Sara Freeman

Progressive resistance training (PRT) and neuromuscular exercise (NEMEX) programs result in similar improvements in hip function, pain, and hip-related quality of life (QOL) in people with osteoarthritis (OA), according to the results of a randomized controlled trial.

At the end of the 12-week exercise period, both interventions yielded changes from baseline on the 30-second chair stand test (30s-CST) that were below the threshold for a major clinical effect. 

Mean changes in the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) pain subscale and HOOS QOL score were also similar among the participants, regardless of which exercise program they had been assigned to.

“The lack of superiority of PRT for increasing muscle strength and power is surprising given the principle of specificity (higher-intensity resistance training yields greater improvements in maximal muscle strength),” according to the Danish researchers who reported the results online today in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“However, the point estimates only showed modest and uncertain superiority of PRT for increasing muscle strength and power and no differences for any functional performance tests or self-reported physical function,” they added.
 

The Power of Exercise

Worldwide, most clinical guidelines recommend exercise as a first-line conservative treatment option in both hip and knee OA. However, there is not much evidence to help guide healthcare practitioners in deciding which type of exercises to use with their patients, Troels Kjeldsen, MSc, the principal investigator for the study, told this news organization.

“Neuromuscular exercise is a very commonly used exercise program in clinical practice, but, to our knowledge, it has never been compared to another type of exercise in hip OA,” observed Mr. Kjeldsen, who is a PhD student in the department of orthopedic surgery at Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

“Each year, many thousands of patients are referred to having neuromuscular exercise therapy with a physiotherapist,” Mr. Kjeldsen said. “So, we thought it would be worthwhile to compare it to PRT, another promising exercise type, to see if it really did perform as well as I think most people thought it did,” he added.
 

Comparing the Two Exercise Programs

PRT and NEMEX are two different types of exercise programs. PRT involves using resistance-training machines, and the focus is to maximize the exercise intensity by using as high an exercise load or weight as possible. By contrast, NEMEX consists of exercises that are low to moderate in intensity and emphasizes alignment, control, and stability of the movements.

To compare the two exercise strategies, Mr. Kjeldsen and fellow investigators recruited 160 participants at five hospitals and 10 physiotherapy clinics across three of five healthcare regions in Denmark.

For inclusion in the trial, the participants had to have a clinical diagnosis of hip OA, be older than 45 years, and experience pain during activity in one or both hips that was rated as 3 or higher on a 10-point numerical rating scale. Participants also had to have no or less than 30 minutes of hip joint stiffness in the morning as well as no surgery involving the lower extremities in the previous 6 months. 

Participants were then randomized to undertake the PRT (n = 82) or NEMEX (n = 78) program, delivered as two physiotherapist-led group sessions every week for 12 weeks. Exercise sessions were held at least 72 hours apart and consisted of a 10-minute warm-up on an exercise bike and then 50 minutes of PRT or NEMEX. PRT consisted of five generic resistance-based exercises targeting hip and knee joint muscles and NEMEX consisted of 10 exercises that increased in difficulty by varying the number, direction, speed, and surface of the movements performed.
 

Dead Heat Between PRT and NEMEX

The primary endpoint was the 30s-CST, which counted the number of times participants could stand from a seated position in 30 seconds. Participants in the PRT and NEMEX groups were able to do this maneuver a respective 11.3 and 11.6 times at baseline and 12.8 and 13.1 times after completion of the exercise programs. 

Other functional performance tests included a 40-m fast-paced walk, a nine-step timed stair climb, leg extensor power in the affected and unaffected limb, and a unilateral single repetition leg press. None of these showed a statistically significant benefit of PRT over NEMEX, or vice versa.

HOOS pain scores at baseline and 12 weeks for PRT were a respective 57.5 and 66.1, representing an overall 8.6-point increase, and for NEMEX they were 58.9 and 68.2, giving a 9.3-point increase, meaning there was only a -0.7 mean change when comparing the two groups.

Corresponding baseline and 12-week HOOS QOL scores for PRT were 43.7 and 51.7; for NEMEX, they were 47.1 and 52.8 thus giving 8.0- and 5.7-point increases and a 2.3 difference in change between the groups. Again, this wasn’t quite enough to show a clinically meaningful effect.
 

Future Steps

“The effect of exercise seems to be at its highest at 3-4 months when you implement exercise, so we compared the effects of the exercises at the time when they are probably going to be at their highest,” Mr. Kjeldsen explained. He said the research team also plans to look at what happens after 1 year of follow-up.

“The key take home message is that patients can be encouraged to pick the type of exercise that they find the most enjoyable, or the type that is available to them,” Mr. Kjeldsen suggested. 

Stephanie Chang, MD, MPH, who is the Deputy Editor of Annals of Internal Medicine and practices in Rockville, Maryland, commented on the paper to this news organization. “In this small study, we learned that exercises to strengthen lower extremity muscles did not improve pain or function any more than exercises for core stability and balance,” she said.

Dr. Chang pointed out that there was variance in the levels of activity that people already undertook at baseline: 40% of the PRT group and 41% of the NEMEX group already did 150 minutes or more of moderate intensity physical activity. 

“It’s possible that benefit or differences between interventions would be greater in people with different levels of baseline activity or even in those with different osteoarthritis severity,” she said. 

“In the meantime,” Dr. Chang added, “with the findings from this study, I would feel comfortable advising my patients with hip osteoarthritis to engage in whichever type of exercise they prefer — whether that exercise focuses on core strengthening and balance or on specific lower extremity muscle strengthening.”

The trial was funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the Physiotherapy Practice Foundation, the Health Foundation, Aarhus University, Region Zealand, the Association of Danish Physiotherapists, Andelsfonden, and Hede Nielsens Family Foundation. Mr. Kjeldsen and Dr. Chang report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Progressive resistance training (PRT) and neuromuscular exercise (NEMEX) programs result in similar improvements in hip function, pain, and hip-related quality of life (QOL) in people with osteoarthritis (OA), according to the results of a randomized controlled trial.

At the end of the 12-week exercise period, both interventions yielded changes from baseline on the 30-second chair stand test (30s-CST) that were below the threshold for a major clinical effect. 

Mean changes in the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) pain subscale and HOOS QOL score were also similar among the participants, regardless of which exercise program they had been assigned to.

“The lack of superiority of PRT for increasing muscle strength and power is surprising given the principle of specificity (higher-intensity resistance training yields greater improvements in maximal muscle strength),” according to the Danish researchers who reported the results online today in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“However, the point estimates only showed modest and uncertain superiority of PRT for increasing muscle strength and power and no differences for any functional performance tests or self-reported physical function,” they added.
 

The Power of Exercise

Worldwide, most clinical guidelines recommend exercise as a first-line conservative treatment option in both hip and knee OA. However, there is not much evidence to help guide healthcare practitioners in deciding which type of exercises to use with their patients, Troels Kjeldsen, MSc, the principal investigator for the study, told this news organization.

“Neuromuscular exercise is a very commonly used exercise program in clinical practice, but, to our knowledge, it has never been compared to another type of exercise in hip OA,” observed Mr. Kjeldsen, who is a PhD student in the department of orthopedic surgery at Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

“Each year, many thousands of patients are referred to having neuromuscular exercise therapy with a physiotherapist,” Mr. Kjeldsen said. “So, we thought it would be worthwhile to compare it to PRT, another promising exercise type, to see if it really did perform as well as I think most people thought it did,” he added.
 

Comparing the Two Exercise Programs

PRT and NEMEX are two different types of exercise programs. PRT involves using resistance-training machines, and the focus is to maximize the exercise intensity by using as high an exercise load or weight as possible. By contrast, NEMEX consists of exercises that are low to moderate in intensity and emphasizes alignment, control, and stability of the movements.

To compare the two exercise strategies, Mr. Kjeldsen and fellow investigators recruited 160 participants at five hospitals and 10 physiotherapy clinics across three of five healthcare regions in Denmark.

For inclusion in the trial, the participants had to have a clinical diagnosis of hip OA, be older than 45 years, and experience pain during activity in one or both hips that was rated as 3 or higher on a 10-point numerical rating scale. Participants also had to have no or less than 30 minutes of hip joint stiffness in the morning as well as no surgery involving the lower extremities in the previous 6 months. 

Participants were then randomized to undertake the PRT (n = 82) or NEMEX (n = 78) program, delivered as two physiotherapist-led group sessions every week for 12 weeks. Exercise sessions were held at least 72 hours apart and consisted of a 10-minute warm-up on an exercise bike and then 50 minutes of PRT or NEMEX. PRT consisted of five generic resistance-based exercises targeting hip and knee joint muscles and NEMEX consisted of 10 exercises that increased in difficulty by varying the number, direction, speed, and surface of the movements performed.
 

Dead Heat Between PRT and NEMEX

The primary endpoint was the 30s-CST, which counted the number of times participants could stand from a seated position in 30 seconds. Participants in the PRT and NEMEX groups were able to do this maneuver a respective 11.3 and 11.6 times at baseline and 12.8 and 13.1 times after completion of the exercise programs. 

Other functional performance tests included a 40-m fast-paced walk, a nine-step timed stair climb, leg extensor power in the affected and unaffected limb, and a unilateral single repetition leg press. None of these showed a statistically significant benefit of PRT over NEMEX, or vice versa.

HOOS pain scores at baseline and 12 weeks for PRT were a respective 57.5 and 66.1, representing an overall 8.6-point increase, and for NEMEX they were 58.9 and 68.2, giving a 9.3-point increase, meaning there was only a -0.7 mean change when comparing the two groups.

Corresponding baseline and 12-week HOOS QOL scores for PRT were 43.7 and 51.7; for NEMEX, they were 47.1 and 52.8 thus giving 8.0- and 5.7-point increases and a 2.3 difference in change between the groups. Again, this wasn’t quite enough to show a clinically meaningful effect.
 

Future Steps

“The effect of exercise seems to be at its highest at 3-4 months when you implement exercise, so we compared the effects of the exercises at the time when they are probably going to be at their highest,” Mr. Kjeldsen explained. He said the research team also plans to look at what happens after 1 year of follow-up.

“The key take home message is that patients can be encouraged to pick the type of exercise that they find the most enjoyable, or the type that is available to them,” Mr. Kjeldsen suggested. 

Stephanie Chang, MD, MPH, who is the Deputy Editor of Annals of Internal Medicine and practices in Rockville, Maryland, commented on the paper to this news organization. “In this small study, we learned that exercises to strengthen lower extremity muscles did not improve pain or function any more than exercises for core stability and balance,” she said.

Dr. Chang pointed out that there was variance in the levels of activity that people already undertook at baseline: 40% of the PRT group and 41% of the NEMEX group already did 150 minutes or more of moderate intensity physical activity. 

“It’s possible that benefit or differences between interventions would be greater in people with different levels of baseline activity or even in those with different osteoarthritis severity,” she said. 

“In the meantime,” Dr. Chang added, “with the findings from this study, I would feel comfortable advising my patients with hip osteoarthritis to engage in whichever type of exercise they prefer — whether that exercise focuses on core strengthening and balance or on specific lower extremity muscle strengthening.”

The trial was funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the Physiotherapy Practice Foundation, the Health Foundation, Aarhus University, Region Zealand, the Association of Danish Physiotherapists, Andelsfonden, and Hede Nielsens Family Foundation. Mr. Kjeldsen and Dr. Chang report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Progressive resistance training (PRT) and neuromuscular exercise (NEMEX) programs result in similar improvements in hip function, pain, and hip-related quality of life (QOL) in people with osteoarthritis (OA), according to the results of a randomized controlled trial.

At the end of the 12-week exercise period, both interventions yielded changes from baseline on the 30-second chair stand test (30s-CST) that were below the threshold for a major clinical effect. 

Mean changes in the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) pain subscale and HOOS QOL score were also similar among the participants, regardless of which exercise program they had been assigned to.

“The lack of superiority of PRT for increasing muscle strength and power is surprising given the principle of specificity (higher-intensity resistance training yields greater improvements in maximal muscle strength),” according to the Danish researchers who reported the results online today in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“However, the point estimates only showed modest and uncertain superiority of PRT for increasing muscle strength and power and no differences for any functional performance tests or self-reported physical function,” they added.
 

The Power of Exercise

Worldwide, most clinical guidelines recommend exercise as a first-line conservative treatment option in both hip and knee OA. However, there is not much evidence to help guide healthcare practitioners in deciding which type of exercises to use with their patients, Troels Kjeldsen, MSc, the principal investigator for the study, told this news organization.

“Neuromuscular exercise is a very commonly used exercise program in clinical practice, but, to our knowledge, it has never been compared to another type of exercise in hip OA,” observed Mr. Kjeldsen, who is a PhD student in the department of orthopedic surgery at Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

“Each year, many thousands of patients are referred to having neuromuscular exercise therapy with a physiotherapist,” Mr. Kjeldsen said. “So, we thought it would be worthwhile to compare it to PRT, another promising exercise type, to see if it really did perform as well as I think most people thought it did,” he added.
 

Comparing the Two Exercise Programs

PRT and NEMEX are two different types of exercise programs. PRT involves using resistance-training machines, and the focus is to maximize the exercise intensity by using as high an exercise load or weight as possible. By contrast, NEMEX consists of exercises that are low to moderate in intensity and emphasizes alignment, control, and stability of the movements.

To compare the two exercise strategies, Mr. Kjeldsen and fellow investigators recruited 160 participants at five hospitals and 10 physiotherapy clinics across three of five healthcare regions in Denmark.

For inclusion in the trial, the participants had to have a clinical diagnosis of hip OA, be older than 45 years, and experience pain during activity in one or both hips that was rated as 3 or higher on a 10-point numerical rating scale. Participants also had to have no or less than 30 minutes of hip joint stiffness in the morning as well as no surgery involving the lower extremities in the previous 6 months. 

Participants were then randomized to undertake the PRT (n = 82) or NEMEX (n = 78) program, delivered as two physiotherapist-led group sessions every week for 12 weeks. Exercise sessions were held at least 72 hours apart and consisted of a 10-minute warm-up on an exercise bike and then 50 minutes of PRT or NEMEX. PRT consisted of five generic resistance-based exercises targeting hip and knee joint muscles and NEMEX consisted of 10 exercises that increased in difficulty by varying the number, direction, speed, and surface of the movements performed.
 

Dead Heat Between PRT and NEMEX

The primary endpoint was the 30s-CST, which counted the number of times participants could stand from a seated position in 30 seconds. Participants in the PRT and NEMEX groups were able to do this maneuver a respective 11.3 and 11.6 times at baseline and 12.8 and 13.1 times after completion of the exercise programs. 

Other functional performance tests included a 40-m fast-paced walk, a nine-step timed stair climb, leg extensor power in the affected and unaffected limb, and a unilateral single repetition leg press. None of these showed a statistically significant benefit of PRT over NEMEX, or vice versa.

HOOS pain scores at baseline and 12 weeks for PRT were a respective 57.5 and 66.1, representing an overall 8.6-point increase, and for NEMEX they were 58.9 and 68.2, giving a 9.3-point increase, meaning there was only a -0.7 mean change when comparing the two groups.

Corresponding baseline and 12-week HOOS QOL scores for PRT were 43.7 and 51.7; for NEMEX, they were 47.1 and 52.8 thus giving 8.0- and 5.7-point increases and a 2.3 difference in change between the groups. Again, this wasn’t quite enough to show a clinically meaningful effect.
 

Future Steps

“The effect of exercise seems to be at its highest at 3-4 months when you implement exercise, so we compared the effects of the exercises at the time when they are probably going to be at their highest,” Mr. Kjeldsen explained. He said the research team also plans to look at what happens after 1 year of follow-up.

“The key take home message is that patients can be encouraged to pick the type of exercise that they find the most enjoyable, or the type that is available to them,” Mr. Kjeldsen suggested. 

Stephanie Chang, MD, MPH, who is the Deputy Editor of Annals of Internal Medicine and practices in Rockville, Maryland, commented on the paper to this news organization. “In this small study, we learned that exercises to strengthen lower extremity muscles did not improve pain or function any more than exercises for core stability and balance,” she said.

Dr. Chang pointed out that there was variance in the levels of activity that people already undertook at baseline: 40% of the PRT group and 41% of the NEMEX group already did 150 minutes or more of moderate intensity physical activity. 

“It’s possible that benefit or differences between interventions would be greater in people with different levels of baseline activity or even in those with different osteoarthritis severity,” she said. 

“In the meantime,” Dr. Chang added, “with the findings from this study, I would feel comfortable advising my patients with hip osteoarthritis to engage in whichever type of exercise they prefer — whether that exercise focuses on core strengthening and balance or on specific lower extremity muscle strengthening.”

The trial was funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the Physiotherapy Practice Foundation, the Health Foundation, Aarhus University, Region Zealand, the Association of Danish Physiotherapists, Andelsfonden, and Hede Nielsens Family Foundation. Mr. Kjeldsen and Dr. Chang report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There is insufficient evidence that drugs targeting the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway increase the risk of cardiovascular or thrombotic complications in people undergoing treatment for a variety of dermatological conditions, at least in the short term, say the authors of a new meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.

Considering data on over 17,000 patients with different dermatoses from 45 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an average follow up of 16 weeks, they found there was no significant increase in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with dermatoses treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, compared with placebo.

The I² statistic was 0.00% for both MACE and VTE comparing the two arms, indicating that the results were unlikely to be due to chance. There was no increased risk in MACE between those on placebo and those on JAK-STAT inhibitors, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.47; or for VTE risk, with an RR of 0.46.

Similar findings were obtained when data were analyzed according to the dermatological condition being treated, mechanism of action of the medication, or whether the medication carried a boxed warning.

These data “suggest inconsistency with established sentiments,” that JAK-STAT inhibitors increase the risk for cardiovascular events, Patrick Ireland, MD, of the University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia, and coauthors wrote in the article. “This may be owing to the limited time frames in which these rare events could be adequately captured, or the ages of enrolled patients being too young to realize the well established heightened risks of developing MACE and VTE,” they suggested.

However, the findings challenge the notion that the cardiovascular complications of these drugs are the same in all patients; dermatological use may not be associated with the same risks as with use for rheumatologic indications.
 

Class-Wide Boxed Warning

“JAK-STAT [inhibitors] have had some pretty indemnifying data against their use, with the ORAL [Surveillance] study demonstrating increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy,” Dr. Ireland said in an interview.

[embed:render:related:node:263242]

ORAL Surveillance was an open-label, postmarketing trial conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The results led the US Food and Drug Administration to require information about the risks of serious heart-related events, cancer, blood clots, and death in a boxed warning for JAK-STAT inhibitors in 2022.

