Pub Date : 2024-12-01DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.3897
Joel M Gelfand, April W Armstrong, Henry W Lim, Steven R Feldman, Sandra M Johnson, W C Cole Claiborne, Robert E Kalb, Jeannette Jakus, Aaron R Mangold, R Hal Flowers, Tina Bhutani, John R Durkin, Jerry Bagel, Scott Fretzin, Michael P Sheehan, James Krell, Margo Reeder, Jessica Kaffenberger, Francisca Kartono, Junko Takeshita, Alisha M Bridges, Eric Fielding, Umbereen S Nehal, Kenneth L Schaecher, Leah M Howard, Guy S Eakin, Suzette Báez, Brooke E Bishop, Robert C Fitzsimmons, Maryte Papadopoulos, William B Song, Kristin A Linn, Rebecca A Hubbard, Daniel B Shin, Kristina Callis Duffin
<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Office-based phototherapy is cost-effective for psoriasis but difficult to access. Home-based phototherapy is patient preferred but has limited clinical data, particularly in patients with darker skin.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of home- vs office-based narrowband UV-B phototherapy for psoriasis.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>The Light Treatment Effectiveness study was an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial embedded in routine care at 42 academic and private clinical dermatology practices in the US. Enrollment occurred from March 1, 2019, to December 4, 2023, with follow-up through June 2024. Participants were 12 years and older with plaque or guttate psoriasis who were candidates for home- and office-based phototherapy.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Participants were randomized to receive a home narrowband UV-B machine with guided mode dosimetry or routine care with office-based narrowband UV-B for 12 weeks, followed by an additional 12-week observation period.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The coprimary effectiveness outcomes were Physician Global Assessment (PGA) dichotomized as clear/almost clear skin (score of ≤1) at the end of the intervention period and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 5 or lower (no to small effect on quality of life) at week 12.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 783 patients enrolled (mean [SD] age, 48.0 [15.5] years; 376 [48.0%] female), 393 received home-based phototherapy and 390 received office-based phototherapy, with 350 (44.7%) having skin phototype (SPT) I/II, 350 (44.7%) having SPT III/IV, and 83 (10.6%) having SPT V/VI. A total of 93 patients (11.9%) were receiving systemic treatment. At baseline, mean (SD) PGA was 2.7 (0.8) and DLQI was 12.2 (7.2). At week 12, 129 patients (32.8%) receiving home-based phototherapy and 100 patients (25.6%) receiving office-based phototherapy achieved clear/almost clear skin, and 206 (52.4%) and 131 (33.6%) achieved DLQI of 5 or lower, respectively. Home-based phototherapy was noninferior to office-based phototherapy for PGA and DLQI in the overall population and across all SPTs. Home-based phototherapy, compared to office-based phototherapy, was associated with better treatment adherence (202 patients [51.4%] vs 62 patients [15.9%]; P < .001), lower burden of indirect costs to patients, and more episodes of persistent erythema (466 of 7957 treatments [5.9%] vs 46 of 3934 treatments [1.2%]; P < .001). Both treatments were well tolerated with no discontinuations due to adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this randomized clinical trial, home-based phototherapy was as effective as office-based phototherapy for plaque or guttate psoriasis in everyday clinical practice and had less burden to patients.</p><p><strong>Trial registration:
{"title":"Home- vs Office-Based Narrowband UV-B Phototherapy for Patients With Psoriasis: The LITE Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Joel M Gelfand, April W Armstrong, Henry W Lim, Steven R Feldman, Sandra M Johnson, W C Cole Claiborne, Robert E Kalb, Jeannette Jakus, Aaron R Mangold, R Hal Flowers, Tina Bhutani, John R Durkin, Jerry Bagel, Scott Fretzin, Michael P Sheehan, James Krell, Margo Reeder, Jessica Kaffenberger, Francisca Kartono, Junko Takeshita, Alisha M Bridges, Eric Fielding, Umbereen S Nehal, Kenneth L Schaecher, Leah M Howard, Guy S Eakin, Suzette Báez, Brooke E Bishop, Robert C Fitzsimmons, Maryte Papadopoulos, William B Song, Kristin A Linn, Rebecca A Hubbard, Daniel B Shin, Kristina Callis Duffin","doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.3897","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.3897","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Office-based phototherapy is cost-effective for psoriasis but difficult to access. Home-based phototherapy is patient preferred but has limited clinical data, particularly in patients with darker skin.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of home- vs office-based narrowband UV-B phototherapy for psoriasis.