Search

Not much is known about the burden of generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP).

Not much is known about the burden of palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP).

IMPORTANCE: Atopic dermatitis onset usually occurs in childhood. Persistence of disease into adolescence and adulthood is common. It is important to evaluate new treatment options in adolescents because of the high unmet need in this population. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib to treat moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in adolescents. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prespecified analysis of adolescents enrolled in 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 clinical trials in more than 20 countries across Europe, North and South America, Oceania, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region from July 2018 through December 2020. Participants were adolescents aged 12 to 17 years with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Data analysis was performed from April to August 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to once-daily oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo alone (Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2) or with topical corticosteroids (AD Up). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Safety and efficacy, including at least a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index from baseline and validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at week 16 (coprimary end points). RESULTS: A total of 552 adolescents (290 female; 262 male) were randomized. Mean (SD) age was 15.4 (1.8), 15.5 (1.7), and 15.3 (1.8) years for adolescents in Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up, respectively. In Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up, respectively, a greater proportion of adolescents (% [95% CI]) achieved at least 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index at week 16 with upadacitinib 15 mg (73% [63%-84%], 69% [57%-81%], 63% [51%-76%]), and upadacitinib 30 mg (78% [68%-88%], 73% [62%-85%], 84% [75%-94%]), than with placebo (12% [4%-20%], 13% [5%-22%], 30% [19%-42%]; nominal P < .001 for all comparisons vs placebo). Similarly, a greater proportion of adolescents treated with upadacitinib achieved a validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of 0 or 1 at week 16 and improvements in quality of life with upadacitinib than with placebo. Upadacitinib was generally well tolerated in adolescents. Acne was the most common adverse event, and all acne events were mild or moderate. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this analysis of 3 randomized clinical trials, upadacitinib was an effective treatment for adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, with an acceptable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03569293 (Measure Up 1), NCT03607422 (Measure Up 2), and NCT03568318 (AD Up)

IMPORTANCE: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, recurrent, inflammatory skin disease with an unmet need for treatments that provide rapid and high levels of skin clearance and itch improvement. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib vs dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Heads Up was a 24-week, head-to-head, phase 3b, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, double-dummy, active-controlled clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib with dupilumab among 673 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were candidates for systemic therapy. The study was conducted from February 21, 2019, to December 9, 2020, at 129 centers located in 22 countries across Europe, North and South America, Oceania, and the Asia-Pacific region. Efficacy analyses were conducted in the intent-to-treat population. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 and treated with oral upadacitinib, 30 mg once daily, or subcutaneous dupilumab, 300 mg every other week. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was achievement of 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) at week 16. Secondary end points were percentage change from baseline in the Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) (weekly average), proportion of patients achieving EASI100 and EASI90 at week 16, percentage change from baseline in Worst Pruritus NRS at week 4, proportion of patients achieving EASI75 at week 2, percentage change from baseline in Worst Pruritus NRS (weekly average) at week 1, and Worst Pruritus NRS (weekly average) improvement of 4 points or more at week 16. End points at week 24 included EASI75, EASI90, EASI100, and improvement of 4 points or more in Worst Pruritus NRS from baseline (weekly average). Safety was assessed as treatment-emergent adverse events in all patients receiving 1 or more dose of either drug. RESULTS: Of 924 patients screened, 342 (183 men [53.5%]; mean [SD] age, 36.2 [14.4] years) were randomized to receive upadacitinib and 331 were randomized to receive dupilumab (192 men [58.0%]; mean [SD] age, 36.3 [13.8] years); demographic and disease characteristics were balanced among treatment groups. At week 16, 248 patients receiving upadacitinib (72.4%) and 207 patients receiving dupilumab (62.6%) achieved EASI75 (P = .007). All ranked secondary end points also demonstrated the superiority of upadacitinib vs dupilumab, including improvement in Worst Pruritus NRS as early as week 1 (mean [SE], 32.0% [1.8%] vs 8.9% [1.8%]; P < .001), achievement of EASI75 as early as week 2 (152 [44.3%] vs 60 [18.2%]; P < .001), and achievement of EASI100 at week 16 (97 [28.4%] vs 26 [7.9%]; P < .001). Rates of serious infection, eczema herpeticum, herpes zoster, and laboratory-related adverse events were higher for patients who received upadacitinib, whereas rates of conjunctivitis and injection-site reactions were higher for patients who received dupilumab. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: During 16 weeks of treatment, upadacitinib demonstrated superior efficacy vs dupilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe AD, with no new safety signals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03738397

IMPORTANCE: PLCG2-associated antibody deficiency and immune dysregulation (PLAID) is a newly characterized immunodeficiency syndrome associated with distinct cutaneous features. Awareness of the cutaneous skin findings associated with PLAID may facilitate diagnosis and improve patient care. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the cutaneous manifestations of PLAID and identify potential cellular mechanisms of the disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this retrospective analysis of patients with PLAID and PLAID-like disease evaluated at the National Institutes of Health from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2014, patients with deletions in PLCG2 leading to PLAID and patients with PLAID-like disease for whom a PLAID mutation was not identified were studied. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Characterization of cutaneous manifestations of PLAID and PLAID-like disease and analysis of PLAID immune cell activation. RESULTS: Among 36 patients with PLAID and PLAID-like phenotypes, all of whom had evaporative cold urticaria, 8 patients had a history of unique neonatal-onset ulcerative and cutaneous lesions in cold-sensitive regions of the body. Granulomatous skin lesions sparing warm regions (eg, flexural surfaces and skinfolds) were identified in 4 patients. Neutrophils and monocytes from patients with PLAID exhibited enhanced baseline activation in vitro, which was potentiated by ambient temperature exposure. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Collectively, these findings suggest that early identification of neonatal lesions may help in the diagnosis of PLAID and that leukocyte hyperactivation may underlie cutaneous lesions in patients with PLAID. Further characterization of mechanisms underlying leukocyte hyperactivation may contribute to the fundamental understanding of granuloma formation.