“I think it’s important to recognize that these [ORAL Surveillance participants] are very different patients to the typical dermatological patient being treated with a JAK-STAT [inhibitors], with newer studies demonstrating a much safer profile than initially thought,” Dr. Ireland said.
 

Examining Risk in Dermatological Conditions

The meta-analysis performed by Dr. Ireland and associates focused specifically on the risk for MACE and VTE in patients being treated for dermatological conditions, and included trials published up until June 2023. Only trials that had included a placebo arm were considered; pooled analyses, long-term extension trial data, post hoc analyses, and pediatric-specific trials were excluded.

Most (25) of the trials were phase 2b or phase 3 trials, 18 were phase 2 to 2b, and two were phase 1 trials. The studies included 12,996 participants, mostly with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, who were treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, which included baricitinib (2846 patients), tofacitinib (2470), upadacitinib (2218), abrocitinib (1904), and deucravacitinib (1492), among others. There were 4925 patients on placebo.

Overall, MACE — defined as a combined endpoint of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and unstable angina, as well as arterial embolism — occurred in 13 of the JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in four of those on placebo. VTE — defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and any unusual site thrombosis — was reported in eight JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in one patient on placebo.

The pooled incidence ratios for MACE and VTE were calculated as 0.20 per 100 person exposure years (PEY) for JAK-STAT inhibitor treatment and 0.13 PEY for placebo. The pooled RRs comparing the two treatment groups were a respective 1.13 for MACE and 2.79 for VTE, but neither RR reached statistical significance.

No difference was seen between the treatment arms in terms of treatment emergent adverse events (RR, 1.05), serious adverse events (RR, 0.92), or study discontinuation because of adverse events (RR, 0.94).
 

Reassuring Results?

Dr. Ireland and coauthors said the finding should help to reassure clinicians that the short-term use of JAK-STAT inhibitors in patients with dermatological conditions with low cardiovascular risk profiles “appears to be both safe and well tolerated.” They cautioned, however, that “clinicians must remain judicious” when using these medications for longer periods and in high-risk patient populations.

This was a pragmatic meta-analysis that provides useful information for dermatologists, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

“When there are safety concerns, I think that’s where data like this are so important to not just allay the fears of practitioners, but also to arm the practitioner with information for when they discuss a possible treatment with a patient,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved in the study.

“What’s unique here is that they’re looking at any possible use of JAK inhibitors for dermatological disease,” so this represents patients that dermatologists would be seeing, he added.

“The limitation here is time, we only can say so much about the safety of the medication with the data that we have,” Dr. Friedman said. Almost 4 months is “a good amount of time” to know about the cardiovascular risks, he said, but added, what happens then? Will the risk increase and will patients need to be switched to another medication?

“There’s no line in the sand,” with regard to using a JAK-STAT inhibitor. “If you look at the label, they’re not meant to be used incrementally,” but as ongoing treatment, while considering the needs of the patient and the relative risks and benefits, he said.

With that in mind, “the open label extension studies for all these [JAK-STAT inhibitors] are really, really important to get a sense of ‘do new signals emerge down the road.’ ”

The meta-analysis received no commercial funding. One author of the work reported personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies which were done outside of analysis. Dr. Friedman has received research funding from or acted as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies including, Incyte, Pfizer, Eli Lily, and AbbVie.

There is insufficient evidence that drugs targeting the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway increase the risk of cardiovascular or thrombotic complications in people undergoing treatment for a variety of dermatological conditions, at least in the short term, say the authors of a new meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.

Considering data on over 17,000 patients with different dermatoses from 45 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an average follow up of 16 weeks, they found there was no significant increase in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with dermatoses treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, compared with placebo.

The I² statistic was 0.00% for both MACE and VTE comparing the two arms, indicating that the results were unlikely to be due to chance. There was no increased risk in MACE between those on placebo and those on JAK-STAT inhibitors, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.47; or for VTE risk, with an RR of 0.46.

Similar findings were obtained when data were analyzed according to the dermatological condition being treated, mechanism of action of the medication, or whether the medication carried a boxed warning.

These data “suggest inconsistency with established sentiments,” that JAK-STAT inhibitors increase the risk for cardiovascular events, Patrick Ireland, MD, of the University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia, and coauthors wrote in the article. “This may be owing to the limited time frames in which these rare events could be adequately captured, or the ages of enrolled patients being too young to realize the well established heightened risks of developing MACE and VTE,” they suggested.

However, the findings challenge the notion that the cardiovascular complications of these drugs are the same in all patients; dermatological use may not be associated with the same risks as with use for rheumatologic indications.
 

Class-Wide Boxed Warning

“JAK-STAT [inhibitors] have had some pretty indemnifying data against their use, with the ORAL [Surveillance] study demonstrating increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy,” Dr. Ireland said in an interview.

[embed:render:related:node:263242]

ORAL Surveillance was an open-label, postmarketing trial conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The results led the US Food and Drug Administration to require information about the risks of serious heart-related events, cancer, blood clots, and death in a boxed warning for JAK-STAT inhibitors in 2022.

“I think it’s important to recognize that these [ORAL Surveillance participants] are very different patients to the typical dermatological patient being treated with a JAK-STAT [inhibitors], with newer studies demonstrating a much safer profile than initially thought,” Dr. Ireland said.
 

Examining Risk in Dermatological Conditions

The meta-analysis performed by Dr. Ireland and associates focused specifically on the risk for MACE and VTE in patients being treated for dermatological conditions, and included trials published up until June 2023. Only trials that had included a placebo arm were considered; pooled analyses, long-term extension trial data, post hoc analyses, and pediatric-specific trials were excluded.

Most (25) of the trials were phase 2b or phase 3 trials, 18 were phase 2 to 2b, and two were phase 1 trials. The studies included 12,996 participants, mostly with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, who were treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, which included baricitinib (2846 patients), tofacitinib (2470), upadacitinib (2218), abrocitinib (1904), and deucravacitinib (1492), among others. There were 4925 patients on placebo.

Overall, MACE — defined as a combined endpoint of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and unstable angina, as well as arterial embolism — occurred in 13 of the JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in four of those on placebo. VTE — defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and any unusual site thrombosis — was reported in eight JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in one patient on placebo.

The pooled incidence ratios for MACE and VTE were calculated as 0.20 per 100 person exposure years (PEY) for JAK-STAT inhibitor treatment and 0.13 PEY for placebo. The pooled RRs comparing the two treatment groups were a respective 1.13 for MACE and 2.79 for VTE, but neither RR reached statistical significance.

No difference was seen between the treatment arms in terms of treatment emergent adverse events (RR, 1.05), serious adverse events (RR, 0.92), or study discontinuation because of adverse events (RR, 0.94).
 

Reassuring Results?

Dr. Ireland and coauthors said the finding should help to reassure clinicians that the short-term use of JAK-STAT inhibitors in patients with dermatological conditions with low cardiovascular risk profiles “appears to be both safe and well tolerated.” They cautioned, however, that “clinicians must remain judicious” when using these medications for longer periods and in high-risk patient populations.

This was a pragmatic meta-analysis that provides useful information for dermatologists, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

“When there are safety concerns, I think that’s where data like this are so important to not just allay the fears of practitioners, but also to arm the practitioner with information for when they discuss a possible treatment with a patient,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved in the study.

“What’s unique here is that they’re looking at any possible use of JAK inhibitors for dermatological disease,” so this represents patients that dermatologists would be seeing, he added.

“The limitation here is time, we only can say so much about the safety of the medication with the data that we have,” Dr. Friedman said. Almost 4 months is “a good amount of time” to know about the cardiovascular risks, he said, but added, what happens then? Will the risk increase and will patients need to be switched to another medication?

“There’s no line in the sand,” with regard to using a JAK-STAT inhibitor. “If you look at the label, they’re not meant to be used incrementally,” but as ongoing treatment, while considering the needs of the patient and the relative risks and benefits, he said.

With that in mind, “the open label extension studies for all these [JAK-STAT inhibitors] are really, really important to get a sense of ‘do new signals emerge down the road.’ ”

The meta-analysis received no commercial funding. One author of the work reported personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies which were done outside of analysis. Dr. Friedman has received research funding from or acted as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies including, Incyte, Pfizer, Eli Lily, and AbbVie.

There is insufficient evidence that drugs targeting the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway increase the risk of cardiovascular or thrombotic complications in people undergoing treatment for a variety of dermatological conditions, at least in the short term, say the authors of a new meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.

Considering data on over 17,000 patients with different dermatoses from 45 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an average follow up of 16 weeks, they found there was no significant increase in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with dermatoses treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, compared with placebo.

The I² statistic was 0.00% for both MACE and VTE comparing the two arms, indicating that the results were unlikely to be due to chance. There was no increased risk in MACE between those on placebo and those on JAK-STAT inhibitors, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.47; or for VTE risk, with an RR of 0.46.

Similar findings were obtained when data were analyzed according to the dermatological condition being treated, mechanism of action of the medication, or whether the medication carried a boxed warning.

These data “suggest inconsistency with established sentiments,” that JAK-STAT inhibitors increase the risk for cardiovascular events, Patrick Ireland, MD, of the University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia, and coauthors wrote in the article. “This may be owing to the limited time frames in which these rare events could be adequately captured, or the ages of enrolled patients being too young to realize the well established heightened risks of developing MACE and VTE,” they suggested.

However, the findings challenge the notion that the cardiovascular complications of these drugs are the same in all patients; dermatological use may not be associated with the same risks as with use for rheumatologic indications.
 

Class-Wide Boxed Warning

“JAK-STAT [inhibitors] have had some pretty indemnifying data against their use, with the ORAL [Surveillance] study demonstrating increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy,” Dr. Ireland said in an interview.

[embed:render:related:node:263242]

ORAL Surveillance was an open-label, postmarketing trial conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The results led the US Food and Drug Administration to require information about the risks of serious heart-related events, cancer, blood clots, and death in a boxed warning for JAK-STAT inhibitors in 2022.

“I think it’s important to recognize that these [ORAL Surveillance participants] are very different patients to the typical dermatological patient being treated with a JAK-STAT [inhibitors], with newer studies demonstrating a much safer profile than initially thought,” Dr. Ireland said.
 

Examining Risk in Dermatological Conditions

The meta-analysis performed by Dr. Ireland and associates focused specifically on the risk for MACE and VTE in patients being treated for dermatological conditions, and included trials published up until June 2023. Only trials that had included a placebo arm were considered; pooled analyses, long-term extension trial data, post hoc analyses, and pediatric-specific trials were excluded.

Most (25) of the trials were phase 2b or phase 3 trials, 18 were phase 2 to 2b, and two were phase 1 trials. The studies included 12,996 participants, mostly with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, who were treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, which included baricitinib (2846 patients), tofacitinib (2470), upadacitinib (2218), abrocitinib (1904), and deucravacitinib (1492), among others. There were 4925 patients on placebo.

Overall, MACE — defined as a combined endpoint of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and unstable angina, as well as arterial embolism — occurred in 13 of the JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in four of those on placebo. VTE — defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and any unusual site thrombosis — was reported in eight JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in one patient on placebo.

The pooled incidence ratios for MACE and VTE were calculated as 0.20 per 100 person exposure years (PEY) for JAK-STAT inhibitor treatment and 0.13 PEY for placebo. The pooled RRs comparing the two treatment groups were a respective 1.13 for MACE and 2.79 for VTE, but neither RR reached statistical significance.

No difference was seen between the treatment arms in terms of treatment emergent adverse events (RR, 1.05), serious adverse events (RR, 0.92), or study discontinuation because of adverse events (RR, 0.94).
 

Reassuring Results?

Dr. Ireland and coauthors said the finding should help to reassure clinicians that the short-term use of JAK-STAT inhibitors in patients with dermatological conditions with low cardiovascular risk profiles “appears to be both safe and well tolerated.” They cautioned, however, that “clinicians must remain judicious” when using these medications for longer periods and in high-risk patient populations.

This was a pragmatic meta-analysis that provides useful information for dermatologists, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

“When there are safety concerns, I think that’s where data like this are so important to not just allay the fears of practitioners, but also to arm the practitioner with information for when they discuss a possible treatment with a patient,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved in the study.

“What’s unique here is that they’re looking at any possible use of JAK inhibitors for dermatological disease,” so this represents patients that dermatologists would be seeing, he added.

“The limitation here is time, we only can say so much about the safety of the medication with the data that we have,” Dr. Friedman said. Almost 4 months is “a good amount of time” to know about the cardiovascular risks, he said, but added, what happens then? Will the risk increase and will patients need to be switched to another medication?

“There’s no line in the sand,” with regard to using a JAK-STAT inhibitor. “If you look at the label, they’re not meant to be used incrementally,” but as ongoing treatment, while considering the needs of the patient and the relative risks and benefits, he said.

With that in mind, “the open label extension studies for all these [JAK-STAT inhibitors] are really, really important to get a sense of ‘do new signals emerge down the road.’ ”

The meta-analysis received no commercial funding. One author of the work reported personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies which were done outside of analysis. Dr. Friedman has received research funding from or acted as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies including, Incyte, Pfizer, Eli Lily, and AbbVie.

When axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) is suspected, a “prompt referral to a rheumatologist” is in order. But with the referral possibly taking several weeks, if not months in some parts of the world, how can primary care practitioners manage patients with this type of chronic back pain in the meantime? And what is the long-term role of the primary care practitioner in managing someone diagnosed with the condition? This news organization asked rheumatologist Marina Magrey, MD, and general internal medicine physician Debra Leizman, MD, for their expert advice.

Steps to Manage Suspected Axial SpA

“As [primary care practitioners] identify patients who they suspect may have axial spondyloarthritis, the first thing they should do is a prompt referral to a rheumatologist so that there is a timely diagnosis,” said Dr. Magrey, who heads up the division of rheumatology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and is professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio.

Importantly, the referral should “explicitly say that they’re suspecting axial spondyloarthritis” and not just chronic back pain, Dr. Magrey added, otherwise it may not “hit the radar” that patients need to be seen as soon as possible. Results of lab tests such as C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and human leukocyte antigen B27, along with basic pelvic imaging results, are useful to note on the referral. “If the patient comes with that information, it makes it much easier for the rheumatologist,” she said.

Additionally, primary care practitioners can carry out screening for high cholesterol and high blood pressure and check for any existing cardiovascular disorders or extraarticular manifestations before the patient gets to see the rheumatologist.

First-Line Treatment Options

“The goal is to improve the quality of life for our patients: To reduce pain, fatigue, inflammation,” Dr. Magrey noted. “So, starting a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] with physical therapy is very useful” in primary care, she added. These remain the “cornerstone” of treatment for axial SpA even in secondary care.

Dr. Leizman agreed that her “go to” treatment for suspected axial SpA is physical therapy alongside one of the many NSAIDs available, such as naproxen or celecoxib. She may also use topical treatments such as lidocaine or diclofenac.

“I’m not going to start any biologics; I leave that for my rheumatologist,” said Dr. Leizman, who is a senior attending physician in the division of general internal medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University.

“If I think it’s a possibility that the patient will be going on to a biologic; however, I will try to check their TB status, immunizations, and vaccination titers, making sure that the patient is up to date and as healthy otherwise as possible so that they will be primed and ready, hopefully, to go on to the biologics,” she added.

Dr. Magrey cautioned that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, such as methotrexate and sulfasalazine, and systemic steroids such as oral prednisone “do not work in axial spondyloarthritis, so they are not recommended.”

Does the Choice of NSAID Matter?

The choice of NSAID is really down to the personal choice of the physician in agreement with the patient, and of course whether the medical insurance will cover it, Dr. Magrey observed. There appears to be little difference between the available NSAIDs, and it doesn’t appear to matter whether they are long-acting and taken once a day — which may be a convenient option for some patients — or short-acting and taken twice a day. The important point is that patients are taking these drugs continuously and not on demand and that they are being given at full dose.

“Start with one NSAID at the maximum strength, and then you try that for 2-4 weeks. If that doesn’t work, switch to another one,” Dr. Magrey advised.

American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines for axial SpA recommend that a trial of at least two NSAIDs is undertaken before any biologic treatment is considered, but because the presentation of axial SpA is so heterogeneous, the decision to escalate treatment — usually to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor first — is best left until after the referral and the diagnosis had been confirmed, she suggested.

What Type of Physical Therapy Works?

Physical therapy and nonpharmacologic ways to help people are integral to optimal patient management. But these still need to be prescribed and administered by a qualified physiotherapist, which means another, separate referral that can also take time, as it’s important to match the patient to the right physiotherapist, Dr. Leizman observed.

Patients need to be informed about the benefits of regular exercise, and suggesting low-impact exercises for the back can be helpful, Dr. Magrey noted.

“Supervised physical therapy is preferred over unsupervised back exercises,” Dr. Magrey said, summarizing current ACR recommendations, which also suggest that land-based activities are preferred over water-based exercises and group physical therapy rather than home-based exercises, according to the available evidence, although it is of low-to-moderate quality.

What type of physical therapy to recommend really boils down to what services are available, what facilities the patient has access to, and what they feel they are capable of doing or are willing to do.

Back pain can be frustrating for patients, said Dr. Leizman, because they hurt when they move, and there’s not a simple solution of “do this or that and you’ll get better.”

“If it’s possible for a patient to do aqua therapy, that has been a good option for many of my patients who are unable to get moving on land without pain,” she said, and “I’ve had some great success with some yoga therapists who work with my patients.”

Long-term Role of the Primary Care Practitioner

Once referred, patients with axial SpA will usually be seen by their rheumatologists at least twice a year to monitor their response to treatment. Primary care practitioners will also continue to see these people for other reasons and can help monitor for drug toxicity by performing blood and liver function tests, as well as looking for signs of associated conditions such as uveitis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease and referring patients on to other specialists as required.

Treating the inflammatory back pain may sometimes help treat the related conditions and vice versa, but not always, noted Dr. Leizman. Communication between professionals is thus very important to ensure that everyone is on the same page, and regular updates help enormously.

Dr. Leizman tries to see all her patients regularly, at least once a year, but it can be once or twice a year, depending on their age, how healthy they are, and what underlying conditions they may have that she is also managing along with the inflammatory back condition. It is a balancing act to prevent too many appointments, she said, but also helps patients manage the multiple recommendations.

At these appointments, she’ll not only check on patients’ progress and ensure that they have had all the tests that they should have, but she’ll also discuss general measures that may help with patients’ general health, such as weight control, their ability to manage disease processes with other daily activities of living, and other creative coping mechanisms.

“The weight discussion is never easy, but it is helpful to address the impact of weight if it may be contributing to their discomfort,” Dr. Leizman said. “I also think that there are diets patients can choose that are less inflammatory and that can be beneficial.”