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>The Light Treatment Effectiveness study was an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial embedded in routine care at 42 academic and private clinical dermatology practices in the US. Enrollment occurred from March 1, 2019, to December 4, 2023, with follow-up through June 2024. Participants were 12 years and older with plaque or guttate psoriasis who were candidates for home- and office-based phototherapy.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Participants were randomized to receive a home narrowband UV-B machine with guided mode dosimetry or routine care with office-based narrowband UV-B for 12 weeks, followed by an additional 12-week observation period.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The coprimary effectiveness outcomes were Physician Global Assessment (PGA) dichotomized as clear/almost clear skin (score of ≤1) at the end of the intervention period and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 5 or lower (no to small effect on quality of life) at week 12.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 783 patients enrolled (mean [SD] age, 48.0 [15.5] years; 376 [48.0%] female), 393 received home-based phototherapy and 390 received office-based phototherapy, with 350 (44.7%) having skin phototype (SPT) I/II, 350 (44.7%) having SPT III/IV, and 83 (10.6%) having SPT V/VI. A total of 93 patients (11.9%) were receiving systemic treatment. At baseline, mean (SD) PGA was 2.7 (0.8) and DLQI was 12.2 (7.2). At week 12, 129 patients (32.8%) receiving home-based phototherapy and 100 patients (25.6%) receiving office-based phototherapy achieved clear/almost clear skin, and 206 (52.4%) and 131 (33.6%) achieved DLQI of 5 or lower, respectively. Home-based phototherapy was noninferior to office-based phototherapy for PGA and DLQI in the overall population and across all SPTs. Home-based phototherapy, compared to office-based phototherapy, was associated with better treatment adherence (202 patients [51.4%] vs 62 patients [15.9%]; P < .001), lower burden of indirect costs to patients, and more episodes of persistent erythema (466 of 7957 treatments [5.9%] vs 46 of 3934 treatments [1.2%]; P < .001). Both treatments were well tolerated with no discontinuations due to adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this randomized clinical trial, home-based phototherapy was as effective as office-based phototherapy for plaque or guttate psoriasis in everyday clinical practice and had less burden to patients.</p><p><strong>Trial registration:","PeriodicalId":14734,"journal":{"name":"JAMA dermatology","volume":" ","pages":"1320-1328"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11425190/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142346994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-01DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.3696
Amy S Paller, Pedro Mendes-Bastos, Elaine Siegfried, Lawrence F Eichenfield, Weily Soong, Vimal H Prajapati, Peter Lio, Eric L Simpson, Eliza M Raymundo, Smitha Suravaram, Xiaofei Hu, Yang Yang, Xiaohong Huang, Brian M Calimlim, Andrew M Platt, John C Su, Min Zheng, Kiwako Yamamoto-Hanada, Henrique D Teixeira, Alan D Irvine
<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up studies demonstrated the efficacy and adverse events of upadacitinib through 52 weeks in adults and adolescents with atopic dermatitis (AD); however, longer-term outcomes (longer than 1 year) in adolescents have not previously been available.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of upadacitinib in adolescent patients with moderate to severe AD through 76 weeks.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>The Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up trials are ongoing double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trials including adolescents (aged 12 to 17 years) with moderate to severe AD. Data were collected from August 2018 to April 2022, and data were analyzed from June 2022 to September 2023.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Adolescents were randomized 1:1:1 to receive once-daily oral upadacitinib, 15 mg; upadacitinib, 30 mg; or placebo, either alone (Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 trials) or with topical corticosteroids (AD Up). At week 16, placebo-treated patients were rerandomized to receive upadacitinib, 15 mg, or upadacitinib, 30 mg, daily.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Coprimary end points assessing efficacy included achievement of 75% reduction or more in the Eczema Area and Severity Index Score (EASI-75) from baseline, Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) with 2 grades or more of improvement, and Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (WP-NRS) improvement of 4 points or greater through week 76 for participants with a WP-NRS score of 4 points or higher at baseline.