Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

Introduction An expert panel of Canadian dermatologists was assembled to develop consensus statements regarding the current landscape of topical therapies for plaque psoriasis and the place in therapy of the recently approved fixed-dose combination halobetasol propionate (HP)/tazarotene (TAZ) lotion (HP/TAZ) in the treatment algorithm for plaque psoriasis. Method A modified nominal group technique, which combined both independent and group input from the expert panel, was used to develop the consensus statements. The expert panel completed surveys to elicit their independent views on the current landscape of topical therapies for plaque psoriasis in Canada. The first expert panel session was held to discuss the existing body of literature and develop draft consensus statements about topical therapies and the place in therapy of HP/TAZ. Independent feedback on the draft consensus statements was solicited from expert panel members prior to another expert panel session where the amended consensus statements were further discussed, edited and, finally, voted on. Results The expert panel reached consensus on 20 statements. Conclusion Expert panel members agreed, based on the existing body of literature, that there is a place in therapy for HP/TAZ to address several current unmet treatment needs of patients with plaque psoriasis. Studies have shown that HP/TAZ is an effective and safe first-line treatment for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Due to its cosmetically pleasing vehicle and once-daily administration, HP/TAZ may improve patient acceptance and treatment adherence.

Cutaneous adenosquamous carcinoma is a rare malignant neoplasm that is more aggressive than conventional squamous cell carcinoma. The typical clinical presentation is an indurated papule or plaque on the head and neck of elderly patients. The authors report the case of a 52-year-old man with a right scrotal and inguinal tumour measuring 10 cm × 15 cm that had progressed over the past 2 years. The histological examination was compatible with adenosquamous carcinoma. Metastatic inguinal and pelvic lymph nodes were identified. This case demonstrates an atypical presentation of a rare tumour. Adenosquamous carcinoma is more aggressive than conventional squamous cell carcinoma, and prompt diagnosis is important.

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. Plain Language Summary People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) develop psoriasis as often as everyone else. We asked: what are effective and safe treatments when PLHIV need systemic therapy (pills or injections) for their psoriasis? HIV infection attacks the immune system. When HIV is not treated, the immune system declines. A less effective immune system makes it harder for the body to fight infections and certain cancers. Psoriasis is a skin condition caused by overactive immune cells. Effective psoriasis treatments reduce immune-cell activity. There are some concerns that treatments for psoriasis may not work and could worsen infections or cancers. To answer the question, we gathered 11 dermatologists and 4 HIV specialists. We reviewed the international scientific literature on PLHIV and psoriasis. The absence of direct evidence and volume of information to review made the process challenging. The end results were worthwhile. We concluded that people who are diagnosed early and take antiretroviral therapy to control their HIV infection (PLHIV-c) can live long, healthy lives. Accordingly, we determined that PLHIV-c can likely expect the same safety and efficacy for systemic psoriasis treatments as the general population. Treatment decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis through consultation with the patient and treating physician(s). Pillars of modern medicine are evidence-based care and collaborative decision-making. Too often, neither care provider nor patient are adequately informed. We have tried to fill one information gap for PLHIV and psoriasis. This process may help answer questions in other disease populations where direct evidence is scarce or absent.

Abrocitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, was effective and well tolerated in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in a phase 2b trial. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of abrocitinib monotherapy in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial (JADE MONO-1), patients (aged ≥12 years) with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (Investigator Global Assessment score ≥3, Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI] score ≥16, percentage of body surface area affected ≥10%, and Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score ≥4) with a bodyweight of 40 kg or more, were enrolled at 69 sites in Australia, Canada, Europe, and the USA. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to oral abrocitinib 100 mg, abrocitinib 200 mg, or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. Randomisation was done using an interactive response technology system, stratified by baseline disease severity and age. Patients, investigators, and the funder of the study were masked to study treatment. The coprimary endpoints were the proportion of patients who had achieved an Investigator Global Assessment response (score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear] with a ≥2-grade improvement from baseline), and the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 75% improvement in EASI score from baseline (EASI-75) score, both assessed at week 12. Efficacy was assessed in the full analysis set, which included all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study medication. Safety was assessed in all randomised patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03349060. Between Dec 7, 2017, and March 26, 2019, 387 patients were enrolled: 156 were assigned to abrocitinib 100 mg, 154 to abrocitinib 200 mg, and 77 to placebo. All enrolled patients received at least one dose of study treatment and thus were evaluable for 12-week efficacy. Of the patients with available data for the coprimary endpoints at week 12, the proportion of patients who had achieved an Investigator Global Assessment response was significantly higher in the abrocitinib 100 mg group than in the placebo group (37 [24%] of 156 patients vs six [8%] of 76 patients; p=0·0037) and in the abrocitinib 200 mg group compared with the placebo group (67 [44%] of 153 patients vs six [8%] of 76 patients; p<0·0001). Of the patients with available data for the coprimary endpoints at week 12, compared with the placebo group, the proportion of patients who had achieved an EASI-75 response was significantly higher in the abrocitinib 100 mg group (62 [40%] of 156 patients vs nine [12%] of 76 patients; p<0·0001) and abrocitinib 200 mg group (96 [63%] of 153 patients vs nine [12%] of 76 patients; p<0·0001). Adverse events were reported in 108 (69%) of 156 patients in the abrocitinib 100 mg group, 120 (78%) of 154 patients in the abrocitinib 200 mg group, and 44 (57%) of 77 patients in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in five (3%) of 156 patients in the abrocitinib 100 mg group, five (3%) of 154 patients in the abrocitinib 200 mg group, and three (4%) of 77 patients in the placebo group. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Monotherapy with oral abrocitinib once daily was effective and well tolerated in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Pfizer.