Ultimately, “I want my patients to be on the least amount of medicine possible,” Dr. Leizman said. “If they need medications, I support my rheumatologists’ recommendations. I help my patients as they try whatever works to make them feel better, both the nonpharmaceutical options and the medications,” she said.

“Importantly, I am there for support as a resource and a partner,” Leizman added. “I’m the main quarterback for my patients.”

Key Takeaways

• Prompt referral to a rheumatologist remains key.
• The treatment goal is to improve patients’ quality of life by reducing symptoms such as pain and fatigue.
• Physical therapy and NSAIDs remain first-line treatment in primary care.
• NSAID treatment should be at the full recommended dose and given continuously, not as needed.
• The choice of NSAID does not matter; try switching the NSAID if no effects are seen.
• Physical therapy such as water-based activities and yoga may be beneficial, but exercise programs should be prescribed by a qualified therapist.
• Remember general health advice regarding diet and nutrition can be helpful.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) is suspected, a “prompt referral to a rheumatologist” is in order. But with the referral possibly taking several weeks, if not months in some parts of the world, how can primary care practitioners manage patients with this type of chronic back pain in the meantime? And what is the long-term role of the primary care practitioner in managing someone diagnosed with the condition? This news organization asked rheumatologist Marina Magrey, MD, and general internal medicine physician Debra Leizman, MD, for their expert advice.

Steps to Manage Suspected Axial SpA

“As [primary care practitioners] identify patients who they suspect may have axial spondyloarthritis, the first thing they should do is a prompt referral to a rheumatologist so that there is a timely diagnosis,” said Dr. Magrey, who heads up the division of rheumatology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and is professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio.

Importantly, the referral should “explicitly say that they’re suspecting axial spondyloarthritis” and not just chronic back pain, Dr. Magrey added, otherwise it may not “hit the radar” that patients need to be seen as soon as possible. Results of lab tests such as C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and human leukocyte antigen B27, along with basic pelvic imaging results, are useful to note on the referral. “If the patient comes with that information, it makes it much easier for the rheumatologist,” she said.

Additionally, primary care practitioners can carry out screening for high cholesterol and high blood pressure and check for any existing cardiovascular disorders or extraarticular manifestations before the patient gets to see the rheumatologist.

First-Line Treatment Options

“The goal is to improve the quality of life for our patients: To reduce pain, fatigue, inflammation,” Dr. Magrey noted. “So, starting a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] with physical therapy is very useful” in primary care, she added. These remain the “cornerstone” of treatment for axial SpA even in secondary care.

Dr. Leizman agreed that her “go to” treatment for suspected axial SpA is physical therapy alongside one of the many NSAIDs available, such as naproxen or celecoxib. She may also use topical treatments such as lidocaine or diclofenac.

“I’m not going to start any biologics; I leave that for my rheumatologist,” said Dr. Leizman, who is a senior attending physician in the division of general internal medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University.

“If I think it’s a possibility that the patient will be going on to a biologic; however, I will try to check their TB status, immunizations, and vaccination titers, making sure that the patient is up to date and as healthy otherwise as possible so that they will be primed and ready, hopefully, to go on to the biologics,” she added.

Dr. Magrey cautioned that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, such as methotrexate and sulfasalazine, and systemic steroids such as oral prednisone “do not work in axial spondyloarthritis, so they are not recommended.”

Does the Choice of NSAID Matter?

The choice of NSAID is really down to the personal choice of the physician in agreement with the patient, and of course whether the medical insurance will cover it, Dr. Magrey observed. There appears to be little difference between the available NSAIDs, and it doesn’t appear to matter whether they are long-acting and taken once a day — which may be a convenient option for some patients — or short-acting and taken twice a day. The important point is that patients are taking these drugs continuously and not on demand and that they are being given at full dose.

“Start with one NSAID at the maximum strength, and then you try that for 2-4 weeks. If that doesn’t work, switch to another one,” Dr. Magrey advised.

American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines for axial SpA recommend that a trial of at least two NSAIDs is undertaken before any biologic treatment is considered, but because the presentation of axial SpA is so heterogeneous, the decision to escalate treatment — usually to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor first — is best left until after the referral and the diagnosis had been confirmed, she suggested.

What Type of Physical Therapy Works?

Physical therapy and nonpharmacologic ways to help people are integral to optimal patient management. But these still need to be prescribed and administered by a qualified physiotherapist, which means another, separate referral that can also take time, as it’s important to match the patient to the right physiotherapist, Dr. Leizman observed.

Patients need to be informed about the benefits of regular exercise, and suggesting low-impact exercises for the back can be helpful, Dr. Magrey noted.

“Supervised physical therapy is preferred over unsupervised back exercises,” Dr. Magrey said, summarizing current ACR recommendations, which also suggest that land-based activities are preferred over water-based exercises and group physical therapy rather than home-based exercises, according to the available evidence, although it is of low-to-moderate quality.

What type of physical therapy to recommend really boils down to what services are available, what facilities the patient has access to, and what they feel they are capable of doing or are willing to do.

Back pain can be frustrating for patients, said Dr. Leizman, because they hurt when they move, and there’s not a simple solution of “do this or that and you’ll get better.”

“If it’s possible for a patient to do aqua therapy, that has been a good option for many of my patients who are unable to get moving on land without pain,” she said, and “I’ve had some great success with some yoga therapists who work with my patients.”

Long-term Role of the Primary Care Practitioner

Once referred, patients with axial SpA will usually be seen by their rheumatologists at least twice a year to monitor their response to treatment. Primary care practitioners will also continue to see these people for other reasons and can help monitor for drug toxicity by performing blood and liver function tests, as well as looking for signs of associated conditions such as uveitis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease and referring patients on to other specialists as required.

Treating the inflammatory back pain may sometimes help treat the related conditions and vice versa, but not always, noted Dr. Leizman. Communication between professionals is thus very important to ensure that everyone is on the same page, and regular updates help enormously.

Dr. Leizman tries to see all her patients regularly, at least once a year, but it can be once or twice a year, depending on their age, how healthy they are, and what underlying conditions they may have that she is also managing along with the inflammatory back condition. It is a balancing act to prevent too many appointments, she said, but also helps patients manage the multiple recommendations.

At these appointments, she’ll not only check on patients’ progress and ensure that they have had all the tests that they should have, but she’ll also discuss general measures that may help with patients’ general health, such as weight control, their ability to manage disease processes with other daily activities of living, and other creative coping mechanisms.

“The weight discussion is never easy, but it is helpful to address the impact of weight if it may be contributing to their discomfort,” Dr. Leizman said. “I also think that there are diets patients can choose that are less inflammatory and that can be beneficial.”

Ultimately, “I want my patients to be on the least amount of medicine possible,” Dr. Leizman said. “If they need medications, I support my rheumatologists’ recommendations. I help my patients as they try whatever works to make them feel better, both the nonpharmaceutical options and the medications,” she said.

“Importantly, I am there for support as a resource and a partner,” Leizman added. “I’m the main quarterback for my patients.”

Key Takeaways

• Prompt referral to a rheumatologist remains key.
• The treatment goal is to improve patients’ quality of life by reducing symptoms such as pain and fatigue.
• Physical therapy and NSAIDs remain first-line treatment in primary care.
• NSAID treatment should be at the full recommended dose and given continuously, not as needed.
• The choice of NSAID does not matter; try switching the NSAID if no effects are seen.
• Physical therapy such as water-based activities and yoga may be beneficial, but exercise programs should be prescribed by a qualified therapist.
• Remember general health advice regarding diet and nutrition can be helpful.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) is suspected, a “prompt referral to a rheumatologist” is in order. But with the referral possibly taking several weeks, if not months in some parts of the world, how can primary care practitioners manage patients with this type of chronic back pain in the meantime? And what is the long-term role of the primary care practitioner in managing someone diagnosed with the condition? This news organization asked rheumatologist Marina Magrey, MD, and general internal medicine physician Debra Leizman, MD, for their expert advice.

Steps to Manage Suspected Axial SpA

“As [primary care practitioners] identify patients who they suspect may have axial spondyloarthritis, the first thing they should do is a prompt referral to a rheumatologist so that there is a timely diagnosis,” said Dr. Magrey, who heads up the division of rheumatology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and is professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio.

Importantly, the referral should “explicitly say that they’re suspecting axial spondyloarthritis” and not just chronic back pain, Dr. Magrey added, otherwise it may not “hit the radar” that patients need to be seen as soon as possible. Results of lab tests such as C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and human leukocyte antigen B27, along with basic pelvic imaging results, are useful to note on the referral. “If the patient comes with that information, it makes it much easier for the rheumatologist,” she said.

Additionally, primary care practitioners can carry out screening for high cholesterol and high blood pressure and check for any existing cardiovascular disorders or extraarticular manifestations before the patient gets to see the rheumatologist.

First-Line Treatment Options

“The goal is to improve the quality of life for our patients: To reduce pain, fatigue, inflammation,” Dr. Magrey noted. “So, starting a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] with physical therapy is very useful” in primary care, she added. These remain the “cornerstone” of treatment for axial SpA even in secondary care.

Dr. Leizman agreed that her “go to” treatment for suspected axial SpA is physical therapy alongside one of the many NSAIDs available, such as naproxen or celecoxib. She may also use topical treatments such as lidocaine or diclofenac.

“I’m not going to start any biologics; I leave that for my rheumatologist,” said Dr. Leizman, who is a senior attending physician in the division of general internal medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University.

“If I think it’s a possibility that the patient will be going on to a biologic; however, I will try to check their TB status, immunizations, and vaccination titers, making sure that the patient is up to date and as healthy otherwise as possible so that they will be primed and ready, hopefully, to go on to the biologics,” she added.

Dr. Magrey cautioned that disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, such as methotrexate and sulfasalazine, and systemic steroids such as oral prednisone “do not work in axial spondyloarthritis, so they are not recommended.”

Does the Choice of NSAID Matter?

The choice of NSAID is really down to the personal choice of the physician in agreement with the patient, and of course whether the medical insurance will cover it, Dr. Magrey observed. There appears to be little difference between the available NSAIDs, and it doesn’t appear to matter whether they are long-acting and taken once a day — which may be a convenient option for some patients — or short-acting and taken twice a day. The important point is that patients are taking these drugs continuously and not on demand and that they are being given at full dose.

“Start with one NSAID at the maximum strength, and then you try that for 2-4 weeks. If that doesn’t work, switch to another one,” Dr. Magrey advised.

American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines for axial SpA recommend that a trial of at least two NSAIDs is undertaken before any biologic treatment is considered, but because the presentation of axial SpA is so heterogeneous, the decision to escalate treatment — usually to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor first — is best left until after the referral and the diagnosis had been confirmed, she suggested.

What Type of Physical Therapy Works?

Physical therapy and nonpharmacologic ways to help people are integral to optimal patient management. But these still need to be prescribed and administered by a qualified physiotherapist, which means another, separate referral that can also take time, as it’s important to match the patient to the right physiotherapist, Dr. Leizman observed.

Patients need to be informed about the benefits of regular exercise, and suggesting low-impact exercises for the back can be helpful, Dr. Magrey noted.

“Supervised physical therapy is preferred over unsupervised back exercises,” Dr. Magrey said, summarizing current ACR recommendations, which also suggest that land-based activities are preferred over water-based exercises and group physical therapy rather than home-based exercises, according to the available evidence, although it is of low-to-moderate quality.

What type of physical therapy to recommend really boils down to what services are available, what facilities the patient has access to, and what they feel they are capable of doing or are willing to do.

Back pain can be frustrating for patients, said Dr. Leizman, because they hurt when they move, and there’s not a simple solution of “do this or that and you’ll get better.”

“If it’s possible for a patient to do aqua therapy, that has been a good option for many of my patients who are unable to get moving on land without pain,” she said, and “I’ve had some great success with some yoga therapists who work with my patients.”

Long-term Role of the Primary Care Practitioner

Once referred, patients with axial SpA will usually be seen by their rheumatologists at least twice a year to monitor their response to treatment. Primary care practitioners will also continue to see these people for other reasons and can help monitor for drug toxicity by performing blood and liver function tests, as well as looking for signs of associated conditions such as uveitis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease and referring patients on to other specialists as required.

Treating the inflammatory back pain may sometimes help treat the related conditions and vice versa, but not always, noted Dr. Leizman. Communication between professionals is thus very important to ensure that everyone is on the same page, and regular updates help enormously.

Dr. Leizman tries to see all her patients regularly, at least once a year, but it can be once or twice a year, depending on their age, how healthy they are, and what underlying conditions they may have that she is also managing along with the inflammatory back condition. It is a balancing act to prevent too many appointments, she said, but also helps patients manage the multiple recommendations.

At these appointments, she’ll not only check on patients’ progress and ensure that they have had all the tests that they should have, but she’ll also discuss general measures that may help with patients’ general health, such as weight control, their ability to manage disease processes with other daily activities of living, and other creative coping mechanisms.

“The weight discussion is never easy, but it is helpful to address the impact of weight if it may be contributing to their discomfort,” Dr. Leizman said. “I also think that there are diets patients can choose that are less inflammatory and that can be beneficial.”

Ultimately, “I want my patients to be on the least amount of medicine possible,” Dr. Leizman said. “If they need medications, I support my rheumatologists’ recommendations. I help my patients as they try whatever works to make them feel better, both the nonpharmaceutical options and the medications,” she said.

“Importantly, I am there for support as a resource and a partner,” Leizman added. “I’m the main quarterback for my patients.”

Key Takeaways

• Prompt referral to a rheumatologist remains key.
• The treatment goal is to improve patients’ quality of life by reducing symptoms such as pain and fatigue.
• Physical therapy and NSAIDs remain first-line treatment in primary care.
• NSAID treatment should be at the full recommended dose and given continuously, not as needed.
• The choice of NSAID does not matter; try switching the NSAID if no effects are seen.
• Physical therapy such as water-based activities and yoga may be beneficial, but exercise programs should be prescribed by a qualified therapist.
• Remember general health advice regarding diet and nutrition can be helpful.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with psoriasis being treated with biologics have a low overall risk for developing the paradoxical symptoms of eczema, with interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors found to confer the lowest risk of the drug classes examined in a large observational analysis.

Using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) database, Ali Al-Janabi, MA, from the University of Manchester (England) and associates found that 273 (1%) of approximately 25,000 drug exposures in 13,699 biologic-treated patients with psoriasis were associated with paradoxical eczema.

The incidence of paradoxical eczema was found to vary by class. The highest rate was seen for IL-17 inhibitors, at 1.22 per 100,000 person-years, and the lowest rate was seen with IL-23 inhibitors, at 0.56 per 100,000 person-years. The respective incidence rates for tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and IL-12/IL-23 inhibitors were a respective 0.94 and 0.80 per 100,000 person-years.

“Compared with TNF inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitor exposure was associated with significantly lower risk of paradoxical eczema,” the BADBIR Study Group reported in JAMA Dermatology. Indeed, patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors were 61% less likely than were those taking TNF-inhibitors to experience a paradoxical eczema event.

“These findings remained when restricting the analysis to first-line biologic exposures and were specific to this eczema phenotype” the group said.

Cautious Interpretation

As the corresponding author for the work, Mr. Al-Janabi observed in an email that the research needs to be replicated, and the findings need to be interpreted with caution.

“As well as usual clinical variables influencing biologic selection, clinicians could consider IL-23 inhibitors in patients with previous atopic dermatitis, hay fever, or paradoxical eczema episodes, as this class was associated with the lowest risk of paradoxical eczema,” he suggested.

A prior history of atopic dermatitis (AD) and hay fever appears to be particularly relevant, as both substantially upped the chances that paradoxical eczema would occur, with hazard ratios of 12.40 and 3.78, respectively. Increasing age also increased the risk, albeit slightly (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 per year), and there was an apparent lower risk (HR, 0.60) comparing men and women.

The BADBIR Study Group authors believe that, to the best of their knowledge, this is the first study to compare paradoxical eczema risk by biologic class. “Based on clinical experience and prevalence of eczematous reactions reported in some IL-17 inhibitor clinical trials, we suspected an association between IL-17 inhibitor exposure and paradoxical eczema,” they wrote.

“While the incidence of paradoxical eczema was numerically highest among IL-17 inhibitor exposures, it was not significantly different from the incidence among TNF inhibitor exposures.” The low overall incidence of paradoxical eczema “may be reassuring for patients and clinicians,” they added, “but it is possible that the incidence was underestimated due to underreporting or exclusion of adverse events with insufficient detail.”

[embed:render:related:node:263942]

Details of the Analysis, Other Findings

To explore the risk of paradoxical eczema by biologic class and identify possible risk factors, the BADBIR Study Group performed a prospective cohort study using data held within the BADBIR database between September 2007 and December 2022.

Adults over the age of 18 year or older with plaque psoriasis and who had been treated with at least one of the following biologics were eligible for inclusion: the TNF inhibitors adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, and infliximab; the IL-17 inhibitors bimekizumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab; the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab; and the IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab.

Patient records and adverse event data were reviewed to determine the incidence of paradoxical eczema events, using terms such as eczema, eczematized, eczematous, atopy, atopic, and dermatitis.

Of 24,952 drug exposures analyzed, the majority (11,819) were for TNF inhibitors, followed by IL-17 inhibitors (4,776), IL-12/23 inhibitors (6,423), and finally, IL-23 inhibitors (1,934).

Mr. Al-Janabi and coauthors reported that the median time to onset of paradoxical eczema events was 294 days — approximately 9.8 months. The earliest that these events were recorded was at 120 days (4 months), and the latest at 699 days (almost 2 years).

The face and neck were the most common sites affected (26% of exposures), with other sites including the limbs (23%), the trunk (13%), and hands or feet (12%). Itching (18%), redness (7%), and dryness (4%) were the most commonly reported symptoms.

The researchers noted that 21 patients had skin biopsies taken and “all showed spongiosis or a feature of eczema, with 1 having overlapping features of psoriasis.”

In the majority (92 %) of cases, patients experienced only one eczema event. Of the 20 patients who had more than one event, just over one-fifth of repeat events occurred after receiving the same biologic as for the index event. A quarter of events occurred after a different biologic of the same class had been used, and just over half of events occurred after a different class of biologic had been given.

Strengths and Limitations

The “large sample size and inclusion of multiple lines of exposure per participant” are strengths of the study, said the researchers. “We included data for all currently available biologics, originating from more than 160 dermatology centers in the UK and Ireland.”

They added, however, that the “main limitation is the small numbers of observations within certain subgroups, such as specific biologic exposures or participants in ethnic minority groups, restricting generalizability of our findings and the interpretation of some subgroup analyses.”