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From all studies, 542 adolescents were included; of these, 284 (52.4%) were female. At week 76, among patients in the Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up trials, EASI-75 was achieved by 89.1%, 84.4%, and 87.8% of adolescents taking upadacitinib, 15 mg, respectively, and by 96.1%, 93.6%, and 82.7% of adolescents taking upadacitinib, 30 mg, indicating maintenance or improvement of EASI-75 across 76 weeks with upadacitinib. Efficacy measured by achievement of vIGA-AD score of 0 or 1 and WP-NRS improvement of 4 points or more from baseline was similarly maintained or improved through week 76 for adolescents taking upadacitinib, 15 mg or 30 mg. Long-term outcomes in Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up participants were consistent with the known adverse event profile of upadacitinib (herpetic infection: 4.0, 1.9, and 1.1 events per 100 patient-years, respectively; creatine kinase elevation: 11.6, 11.0, and 7.1 events per 100 patient-years); no new signals were observed with either dose.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this study assessing 3 randomized clinical trials, long-term treatment of adolescents with moderate to severe AD with upadacitinib demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profi
重要性:Measure Up 1、Measure Up 2和AD Up研究证明了高达替尼对成人和青少年特应性皮炎(AD)患者52周的疗效和不良反应;然而,此前尚未获得青少年的长期疗效(超过1年):目的:评估高达替尼对中重度特应性皮炎青少年患者76周的疗效和不良反应:Measure Up 1、Measure Up 2和AD Up试验是正在进行的双盲、安慰剂对照3期随机临床试验,包括中度至重度AD青少年(12至17岁)。数据收集时间为2018年8月至2022年4月,数据分析时间为2022年6月至2023年9月:青少年按1:1:1的比例随机接受每日一次的口服达帕替尼(15毫克)、达帕替尼(30毫克)或安慰剂,可单独使用(Measure Up 1和Measure Up 2试验)或与局部皮质类固醇一起使用(AD Up)。第16周时,安慰剂治疗患者被重新随机分配到每天接受15毫克或30毫克的达帕西替尼治疗:评估疗效的主要终点包括:湿疹面积和严重程度指数评分(EASI-75)比基线降低75%或以上;特应性皮炎研究者全球评估(vIGA-AD)评分为 "无"(0)或 "基本无"(1),且有2级或以上的改善;基线时WP-NRS评分为4分或以上的参与者,第76周时最严重瘙痒数字评定量表(WP-NRS)评分改善4分或以上:所有研究共纳入了 542 名青少年,其中 284 名(52.4%)为女性。第76周时,在Measure Up 1、Measure Up 2和AD Up试验的患者中,服用15毫克达帕替尼的青少年中分别有89.1%、84.4%和87.8%达到了EASI-75,服用30毫克达帕替尼的青少年中分别有96.1%、93.6%和82.7%达到了EASI-75,这表明服用达帕替尼76周后EASI-75得到了维持或改善。服用达帕替尼(15 毫克或 30 毫克)的青少年在第 76 周时,vIGA-AD 评分达到 0 分或 1 分,WP-NRS 从基线提高 4 分或更多,以此衡量疗效,也同样得到了维持或改善。Measure Up 1、Measure Up 2 和 AD Up 参与者的长期结果与已知的奥达帕替尼不良反应情况一致(疱疹病毒感染:每 100 患者年分别有 4.0、1.9 和 1.1 例;肌酸激酶升高:结论和相关性:在这项评估3项随机临床试验的研究中,奥达帕替尼对中重度AD青少年的长期治疗显示出良好的获益-风险特征,疗效反应可持续76周:Measure Up 1 试验:试验注册:Measure Up 1 试验:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT03569293; Measure Up 2试验:NCT03607422; AD Up试验:NCT03568318。
{"title":"Upadacitinib in Adolescents With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis: Analysis of 3 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials Through 76 Weeks.","authors":"Amy S Paller, Pedro Mendes-Bastos, Elaine Siegfried, Lawrence F Eichenfield, Weily Soong, Vimal H Prajapati, Peter Lio, Eric L Simpson, Eliza M Raymundo, Smitha Suravaram, Xiaofei Hu, Yang Yang, Xiaohong Huang, Brian M Calimlim, Andrew M Platt, John C Su, Min Zheng, Kiwako Yamamoto-Hanada, Henrique D Teixeira, Alan D Irvine","doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.3696","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.3696","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up studies demonstrated the efficacy and adverse events of upadacitinib through 52 weeks in adults and adolescents with atopic dermatitis (AD); however, longer-term outcomes (longer than 1 year) in adolescents have not previously been available.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of upadacitinib in adolescent patients with moderate to severe AD through 76 weeks.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>The Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up trials are ongoing double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 randomized clinical trials including adolescents (aged 12 to 17 years) with moderate to severe AD. Data were collected from August 2018 to April 2022, and data were analyzed from June 2022 to September 2023.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Adolescents were randomized 1:1:1 to receive once-daily oral upadacitinib, 15 mg; upadacitinib, 30 mg; or placebo, either alone (Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 trials) or with topical corticosteroids (AD Up). At week 16, placebo-treated patients were rerandomized to receive upadacitinib, 15 mg, or upadacitinib, 30 mg, daily.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Coprimary end points assessing efficacy included achievement of 75% reduction or more in the Eczema Area and Severity Index Score (EASI-75) from baseline, Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) with 2 grades or more of improvement, and Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (WP-NRS) improvement of 4 points or greater through week 76 for participants with a WP-NRS score of 4 points or higher at baseline.