in adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Other novel TYK2 allosteric inhibitors, NDI-034858 and ESK-001, are currently being investigated in adult patients with plaque psoriasis. This article reviews the details of the JAK-STAT pathway in psoriasis pathophysiology, the rationale for selective targeting of JAKs in the treatment of psoriasis, and provides clinical perspective on clinical trial data for JAK and TYK2 inhibitors.

Treat-to-target (T2T) recommendations for the use of systemic therapies (including biologics) in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis have been published by a few groups of experts worldwide. However, there remains considerable variability in the choice of target severity measure and timing of milestones. To develop consensus recommendations for implementing T2T strategies for the management of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis using biologics. An expert group of Canadian dermatologists (the Committee) convened to develop a T2T consensus statement. They held a virtual meeting during which a preliminary set of criteria was created. These criteria were then reviewed, modified, and recirculated until unanimous agreement was achieved. The Committee agreed that defining treatment target is multidimensional and should reflect objective severity measures, as well as clinician and patient-reported outcomes. The Committee unanimously proposes a criterion-based system for determining the achievement of treatment target. The proposed T2T approach presented here provides a clinical framework for defining treatment success, measuring progress toward treatment success, recognizing when treatment modifications are warranted, and recommending treatment optimization strategies., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Evidence shows good tolerability in patients for subcutaneous injection volumes up to 3 mL., Objectives: We investigated efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and tolerability of secukinumab 300 mg/2 mL pre-filled syringe (PFS) in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis., Methods: ALLURE was a 52-week, multicenter, randomized (1:1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Co-primary endpoints were secukinumab Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 75 and Investigator's Global Assessment modified 2011 0/1 (IGA mod 2011 0 or 1) responses at week 12 versus placebo. Other endpoints included the Self-Injection Assessment Questionnaire (SIAQ), and the ability to follow the instructions for use (IFU)., Results: Overall, 214 patients were randomized. The secukinumab 300 mg/2 mL PFS showed superiority over placebo for both PASI 75 (88.9% versus 1.7%; p <.0001) and IGA mod 2011 0 or 1 (76.4% versus 1.4%; p <.0001) responses at week 12. All secondary efficacy endpoints were met. The SIAQ scores were similar across groups and improved similarly over 12 weeks. All patients completed critical steps in the IFU at week 1., Conclusions: The secukinumab 300 mg/2 mL PFS groups showed superiority versus placebo, and it was a safe, effective, and convenient option for patients with psoriasis. NCT02748863.

Background: People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) have a similar prevalence of psoriasis as the general population, though incidence and severity correlate with HIV viral load. Adequately treating HIV early renders the infection a chronic medical condition and allows PLHIV with a suppressed viral load (PLHIV-s) to live normal lives. Despite this, safety concerns and a lack of high-level data have hindered the use of systemic psoriasis therapies in PLHIV-s., Objectives: We aim to provide a structured framework that supports healthcare professionals and patients discussing the risks and benefits of systemic psoriasis therapy in PLHIV-s. Our goal was to address the primary question, are responses to systemic therapies for the treatment of psoriasis in PLHIV-s similar to those in the non-HIV population?, Methods: We implemented an inference-based approach relying on indirect evidence when direct clinical trial data were absent. In this instance, we reviewed indirect evidence supporting inferences on the status of immune function in PLHIV. Recommendations on systemic treatment for psoriasis in PLHIV were derived using an inferential heuristic., Results: We identified seven indirect indicators of immune function informed by largely independent bodies of evidence: (1) functional assays, (2) vaccine response, (3) life expectancy, (4) psoriasis manifestations, (5) rate of infections, (6) rate of malignancies, and (7) organ transplant outcomes., Conclusions: Drug-related benefits and risks when treating a patient with systemic psoriasis therapies are similar for non-HIV patients and PLHIV with a suppressed viral load and normalized CD4 counts. Prior to initiating psoriasis treatment in PLHIV, HIV replication should be addressed by an HIV specialist. Exercise additional caution for patients with a suppressed viral load and discordant CD4 responses on antiretroviral therapy., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Importance: Primary results from the Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 studies demonstrated upadacitinib efficacy and safety through 16 weeks in patients with atopic dermatitis. Longer-term outcomes remain unknown., Objective: To evaluate long-term (52 weeks) efficacy and safety of upadacitinib treatment in patients with atopic dermatitis., Design, Setting, and Participants: Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 are ongoing