Moreover, the small number of paradoxical eczema events seen may have resulted in imprecise effect estimates, they observe, noting that the number of exposures to IL-23 inhibitors was low compared with other classes.

“Future studies with more exposures and paradoxical eczema events would enable a more robust analysis of individual drugs and patient subgroups,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council. BADBIR is coordinated by The University of Manchester, and funded by the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD). The BAD receives income from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz Hexal AG, and UCB Pharma for providing pharmacovigilance services. This income finances a separate contract between the BAD and The University of Manchester, which coordinates BADBIR. Mr. Al-Janabi reported receiving grants from the Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from UCB, Almirall, and Janssen; and personal fees from UCB outside the submitted work.

Patients with psoriasis being treated with biologics have a low overall risk for developing the paradoxical symptoms of eczema, with interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors found to confer the lowest risk of the drug classes examined in a large observational analysis.

Using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) database, Ali Al-Janabi, MA, from the University of Manchester (England) and associates found that 273 (1%) of approximately 25,000 drug exposures in 13,699 biologic-treated patients with psoriasis were associated with paradoxical eczema.

The incidence of paradoxical eczema was found to vary by class. The highest rate was seen for IL-17 inhibitors, at 1.22 per 100,000 person-years, and the lowest rate was seen with IL-23 inhibitors, at 0.56 per 100,000 person-years. The respective incidence rates for tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and IL-12/IL-23 inhibitors were a respective 0.94 and 0.80 per 100,000 person-years.

“Compared with TNF inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitor exposure was associated with significantly lower risk of paradoxical eczema,” the BADBIR Study Group reported in JAMA Dermatology. Indeed, patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors were 61% less likely than were those taking TNF-inhibitors to experience a paradoxical eczema event.

“These findings remained when restricting the analysis to first-line biologic exposures and were specific to this eczema phenotype” the group said.

Cautious Interpretation

As the corresponding author for the work, Mr. Al-Janabi observed in an email that the research needs to be replicated, and the findings need to be interpreted with caution.

“As well as usual clinical variables influencing biologic selection, clinicians could consider IL-23 inhibitors in patients with previous atopic dermatitis, hay fever, or paradoxical eczema episodes, as this class was associated with the lowest risk of paradoxical eczema,” he suggested.

A prior history of atopic dermatitis (AD) and hay fever appears to be particularly relevant, as both substantially upped the chances that paradoxical eczema would occur, with hazard ratios of 12.40 and 3.78, respectively. Increasing age also increased the risk, albeit slightly (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 per year), and there was an apparent lower risk (HR, 0.60) comparing men and women.

The BADBIR Study Group authors believe that, to the best of their knowledge, this is the first study to compare paradoxical eczema risk by biologic class. “Based on clinical experience and prevalence of eczematous reactions reported in some IL-17 inhibitor clinical trials, we suspected an association between IL-17 inhibitor exposure and paradoxical eczema,” they wrote.

“While the incidence of paradoxical eczema was numerically highest among IL-17 inhibitor exposures, it was not significantly different from the incidence among TNF inhibitor exposures.” The low overall incidence of paradoxical eczema “may be reassuring for patients and clinicians,” they added, “but it is possible that the incidence was underestimated due to underreporting or exclusion of adverse events with insufficient detail.”

[embed:render:related:node:263942]

Details of the Analysis, Other Findings

To explore the risk of paradoxical eczema by biologic class and identify possible risk factors, the BADBIR Study Group performed a prospective cohort study using data held within the BADBIR database between September 2007 and December 2022.

Adults over the age of 18 year or older with plaque psoriasis and who had been treated with at least one of the following biologics were eligible for inclusion: the TNF inhibitors adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, and infliximab; the IL-17 inhibitors bimekizumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab; the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab; and the IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab.

Patient records and adverse event data were reviewed to determine the incidence of paradoxical eczema events, using terms such as eczema, eczematized, eczematous, atopy, atopic, and dermatitis.

Of 24,952 drug exposures analyzed, the majority (11,819) were for TNF inhibitors, followed by IL-17 inhibitors (4,776), IL-12/23 inhibitors (6,423), and finally, IL-23 inhibitors (1,934).

Mr. Al-Janabi and coauthors reported that the median time to onset of paradoxical eczema events was 294 days — approximately 9.8 months. The earliest that these events were recorded was at 120 days (4 months), and the latest at 699 days (almost 2 years).

The face and neck were the most common sites affected (26% of exposures), with other sites including the limbs (23%), the trunk (13%), and hands or feet (12%). Itching (18%), redness (7%), and dryness (4%) were the most commonly reported symptoms.

The researchers noted that 21 patients had skin biopsies taken and “all showed spongiosis or a feature of eczema, with 1 having overlapping features of psoriasis.”

In the majority (92 %) of cases, patients experienced only one eczema event. Of the 20 patients who had more than one event, just over one-fifth of repeat events occurred after receiving the same biologic as for the index event. A quarter of events occurred after a different biologic of the same class had been used, and just over half of events occurred after a different class of biologic had been given.

Strengths and Limitations

The “large sample size and inclusion of multiple lines of exposure per participant” are strengths of the study, said the researchers. “We included data for all currently available biologics, originating from more than 160 dermatology centers in the UK and Ireland.”

They added, however, that the “main limitation is the small numbers of observations within certain subgroups, such as specific biologic exposures or participants in ethnic minority groups, restricting generalizability of our findings and the interpretation of some subgroup analyses.”

Moreover, the small number of paradoxical eczema events seen may have resulted in imprecise effect estimates, they observe, noting that the number of exposures to IL-23 inhibitors was low compared with other classes.

“Future studies with more exposures and paradoxical eczema events would enable a more robust analysis of individual drugs and patient subgroups,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council. BADBIR is coordinated by The University of Manchester, and funded by the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD). The BAD receives income from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz Hexal AG, and UCB Pharma for providing pharmacovigilance services. This income finances a separate contract between the BAD and The University of Manchester, which coordinates BADBIR. Mr. Al-Janabi reported receiving grants from the Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from UCB, Almirall, and Janssen; and personal fees from UCB outside the submitted work.

Patients with psoriasis being treated with biologics have a low overall risk for developing the paradoxical symptoms of eczema, with interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors found to confer the lowest risk of the drug classes examined in a large observational analysis.

Using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) database, Ali Al-Janabi, MA, from the University of Manchester (England) and associates found that 273 (1%) of approximately 25,000 drug exposures in 13,699 biologic-treated patients with psoriasis were associated with paradoxical eczema.

The incidence of paradoxical eczema was found to vary by class. The highest rate was seen for IL-17 inhibitors, at 1.22 per 100,000 person-years, and the lowest rate was seen with IL-23 inhibitors, at 0.56 per 100,000 person-years. The respective incidence rates for tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and IL-12/IL-23 inhibitors were a respective 0.94 and 0.80 per 100,000 person-years.

“Compared with TNF inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitor exposure was associated with significantly lower risk of paradoxical eczema,” the BADBIR Study Group reported in JAMA Dermatology. Indeed, patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors were 61% less likely than were those taking TNF-inhibitors to experience a paradoxical eczema event.

“These findings remained when restricting the analysis to first-line biologic exposures and were specific to this eczema phenotype” the group said.

Cautious Interpretation

As the corresponding author for the work, Mr. Al-Janabi observed in an email that the research needs to be replicated, and the findings need to be interpreted with caution.

“As well as usual clinical variables influencing biologic selection, clinicians could consider IL-23 inhibitors in patients with previous atopic dermatitis, hay fever, or paradoxical eczema episodes, as this class was associated with the lowest risk of paradoxical eczema,” he suggested.

A prior history of atopic dermatitis (AD) and hay fever appears to be particularly relevant, as both substantially upped the chances that paradoxical eczema would occur, with hazard ratios of 12.40 and 3.78, respectively. Increasing age also increased the risk, albeit slightly (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 per year), and there was an apparent lower risk (HR, 0.60) comparing men and women.

The BADBIR Study Group authors believe that, to the best of their knowledge, this is the first study to compare paradoxical eczema risk by biologic class. “Based on clinical experience and prevalence of eczematous reactions reported in some IL-17 inhibitor clinical trials, we suspected an association between IL-17 inhibitor exposure and paradoxical eczema,” they wrote.

“While the incidence of paradoxical eczema was numerically highest among IL-17 inhibitor exposures, it was not significantly different from the incidence among TNF inhibitor exposures.” The low overall incidence of paradoxical eczema “may be reassuring for patients and clinicians,” they added, “but it is possible that the incidence was underestimated due to underreporting or exclusion of adverse events with insufficient detail.”

[embed:render:related:node:263942]

Details of the Analysis, Other Findings

To explore the risk of paradoxical eczema by biologic class and identify possible risk factors, the BADBIR Study Group performed a prospective cohort study using data held within the BADBIR database between September 2007 and December 2022.

Adults over the age of 18 year or older with plaque psoriasis and who had been treated with at least one of the following biologics were eligible for inclusion: the TNF inhibitors adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, and infliximab; the IL-17 inhibitors bimekizumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab; the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab; and the IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab.

Patient records and adverse event data were reviewed to determine the incidence of paradoxical eczema events, using terms such as eczema, eczematized, eczematous, atopy, atopic, and dermatitis.

Of 24,952 drug exposures analyzed, the majority (11,819) were for TNF inhibitors, followed by IL-17 inhibitors (4,776), IL-12/23 inhibitors (6,423), and finally, IL-23 inhibitors (1,934).

Mr. Al-Janabi and coauthors reported that the median time to onset of paradoxical eczema events was 294 days — approximately 9.8 months. The earliest that these events were recorded was at 120 days (4 months), and the latest at 699 days (almost 2 years).

The face and neck were the most common sites affected (26% of exposures), with other sites including the limbs (23%), the trunk (13%), and hands or feet (12%). Itching (18%), redness (7%), and dryness (4%) were the most commonly reported symptoms.

The researchers noted that 21 patients had skin biopsies taken and “all showed spongiosis or a feature of eczema, with 1 having overlapping features of psoriasis.”

In the majority (92 %) of cases, patients experienced only one eczema event. Of the 20 patients who had more than one event, just over one-fifth of repeat events occurred after receiving the same biologic as for the index event. A quarter of events occurred after a different biologic of the same class had been used, and just over half of events occurred after a different class of biologic had been given.

Strengths and Limitations

The “large sample size and inclusion of multiple lines of exposure per participant” are strengths of the study, said the researchers. “We included data for all currently available biologics, originating from more than 160 dermatology centers in the UK and Ireland.”

They added, however, that the “main limitation is the small numbers of observations within certain subgroups, such as specific biologic exposures or participants in ethnic minority groups, restricting generalizability of our findings and the interpretation of some subgroup analyses.”

Moreover, the small number of paradoxical eczema events seen may have resulted in imprecise effect estimates, they observe, noting that the number of exposures to IL-23 inhibitors was low compared with other classes.

“Future studies with more exposures and paradoxical eczema events would enable a more robust analysis of individual drugs and patient subgroups,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council. BADBIR is coordinated by The University of Manchester, and funded by the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD). The BAD receives income from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz Hexal AG, and UCB Pharma for providing pharmacovigilance services. This income finances a separate contract between the BAD and The University of Manchester, which coordinates BADBIR. Mr. Al-Janabi reported receiving grants from the Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from UCB, Almirall, and Janssen; and personal fees from UCB outside the submitted work.

Topical ivermectin has significant clinical efficacy and decreases the density of Demodex mites found in the skin of people with rosacea, but cutaneous dysbiosis remains, according to a report presented at the recent European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2023 Congress.

“This is the first hint that the host’s cutaneous microbiome plays a secondary role in the immunopathogenesis of rosacea,” said Bernard Homey, MD, director of the department of dermatology at University Hospital Düsseldorf in Germany.

“In rosacea, we are well aware of trigger factors such as stress, UV light, heat, cold, food, and alcohol,” he said. “We are also well aware that there is an increase in Demodex mites in the pilosebaceous unit.”

Demodexmite_web.jpg

Research over the past decade has also started to look at the potential role of the skin microbiome in the disease process, but answers have remained “largely elusive,” Dr. Homey said.
 

Ivermectin helps, but how?

Ivermectin 1% cream (Soolantra) has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 2014 for the treatment of the inflammatory lesions that are characteristic of rosacea, but its mechanism of action is not clear.

Dr. Homey presented the results of a study of 61 patients designed to look at how ivermectin might be working in the treatment of people with rosacea and investigate if there was any relation to the skin microbiome and transcriptome of patients.

The trial included 41 individuals with papulopustular rosacea and 20 individuals who did not have rosacea. For all patients, surface skin biopsies were performed twice 30 days apart using cyanoacrylate glue; patients with rosacea were treated with topical ivermectin 1% between biopsies. Skin samples obtained at day 0 and day 30 were examined under the microscope, and Demodex counts (mites/cm²) of skin and RNA sequencing of the cutaneous microbiome were undertaken.

The mean age of the patients with rosacea was 54.9 years, and the mean Demodex counts before and after treatment were a respective 7.2 cm2 and 0.9 cm2.

Using the Investigator’s General Assessment to assess the severity of rosacea, Homey reported that 43.9% of patients with rosacea had a decrease in scores at day 30, indicating improvement.

In addition, topical ivermectin resulted in a marked or total decrease in Demodex mite density for 87.5% of patients (n = 24) who were identified as having the mites.

[embed:render:related:node:261343]

Skin microbiome changes seen

As a form of quality control, skin microbiome changes among the patients were compared with control patients using 16S rRNA sequencing.

“The taxa we find within the cutaneous niche of inflammatory lesions of rosacea patients are significantly different from healthy volunteers,” Dr. Homey said.

Cutibacterium species are predominant in healthy control persons but are not present when there is inflammation in patients with rosacea. Instead, staphylococcus species “take over the niche, similar to atopic dermatitis,” he noted.

Looking at how treatment with ivermectin influences the organisms, the decrease in C. acnes seen in patients with rosacea persisted despite treatment, and the abundance of Staphylococcus epidermidis, S. hominis, and S. capitis increased further. This suggests a possible protective or homeostatic role of C. acnes but a pathogenic role for staphylococci, explained Dr. Homey.

“Surprisingly, although inflammatory lesions decrease, patients get better, the cutaneous microbiome does not revert to homeostatic conditions during topical ivermectin treatment,” he observed.

There is, of course, variability among individuals.

Dr. Homey also reported that Snodgrassella alvi – a microorganism believed to reside in the gut of Demodex folliculorum mites – was found in the skin microbiome of patients with rosacea before but not after ivermectin treatment. This may mean that this microorganism could be partially triggering inflammation in rosacea patients.

Looking at the transcriptome of patients, Dr. Homey said that there was downregulation of distinct genes that might make for more favorable conditions for Demodex mites.

Moreover, insufficient upregulation of interleukin-17 pathways might be working together with barrier defects in the skin and metabolic changes to “pave the way” for colonization by S. epidermidis.
 

Pulling it together

Dr. Homey and associates conclude in their abstract that the findings “support that rosacea lesions are associated with dysbiosis.”

Although treatment with ivermectin did not normalize the skin’s microbiome, it was associated with a decrease in Demodex mite density and the reduction of microbes associated with Demodex.

Margarida Gonçalo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Coimbra in Portugal, who cochaired the late-breaking news session where the data were presented, asked whether healthy and affected skin in patients with rosacea had been compared, rather than comparing the skin of rosacea lesions with healthy control samples.

“No, we did not this, as this is methodologically a little bit more difficult,” Dr. Homey responded.

Also cochairing the session was Michel Gilliet, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at the University Hospital CHUV in Lausanne, Switzerland. He commented that these “data suggest that there’s an intimate link between Demodex and the skin microbiota and dysbiosis in in rosacea.”

Dr. Gilliet added: “You have a whole dysbiosis going on in rosacea, which is probably only dependent on these bacteria.”

It would be “very interesting,” as a “proof-of-concept” study, to look at whether depleting Demodex would also delete S. alvi, he suggested.

The study was funded by Galderma. Dr. Homey has acted as a consultant, speaker or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies including Galderma.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Topical ivermectin has significant clinical efficacy and decreases the density of Demodex mites found in the skin of people with rosacea, but cutaneous dysbiosis remains, according to a report presented at the recent European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2023 Congress.

“This is the first hint that the host’s cutaneous microbiome plays a secondary role in the immunopathogenesis of rosacea,” said Bernard Homey, MD, director of the department of dermatology at University Hospital Düsseldorf in Germany.

“In rosacea, we are well aware of trigger factors such as stress, UV light, heat, cold, food, and alcohol,” he said. “We are also well aware that there is an increase in Demodex mites in the pilosebaceous unit.”

Demodexmite_web.jpg

Research over the past decade has also started to look at the potential role of the skin microbiome in the disease process, but answers have remained “largely elusive,” Dr. Homey said.
 

Ivermectin helps, but how?

Ivermectin 1% cream (Soolantra) has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 2014 for the treatment of the inflammatory lesions that are characteristic of rosacea, but its mechanism of action is not clear.

Dr. Homey presented the results of a study of 61 patients designed to look at how ivermectin might be working in the treatment of people with rosacea and investigate if there was any relation to the skin microbiome and transcriptome of patients.

The trial included 41 individuals with papulopustular rosacea and 20 individuals who did not have rosacea. For all patients, surface skin biopsies were performed twice 30 days apart using cyanoacrylate glue; patients with rosacea were treated with topical ivermectin 1% between biopsies. Skin samples obtained at day 0 and day 30 were examined under the microscope, and Demodex counts (mites/cm²) of skin and RNA sequencing of the cutaneous microbiome were undertaken.

The mean age of the patients with rosacea was 54.9 years, and the mean Demodex counts before and after treatment were a respective 7.2 cm2 and 0.9 cm2.

Using the Investigator’s General Assessment to assess the severity of rosacea, Homey reported that 43.9% of patients with rosacea had a decrease in scores at day 30, indicating improvement.

In addition, topical ivermectin resulted in a marked or total decrease in Demodex mite density for 87.5% of patients (n = 24) who were identified as having the mites.

[embed:render:related:node:261343]

Skin microbiome changes seen

As a form of quality control, skin microbiome changes among the patients were compared with control patients using 16S rRNA sequencing.

“The taxa we find within the cutaneous niche of inflammatory lesions of rosacea patients are significantly different from healthy volunteers,” Dr. Homey said.

Cutibacterium species are predominant in healthy control persons but are not present when there is inflammation in patients with rosacea. Instead, staphylococcus species “take over the niche, similar to atopic dermatitis,” he noted.

Looking at how treatment with ivermectin influences the organisms, the decrease in C. acnes seen in patients with rosacea persisted despite treatment, and the abundance of Staphylococcus epidermidis, S. hominis, and S. capitis increased further. This suggests a possible protective or homeostatic role of C. acnes but a pathogenic role for staphylococci, explained Dr. Homey.