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From all studies, 542 adolescents were included; of these, 284 (52.4%) were female. At week 76, among patients in the Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up trials, EASI-75 was achieved by 89.1%, 84.4%, and 87.8% of adolescents taking upadacitinib, 15 mg, respectively, and by 96.1%, 93.6%, and 82.7% of adolescents taking upadacitinib, 30 mg, indicating maintenance or improvement of EASI-75 across 76 weeks with upadacitinib. Efficacy measured by achievement of vIGA-AD score of 0 or 1 and WP-NRS improvement of 4 points or more from baseline was similarly maintained or improved through week 76 for adolescents taking upadacitinib, 15 mg or 30 mg. Long-term outcomes in Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up participants were consistent with the known adverse event profile of upadacitinib (herpetic infection: 4.0, 1.9, and 1.1 events per 100 patient-years, respectively; creatine kinase elevation: 11.6, 11.0, and 7.1 events per 100 patient-years); no new signals were observed with either dose.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this study assessing 3 randomized clinical trials, long-term treatment of adolescents with moderate to severe AD with upadacitinib demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profi","PeriodicalId":14734,"journal":{"name":"JAMA dermatology","volume":" ","pages":"1304-1313"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11581505/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142500742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-01DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.4222
Lisa M Arkin, John S Barbieri, Edward W Cowen
{"title":"COVID-19 as a Risk Factor For Autoimmune Skin Disease.","authors":"Lisa M Arkin, John S Barbieri, Edward W Cowen","doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.4222","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.4222","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":14734,"journal":{"name":"JAMA dermatology","volume":" ","pages":"1269-1271"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142583205","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-01DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.3198
Fatima Bassir, Kailyn Valido, Kaitlin R Maciejewski, William Damsky, Caroline A Nelson
{"title":"Validation of the Delphi Consensus Diagnostic Criteria for Necrobiotic Xanthogranuloma.","authors":"Fatima Bassir, Kailyn Valido, Kaitlin R Maciejewski, William Damsky, Caroline A Nelson","doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.3198","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.3198","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":14734,"journal":{"name":"JAMA dermatology","volume":" ","pages":"1361-1362"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11447626/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142361540","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-12-01DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.4281
Belinda Lai, H Peter Soyer, Lin Zhu, Peter M Ferguson, Blake O'Brien, Tristan Dodds, Richard A Scolyer, Gerardo Ferrara, Giuseppe Argenziano, Katy J L Bell
Importance: There is poor accuracy and reproducibility for the histopathologic diagnosis of melanocytic skin lesions, and the provision of clinical information may improve this.
Objective: To examine the impact of clinical information on the histopathologic diagnosis of melanocytic skin lesions.
Evidence review: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for new records published from January 2018 to January 2024. References included in the 2018 Cancer Council Australia evidence review were also screened, and forward and backward citation searches were conducted.
Findings: From 2224 records screened, 162 full-text studies were assessed, and 7 studies were included. Studies included pathologists from Austria, Germany, the US, Italy, the UK, and Australia. Patient populations had a mean age of 43 to 55 years and a proportion of female participants of 23% to 63%. The risk of bias assessment demonstrated that all studies had domains at unclear or high risk of bias. Clinical images increased diagnostic certainty (3 studies) and agreement between pathologists (2 studies) led to diagnostic upgrades in 7.6% to 16.7% of interpretations. Clinical diagnosis on the pathology requisition form reduced the odds of missing a melanoma with progression (1 study), while more clinical elements on the form correlated with higher re-excision rates (1 study). Among patients with distant metastases on long-term follow-up, a prior consensus diagnosis of melanoma was established on histopathology alone.