double-blind, placebo-controlled, replicate phase 3 randomized clinical trials that include adults and adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis at 151 and 154 centers, respectively. Cutoffs for this analysis were December 21, 2020 (Measure Up 1), and January 15, 2021 (Measure Up 2)., Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive once-daily oral upadacitinib 15 mg, 30 mg, or placebo. At week 16, patients randomized at baseline to receive upadacitinib 15 mg (273 and 260 patients in Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2, respectively) and 30 mg (270 and 268 patients) continued assigned treatment; placebo-treated patients were rerandomized 1:1 to receive upadacitinib 15 mg (121 and 120 patients in Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2, respectively) or 30 mg (123 and 121 patients) in a double-blinded manner., Main Outcomes and Measures: Safety and efficacy, including 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index and Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) with 2 or greater grades of improvement, were assessed., Results: Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 included a total of 1609 patients (mean [SD] age, 33.8 [15.6] years; 727 women [45.2%]; 882 men [54.8%]). Efficacy at week 16 was maintained through week 52. At week 52, 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index was achieved by 82.0% (95% CI, 77.0%-86.9%) and 79.1% (95% CI, 73.9%-84.4%) of patients continuing the 15-mg dose and 84.9% (95% CI, 80.3%-89.5%) and 84.3% (95% CI, 79.6%-89.0%) of patients continuing the 30-mg dose (for Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2, respectively); Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) with 2 or greater grades of improvement was achieved by 59.2% (95% CI, 52.9%-65.5%) and 52.6% (95% CI, 46.2%-59.1%) and 62.5% (95% CI, 56.3%-68.7%) and 65.1% (95% CI, 58.9%-71.2%) of patients in the Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 studies, respectively. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was low overall but was slightly higher for the upadacitinib 30-mg dose. Both upadacitinib doses were well tolerated with no new safety signals., Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis of follow-up data from 2 randomized clinical trials, longer-term treatment of adolescents and adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis with upadacitinib demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile, with sustained efficacy responses through 52 weeks., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03569293 (Measure Up 1) and NCT03607422 (Measure Up 2).

Introduction: Psoriasis (Pso) is a common, immune-mediated, chronic-relapsing, inflammatory skin disease. While a great deal is known about Pso and its treatment, there remain several treatment scenarios unaddressed by clinical studies. To be effective, treatment for Pso must alter the activity of one or more immunological pathways important in the pathogenesis of the disease. While the benefit of blocking these pathways may be apparent, there remain uncertainties regarding safety, such as infections, malignancies, and the potential for off-target effects. Existing guidelines and treatment recommendations rely primarily on clinical trial or observational data, none of which adequately address specific clinical challenges. This document describes a methodological framework for generating practical and clinically relevant guidance for situations where direct evidence is rare or absent. Guidelines implementing this framework are currently ongoing., Methods: We develop a knowledge synthesis approach to guideline development, utilizing clinical trial data where available, and a formalized inferential decision-making process that considers indirect data coupled with structured expert opinion and analysis. This approach is best suited for situations where direct, high-level evidence is lacking. Support for each resultant recommendation is expressed as a quantified assessment of confidence., Results: The topics to be addressed by this set of guidelines are ranked by clinicians and patients as areas of concern, with an emphasis on topics where high-level evidence may have limited availability., Conclusion: Through this novel approach, we will derive practical, informative recommendations using the best evidence available in combination with structured expert opinion to guide best practices in complex, real-world settings. Supplementary file2 (MP4 98653 kb)., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Dupilumab is approved to treat moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in several countries in patients as young as 6 years of age. Since its approval, practical issues related to the use of dupilumab for AD have arisen, with particular interest in transitioning from current therapies and managing medication overlap, considerations for special populations of patients with AD, and management of potential adverse events., Methods: This article aims to review the literature addressing several practical management issues related to dupilumab use for AD and to provide a framework for clinical decision-making in these circumstances and sub-populations. Each statement was reviewed, revised and voted on by authors to provide their level of agreement and degree of uncertainty for each statement., Results: An agreement level > 80% was achieved for all of the statements., Conclusion: The expert panel provides statements considering the practical management of patients with AD taking dupilumab to inform clinical decision-making in specific but frequently encountered clinical situations., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Upadacitinib is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor with greater inhibitory potency for JAK1 than JAK2, JAK3, and tyrosine kinase 2. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib compared with placebo for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis., Methods: Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 were replicate multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials; Measure Up 1 was done at 151 clinical centres in 24 countries across Europe, North and South America, Oceania, and the Asia-Pacific region; and Measure Up 2 was done at 154 clinical centres in 23 countries across Europe, North America, Oceania, and the Asia-Pacific region. Eligible patients were adolescents (aged 12-17 years) and adults (aged 18-75 years) with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (≥10% of body surface area affected by atopic dermatitis, Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI] score of ≥16, validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis [vIGA-AD] score of ≥3, and Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score of ≥4). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using an interactive response technology system to receive upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo once daily for 16 weeks, stratified by baseline disease severity, geographical region, and age. Coprimary endpoints were the proportion of patients who had achieved at least a 75% improvement in EASI score from baseline (EASI-75) and the proportion of patients who had achieved a vIGA-AD response (defined as a vIGA-AD score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear] with ≥2 grades of reduction from baseline) at week 16. Efficacy was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03569293 (Measure Up 1) and NCT03607422 (Measure Up 2), and are both active but not recruiting., Findings: Between Aug 13, 2018, and Dec 23, 2019, 847 patients were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 15 mg (n=281), upadacitinib 30 mg (n=285), or placebo (n=281) in the Measure Up 1 study. Between July 27, 2018, and Jan 17, 2020, 836 patients were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 15 mg (n=276), upadacitinib 30 mg (n=282), or placebo (n=278) in the Measure Up 2 study. At week 16, the coprimary endpoints were met in both studies (all p<0·0001). The proportion of patients who had achieved EASI-75 at week 16 was significantly higher in the upadacitinib 15 mg (196 [70%] of 281 patients) and upadacitinib 30 mg (227 [80%] of 285 patients) groups than the placebo group (46 [16%] of 281 patients) in Measure Up 1 (adjusted difference in EASI-75 response rate vs placebo, 53·3% [95% CI 46·4-60·2] for the upadacitinib 15 mg group; 63·4% [57·1-69·8] for the upadacitinib 30 mg group) and Measure Up 2 (166 [60%] of 276 patients in the upadacitinib 15 mg group and 206 [73%] of 282 patients in the upadacitinib 30 mg group vs 37 [13%] of 278 patients in the placebo group; adjusted difference in EASI-75 response rate vs placebo, 46·9% [39·9-53·9] for the upadacitinib 15 mg group; 59·6% [53·1-66·2] for the upadacitinib 30 mg group). The proportion of patients who achieved a vIGA-AD response at week 16 was significantly higher in the upadacitinib 15 mg (135 [48%] patients) and upadacitinib 30 mg (177 [62%] patients) groups than the placebo group (24 [8%] patients) in Measure Up 1 (adjusted difference in vIGA-AD response rate vs placebo, 39·8% [33·2-46·4] for the upadacitinib 15 mg group; 53·6% [47·2-60·0] for the upadacitinib 30 mg group) and Measure Up 2 (107 [39%] patients in the upadacitinib 15 mg group and 147 [52%] patients in the upadacitinib 30 mg group vs 13 [5%] patients in the placebo group; adjusted difference in vIGA-AD response rate vs placebo, 34·0% [27·8-40·2] for the upadacitinib 15 mg group; 47·4% [41·0-53·7] for the upadacitinib 30 mg group). Both upadacitinib doses were well tolerated. The incidence of serious adverse events and adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation were similar among groups. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events were acne (19 [7%] of 281 patients in the upadacitinib 15 mg group, 49 [17%] of 285 patients in the upadacitinib 30 mg group, and six [2%] of 281 patients in the placebo group in Measure Up 1; 35 [13%] of 276 patients in the upadacitinib 15 mg group, 41 [15%] of 282 patients in the upadacitinib 30 mg group, and six [2%] of 278 patients in the placebo group in Measure Up 2), upper respiratory tract infection (25 [9%] patients, 38 [13%] patients, and 20 [7%] patients; 19 [7%] patients, 17 [16%] patients, and 12 [4%] patients), nasopharyngitis (22 [8%] patients, 33 [12%] patients, and 16 [6%] patients; 16 [6%] patients, 18 [6%] patients, and 13 [5%] patients), headache (14 [5%] patients, 19 [7%] patients, and 12 [4%] patients; 18 [7%] patients, 20 [7%] patients, and 11 [4%] patients), elevation in creatine phosphokinase levels (16 [6%] patients, 16 [6%] patients, and seven [3%] patients; nine [3%] patients, 12 [4%] patients, and five [2%] patients), and atopic dermatitis (nine [3%] patients, four [1%] patients, and 26 [9%] patients; eight [3%] patients, four [1%] patients, and 26 [9%] patients)., Interpretation: Monotherapy with upadacitinib might be an effective treatment option and had a positive benefit-risk profile in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis., Funding: AbbVie., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EG-Y