“Surprisingly, although inflammatory lesions decrease, patients get better, the cutaneous microbiome does not revert to homeostatic conditions during topical ivermectin treatment,” he observed.

There is, of course, variability among individuals.

Dr. Homey also reported that Snodgrassella alvi – a microorganism believed to reside in the gut of Demodex folliculorum mites – was found in the skin microbiome of patients with rosacea before but not after ivermectin treatment. This may mean that this microorganism could be partially triggering inflammation in rosacea patients.

Looking at the transcriptome of patients, Dr. Homey said that there was downregulation of distinct genes that might make for more favorable conditions for Demodex mites.

Moreover, insufficient upregulation of interleukin-17 pathways might be working together with barrier defects in the skin and metabolic changes to “pave the way” for colonization by S. epidermidis.
 

Pulling it together

Dr. Homey and associates conclude in their abstract that the findings “support that rosacea lesions are associated with dysbiosis.”

Although treatment with ivermectin did not normalize the skin’s microbiome, it was associated with a decrease in Demodex mite density and the reduction of microbes associated with Demodex.

Margarida Gonçalo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Coimbra in Portugal, who cochaired the late-breaking news session where the data were presented, asked whether healthy and affected skin in patients with rosacea had been compared, rather than comparing the skin of rosacea lesions with healthy control samples.

“No, we did not this, as this is methodologically a little bit more difficult,” Dr. Homey responded.

Also cochairing the session was Michel Gilliet, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at the University Hospital CHUV in Lausanne, Switzerland. He commented that these “data suggest that there’s an intimate link between Demodex and the skin microbiota and dysbiosis in in rosacea.”

Dr. Gilliet added: “You have a whole dysbiosis going on in rosacea, which is probably only dependent on these bacteria.”

It would be “very interesting,” as a “proof-of-concept” study, to look at whether depleting Demodex would also delete S. alvi, he suggested.

The study was funded by Galderma. Dr. Homey has acted as a consultant, speaker or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies including Galderma.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Topical ivermectin has significant clinical efficacy and decreases the density of Demodex mites found in the skin of people with rosacea, but cutaneous dysbiosis remains, according to a report presented at the recent European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2023 Congress.

“This is the first hint that the host’s cutaneous microbiome plays a secondary role in the immunopathogenesis of rosacea,” said Bernard Homey, MD, director of the department of dermatology at University Hospital Düsseldorf in Germany.

“In rosacea, we are well aware of trigger factors such as stress, UV light, heat, cold, food, and alcohol,” he said. “We are also well aware that there is an increase in Demodex mites in the pilosebaceous unit.”

Demodexmite_web.jpg

Research over the past decade has also started to look at the potential role of the skin microbiome in the disease process, but answers have remained “largely elusive,” Dr. Homey said.
 

Ivermectin helps, but how?

Ivermectin 1% cream (Soolantra) has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 2014 for the treatment of the inflammatory lesions that are characteristic of rosacea, but its mechanism of action is not clear.

Dr. Homey presented the results of a study of 61 patients designed to look at how ivermectin might be working in the treatment of people with rosacea and investigate if there was any relation to the skin microbiome and transcriptome of patients.

The trial included 41 individuals with papulopustular rosacea and 20 individuals who did not have rosacea. For all patients, surface skin biopsies were performed twice 30 days apart using cyanoacrylate glue; patients with rosacea were treated with topical ivermectin 1% between biopsies. Skin samples obtained at day 0 and day 30 were examined under the microscope, and Demodex counts (mites/cm²) of skin and RNA sequencing of the cutaneous microbiome were undertaken.

The mean age of the patients with rosacea was 54.9 years, and the mean Demodex counts before and after treatment were a respective 7.2 cm2 and 0.9 cm2.

Using the Investigator’s General Assessment to assess the severity of rosacea, Homey reported that 43.9% of patients with rosacea had a decrease in scores at day 30, indicating improvement.

In addition, topical ivermectin resulted in a marked or total decrease in Demodex mite density for 87.5% of patients (n = 24) who were identified as having the mites.

[embed:render:related:node:261343]

Skin microbiome changes seen

As a form of quality control, skin microbiome changes among the patients were compared with control patients using 16S rRNA sequencing.

“The taxa we find within the cutaneous niche of inflammatory lesions of rosacea patients are significantly different from healthy volunteers,” Dr. Homey said.

Cutibacterium species are predominant in healthy control persons but are not present when there is inflammation in patients with rosacea. Instead, staphylococcus species “take over the niche, similar to atopic dermatitis,” he noted.

Looking at how treatment with ivermectin influences the organisms, the decrease in C. acnes seen in patients with rosacea persisted despite treatment, and the abundance of Staphylococcus epidermidis, S. hominis, and S. capitis increased further. This suggests a possible protective or homeostatic role of C. acnes but a pathogenic role for staphylococci, explained Dr. Homey.

“Surprisingly, although inflammatory lesions decrease, patients get better, the cutaneous microbiome does not revert to homeostatic conditions during topical ivermectin treatment,” he observed.

There is, of course, variability among individuals.

Dr. Homey also reported that Snodgrassella alvi – a microorganism believed to reside in the gut of Demodex folliculorum mites – was found in the skin microbiome of patients with rosacea before but not after ivermectin treatment. This may mean that this microorganism could be partially triggering inflammation in rosacea patients.

Looking at the transcriptome of patients, Dr. Homey said that there was downregulation of distinct genes that might make for more favorable conditions for Demodex mites.

Moreover, insufficient upregulation of interleukin-17 pathways might be working together with barrier defects in the skin and metabolic changes to “pave the way” for colonization by S. epidermidis.
 

Pulling it together

Dr. Homey and associates conclude in their abstract that the findings “support that rosacea lesions are associated with dysbiosis.”

Although treatment with ivermectin did not normalize the skin’s microbiome, it was associated with a decrease in Demodex mite density and the reduction of microbes associated with Demodex.

Margarida Gonçalo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Coimbra in Portugal, who cochaired the late-breaking news session where the data were presented, asked whether healthy and affected skin in patients with rosacea had been compared, rather than comparing the skin of rosacea lesions with healthy control samples.

“No, we did not this, as this is methodologically a little bit more difficult,” Dr. Homey responded.

Also cochairing the session was Michel Gilliet, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at the University Hospital CHUV in Lausanne, Switzerland. He commented that these “data suggest that there’s an intimate link between Demodex and the skin microbiota and dysbiosis in in rosacea.”

Dr. Gilliet added: “You have a whole dysbiosis going on in rosacea, which is probably only dependent on these bacteria.”

It would be “very interesting,” as a “proof-of-concept” study, to look at whether depleting Demodex would also delete S. alvi, he suggested.

The study was funded by Galderma. Dr. Homey has acted as a consultant, speaker or investigator for many pharmaceutical companies including Galderma.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nemolizumab is gearing up to be a potential new treatment for prurigo nodularis, with further phase 3 data supporting its efficacy and safety reported at the annual Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

In the OLYMPIA 1 study, clinically significant improvements in both itch and skin lesions were seen after 16 weeks of treatment with nemolizumab compared with placebo (P < .0001).

Indeed, among the 286 patients who participated in the trial (190 on nemolizumab and 96 on placebo), 58.4% of those treated with nemolizumab and 16.7% of those who received placebo had an improvement of 4 points or more in the weekly average peak pruritus numeric rating scale (PP-NRS) at week 16 (P < .0001).

Skin lesions were assessed using an investigators general assessment (IGA) score, where IGA success was defined as a score of 0/1 indicating clear or almost clear skin or where there had been at least a 2-point change from baseline values. Over a quarter (26.3%) of nemolizumab-treated patients met these criteria versus 7.3% for those on placebo (P = .0001).

“These results confirm the results of the OLYMPIA 2 study, the other phase 3 study, and now I hope you understand why we are so excited,” lead investigator Sonja Ständer, MD, of the Center for Chronic Pruritus at University Hospital Münster, Germany, said at the meeting, where she presented the data.

The OLYMPIA 2 study included 274 patients and the results showed a weekly average PP-NRS score improvement of 56.3% vs. 20.9% for placebo and IGA success in 37.7% and 11% of patients, respectively, at 16 weeks.
 

First-in-class therapy

“We know how difficult it is to treat patients; they are refractory to treatment, frustrated, and this really impacts them regarding their quality of life,” said Dr. Ständer. New options are needed to help patients, and nemolizumab, a first-in-class interleukin-31 (IL-31) receptor alpha antagonist, is one treatment that may answer this call.

[embed:render:related:node:262864]

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic neuroimmune skin condition characterized by severe itch and multiple nodular skin lesions, Dr. Ständer explained. She added that there is evidence that IL-31 has a key role to play in the development of itch, and in differentiation of keratinocytes, type 2 and type 17 immune responses, and fibrosis associated with the condition.

The OLYMPIA 1 and 2 trials are part of a large developmental program that includes two ongoing trials. One is assessing the durability of response over 24 weeks in 40 patients and the other is a long-term extension trial involving 450 patients from the OLYMPIA 1 and 2 trials.
 

Inclusion criteria and additional results

For inclusion in the study, adults with prurigo nodularis for at least 6 months had to have 20 or more nodules on the body with a bilateral distribution, an IGA score of 3 or more, and an average PP-NRS of 7 or higher. The latter “was really a high bar for them to qualify for the trial,” said Dr. Ständer.

After an initial 4-week screening period, patients were randomly assigned to 24 weeks of treatment with nemolizumab or placebo given as a subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. An 8-week “off-treatment” period followed.

The nemolizumab dose was based on the patient’s body weight, with patients weighing less than 90 kg (198 pounds) getting a loading dose of 60 mg followed by further doses of 30 mg; while patients weighing 90 kg or more receiving 50 mg of nemolizumab. 

Dr. Ständer reported that nemolizumab met all of the trials’ secondary endpoints; this included at least a 4-point improvement in sleep disturbance. She noted that changes in itch and subsequent sleep disturbance occurred early, at 4 weeks of treatment – after just one injection of nemolizumab.

The response rates seen in the moderate to severe prurigo nodularis population studies are quite unique when compared with conventional therapies, Dr. Ständer maintained. “We’ve never seen something like this before.”
 

No safety concerns

No significant difference in tolerability was seen between the nemolizumab and placebo groups, Dr. Ständer observed. Any adverse event occurred in 71.7% and 65.3% of patients, respectively, and serious adverse events in 8.6% and 10.5%.

There was a similar rate of adverse events leading to discontinuation, respectively (4.8% vs. 4.2%).

Headache was seen more frequently among those on nemolizumab than those on placebo (7.0% vs. 2.1%), and there was a higher number of eczema cases among those on nemolizumab (5.3% vs. 1.1%). The latter is somewhat paradoxical because nemolizumab is also being studied as a treatment for atopic dermatitis, with good results seen in phase 3 trials. Asked about this finding after her presentation, Dr. Ständer said “we are following up on that to know exactly what is going on; this is a side effect of nemolizumab that is seen also with other biologics.”
 

JAK inhibitor trial for PN, CPUO

Nemolizumab is not the only promising new approach to treating prurigo nodularis. During a separate late-breaking news session at the meeting, Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center in Baltimore, presented “dramatic” data from a “proof-of-concept” phase 2 study with the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor abrocitinib (Cibinqo), which is approved for atopic dermatitis in the United States and Europe.

Kwatra_Sean_2020_web.jpg

The investigator-initiated trial took a different approach from most other trials, Dr. Kwatra said. The starting point was to look at studying multiple rather than single dermatologic diseases that were perhaps being left a little by the wayside but may share some common ground. Those two diseases were prurigo nodularis and chronic pruritus of unknown origin (CPUO).

“They’re actually very analogous conditions in the way we treat, so I thought those would be a good pair,” Dr. Kwatra said, noting that there were several studies that made him think that JAK inhibition “would be an interesting concept to try.”

On that basis, 10 women with prurigo nodularis (mean age, 58 years) and two women and eight men with CPUO (mean age, 70 years) were recruited and all were treated with abrocitinib at a once-daily oral dose of 200 mg for 12 weeks.

“They all had really intense itch,” before treatment, Dr. Kwatra said. The mean baseline PP-NRS was 9.2 and 8.2 in the prurigo nodularis and CPUO groups, respectively. By the end of treatment, however, “the improvement in itch was pretty dramatic,” especially for prurigo nodularis, he said.

At 12 weeks, the PP-NRS score had fallen to 2.0 in the prurigo nodularis group, equating to a significant 78% change from baseline (P < .001). And, in the CPUO group, the 12-week PP-NRS score was 3.8, nearly a 54% drop from baseline (P = .01).

Sleep disturbance was improved for both conditions, and in the patients with prurigo nodularis, there were improvements in skin lesions. Looking at the patients who responded to treatment, Dr. Kwatra noted that “if you responded, you respond fast, and you respond almost entirely.”

Additional findings from cutaneous transcriptome analysis showed that JAK inhibition with abrocitinib was modulating Th1-, Th2-, Th17-, and Th22-mediated pathways in both groups of patients.

The overall frequency of adverse events was low, and no serious adverse events occurred.

Commenting on the potential use of abrocitinib in managing patients with PN and CPUO, Tiago dos Reis Matos, MD, PhD, MSc, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, told this news organization that JAK1 inhibitors “are showing promising results in treating several diseases.”

Dr. Matos, who was not involved in the study, added that JAK inhibition was “of special interest in prurigo nodularis and chronic pruritus, since these are some of the most difficult diseases to treat with limited therapeutic options.”

Dr. Kwatra observed: “Obviously, we need further development. But we also have clues here about how to design phase 3 trials.”

Galderma funded the OLYMPIA 1 and 2 studies. Dr. Ständer was an investigator for the trial and reported serving as a consultant, speaker, or investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma.

Johns Hopkins University supported the abrocitinib study with funding from Pfizer. Dr. Kwatra is an advisory board member or consultant to several pharmaceutical companies and is an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nemolizumab is gearing up to be a potential new treatment for prurigo nodularis, with further phase 3 data supporting its efficacy and safety reported at the annual Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

In the OLYMPIA 1 study, clinically significant improvements in both itch and skin lesions were seen after 16 weeks of treatment with nemolizumab compared with placebo (P < .0001).

Indeed, among the 286 patients who participated in the trial (190 on nemolizumab and 96 on placebo), 58.4% of those treated with nemolizumab and 16.7% of those who received placebo had an improvement of 4 points or more in the weekly average peak pruritus numeric rating scale (PP-NRS) at week 16 (P < .0001).

Skin lesions were assessed using an investigators general assessment (IGA) score, where IGA success was defined as a score of 0/1 indicating clear or almost clear skin or where there had been at least a 2-point change from baseline values. Over a quarter (26.3%) of nemolizumab-treated patients met these criteria versus 7.3% for those on placebo (P = .0001).

“These results confirm the results of the OLYMPIA 2 study, the other phase 3 study, and now I hope you understand why we are so excited,” lead investigator Sonja Ständer, MD, of the Center for Chronic Pruritus at University Hospital Münster, Germany, said at the meeting, where she presented the data.

The OLYMPIA 2 study included 274 patients and the results showed a weekly average PP-NRS score improvement of 56.3% vs. 20.9% for placebo and IGA success in 37.7% and 11% of patients, respectively, at 16 weeks.
 

First-in-class therapy

“We know how difficult it is to treat patients; they are refractory to treatment, frustrated, and this really impacts them regarding their quality of life,” said Dr. Ständer. New options are needed to help patients, and nemolizumab, a first-in-class interleukin-31 (IL-31) receptor alpha antagonist, is one treatment that may answer this call.

[embed:render:related:node:262864]

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic neuroimmune skin condition characterized by severe itch and multiple nodular skin lesions, Dr. Ständer explained. She added that there is evidence that IL-31 has a key role to play in the development of itch, and in differentiation of keratinocytes, type 2 and type 17 immune responses, and fibrosis associated with the condition.

The OLYMPIA 1 and 2 trials are part of a large developmental program that includes two ongoing trials. One is assessing the durability of response over 24 weeks in 40 patients and the other is a long-term extension trial involving 450 patients from the OLYMPIA 1 and 2 trials.
 

Inclusion criteria and additional results

For inclusion in the study, adults with prurigo nodularis for at least 6 months had to have 20 or more nodules on the body with a bilateral distribution, an IGA score of 3 or more, and an average PP-NRS of 7 or higher. The latter “was really a high bar for them to qualify for the trial,” said Dr. Ständer.

After an initial 4-week screening period, patients were randomly assigned to 24 weeks of treatment with nemolizumab or placebo given as a subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. An 8-week “off-treatment” period followed.

The nemolizumab dose was based on the patient’s body weight, with patients weighing less than 90 kg (198 pounds) getting a loading dose of 60 mg followed by further doses of 30 mg; while patients weighing 90 kg or more receiving 50 mg of nemolizumab. 

Dr. Ständer reported that nemolizumab met all of the trials’ secondary endpoints; this included at least a 4-point improvement in sleep disturbance. She noted that changes in itch and subsequent sleep disturbance occurred early, at 4 weeks of treatment – after just one injection of nemolizumab.

The response rates seen in the moderate to severe prurigo nodularis population studies are quite unique when compared with conventional therapies, Dr. Ständer maintained. “We’ve never seen something like this before.”
 

No safety concerns

No significant difference in tolerability was seen between the nemolizumab and placebo groups, Dr. Ständer observed. Any adverse event occurred in 71.7% and 65.3% of patients, respectively, and serious adverse events in 8.6% and 10.5%.

There was a similar rate of adverse events leading to discontinuation, respectively (4.8% vs. 4.2%).

Headache was seen more frequently among those on nemolizumab than those on placebo (7.0% vs. 2.1%), and there was a higher number of eczema cases among those on nemolizumab (5.3% vs. 1.1%). The latter is somewhat paradoxical because nemolizumab is also being studied as a treatment for atopic dermatitis, with good results seen in phase 3 trials. Asked about this finding after her presentation, Dr. Ständer said “we are following up on that to know exactly what is going on; this is a side effect of nemolizumab that is seen also with other biologics.”
 

JAK inhibitor trial for PN, CPUO

Nemolizumab is not the only promising new approach to treating prurigo nodularis. During a separate late-breaking news session at the meeting, Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center in Baltimore, presented “dramatic” data from a “proof-of-concept” phase 2 study with the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor abrocitinib (Cibinqo), which is approved for atopic dermatitis in the United States and Europe.

Kwatra_Sean_2020_web.jpg

The investigator-initiated trial took a different approach from most other trials, Dr. Kwatra said. The starting point was to look at studying multiple rather than single dermatologic diseases that were perhaps being left a little by the wayside but may share some common ground. Those two diseases were prurigo nodularis and chronic pruritus of unknown origin (CPUO).