Conclusions and relevance: Providing clinical information to pathologists may improve diagnostic confidence and interobserver agreement and result in upgrading of the histopathologic diagnosis. While providing the clinical diagnosis may prevent missing a progressive melanoma, more research is needed to determine the appropriateness of histopathology upgrading when clinical images are provided and the impacts on patient outcomes.
{"title":"Impact of Clinical Information on Melanocytic Skin Lesion Pathology Diagnosis: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Belinda Lai, H Peter Soyer, Lin Zhu, Peter M Ferguson, Blake O'Brien, Tristan Dodds, Richard A Scolyer, Gerardo Ferrara, Giuseppe Argenziano, Katy J L Bell","doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.4281","DOIUrl":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.4281","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>There is poor accuracy and reproducibility for the histopathologic diagnosis of melanocytic skin lesions, and the provision of clinical information may improve this.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the impact of clinical information on the histopathologic diagnosis of melanocytic skin lesions.</p><p><strong>Evidence review: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for new records published from January 2018 to January 2024. References included in the 2018 Cancer Council Australia evidence review were also screened, and forward and backward citation searches were conducted.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>From 2224 records screened, 162 full-text studies were assessed, and 7 studies were included. Studies included pathologists from Austria, Germany, the US, Italy, the UK, and Australia. Patient populations had a mean age of 43 to 55 years and a proportion of female participants of 23% to 63%. The risk of bias assessment demonstrated that all studies had domains at unclear or high risk of bias. Clinical images increased diagnostic certainty (3 studies) and agreement between pathologists (2 studies) led to diagnostic upgrades in 7.6% to 16.7% of interpretations. Clinical diagnosis on the pathology requisition form reduced the odds of missing a melanoma with progression (1 study), while more clinical elements on the form correlated with higher re-excision rates (1 study). Among patients with distant metastases on long-term follow-up, a prior consensus diagnosis of melanoma was established on histopathology alone.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Providing clinical information to pathologists may improve diagnostic confidence and interobserver agreement and result in upgrading of the histopathologic diagnosis. While providing the clinical diagnosis may prevent missing a progressive melanoma, more research is needed to determine the appropriateness of histopathology upgrading when clinical images are provided and the impacts on patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":14734,"journal":{"name":"JAMA dermatology","volume":" ","pages":"1345-1352"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142545564","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-11-27DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.4796
Sonja Ständer, Gil Yosipovitch, Franz J Legat, Adam Reich, Carle Paul, Dagmar Simon, Luigi Naldi, Martin Metz, Athanasios Tsianakas, Andrew Pink, Simon Fage, Giuseppe Micali, Elke Weisshaar, Hema Sundaram, Andrei Metelitsa, Matthias Augustin, Andreas Wollenberg, Bernhard Homey, Maria Concetta Fargnoli, Howard Sofen, Neil J Korman, Lone Skov, Xiaoxiao Chen, Zarif K Jabbar-Lopez, Christophe Piketty, Shawn G Kwatra
Importance: Prurigo nodularis (PN) is a chronic and debilitating skin condition, characterized by intense itch with multiple nodular lesions. Nemolizumab demonstrated significant improvements in itch and skin nodules in adults with moderate to severe PN in a previous 16-week phase 3 study (OLYMPIA 2).
Objective: To assess the efficacy and occurrence of adverse events in adults with moderate to severe PN treated with nemolizumab vs those receiving placebo.
Design, setting, and participants: OLYMPIA 1 was a multicenter, placebo-controlled, phase 3 randomized clinical trial, conducted from August 2020 to March 2023 at 77 centers across 10 countries in adults with moderate to severe PN (at least 20 nodules and an Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] score ≥3) and Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score of at least 7.0; consisted of screening (up to 4 weeks), 24-week treatment, and 8-week follow-up periods.
Interventions: Patients were randomized (2:1) to nemolizumab monotherapy, 30 mg or 60 mg (depending on baseline weight of less than 90 kg vs 90 kg or greater, respectively), or matching placebo administered every 4 weeks for 24 weeks.
Main outcomes and measures: The primary end points were the proportion of patients with itch response (≥4-point improvement from baseline in weekly average PP-NRS) and IGA success (score of 0/1 [clear/almost clear] and 2-grade or more improvement from baseline) at week 16.