Background Baricitinib, a selective Janus kinase 1/Janus kinase 2 inhibitor, is indicated in the European Union and Japan for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy. Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of baricitinib 2 mg in the AD clinical program. Methods Six double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies, and two long-term extension studies were summarized in two datasets. Placebo comparison was based on six 16-week studies with baricitinib 2 mg. All-bari-2-mg-AD included patients who received baricitinib 2 mg at any time during the eight studies. Results In total, 1598 patients received once-daily baricitinib 2 mg for 1434.2 patient-years of exposure (median 330 days/maximum 2.4 years). Treatment-emergent adverse events were higher for baricitinib 2 mg (57.9%) vs placebo (51.6%). Serious adverse events, serious infections, and opportunistic infections were low in frequency and similar between baricitinib 2 mg and placebo. There were no malignancies, gastrointestinal perforations, or major adverse cardiovascular events with baricitinib 2 mg in the placebo-controlled period. Herpes simplex (cluster) was higher for baricitinib 2 mg (3.8%) vs placebo (2.8%); rates decreased with extended 2 mg exposure. In All-bari-2-mg-AD, there were five malignancies other than non-melanoma skin cancer, two major adverse cardiovascular events, one peripheral venous thrombosis, one arterial thrombosis, and no pulmonary embolisms, deep vein thromboses, or deaths. Conclusions This integrated analysis in patients with moderate-to-severe AD confirms the established safety profile of baricitinib 2 mg. Longer exposure to treatment is required to evaluate risks of malignancies and major adverse cardiovascular events. Clinical Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02576938 (first posted 15 October, 2015); NCT03334396 (7 November, 2017); NCT03334422 (7 November, 2017); NCT03428100 (9 February, 2018); NCT03435081 (15 February, 2018); NCT03733301 (7 November, 2018); NCT03334435 (7 November, 2017); NCT03559270 (18 June, 2018). Plain Language Summary Baricitinib is a medication that helps an overactive immune system adjust itself, leading to improvements in the inflammatory condition atopic dermatitis. Baricitinib is approved for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in 40 countries. Because it works with the immune system, it is important to understand the safety of baricitinib. Safety information was collected from eight studies and analyzed in two datasets. The first dataset compared the safety of baricitinib 2 mg with placebo in six 16-week studies in which neither patient nor physician knew whether they were taking baricitinib or placebo. The second dataset included an additional two extension studies and examined the safety of baricitinib in all patients receiving at least one dose of baricitinib 2 mg. Patients took baricitinib 2 mg for a maximum of 2.4 years, with a median time of 330 days. In the first dataset, adverse events were higher for baricitinib 2 mg (57.9%) than placebo (51.6%). Serious adverse events, serious infections, and opportunistic infections were low in number and similar for patients taking baricitinib 2 mg or placebo. Herpes simplex infections were more frequent in patients taking baricitinib 2 mg (3.8%) than in those taking placebo (2.8%), but rates in those taking baricitinib 2 mg decreased with a longer treatment duration. There were no occurrences of cancer, gastrointestinal perforations, or major adverse cardiovascular events. In the second dataset, there were five reports of cancer other than non-melanoma skin cancer, two major adverse cardiovascular events, one peripheral venous thrombosis, one arterial thrombosis, and no pulmonary embolisms, deep vein thromboses, or deaths. Longer treatment with baricitinib is required to better understand the risks of developing cancer or major adverse cardiovascular events. This analysis of safety in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis is consistent with the safety reported previously for baricitinib 2 mg. Video abstract 56PeVU-4zU9VPA4YJ-QoEt Extended Safety Analysis of Baricitinib 2 mg in Adult Patients with Atopic Dermatitis: An Integrated Analysis from Eight Randomized Clinical Trials (MP4 87244 kb)

The number of clinical trials conducted in patients with atopic dermatitis is increasing steadily. These trials are conducted in several countries across all continents and include patients of different ethnicity, race and skin color. This diversity is desired, but it also brings challenges, including the diagnosis and evaluation of disease severity in patients with different skin colors; the influence of ethnicity on the perception of quality of life and patient reported outcomes; the inclusion of ethnicities that are only present in one country or that live far from clinical research sites; and the reporting of drug safety information. There is a need to better train physicians on the evaluation of atopic dermatitis in patients with different skin colors and a need to improve the systematic reporting of ethnicity, race and skin color in clinical trial publications.

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. Plain Language Summary Psoriasis is a common skin disease that affects 2–4% of the population. Prevalence estimates vary depending on factors such as study type and population studied. The distribution of disease severity (what proportion of patients have mild, moderate, or severe psoriasis) is not known. In this study, 11 dermatologists with expertise in psoriasis used an approach called expert elicitation to make educated guesses about prevalence and disease severity distribution in the real world. Using a statistical approach called Bayesian estimation, experts can represent the level of certainty in what they know and do not know and make inferences or assumptions about a population. Bayesian estimates are not based on the amount of data; rather, each datum contributes to a statistically meaningful result. The median prevalence of psoriasis in the adult population using the Bayesian estimate was 3.0%, which is in the expected range based on prior literature and supports the use of this expert elicitation method. This study provides the first expert estimate of disease severity distribution in the population assessed by body surface area affected by psoriasis. Approximately 50% of psoriasis patients have mild disease (< 3% body surface area involved) and 78% of patients have mild or moderate disease (< 10% body surface area involved). Only 2% of patients have more than 50% body surface area involved. This expert elicitation approach can be used to help guide decision-making in areas of dermatology where evidence is lacking or uncertain.