“They’re actually very analogous conditions in the way we treat, so I thought those would be a good pair,” Dr. Kwatra said, noting that there were several studies that made him think that JAK inhibition “would be an interesting concept to try.”

On that basis, 10 women with prurigo nodularis (mean age, 58 years) and two women and eight men with CPUO (mean age, 70 years) were recruited and all were treated with abrocitinib at a once-daily oral dose of 200 mg for 12 weeks.

“They all had really intense itch,” before treatment, Dr. Kwatra said. The mean baseline PP-NRS was 9.2 and 8.2 in the prurigo nodularis and CPUO groups, respectively. By the end of treatment, however, “the improvement in itch was pretty dramatic,” especially for prurigo nodularis, he said.

At 12 weeks, the PP-NRS score had fallen to 2.0 in the prurigo nodularis group, equating to a significant 78% change from baseline (P < .001). And, in the CPUO group, the 12-week PP-NRS score was 3.8, nearly a 54% drop from baseline (P = .01).

Sleep disturbance was improved for both conditions, and in the patients with prurigo nodularis, there were improvements in skin lesions. Looking at the patients who responded to treatment, Dr. Kwatra noted that “if you responded, you respond fast, and you respond almost entirely.”

Additional findings from cutaneous transcriptome analysis showed that JAK inhibition with abrocitinib was modulating Th1-, Th2-, Th17-, and Th22-mediated pathways in both groups of patients.

The overall frequency of adverse events was low, and no serious adverse events occurred.

Commenting on the potential use of abrocitinib in managing patients with PN and CPUO, Tiago dos Reis Matos, MD, PhD, MSc, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, told this news organization that JAK1 inhibitors “are showing promising results in treating several diseases.”

Dr. Matos, who was not involved in the study, added that JAK inhibition was “of special interest in prurigo nodularis and chronic pruritus, since these are some of the most difficult diseases to treat with limited therapeutic options.”

Dr. Kwatra observed: “Obviously, we need further development. But we also have clues here about how to design phase 3 trials.”

Galderma funded the OLYMPIA 1 and 2 studies. Dr. Ständer was an investigator for the trial and reported serving as a consultant, speaker, or investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma.

Johns Hopkins University supported the abrocitinib study with funding from Pfizer. Dr. Kwatra is an advisory board member or consultant to several pharmaceutical companies and is an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nemolizumab is gearing up to be a potential new treatment for prurigo nodularis, with further phase 3 data supporting its efficacy and safety reported at the annual Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

In the OLYMPIA 1 study, clinically significant improvements in both itch and skin lesions were seen after 16 weeks of treatment with nemolizumab compared with placebo (P < .0001).

Indeed, among the 286 patients who participated in the trial (190 on nemolizumab and 96 on placebo), 58.4% of those treated with nemolizumab and 16.7% of those who received placebo had an improvement of 4 points or more in the weekly average peak pruritus numeric rating scale (PP-NRS) at week 16 (P < .0001).

Skin lesions were assessed using an investigators general assessment (IGA) score, where IGA success was defined as a score of 0/1 indicating clear or almost clear skin or where there had been at least a 2-point change from baseline values. Over a quarter (26.3%) of nemolizumab-treated patients met these criteria versus 7.3% for those on placebo (P = .0001).

“These results confirm the results of the OLYMPIA 2 study, the other phase 3 study, and now I hope you understand why we are so excited,” lead investigator Sonja Ständer, MD, of the Center for Chronic Pruritus at University Hospital Münster, Germany, said at the meeting, where she presented the data.

The OLYMPIA 2 study included 274 patients and the results showed a weekly average PP-NRS score improvement of 56.3% vs. 20.9% for placebo and IGA success in 37.7% and 11% of patients, respectively, at 16 weeks.
 

First-in-class therapy

“We know how difficult it is to treat patients; they are refractory to treatment, frustrated, and this really impacts them regarding their quality of life,” said Dr. Ständer. New options are needed to help patients, and nemolizumab, a first-in-class interleukin-31 (IL-31) receptor alpha antagonist, is one treatment that may answer this call.

[embed:render:related:node:262864]

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic neuroimmune skin condition characterized by severe itch and multiple nodular skin lesions, Dr. Ständer explained. She added that there is evidence that IL-31 has a key role to play in the development of itch, and in differentiation of keratinocytes, type 2 and type 17 immune responses, and fibrosis associated with the condition.

The OLYMPIA 1 and 2 trials are part of a large developmental program that includes two ongoing trials. One is assessing the durability of response over 24 weeks in 40 patients and the other is a long-term extension trial involving 450 patients from the OLYMPIA 1 and 2 trials.
 

Inclusion criteria and additional results

For inclusion in the study, adults with prurigo nodularis for at least 6 months had to have 20 or more nodules on the body with a bilateral distribution, an IGA score of 3 or more, and an average PP-NRS of 7 or higher. The latter “was really a high bar for them to qualify for the trial,” said Dr. Ständer.

After an initial 4-week screening period, patients were randomly assigned to 24 weeks of treatment with nemolizumab or placebo given as a subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks. An 8-week “off-treatment” period followed.

The nemolizumab dose was based on the patient’s body weight, with patients weighing less than 90 kg (198 pounds) getting a loading dose of 60 mg followed by further doses of 30 mg; while patients weighing 90 kg or more receiving 50 mg of nemolizumab. 

Dr. Ständer reported that nemolizumab met all of the trials’ secondary endpoints; this included at least a 4-point improvement in sleep disturbance. She noted that changes in itch and subsequent sleep disturbance occurred early, at 4 weeks of treatment – after just one injection of nemolizumab.

The response rates seen in the moderate to severe prurigo nodularis population studies are quite unique when compared with conventional therapies, Dr. Ständer maintained. “We’ve never seen something like this before.”
 

No safety concerns

No significant difference in tolerability was seen between the nemolizumab and placebo groups, Dr. Ständer observed. Any adverse event occurred in 71.7% and 65.3% of patients, respectively, and serious adverse events in 8.6% and 10.5%.

There was a similar rate of adverse events leading to discontinuation, respectively (4.8% vs. 4.2%).

Headache was seen more frequently among those on nemolizumab than those on placebo (7.0% vs. 2.1%), and there was a higher number of eczema cases among those on nemolizumab (5.3% vs. 1.1%). The latter is somewhat paradoxical because nemolizumab is also being studied as a treatment for atopic dermatitis, with good results seen in phase 3 trials. Asked about this finding after her presentation, Dr. Ständer said “we are following up on that to know exactly what is going on; this is a side effect of nemolizumab that is seen also with other biologics.”
 

JAK inhibitor trial for PN, CPUO

Nemolizumab is not the only promising new approach to treating prurigo nodularis. During a separate late-breaking news session at the meeting, Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center in Baltimore, presented “dramatic” data from a “proof-of-concept” phase 2 study with the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor abrocitinib (Cibinqo), which is approved for atopic dermatitis in the United States and Europe.

Kwatra_Sean_2020_web.jpg

The investigator-initiated trial took a different approach from most other trials, Dr. Kwatra said. The starting point was to look at studying multiple rather than single dermatologic diseases that were perhaps being left a little by the wayside but may share some common ground. Those two diseases were prurigo nodularis and chronic pruritus of unknown origin (CPUO).

“They’re actually very analogous conditions in the way we treat, so I thought those would be a good pair,” Dr. Kwatra said, noting that there were several studies that made him think that JAK inhibition “would be an interesting concept to try.”

On that basis, 10 women with prurigo nodularis (mean age, 58 years) and two women and eight men with CPUO (mean age, 70 years) were recruited and all were treated with abrocitinib at a once-daily oral dose of 200 mg for 12 weeks.

“They all had really intense itch,” before treatment, Dr. Kwatra said. The mean baseline PP-NRS was 9.2 and 8.2 in the prurigo nodularis and CPUO groups, respectively. By the end of treatment, however, “the improvement in itch was pretty dramatic,” especially for prurigo nodularis, he said.

At 12 weeks, the PP-NRS score had fallen to 2.0 in the prurigo nodularis group, equating to a significant 78% change from baseline (P < .001). And, in the CPUO group, the 12-week PP-NRS score was 3.8, nearly a 54% drop from baseline (P = .01).

Sleep disturbance was improved for both conditions, and in the patients with prurigo nodularis, there were improvements in skin lesions. Looking at the patients who responded to treatment, Dr. Kwatra noted that “if you responded, you respond fast, and you respond almost entirely.”

Additional findings from cutaneous transcriptome analysis showed that JAK inhibition with abrocitinib was modulating Th1-, Th2-, Th17-, and Th22-mediated pathways in both groups of patients.

The overall frequency of adverse events was low, and no serious adverse events occurred.

Commenting on the potential use of abrocitinib in managing patients with PN and CPUO, Tiago dos Reis Matos, MD, PhD, MSc, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, told this news organization that JAK1 inhibitors “are showing promising results in treating several diseases.”

Dr. Matos, who was not involved in the study, added that JAK inhibition was “of special interest in prurigo nodularis and chronic pruritus, since these are some of the most difficult diseases to treat with limited therapeutic options.”

Dr. Kwatra observed: “Obviously, we need further development. But we also have clues here about how to design phase 3 trials.”

Galderma funded the OLYMPIA 1 and 2 studies. Dr. Ständer was an investigator for the trial and reported serving as a consultant, speaker, or investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma.

Johns Hopkins University supported the abrocitinib study with funding from Pfizer. Dr. Kwatra is an advisory board member or consultant to several pharmaceutical companies and is an investigator for Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Additional data from the phase 3 EASE study conducted in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) show that regular application of the topical gel Oleogel-S10 (Filsuvez) is associated with a reduced need for daily dressing changes when compared with a control gel.

In a final, post hoc analysis to come from the trial, 15 of 45 (33%) patients treated with Oleogel-S10 versus 5 of 48 (10.4%) treated with the control gel were reported as no longer needing daily dressing changes at 45 days of follow-up.

Moreover, the effect was sustained, with similar percentages of patients no longer requiring daily dressing changes at 60 days (34% vs. 13%, respectively) and 90 days (36% vs. 11%) of follow-up.

The mean reduction in daily dressing changes was 1.36 for Oleogel-S10 and 0.41 for the control gel (P = .005).

“Patients who, in the beginning, had daily dressing changes had almost three fewer dressing changes every 2 weeks if they were treated with Oleogel-S10,” Dimitra Kiritsi, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Freiburg (Germany), reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. By comparison, patients in the control group had just one fewer daily dressing change in 2 weeks.

“You might say okay, but what does this mean in terms of time?” added Dr. Kiritsi. Using historical data on the time required for whole body care (Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020 Jan 3. doi: 10.1186/s13023-019-1279-y), it was estimated that treatment with Oleogel-S10 was associated with an overall time-saving per week of 11 hours (6.6 hours for the patient and 4.4 hours for the caregiver) and use of the control gel was associated with an overall time-saving of 4 hours (2.4 hours for the patient and 1.6 hours for the caregiver).

“This is, for our patients, important,” said Dr. Kiritsi, as “it is time that they can spend doing something nice with the family” instead, avoiding the pain and distress associated with frequent dressing changes.

[embed:render:related:node:263130]

Approved in Europe, not in the United States

Oleogel-S10, classified as an herbal product, contains triterpenes derived from birch bark extract, which have been formulated with sunflower oil to form a gel.

Despite being approved for use in Europe, Oleogel-S10 has not yet been approved to treat EB in the United States. The FDA did not approve Amryt Pharma’s new drug application in February 2022. The application had included data from the EASE trial.

EASE included 223 patients with dystrophic or junctional EB, including 156 children, at 58 sites in 28 countries. As such, this makes it the largest treatment study in this rare genetic disease to date.

The trial had consisted of an initial 90-day, double-blind treatment period, during which time 109 patients had used Oleogel-S10 and 114 had used a control gel. This was followed by a 24-month open-label phase, during which time all remaining patients (n = 205) had used Oleogel-S10 on top of their standard of care.

Dr. Kiritsi summarized the main results of the EASE trial as follows.

• Complete healing of target wounds (primary endpoint) in 41.3% of patients treated with Oleogel-S10 and 28.9% of patients treated with the control gel (P = .013).
• Improved total body wound burden measured by both Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index and Body Surface Area Percentage scores.
• Reduced frequency of dressing changes (1 less per 2 weeks for Oleogel-S10 versus 0 less per 2 weeks for control gel).
• Improved pain among participants aged 4 years and older while their dressings were being changed.
• Reduced rates of wound infection (0.9% Oleogel-S10 vs. 4.4% control gel).
• Similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (24.8% vs. 22.8%, respectively), which were mostly deemed to be mild or moderate.

The EASE study – an important trial for EB

EASE is an important trial for EB, the study’s principal investigator Dédée Murrell, MD, DSc, University of New South Wales, Sydney, has pointed out previously.

“This was the first EB study to meet its primary endpoint and demonstrated a statistically significant acceleration of target wound healing by day 45,” Dr. Murrell said in a press release issued by Amryt Pharma to coincide with the online publication of the trial results.

“In addition, the favorable trends we see with key secondary endpoints such as reduced wound burden, pain, and frequency of dressing changes are considered as being very meaningful for patients,” Dr. Murrell said.

The EASE study was funded by Amryt Research Limited. Dr. Kiritsi reported receiving honoraria or consultation fees from Amryt, RHEACELL GmbH, and Fibrx Derm. She also acknowledged grant or research support from DEBRA International, EB Research Partnership, Fritz-Thyssen Foundation, German Research Foundation, and RHEACELL. Dr. Murrell has ties to Amryt and Amicus and is a co-owner of the patent for topical sirolimus for EB simplex.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Additional data from the phase 3 EASE study conducted in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) show that regular application of the topical gel Oleogel-S10 (Filsuvez) is associated with a reduced need for daily dressing changes when compared with a control gel.

In a final, post hoc analysis to come from the trial, 15 of 45 (33%) patients treated with Oleogel-S10 versus 5 of 48 (10.4%) treated with the control gel were reported as no longer needing daily dressing changes at 45 days of follow-up.

Moreover, the effect was sustained, with similar percentages of patients no longer requiring daily dressing changes at 60 days (34% vs. 13%, respectively) and 90 days (36% vs. 11%) of follow-up.

The mean reduction in daily dressing changes was 1.36 for Oleogel-S10 and 0.41 for the control gel (P = .005).

“Patients who, in the beginning, had daily dressing changes had almost three fewer dressing changes every 2 weeks if they were treated with Oleogel-S10,” Dimitra Kiritsi, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Freiburg (Germany), reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. By comparison, patients in the control group had just one fewer daily dressing change in 2 weeks.

“You might say okay, but what does this mean in terms of time?” added Dr. Kiritsi. Using historical data on the time required for whole body care (Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020 Jan 3. doi: 10.1186/s13023-019-1279-y), it was estimated that treatment with Oleogel-S10 was associated with an overall time-saving per week of 11 hours (6.6 hours for the patient and 4.4 hours for the caregiver) and use of the control gel was associated with an overall time-saving of 4 hours (2.4 hours for the patient and 1.6 hours for the caregiver).

“This is, for our patients, important,” said Dr. Kiritsi, as “it is time that they can spend doing something nice with the family” instead, avoiding the pain and distress associated with frequent dressing changes.

[embed:render:related:node:263130]

Approved in Europe, not in the United States

Oleogel-S10, classified as an herbal product, contains triterpenes derived from birch bark extract, which have been formulated with sunflower oil to form a gel.

Despite being approved for use in Europe, Oleogel-S10 has not yet been approved to treat EB in the United States. The FDA did not approve Amryt Pharma’s new drug application in February 2022. The application had included data from the EASE trial.

EASE included 223 patients with dystrophic or junctional EB, including 156 children, at 58 sites in 28 countries. As such, this makes it the largest treatment study in this rare genetic disease to date.

The trial had consisted of an initial 90-day, double-blind treatment period, during which time 109 patients had used Oleogel-S10 and 114 had used a control gel. This was followed by a 24-month open-label phase, during which time all remaining patients (n = 205) had used Oleogel-S10 on top of their standard of care.

Dr. Kiritsi summarized the main results of the EASE trial as follows.

• Complete healing of target wounds (primary endpoint) in 41.3% of patients treated with Oleogel-S10 and 28.9% of patients treated with the control gel (P = .013).
• Improved total body wound burden measured by both Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index and Body Surface Area Percentage scores.
• Reduced frequency of dressing changes (1 less per 2 weeks for Oleogel-S10 versus 0 less per 2 weeks for control gel).
• Improved pain among participants aged 4 years and older while their dressings were being changed.
• Reduced rates of wound infection (0.9% Oleogel-S10 vs. 4.4% control gel).
• Similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (24.8% vs. 22.8%, respectively), which were mostly deemed to be mild or moderate.

The EASE study – an important trial for EB

EASE is an important trial for EB, the study’s principal investigator Dédée Murrell, MD, DSc, University of New South Wales, Sydney, has pointed out previously.

“This was the first EB study to meet its primary endpoint and demonstrated a statistically significant acceleration of target wound healing by day 45,” Dr. Murrell said in a press release issued by Amryt Pharma to coincide with the online publication of the trial results.

“In addition, the favorable trends we see with key secondary endpoints such as reduced wound burden, pain, and frequency of dressing changes are considered as being very meaningful for patients,” Dr. Murrell said.

The EASE study was funded by Amryt Research Limited. Dr. Kiritsi reported receiving honoraria or consultation fees from Amryt, RHEACELL GmbH, and Fibrx Derm. She also acknowledged grant or research support from DEBRA International, EB Research Partnership, Fritz-Thyssen Foundation, German Research Foundation, and RHEACELL. Dr. Murrell has ties to Amryt and Amicus and is a co-owner of the patent for topical sirolimus for EB simplex.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Additional data from the phase 3 EASE study conducted in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) show that regular application of the topical gel Oleogel-S10 (Filsuvez) is associated with a reduced need for daily dressing changes when compared with a control gel.

In a final, post hoc analysis to come from the trial, 15 of 45 (33%) patients treated with Oleogel-S10 versus 5 of 48 (10.4%) treated with the control gel were reported as no longer needing daily dressing changes at 45 days of follow-up.

Moreover, the effect was sustained, with similar percentages of patients no longer requiring daily dressing changes at 60 days (34% vs. 13%, respectively) and 90 days (36% vs. 11%) of follow-up.

The mean reduction in daily dressing changes was 1.36 for Oleogel-S10 and 0.41 for the control gel (P = .005).