Results: Of 286 patients (mean [SD] age, 57.5 [13.0] years; mean [SD] body weight, 85.0 [20.7] kg; 166 [58.0%] female), 190 were randomized to receive nemolizumab, and 96 were randomized to placebo. A significantly greater proportion of patients assigned to nemolizumab vs placebo achieved itch response (111/190 [58.4%] vs 16/96 [16.7%]; Δ, 40.1% [95% CI, 29.4%-50.8%]; P < .001) and IGA success (50/190 [26.3%] vs 7/96 [7.3%]; Δ, 14.6% [95% CI, 6.7%-22.6%]; P = .003) at week 16. At week 24, the proportion of patients with itch response was 58.3% vs 20.4% (Δ, 38.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-49.9%]) in the ad hoc analysis, and IGA success was 58/190 (30.5%) vs 9/96 (9.4%) (Δ, 19.2% [95% CI, 10.3%-28.1%]) in the nemolizumab-treated vs placebo group. During the treatment period, 134 patients (71.7%) receiving nemolizumab vs 62 patients (65.3%) receiving placebo had at least 1 adverse event; most events were of mild to moderate severity.
Conclusions and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, nemolizumab monotherapy led to clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in core signs and symptoms of PN.
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Nemolizumab in Patients With Moderate to Severe Prurigo Nodularis: The OLYMPIA 1 Randomized Clinical Phase 3 Trial.","authors":"Sonja Ständer, Gil Yosipovitch, Franz J Legat, Adam Reich, Carle Paul, Dagmar Simon, Luigi Naldi, Martin Metz, Athanasios Tsianakas, Andrew Pink, Simon Fage, Giuseppe Micali, Elke Weisshaar, Hema Sundaram, Andrei Metelitsa, Matthias Augustin, Andreas Wollenberg, Bernhard Homey, Maria Concetta Fargnoli, Howard Sofen, Neil J Korman, Lone Skov, Xiaoxiao Chen, Zarif K Jabbar-Lopez, Christophe Piketty, Shawn G Kwatra","doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.4796","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.4796","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Prurigo nodularis (PN) is a chronic and debilitating skin condition, characterized by intense itch with multiple nodular lesions. Nemolizumab demonstrated significant improvements in itch and skin nodules in adults with moderate to severe PN in a previous 16-week phase 3 study (OLYMPIA 2).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the efficacy and occurrence of adverse events in adults with moderate to severe PN treated with nemolizumab vs those receiving placebo.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>OLYMPIA 1 was a multicenter, placebo-controlled, phase 3 randomized clinical trial, conducted from August 2020 to March 2023 at 77 centers across 10 countries in adults with moderate to severe PN (at least 20 nodules and an Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] score ≥3) and Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score of at least 7.0; consisted of screening (up to 4 weeks), 24-week treatment, and 8-week follow-up periods.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients were randomized (2:1) to nemolizumab monotherapy, 30 mg or 60 mg (depending on baseline weight of less than 90 kg vs 90 kg or greater, respectively), or matching placebo administered every 4 weeks for 24 weeks.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary end points were the proportion of patients with itch response (≥4-point improvement from baseline in weekly average PP-NRS) and IGA success (score of 0/1 [clear/almost clear] and 2-grade or more improvement from baseline) at week 16.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 286 patients (mean [SD] age, 57.5 [13.0] years; mean [SD] body weight, 85.0 [20.7] kg; 166 [58.0%] female), 190 were randomized to receive nemolizumab, and 96 were randomized to placebo. A significantly greater proportion of patients assigned to nemolizumab vs placebo achieved itch response (111/190 [58.4%] vs 16/96 [16.7%]; Δ, 40.1% [95% CI, 29.4%-50.8%]; P < .001) and IGA success (50/190 [26.3%] vs 7/96 [7.3%]; Δ, 14.6% [95% CI, 6.7%-22.6%]; P = .003) at week 16. At week 24, the proportion of patients with itch response was 58.3% vs 20.4% (Δ, 38.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-49.9%]) in the ad hoc analysis, and IGA success was 58/190 (30.5%) vs 9/96 (9.4%) (Δ, 19.2% [95% CI, 10.3%-28.1%]) in the nemolizumab-treated vs placebo group. During the treatment period, 134 patients (71.7%) receiving nemolizumab vs 62 patients (65.3%) receiving placebo had at least 1 adverse event; most events were of mild to moderate severity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this randomized clinical trial, nemolizumab monotherapy led to clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in core signs and symptoms of PN.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04501666.</p>","PeriodicalId":14734,"journal":{"name":"JAMA dermatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.5,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142728817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}