American Journal of Clinical Dermatology最新文献

Acne is a common, chronic inflammatory condition affecting millions of people worldwide, with significant negative impact on quality of life and mental health. Acne is characterized by comedones, inflammatory papules, pustules, and nodulocystic lesions, with long-lasting sequelae including scarring and dyspigmentation, the latter of which is more common in skin of color. The four main pillars of acne pathophysiology include alteration of sebum production and concentration, hyperkeratinization of the follicular unit, Cutibacterium acnes strains, and an inflammatory immune response. Newer research has provided greater insight into these pathophysiologic categories. This greater understanding of acne pathogenesis has led to numerous new and emerging treatment modalities. These modalities include combinations of existing treatments, repurposing of existing agents historically used for other conditions, new topical treatments, novel antibiotics, topical and oral probiotics, and various procedural devices. This article will provide an overview of emerging treatments of acne and their link to our current and improved understanding of acne pathogenesis.

Background

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, including upadacitinib, have been recently approved for the treatment of moderate-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) and real-world data on upadacitinib effectiveness and safety are limited. This interim analysis aimed to assess effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib throughout 48 weeks of observation in a real-world adult AD population.

Methods

This prospective study collected data on adult patients affected by moderate-to-severe AD and treated with upadacitinib at the dosage of either 15 mg or 30 mg daily based on the physician decision. Upadacitinib was prescribed in the context of a national compassionate use programme. In this interim analysis, within patient comparisons of continuous scores of different scales (namely Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI], body surface area [BSA], Dermatology Life Quality Index [DLQI], Patient Oriented Eczema Measure [POEM], Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] subtests) were performed. The percentage of patients achieving EASI 75, EASI 90 and EASI 100 at Week 16, 32 and 48 was also evaluated.

Results

One hundred and forty-six patients were included in the analysis. Upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg daily was prescribed as monotherapy in most cases (127/146, 87.0%). Upadacitinib was initially prescribed at the dosage of 30 mg daily in 118 of 146 (80.8%) patients and 15 mg daily in 28/146 (19.2%) patients. A significant improvement in the clinical signs and symptoms of AD was detected by Week 16 and throughout the study period. EASI 75, EASI 90 and EASI 100 responses were achieved by 87.6%, 69.1% and 44.3% at Week 48, associated with a sustained reduction in the mean values of all physician-reported (EASI and BSA) and patient-reported (Itch- Sleep- and Pain-NRS, DLQI, and POEM) disease severity outcomes, up to 48 weeks of treatment. Treatment response observed in 15 mg upadacitinib-treated patients was comparable with that detected in 30 mg upadacitinib-treated patients, revealing no statistical difference between the two patient sub-cohorts. Through the observation period, dose reduction or escalation was observed in 38/146 (26%) of treated cases. Overall, 26 of 146 (17.8%) patients experienced at least one adverse event (AE) during the treatment period. In total, 29 AEs were recorded and most of them were evaluated as mild to moderate, while in 4 cases the occurrence of AE led to drug discontinuation, for a total of 7/146 (4.8%) dropouts.

Conclusion

This study provides strong evidence of a sustained response obtained by upadacitinib in AD patients, who had failed to respond to conventional or biological systemic agents, through 48 weeks of observation. Upadacitinib was also demonstrated to be advantageous in terms of flexibility in dose reduction or escalation as upadacitinib dose was shaped on clinical needs that, in a real-world setting, might frequently change.

Background

Since US FDA approval in 2014, apremilast has consistently demonstrated a favorable benefit–risk profile in 706,585 patients (557,379 patient-years of exposure) worldwide across approved indications of plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and Behçet’s syndrome; however, long-term exposure across these indications has not been reported.

Objective

The aim of this study was to conduct a pooled analysis of apremilast data from 15 clinical studies with open-label extension phases, focusing on long-term safety.

Methods

We analyzed longer-term safety and tolerability of apremilast 30 mg twice daily across three indications for up to 5 years, focusing on adverse events of special interest, including thrombotic events, malignancies, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), serious infections, and depression. Data were pooled across 15 randomized, placebo-controlled studies and divided into placebo-controlled or all-apremilast-exposure groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed.

Results

Overall, 4183 patients were exposed to apremilast (6788 patient-years). Most TEAEs were mild to moderate in the placebo-controlled period (96.6%) and throughout all apremilast exposure (91.6%). TEAE rates of special interest were similar between treatment groups in the placebo-controlled period and remained low throughout all apremilast exposure. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates per 100 patient-years during all apremilast exposure were MACE, 0.30; thrombotic events, 0.10; malignancies, 1.0; serious infections, 1.10; serious opportunistic infections, 0.21; and depression, 1.78. Safety findings were consistent across indications and regions. No new safety signals were identified.

Conclusions

The incidence of serious TEAEs and TEAEs of special interest was low despite long-term exposure, further establishing apremilast as a safe oral option for long-term use across indications with a favorable benefit–risk profile.