“Patients who, in the beginning, had daily dressing changes had almost three fewer dressing changes every 2 weeks if they were treated with Oleogel-S10,” Dimitra Kiritsi, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Freiburg (Germany), reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. By comparison, patients in the control group had just one fewer daily dressing change in 2 weeks.

“You might say okay, but what does this mean in terms of time?” added Dr. Kiritsi. Using historical data on the time required for whole body care (Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020 Jan 3. doi: 10.1186/s13023-019-1279-y), it was estimated that treatment with Oleogel-S10 was associated with an overall time-saving per week of 11 hours (6.6 hours for the patient and 4.4 hours for the caregiver) and use of the control gel was associated with an overall time-saving of 4 hours (2.4 hours for the patient and 1.6 hours for the caregiver).

“This is, for our patients, important,” said Dr. Kiritsi, as “it is time that they can spend doing something nice with the family” instead, avoiding the pain and distress associated with frequent dressing changes.

[embed:render:related:node:263130]

Approved in Europe, not in the United States

Oleogel-S10, classified as an herbal product, contains triterpenes derived from birch bark extract, which have been formulated with sunflower oil to form a gel.

Despite being approved for use in Europe, Oleogel-S10 has not yet been approved to treat EB in the United States. The FDA did not approve Amryt Pharma’s new drug application in February 2022. The application had included data from the EASE trial.

EASE included 223 patients with dystrophic or junctional EB, including 156 children, at 58 sites in 28 countries. As such, this makes it the largest treatment study in this rare genetic disease to date.

The trial had consisted of an initial 90-day, double-blind treatment period, during which time 109 patients had used Oleogel-S10 and 114 had used a control gel. This was followed by a 24-month open-label phase, during which time all remaining patients (n = 205) had used Oleogel-S10 on top of their standard of care.

Dr. Kiritsi summarized the main results of the EASE trial as follows.

• Complete healing of target wounds (primary endpoint) in 41.3% of patients treated with Oleogel-S10 and 28.9% of patients treated with the control gel (P = .013).
• Improved total body wound burden measured by both Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index and Body Surface Area Percentage scores.
• Reduced frequency of dressing changes (1 less per 2 weeks for Oleogel-S10 versus 0 less per 2 weeks for control gel).
• Improved pain among participants aged 4 years and older while their dressings were being changed.
• Reduced rates of wound infection (0.9% Oleogel-S10 vs. 4.4% control gel).
• Similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (24.8% vs. 22.8%, respectively), which were mostly deemed to be mild or moderate.

The EASE study – an important trial for EB

EASE is an important trial for EB, the study’s principal investigator Dédée Murrell, MD, DSc, University of New South Wales, Sydney, has pointed out previously.

“This was the first EB study to meet its primary endpoint and demonstrated a statistically significant acceleration of target wound healing by day 45,” Dr. Murrell said in a press release issued by Amryt Pharma to coincide with the online publication of the trial results.

“In addition, the favorable trends we see with key secondary endpoints such as reduced wound burden, pain, and frequency of dressing changes are considered as being very meaningful for patients,” Dr. Murrell said.

The EASE study was funded by Amryt Research Limited. Dr. Kiritsi reported receiving honoraria or consultation fees from Amryt, RHEACELL GmbH, and Fibrx Derm. She also acknowledged grant or research support from DEBRA International, EB Research Partnership, Fritz-Thyssen Foundation, German Research Foundation, and RHEACELL. Dr. Murrell has ties to Amryt and Amicus and is a co-owner of the patent for topical sirolimus for EB simplex.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN – Further findings from the PSORRO study suggest that oral roflumilast may be an option for treating patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, particularly if they have a high body mass index (BMI).

Reporting secondary outcomes from the investigator-led trial at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, DMSc, noted that “clinically significant weight loss” was seen among patients who were treated with oral roflumilast, 500 mcg once daily, versus those receiving placebo.

Indeed, after 12 weeks of therapy, one in three patients treated with oral roflumilast experienced at least a 5% drop in their baseline body weight vs no patients who received placebo (35% vs. 0%; P < .05).

Additionally, a respective 17% versus 0% of patients lost 10% or more of their body weight, and 4% versus 0% lost 15% or more of their baseline body weight at 12 weeks.

After 24 weeks’ treatment, a substantial percentage of patients still had greater than or equal to 5%, greater than or equal to 10%, or greater than or equal to 15% weight loss, at 30%, 17%, and 13% for oral roflumilast, compared with 9%, 0%, and 0% for placebo, respectively.

“We saw that the higher baseline weight correlated with the proportion of weight loss, so that the more heavy patients at baseline also were the ones who experienced the greatest weight loss,” said Dr. Egeberg, who is professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen and a senior consultant at the department of dermatology at Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen.
 

A beneficial side effect in psoriasis?

“You may have heard in psoriasis about topical roflumilast, but oral roflumilast is actually also shown to be effective in treating psoriasis,” said Egeberg.

Topical roflumilast is approved in the United States and Canada for treating plaque psoriasis.

Efficacy results from the PSORRO study were published earlier this year and showed a significantly greater improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 with oral roflumilast vs. placebo at 12 weeks (35% vs. 0%), with a sustained effect seen at 24 weeks (44% vs. 40%).

Weight loss was among the most common side effects seen, leading Dr. Egeberg and fellow PSORRO investigators to wonder whether this may actually be a beneficial effect in patients with psoriasis.

“Oral roflumilast is actually a drug that has been on the market for quite a number of years,” Dr. Egeberg said.

Although only currently licensed for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States, oral roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 4 inhibitor, is available as a generic, “which also means that it is extremely affordable,” suggested Dr. Edeberg.

Weight loss may be a problem in patients with COPD, he acknowledged; these patients tend to be underweight as a result of their poor state of health caused by the lung condition. Weight loss could be an advantage in patients with psoriasis who are overweight or living with obesity and have poor cardiometabolic parameters.

[embed:render:related:node:265757]

The psoriasis treatment with oral roflumilast study

The PSORRO study was a phase 2, multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized trial performed between 2021 and 2022. A total of 46 adults with plaque psoriasis participated; half were initially treated with oral roflumilast and half with placebo.

Treatment was double-blind for the first 12 weeks, with all patients then receiving open-label treatment with roflumilast for 12 weeks.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving at least 75% reduction from baseline PASI (PASI75). A host of secondary endpoints were studied, including weight and cardiometabolic parameters, which Dr. Egeberg reported at the EADV meeting.

Looking at the baseline characteristics of the oral roflumilast and placebo groups, the mean age was a respective 38 and 39 years, 65% and 83% were men, and the mean starting body weight was 102 kg and 105.1 kg.

After 12 weeks of treatment, body weight fell by a mean of 5.4 kg in the oral roflumilast group, with a further decrease of 1.4 kg by 24 weeks, bringing the total average weight loss to 6.8 kg. By comparison, weight loss among those in the placebo group was 0 kg at 12 weeks and around 2 kg at 24 weeks.

The majority of participants in both groups had high baseline BMIs; 70% of those who received oral roflumilast and 61% of those who received placebo had a BMI of 30 or higher.

“We wanted to investigate the impact of body weight, [so] we didn’t allow patients to be underweight when they were included,” Dr. Egeberg explained. Thus, for inclusion, patients had to have a BMI of 20 or higher.

An “extraordinary” finding was how some patients’ weight status based on their BMI changed throughout the study.

“We could see people that went from obese class 3, all the way to obese class 1. And we could see people going from being overweight to normal weight, which is really extraordinary for patients with psoriasis,” Dr. Egeberg said.

“But most importantly,” he added, “we didn’t have any patients who became underweight, suggesting that it actually is safe to use also in normal-weight patients.”
 

Reduced appetite behind benefit?

Trying to see why the weight loss occurred, Dr. Egeberg noted that it looked like it could be a result of a reduced appetite.

In common with other PDE-4 inhibitors, oral roflumilast treatment was associated with gastrointestinal symptoms – nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain – but all of these “decrease to placebo levels again, quite quickly,” he said.

“This really suggests that it’s not because of diarrhea, it’s not because of nausea and abdominal pain; it is because of a reduced appetite that patients actually lose weight when treated with roflumilast,” Dr. Egeberg said. It’s a potential bonus for the drug’s effects on the skin and could afford clinicians an opportunity to help motivate patients to eat well when they do eat, he observed.

Other cardiometabolic parameters assessed included blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, total cholesterol and other key lipids, creatinine, alanine aminotransferase, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, but there were no noteworthy differences between the groups.

Roflumilast is an inexpensive drug because it is generic, Dr. Egeberg observed, but that also means that its use is likely to be off-label.

“It will be up to the treating physician to decide if this is an optimal therapy for their patients,” he suggested.
 

Cardiometabolic comorbidities important to target

Obesity is a cardiometabolic comorbidity that is important to consider when treating your patients with psoriasis, Paolo Gisondi, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy), said at a separate presentation at the EADV meeting.

While not directly commenting on the roflumilast study, he noted that moderate to severe psoriasis was “frequently associated” with metabolic disorders that put people at additional risk for cardiovascular and fatty liver diseases.

The PSORRO study was an investigator-initiated and investigator-led study and received no commercial funding. Research funding came from the Danish Psoriasis Foundation, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, and several charitable and humanitarian organizations. Dr. Egeberg acknowledged acting as the principal investigator, speaker, and/or consultant to multiple pharma companies, all of which were unrelated to the study he presented. Dr. Gisondi’s comments were from a separate presentation, and he was not involved in the study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN – Further findings from the PSORRO study suggest that oral roflumilast may be an option for treating patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, particularly if they have a high body mass index (BMI).

Reporting secondary outcomes from the investigator-led trial at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, DMSc, noted that “clinically significant weight loss” was seen among patients who were treated with oral roflumilast, 500 mcg once daily, versus those receiving placebo.

Indeed, after 12 weeks of therapy, one in three patients treated with oral roflumilast experienced at least a 5% drop in their baseline body weight vs no patients who received placebo (35% vs. 0%; P < .05).

Additionally, a respective 17% versus 0% of patients lost 10% or more of their body weight, and 4% versus 0% lost 15% or more of their baseline body weight at 12 weeks.

After 24 weeks’ treatment, a substantial percentage of patients still had greater than or equal to 5%, greater than or equal to 10%, or greater than or equal to 15% weight loss, at 30%, 17%, and 13% for oral roflumilast, compared with 9%, 0%, and 0% for placebo, respectively.

“We saw that the higher baseline weight correlated with the proportion of weight loss, so that the more heavy patients at baseline also were the ones who experienced the greatest weight loss,” said Dr. Egeberg, who is professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen and a senior consultant at the department of dermatology at Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen.
 

A beneficial side effect in psoriasis?

“You may have heard in psoriasis about topical roflumilast, but oral roflumilast is actually also shown to be effective in treating psoriasis,” said Egeberg.

Topical roflumilast is approved in the United States and Canada for treating plaque psoriasis.

Efficacy results from the PSORRO study were published earlier this year and showed a significantly greater improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 with oral roflumilast vs. placebo at 12 weeks (35% vs. 0%), with a sustained effect seen at 24 weeks (44% vs. 40%).

Weight loss was among the most common side effects seen, leading Dr. Egeberg and fellow PSORRO investigators to wonder whether this may actually be a beneficial effect in patients with psoriasis.

“Oral roflumilast is actually a drug that has been on the market for quite a number of years,” Dr. Egeberg said.

Although only currently licensed for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States, oral roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 4 inhibitor, is available as a generic, “which also means that it is extremely affordable,” suggested Dr. Edeberg.

Weight loss may be a problem in patients with COPD, he acknowledged; these patients tend to be underweight as a result of their poor state of health caused by the lung condition. Weight loss could be an advantage in patients with psoriasis who are overweight or living with obesity and have poor cardiometabolic parameters.

[embed:render:related:node:265757]

The psoriasis treatment with oral roflumilast study

The PSORRO study was a phase 2, multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized trial performed between 2021 and 2022. A total of 46 adults with plaque psoriasis participated; half were initially treated with oral roflumilast and half with placebo.

Treatment was double-blind for the first 12 weeks, with all patients then receiving open-label treatment with roflumilast for 12 weeks.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving at least 75% reduction from baseline PASI (PASI75). A host of secondary endpoints were studied, including weight and cardiometabolic parameters, which Dr. Egeberg reported at the EADV meeting.

Looking at the baseline characteristics of the oral roflumilast and placebo groups, the mean age was a respective 38 and 39 years, 65% and 83% were men, and the mean starting body weight was 102 kg and 105.1 kg.

After 12 weeks of treatment, body weight fell by a mean of 5.4 kg in the oral roflumilast group, with a further decrease of 1.4 kg by 24 weeks, bringing the total average weight loss to 6.8 kg. By comparison, weight loss among those in the placebo group was 0 kg at 12 weeks and around 2 kg at 24 weeks.

The majority of participants in both groups had high baseline BMIs; 70% of those who received oral roflumilast and 61% of those who received placebo had a BMI of 30 or higher.

“We wanted to investigate the impact of body weight, [so] we didn’t allow patients to be underweight when they were included,” Dr. Egeberg explained. Thus, for inclusion, patients had to have a BMI of 20 or higher.

An “extraordinary” finding was how some patients’ weight status based on their BMI changed throughout the study.

“We could see people that went from obese class 3, all the way to obese class 1. And we could see people going from being overweight to normal weight, which is really extraordinary for patients with psoriasis,” Dr. Egeberg said.

“But most importantly,” he added, “we didn’t have any patients who became underweight, suggesting that it actually is safe to use also in normal-weight patients.”
 

Reduced appetite behind benefit?

Trying to see why the weight loss occurred, Dr. Egeberg noted that it looked like it could be a result of a reduced appetite.

In common with other PDE-4 inhibitors, oral roflumilast treatment was associated with gastrointestinal symptoms – nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain – but all of these “decrease to placebo levels again, quite quickly,” he said.

“This really suggests that it’s not because of diarrhea, it’s not because of nausea and abdominal pain; it is because of a reduced appetite that patients actually lose weight when treated with roflumilast,” Dr. Egeberg said. It’s a potential bonus for the drug’s effects on the skin and could afford clinicians an opportunity to help motivate patients to eat well when they do eat, he observed.

Other cardiometabolic parameters assessed included blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, total cholesterol and other key lipids, creatinine, alanine aminotransferase, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, but there were no noteworthy differences between the groups.

Roflumilast is an inexpensive drug because it is generic, Dr. Egeberg observed, but that also means that its use is likely to be off-label.

“It will be up to the treating physician to decide if this is an optimal therapy for their patients,” he suggested.
 

Cardiometabolic comorbidities important to target

Obesity is a cardiometabolic comorbidity that is important to consider when treating your patients with psoriasis, Paolo Gisondi, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy), said at a separate presentation at the EADV meeting.

While not directly commenting on the roflumilast study, he noted that moderate to severe psoriasis was “frequently associated” with metabolic disorders that put people at additional risk for cardiovascular and fatty liver diseases.

The PSORRO study was an investigator-initiated and investigator-led study and received no commercial funding. Research funding came from the Danish Psoriasis Foundation, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, and several charitable and humanitarian organizations. Dr. Egeberg acknowledged acting as the principal investigator, speaker, and/or consultant to multiple pharma companies, all of which were unrelated to the study he presented. Dr. Gisondi’s comments were from a separate presentation, and he was not involved in the study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN – Further findings from the PSORRO study suggest that oral roflumilast may be an option for treating patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, particularly if they have a high body mass index (BMI).

Reporting secondary outcomes from the investigator-led trial at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, DMSc, noted that “clinically significant weight loss” was seen among patients who were treated with oral roflumilast, 500 mcg once daily, versus those receiving placebo.

Indeed, after 12 weeks of therapy, one in three patients treated with oral roflumilast experienced at least a 5% drop in their baseline body weight vs no patients who received placebo (35% vs. 0%; P < .05).

Additionally, a respective 17% versus 0% of patients lost 10% or more of their body weight, and 4% versus 0% lost 15% or more of their baseline body weight at 12 weeks.

After 24 weeks’ treatment, a substantial percentage of patients still had greater than or equal to 5%, greater than or equal to 10%, or greater than or equal to 15% weight loss, at 30%, 17%, and 13% for oral roflumilast, compared with 9%, 0%, and 0% for placebo, respectively.

“We saw that the higher baseline weight correlated with the proportion of weight loss, so that the more heavy patients at baseline also were the ones who experienced the greatest weight loss,” said Dr. Egeberg, who is professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen and a senior consultant at the department of dermatology at Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen.
 

A beneficial side effect in psoriasis?

“You may have heard in psoriasis about topical roflumilast, but oral roflumilast is actually also shown to be effective in treating psoriasis,” said Egeberg.

Topical roflumilast is approved in the United States and Canada for treating plaque psoriasis.

Efficacy results from the PSORRO study were published earlier this year and showed a significantly greater improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 with oral roflumilast vs. placebo at 12 weeks (35% vs. 0%), with a sustained effect seen at 24 weeks (44% vs. 40%).

Weight loss was among the most common side effects seen, leading Dr. Egeberg and fellow PSORRO investigators to wonder whether this may actually be a beneficial effect in patients with psoriasis.

“Oral roflumilast is actually a drug that has been on the market for quite a number of years,” Dr. Egeberg said.

Although only currently licensed for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States, oral roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 4 inhibitor, is available as a generic, “which also means that it is extremely affordable,” suggested Dr. Edeberg.

Weight loss may be a problem in patients with COPD, he acknowledged; these patients tend to be underweight as a result of their poor state of health caused by the lung condition. Weight loss could be an advantage in patients with psoriasis who are overweight or living with obesity and have poor cardiometabolic parameters.

[embed:render:related:node:265757]

The psoriasis treatment with oral roflumilast study

The PSORRO study was a phase 2, multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized trial performed between 2021 and 2022. A total of 46 adults with plaque psoriasis participated; half were initially treated with oral roflumilast and half with placebo.

Treatment was double-blind for the first 12 weeks, with all patients then receiving open-label treatment with roflumilast for 12 weeks.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving at least 75% reduction from baseline PASI (PASI75). A host of secondary endpoints were studied, including weight and cardiometabolic parameters, which Dr. Egeberg reported at the EADV meeting.

Looking at the baseline characteristics of the oral roflumilast and placebo groups, the mean age was a respective 38 and 39 years, 65% and 83% were men, and the mean starting body weight was 102 kg and 105.1 kg.

After 12 weeks of treatment, body weight fell by a mean of 5.4 kg in the oral roflumilast group, with a further decrease of 1.4 kg by 24 weeks, bringing the total average weight loss to 6.8 kg. By comparison, weight loss among those in the placebo group was 0 kg at 12 weeks and around 2 kg at 24 weeks.