is employed by Mount Sinai and is a researcher or consultant for AbbVie, Anacor, AnaptysBio, Asana Biosciences, Botanix, Celgene, DBV, Dermira, Dr Reddy's Laboratory (Promius), DS Biopharma, Escalier Biosciences, Galderma, Glenmark, Innovaderm, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Novan, Novartis, Pfizer, Ralexar, Regeneron, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, UCB, and Vitae Pharmaceuticals. HDT, ALP, BC, YG, XH, ML, YY, JL, ART, and ADC are full-time employees of AbbVie, and might hold AbbVie stock or stock options. ELS reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Lilly; grants and personal fees from Anacor, Bausch Health (Valeant), GlaxoSmithKline, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme; personal fees from AbbVie, Celgene, Dermira, Galderma, Genentech, LEO Pharma, and Menlo Therapeutics; and grants from MedImmune, Novartis, Roivant, Tioga Pharmaceuticals, and Vanda. KAP is an adviser, speaker, consultant, and steering committee member or researcher for AbbVie, Akros, Allergan, Amgen, Anacor, Arcutis, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bausch Health (Valeant), Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Can-Fite, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, Dow, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, InflaRx, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, MedImmune, Meiji Seika Pharma, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Moberg Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, and UCB. AB has served as a scientific adviser or clinical study investigator for AbbVie, Almirall, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Forté Pharma, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB; and is a paid speaker for AbbVie. DT is an advisor, speaker, or consultant for AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Asana Biosciences, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, DS Biopharma, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB; and is also involved in research for AbbVie, Celgene, LEO Pharma, and Novartis. C-YC is an investigator for AbbVie, Dermira, Lilly, Novartis, Oneness Biotech, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, and Sanofi; a consultant for AbbVie, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; a speaker for AbbVie, Lilly, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; and an advisory board member for Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. HCH is a researcher, consultant, or advisor for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Dermira, Dermavant, DS Biopharma, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB. NK has received honoraria as a speaker or consultant for AbbVie, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Maruho, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Sanofi, and Taiho Pharmaceutical, and has received grants as an investigator from AbbVie, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Maruho, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. ASP has served as an investigator for AbbVie, Anaptysbio, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Lenus, Novartis, Regeneron, and UCB, and received honorarium for consultancy from AbbVie, Abeona, Almirall, Asana Biosciences, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bridgebio, Dermavant, Dermira, Exicure, Forte Pharma, Galderma, Incyte, InMed, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, LifeMax, Novartis, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sol-Gel, and UCB. ADI has received honorarium for consultancy from AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAI, Chugai, Dermavant, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: An estimated 2-4% of Western populations are thought to have psoriasis, with a regional incidence ranging from 0.09% to 11.43%. Variance in estimates is a result of differences in study populations, methodology, regional differences, and definitions of disease. Reliable prevalence estimates of plaque psoriasis are challenging to establish. Further, the distribution of psoriasis severity in the population is unknown. This study aims to establish the utility of expert elicitation (EE) as a method for estimating unknown parameters in dermatology by (1) estimating the prevalence of psoriasis in the adult population, and (2) estimating previously unknown disease severity distribution., Methods: An expert panel of 11 Canadian dermatologists with demonstrated expertise in psoriasis was formed. A proof-of-concept EE exercise estimated psoriasis prevalence in the general population in Canada, followed by estimation of psoriasis disease severity distribution by body surface area (BSA). Expert estimates were consolidated using Bayesian methods to statistically model the data and represent uncertainty., Results: The median prevalence of psoriasis in the adult population using the Bayesian estimate was 3.0% (95% credibility interval, 2.7-3.3%), compared with the estimated mean prevalence of 3.4% (95% confidence interval, 2.2-4.9%). By EE, the estimated cumulative distribution of disease severity assessed by BSA suggests that approximately 50% of patients have a BSA of < 3% and 78% of patients have a BSA of < 10%, with only 2% having a BSA of > 50%., Conclusion: The EE approach resulted in prevalence estimates that had a narrow distribution and were consistent with published literature, supporting its value in dermatology as a complementary method to help guide decision-making in areas where evidence is scarce or uncertain.