Clinical Trial Registration

NCT00773734, NCT01194219, NCT01232283, NCT01690299, NCT01988103, NCT02425826, NCT03123471, NCT03721172, NCT01172938, NCT01212757, NCT01212770, NCT01307423, NCT01925768, NCT00866359, NCT02307513.

Graphical Abstract

Background

Melanoma of the skin is the most dangerous skin cancer in the world, though the numbers of reported new cases and melanoma-related deaths are low.

Objective

This study evaluated the global incidence, mortality, risk factors and temporal trends by age, sex and locations of melanoma skin cancer.

Patients and Methods

Cancer Incidence in Five Continents (CI5) volumes I–XI; the Nordic Cancer Registries (NORDCAN); the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) mortality database were accessed for worldwide incidence and mortality rates. Average Annual Percentage Change (AAPC) was calculated using a Joinpoint regression to examine trends.

Results

Age-standardized rates of cancer incidence and mortality were 3.4 and 0.55 per 100,000 worldwide in 2020. Australia and New Zealand reported the highest incidence and mortality rates. Associated risk factors included higher prevalence of smoking, alcohol consumption, unhealthy diet, obesity and metabolic diseases. Increasing incidence trends were observed mostly in European countries, whilst mortality displayed an overall decreasing trend. For both sexes in the age group 50 years and above, a significant increase in incidence trend was observed.

Conclusions

Although mortality rates and trends were found to decrease, global incidence has increased, especially in older age groups and males. Whilst incidence increase may be attributed to improved healthcare infrastructure and cancer detection methods, the growing prevalence of lifestyle and metabolic risk factors in developed countries should not be discounted. Future research should explore underlying variables behind epidemiological trends.

Background

Children with severe atopic dermatitis (AD) have a multidimensional disease burden.

Objective

Here we assess the clinically meaningful improvements in AD signs, symptoms, and quality of life (QoL) in children aged 6–11 years with severe AD treated with dupilumab compared with placebo.

Methods

R668-AD-1652 LIBERTY AD PEDS was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase III clinical trial of dupilumab with concomitant topical corticosteroids (TCS) in children aged 6–11 years with severe AD. This post hoc analysis focuses on 304 patients receiving either dupilumab or placebo with TCS and assessed the percentage of patients considered responsive to dupilumab treatment at week 16.

Results

At week 16, almost all patients receiving dupilumab + TCS (95%) demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in AD signs, symptoms, or QoL compared with placebo + TCS (61%, p < 0.0001). Significant improvements were seen as early as week 2 and sustained through the end of the study in the full analysis set (FAS) and the subgroup of patients with an Investigator’s Global Assessment score greater than 1 at week 16.

Limitations

Limitations include the post hoc nature of the analysis and that some outcomes were not prespecified; the small number of patients in some subgroups potentially limits generalizability of findings.

Conclusion

Treatment with dupilumab provides significant and sustained improvements within 2 weeks in AD signs, symptoms, and QoL in almost all children with severe AD, including those who did not achieve clear or almost clear skin by week 16.

Trial Registration

NCT03345914.

Importance

The cancer risks associated with treatment with topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) remain controversial, and limited evidence exists regarding the cancer risks among patients with AD treated with TCIs in Asian populations.

Objectives

This study identified the association between TCI use and the risks of developing all cancers, lymphoma, skin cancers, and other cancers.

Design

This study was a nationwide, population-based, retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database.

Participants

Patients diagnosed at least twice with ICD-9 code 691 or at least one time with ICD-9 codes 691 or 692.9 within 1 year between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2010 were included and followed until 31 December 2018. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using the Cox proportional hazard ratio model.

Exposures

Patients using tacrolimus or pimecrolimus were identified in the National Health Insurance Research Database and compared with patients using topical corticosteroids (TCSs).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were hazard ratios (HRs) of cancer diagnoses and associated outcomes obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Registry database.

Results

After propensity score (PS) matching, the final cohort included 195,925 patients with AD, including 39,185 who were initial TCI users and 156,740 who were TCS users. Propensity score matching was performed according to age, sex, index year, and Charlson Comorbidity Index using a ratio of 1:4. Except for leukemia, HR and 95% CI showed no significant associations between TCI use and the risk of developing all cancer, lymphoma, skin cancers, and other cancers. Sensitivity analysis showed that the lag time HRs for every cancer subtype continued to show no significant association between TCI use and cancer risk, except for leukemia.

Conclusions and Relevance

Our study found no evidence to support an association between TCI use and the risks of almost all cancers compared with TCS use in patients with AD, but physicians should be aware of potentially higher risks of leukemia with TCI use. This study represents the first population-based study focused on the cancer risk of TCI use among patients with AD in an Asian population.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common, heterogeneous, inflammatory skin disorder characterized by chronic or relapsing eczematous lesions with intense pruritus and discomfort. Affected patients often experience significant impairment in their quality of life, and the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD forms remains challenging. In the past few decades, increasing knowledge on the AD pathogenesis has driven the development of novel targeted therapies. Interleukin (IL)-13 plays a central and pleiotropic role in AD pathogenesis, contributing directly or indirectly to epidermal barrier disfunction, type-2 inflammation, dysbiosis, fibrosis, and itch response. For this reason, agents selectively targeting IL-13, such as lebrikizumab, emerged as a potential therapy for AD. This article reviews the current evidence about lebrikizumab in the management of AD. The phase II and phase III trials seem to corroborate efficacy of lebrikizumab in the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD, as shown by significant improvement of Eczema Area and Severity Index, body surface area, and pruritus scores. Also, lebrikizumab demonstrated favorable safety and tolerability profiles, with the majority of patients experiencing no significant adverse events. Lebrikizumab seems to be a promising emerging targeted biological agent for patients with moderate-to-severe AD. More data on the long-term efficacy and safety, head-to-head comparisons with other agents, and real-world evidence will help to clarify its place in therapy in AD.

Background

Palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) is a pruritic, painful, recurrent, and chronic dermatitis with limited therapeutic options.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of apremilast for the treatment of Japanese patients with PPP and inadequate response to topical treatment.

Methods

This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled patients with Palmoplantar Pustulosis Area and Severity Index (PPPASI) total score ≥ 12 and moderate or severe pustules/vesicles on the palm or sole (PPPASI pustule/vesicle severity score ≥ 2) at screening and baseline with an inadequate response to topical treatment. Patients were randomized (1:1) to apremilast 30 mg twice daily or placebo for 16 weeks, followed by a 16-week extension phase during which all patients received apremilast. The primary endpoint was achievement of PPPASI-50 response (≥ 50% improvement from baseline in PPPASI). Key secondary endpoints included change from baseline in PPPASI total score, Palmoplantar Pustulosis Severity Index (PPSI), and patient’s visual analog scale (VAS) for PPP symptoms (pruritus and discomfort/pain).

Results

A total of 90 patients were randomized (apremilast: 46; placebo: 44). A significantly greater proportion of patients achieved PPPASI-50 at week 16 with apremilast versus placebo (P = 0.0003). Patients receiving apremilast showed greater improvement in PPPASI at week 16 versus placebo (nominal P = 0.0013), as well as PPSI and patient-reported pruritus and discomfort/pain (nominal P ≤ 0.001 for all). Improvements were sustained through week 32 with apremilast treatment. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events included diarrhea, abdominal discomfort, headache, and nausea.

Conclusions

Apremilast treatment demonstrated greater improvements in disease severity and patient-reported symptoms versus placebo at week 16 in Japanese patients with PPP with sustained improvements through week 32. No new safety signals were observed.

ClinicalTrials.gov

NCT04057937.

Background

Traditional systemic immunosuppressants and advanced therapies improve signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). However, data are limited in severe and/or difficult-to-treat AD. In the phase 3 JADE COMPARE trial of patients with moderate-to-severe AD receiving background topical therapy, once-daily abrocitinib 200 mg and 100 mg showed significantly greater reductions in the symptoms of AD than placebo and significantly greater improvement in itch response (with abrocitinib 200 mg) than dupilumab at week 2.

Objective

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of abrocitinib and dupilumab in a subset of patients with severe and/or difficult-to-treat AD in a post hoc analysis of the JADE COMPARE trial.

Methods

Adults with moderate-to-severe AD received once-daily oral abrocitinib 200 mg or 100 mg, dupilumab 300 mg subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks, or placebo with concomitant medicated topical therapy. Severe and/or difficult-to-treat AD subgroups were classified by baseline characteristics [Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) 4, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) > 21, failure or intolerance to prior systemic agents (excluding patients who took only corticosteroids), percentage of body surface area (%BSA) > 50, upper quartiles of EASI (EASI > 38) and %BSA (%BSA > 65), and combined subgroup of IGA 4, EASI > 21, and %BSA > 50, and failure or intolerance to prior systemic agents (excluding patients who took only corticosteroids)]. Assessments included IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) and a ≥ 2-point improvement from baseline, ≥ 75% and ≥ 90% improvement from baseline in EASI (EASI-75 and EASI-90), ≥ 4-point improvement from baseline in Peak Pruritus-Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS4), time to PP-NRS4, least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline in 14-day PP-NRS (days 2–15), Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) up to week 16.

Results

The proportion of patients achieving IGA 0/1, EASI-75, and EASI-90 responses was significantly greater with abrocitinib 200 mg than placebo (nominal p < 0.05) across all subgroups with severe and/or difficult-to-treat AD. Across most subgroups, PP-NRS4 response was significantly greater with abrocitinib 200 mg than placebo (nominal p < 0.01); the time to achieve this response was shorter with abrocitinib 200 mg (range 4.5–6.0 days) than abrocitinib 100 mg (range 5.0–17.0 days), dupilumab (range 8.0–11.0 days), and placebo (range 3.0–11.5 days). LSM change from baseline in POEM and DLQI was significantly greater with abrocitinib 200 mg than placebo (nominal p < 0.001) across all subgroups. Clinically meaningful differences were observed between abrocitinib and dupilumab for most evaluated endpoints across several subgroups, including in patients who failed or were intolerant to prior systemic therapy.

Conclusions