The majority of participants in both groups had high baseline BMIs; 70% of those who received oral roflumilast and 61% of those who received placebo had a BMI of 30 or higher.

“We wanted to investigate the impact of body weight, [so] we didn’t allow patients to be underweight when they were included,” Dr. Egeberg explained. Thus, for inclusion, patients had to have a BMI of 20 or higher.

An “extraordinary” finding was how some patients’ weight status based on their BMI changed throughout the study.

“We could see people that went from obese class 3, all the way to obese class 1. And we could see people going from being overweight to normal weight, which is really extraordinary for patients with psoriasis,” Dr. Egeberg said.

“But most importantly,” he added, “we didn’t have any patients who became underweight, suggesting that it actually is safe to use also in normal-weight patients.”
 

Reduced appetite behind benefit?

Trying to see why the weight loss occurred, Dr. Egeberg noted that it looked like it could be a result of a reduced appetite.

In common with other PDE-4 inhibitors, oral roflumilast treatment was associated with gastrointestinal symptoms – nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain – but all of these “decrease to placebo levels again, quite quickly,” he said.

“This really suggests that it’s not because of diarrhea, it’s not because of nausea and abdominal pain; it is because of a reduced appetite that patients actually lose weight when treated with roflumilast,” Dr. Egeberg said. It’s a potential bonus for the drug’s effects on the skin and could afford clinicians an opportunity to help motivate patients to eat well when they do eat, he observed.

Other cardiometabolic parameters assessed included blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, total cholesterol and other key lipids, creatinine, alanine aminotransferase, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, but there were no noteworthy differences between the groups.

Roflumilast is an inexpensive drug because it is generic, Dr. Egeberg observed, but that also means that its use is likely to be off-label.

“It will be up to the treating physician to decide if this is an optimal therapy for their patients,” he suggested.
 

Cardiometabolic comorbidities important to target

Obesity is a cardiometabolic comorbidity that is important to consider when treating your patients with psoriasis, Paolo Gisondi, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy), said at a separate presentation at the EADV meeting.

While not directly commenting on the roflumilast study, he noted that moderate to severe psoriasis was “frequently associated” with metabolic disorders that put people at additional risk for cardiovascular and fatty liver diseases.

The PSORRO study was an investigator-initiated and investigator-led study and received no commercial funding. Research funding came from the Danish Psoriasis Foundation, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, and several charitable and humanitarian organizations. Dr. Egeberg acknowledged acting as the principal investigator, speaker, and/or consultant to multiple pharma companies, all of which were unrelated to the study he presented. Dr. Gisondi’s comments were from a separate presentation, and he was not involved in the study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Considerable hair regrowth can be achieved in children with alopecia areata with the use of a novel plant-based drug, according to research presented during the first late-breaking news session at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

In the RAAINBOW study, a greater mean relative improvement in the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) scores at 24 weeks was recorded in children who had been treated topically with coacillium (22.9%) than in those who had received a topical placebo (–8.0%), with a significant 31% overall difference (P < .0001).

“Coacillium cutaneous solution was used for the first time for treatment of alopecia areata and also for the first time used in a pediatric population,” the presenting investigator Ulrike Blume-Peytavi, MD, said at the meeting.

“It’s well tolerated, and in fact what is interesting is, it has a durable response, even after treatment discontinuation,” added Dr. Blume-Peytavi, who is the deputy head of the department of dermatology, venereology and allergology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
 

Backing the botanical?

Paola Pasquali, MD, a dermatologist at Pius Hospital de Valls in Spain, who cochaired the session where the findings were presented, commented, “Thank you for showing that chocolate is great! I knew it. It is fantastic to see how chocolate is used.”

Dr. Pasquali was referring to the coacillium ingredient Theobroma cacao extract. The seeds of T. cacao, or the cocoa tree, are used to make various types of chocolate products. Theobroma cacao is one of four plant extracts that make up coacillium, the others being Allium cepa (onion), Citrus limon (lemon), and Paullinia cupana (guaraná, a source of caffeine).

[embed:render:related:node:262318]

The four plant extracts are classified as “generally regarded as safe” (GRAS), Dr. Blume-Peytavi observed, noting that the development of coacillium fell under the category of a prescription botanical drug as set out by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or a herbal medicinal product as set out by the European Medicines Agency.

But how does it work?

The botanical’s mode of action of acting positively on hair follicle cycling and endothelial cell activation was called into question, however, by Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, who was in the audience.

She asked, “So how do you explain that, after three large studies with topical JAK inhibitors that did not work actually in alopecia areata because it’s very hard to penetrate the scalp for a topical [drug], this one works?”

Dr. Guttman-Yassky, professor of dermatology and immunology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, added: “Looking at the ingredients, to me, it seems that it’s more like a DPCP [diphenylcyclopropenone]-like reaction.”

DPCP, which has been used to treat alopecia, purportedly works by stimulating the immune response to target the skin surface – causing an allergic reaction – rather than the hair follicle.

It’s an interesting question as to how a molecule penetrates the hair follicle, and it depends on the size of the molecule, Dr. Blume-Peytavi responded.

“We have done a lot of studies on follicular penetration, and we are quite aware that you need a certain size of the molecule,” she said. Between 14 and 200 nanometers appears to produce “the best penetrators,” she observed.

Dr. Blume-Peytavi commented that even after topical JAK inhibitors are applied, the molecules that penetrate do not remain in the local area for very long, yet still produce an inhibitory signaling effect.

No scalp irritation was seen in the trial, which suggests that coacillium is not working in the same way as DPCP, Dr. Blume-Peytavi countered.
 

Evaluating efficacy and safety: The RAAINBOW study

Dr. Blume-Peytavi acknowledged that JAK inhibitors were “a tremendous advance in treating severe and very severe alopecia areata,” but because of their benefit-to-risk ratio, there was still an unmet need for new treatments, particularly in children, in whom drug safety is of critical importance.

Having a drug that could be given safely and also have an effect early on in the disease, while it is still at a mild to moderate stage, would be of considerable value, Dr. Blume-Peytavi maintained.

The RAAINBOW study was a randomized, double-blind, phase 2/3 trial conducted at 12 sites in Germany and three other countries between March 2018 and March 2022 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of coacillium in the treatment of children and adolescents with moderate to severe alopecia areata.

In all, 62 children aged 2-18 years (mean age, 11 years) participated; 42 were treated twice daily with coacillium cutaneous solution 22.5% and 20 received placebo for 24 weeks. Treatment was then stopped, and participants followed for another 24 weeks off treatment to check for disease relapse, bringing the total study duration up to 48 weeks.

Baseline characteristics were “relatively comparable for severity,” Dr. Blume-Peytavi said. Most of the children had severe alopecia areata (57% for coacillium and 65% for placebo); the remainder had moderate disease (43% vs. 35%, respectively).

The average SALT scores at the start of treatment were 56 in the coacillium group and 62 in the placebo group, and a respective 44 and 61 at the end of 24 weeks’ treatment.

Perhaps the most important results, Dr. Blume-Peytavi said, was that at 48 weeks of follow-up, which was 24 weeks after treatment had been discontinued, the mean SALT scores were 29 for coacillium and 56 for placebo (P < .0001).

“You can see the improvement in the treated group is continuing even without treatment. However, the placebo group stays relatively about the same range,” she said.

Overall, 82% of patients treated with coacillium and 37% of those who received placebo experienced hair growth after treatment had stopped, and by week 48, a respective 46.7% vs. 9.1% had a SALT score of 20 or less, and 30.0% vs. 0% had a SALT score of 10 or less.

No safety concerns were raised, with no serious treatment-related reactions, no immunosuppressant-like reactions, and no steroidlike side effects.
 

Beyond the RAAINBOW

Larger studies are needed, Dr. Blume-Peytavi said. According to developer Legacy Healthcare’s website, coacillium cutaneous solution is not being developed just for childhood alopecia areata. It is also under investigation as a treatment for persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis. In addition, an oral solution is being tested for cancer-related fatigue.

The study was funded by Legacy Healthcare. Dr. Blume-Peytavi has received research funding and acts as an advisor to the company, among others; four of the study’s coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Pasquali and Dr. Guttman-Yassky were not involved in the study and had no relevant financial ties to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Considerable hair regrowth can be achieved in children with alopecia areata with the use of a novel plant-based drug, according to research presented during the first late-breaking news session at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

In the RAAINBOW study, a greater mean relative improvement in the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) scores at 24 weeks was recorded in children who had been treated topically with coacillium (22.9%) than in those who had received a topical placebo (–8.0%), with a significant 31% overall difference (P < .0001).

“Coacillium cutaneous solution was used for the first time for treatment of alopecia areata and also for the first time used in a pediatric population,” the presenting investigator Ulrike Blume-Peytavi, MD, said at the meeting.

“It’s well tolerated, and in fact what is interesting is, it has a durable response, even after treatment discontinuation,” added Dr. Blume-Peytavi, who is the deputy head of the department of dermatology, venereology and allergology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
 

Backing the botanical?

Paola Pasquali, MD, a dermatologist at Pius Hospital de Valls in Spain, who cochaired the session where the findings were presented, commented, “Thank you for showing that chocolate is great! I knew it. It is fantastic to see how chocolate is used.”

Dr. Pasquali was referring to the coacillium ingredient Theobroma cacao extract. The seeds of T. cacao, or the cocoa tree, are used to make various types of chocolate products. Theobroma cacao is one of four plant extracts that make up coacillium, the others being Allium cepa (onion), Citrus limon (lemon), and Paullinia cupana (guaraná, a source of caffeine).

[embed:render:related:node:262318]

The four plant extracts are classified as “generally regarded as safe” (GRAS), Dr. Blume-Peytavi observed, noting that the development of coacillium fell under the category of a prescription botanical drug as set out by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or a herbal medicinal product as set out by the European Medicines Agency.

But how does it work?

The botanical’s mode of action of acting positively on hair follicle cycling and endothelial cell activation was called into question, however, by Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, who was in the audience.

She asked, “So how do you explain that, after three large studies with topical JAK inhibitors that did not work actually in alopecia areata because it’s very hard to penetrate the scalp for a topical [drug], this one works?”

Dr. Guttman-Yassky, professor of dermatology and immunology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, added: “Looking at the ingredients, to me, it seems that it’s more like a DPCP [diphenylcyclopropenone]-like reaction.”

DPCP, which has been used to treat alopecia, purportedly works by stimulating the immune response to target the skin surface – causing an allergic reaction – rather than the hair follicle.

It’s an interesting question as to how a molecule penetrates the hair follicle, and it depends on the size of the molecule, Dr. Blume-Peytavi responded.

“We have done a lot of studies on follicular penetration, and we are quite aware that you need a certain size of the molecule,” she said. Between 14 and 200 nanometers appears to produce “the best penetrators,” she observed.

Dr. Blume-Peytavi commented that even after topical JAK inhibitors are applied, the molecules that penetrate do not remain in the local area for very long, yet still produce an inhibitory signaling effect.

No scalp irritation was seen in the trial, which suggests that coacillium is not working in the same way as DPCP, Dr. Blume-Peytavi countered.
 

Evaluating efficacy and safety: The RAAINBOW study

Dr. Blume-Peytavi acknowledged that JAK inhibitors were “a tremendous advance in treating severe and very severe alopecia areata,” but because of their benefit-to-risk ratio, there was still an unmet need for new treatments, particularly in children, in whom drug safety is of critical importance.

Having a drug that could be given safely and also have an effect early on in the disease, while it is still at a mild to moderate stage, would be of considerable value, Dr. Blume-Peytavi maintained.

The RAAINBOW study was a randomized, double-blind, phase 2/3 trial conducted at 12 sites in Germany and three other countries between March 2018 and March 2022 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of coacillium in the treatment of children and adolescents with moderate to severe alopecia areata.

In all, 62 children aged 2-18 years (mean age, 11 years) participated; 42 were treated twice daily with coacillium cutaneous solution 22.5% and 20 received placebo for 24 weeks. Treatment was then stopped, and participants followed for another 24 weeks off treatment to check for disease relapse, bringing the total study duration up to 48 weeks.

Baseline characteristics were “relatively comparable for severity,” Dr. Blume-Peytavi said. Most of the children had severe alopecia areata (57% for coacillium and 65% for placebo); the remainder had moderate disease (43% vs. 35%, respectively).

The average SALT scores at the start of treatment were 56 in the coacillium group and 62 in the placebo group, and a respective 44 and 61 at the end of 24 weeks’ treatment.

Perhaps the most important results, Dr. Blume-Peytavi said, was that at 48 weeks of follow-up, which was 24 weeks after treatment had been discontinued, the mean SALT scores were 29 for coacillium and 56 for placebo (P < .0001).

“You can see the improvement in the treated group is continuing even without treatment. However, the placebo group stays relatively about the same range,” she said.

Overall, 82% of patients treated with coacillium and 37% of those who received placebo experienced hair growth after treatment had stopped, and by week 48, a respective 46.7% vs. 9.1% had a SALT score of 20 or less, and 30.0% vs. 0% had a SALT score of 10 or less.

No safety concerns were raised, with no serious treatment-related reactions, no immunosuppressant-like reactions, and no steroidlike side effects.
 

Beyond the RAAINBOW

Larger studies are needed, Dr. Blume-Peytavi said. According to developer Legacy Healthcare’s website, coacillium cutaneous solution is not being developed just for childhood alopecia areata. It is also under investigation as a treatment for persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis. In addition, an oral solution is being tested for cancer-related fatigue.

The study was funded by Legacy Healthcare. Dr. Blume-Peytavi has received research funding and acts as an advisor to the company, among others; four of the study’s coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Pasquali and Dr. Guttman-Yassky were not involved in the study and had no relevant financial ties to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Considerable hair regrowth can be achieved in children with alopecia areata with the use of a novel plant-based drug, according to research presented during the first late-breaking news session at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

In the RAAINBOW study, a greater mean relative improvement in the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) scores at 24 weeks was recorded in children who had been treated topically with coacillium (22.9%) than in those who had received a topical placebo (–8.0%), with a significant 31% overall difference (P < .0001).

“Coacillium cutaneous solution was used for the first time for treatment of alopecia areata and also for the first time used in a pediatric population,” the presenting investigator Ulrike Blume-Peytavi, MD, said at the meeting.

“It’s well tolerated, and in fact what is interesting is, it has a durable response, even after treatment discontinuation,” added Dr. Blume-Peytavi, who is the deputy head of the department of dermatology, venereology and allergology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
 

Backing the botanical?

Paola Pasquali, MD, a dermatologist at Pius Hospital de Valls in Spain, who cochaired the session where the findings were presented, commented, “Thank you for showing that chocolate is great! I knew it. It is fantastic to see how chocolate is used.”

Dr. Pasquali was referring to the coacillium ingredient Theobroma cacao extract. The seeds of T. cacao, or the cocoa tree, are used to make various types of chocolate products. Theobroma cacao is one of four plant extracts that make up coacillium, the others being Allium cepa (onion), Citrus limon (lemon), and Paullinia cupana (guaraná, a source of caffeine).

[embed:render:related:node:262318]

The four plant extracts are classified as “generally regarded as safe” (GRAS), Dr. Blume-Peytavi observed, noting that the development of coacillium fell under the category of a prescription botanical drug as set out by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or a herbal medicinal product as set out by the European Medicines Agency.

But how does it work?

The botanical’s mode of action of acting positively on hair follicle cycling and endothelial cell activation was called into question, however, by Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, who was in the audience.

She asked, “So how do you explain that, after three large studies with topical JAK inhibitors that did not work actually in alopecia areata because it’s very hard to penetrate the scalp for a topical [drug], this one works?”

Dr. Guttman-Yassky, professor of dermatology and immunology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, added: “Looking at the ingredients, to me, it seems that it’s more like a DPCP [diphenylcyclopropenone]-like reaction.”

DPCP, which has been used to treat alopecia, purportedly works by stimulating the immune response to target the skin surface – causing an allergic reaction – rather than the hair follicle.

It’s an interesting question as to how a molecule penetrates the hair follicle, and it depends on the size of the molecule, Dr. Blume-Peytavi responded.

“We have done a lot of studies on follicular penetration, and we are quite aware that you need a certain size of the molecule,” she said. Between 14 and 200 nanometers appears to produce “the best penetrators,” she observed.

Dr. Blume-Peytavi commented that even after topical JAK inhibitors are applied, the molecules that penetrate do not remain in the local area for very long, yet still produce an inhibitory signaling effect.

No scalp irritation was seen in the trial, which suggests that coacillium is not working in the same way as DPCP, Dr. Blume-Peytavi countered.
 

Evaluating efficacy and safety: The RAAINBOW study

Dr. Blume-Peytavi acknowledged that JAK inhibitors were “a tremendous advance in treating severe and very severe alopecia areata,” but because of their benefit-to-risk ratio, there was still an unmet need for new treatments, particularly in children, in whom drug safety is of critical importance.

Having a drug that could be given safely and also have an effect early on in the disease, while it is still at a mild to moderate stage, would be of considerable value, Dr. Blume-Peytavi maintained.

The RAAINBOW study was a randomized, double-blind, phase 2/3 trial conducted at 12 sites in Germany and three other countries between March 2018 and March 2022 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of coacillium in the treatment of children and adolescents with moderate to severe alopecia areata.

In all, 62 children aged 2-18 years (mean age, 11 years) participated; 42 were treated twice daily with coacillium cutaneous solution 22.5% and 20 received placebo for 24 weeks. Treatment was then stopped, and participants followed for another 24 weeks off treatment to check for disease relapse, bringing the total study duration up to 48 weeks.

Baseline characteristics were “relatively comparable for severity,” Dr. Blume-Peytavi said. Most of the children had severe alopecia areata (57% for coacillium and 65% for placebo); the remainder had moderate disease (43% vs. 35%, respectively).

The average SALT scores at the start of treatment were 56 in the coacillium group and 62 in the placebo group, and a respective 44 and 61 at the end of 24 weeks’ treatment.

Perhaps the most important results, Dr. Blume-Peytavi said, was that at 48 weeks of follow-up, which was 24 weeks after treatment had been discontinued, the mean SALT scores were 29 for coacillium and 56 for placebo (P < .0001).

“You can see the improvement in the treated group is continuing even without treatment. However, the placebo group stays relatively about the same range,” she said.

Overall, 82% of patients treated with coacillium and 37% of those who received placebo experienced hair growth after treatment had stopped, and by week 48, a respective 46.7% vs. 9.1% had a SALT score of 20 or less, and 30.0% vs. 0% had a SALT score of 10 or less.

No safety concerns were raised, with no serious treatment-related reactions, no immunosuppressant-like reactions, and no steroidlike side effects.
 

Beyond the RAAINBOW

Larger studies are needed, Dr. Blume-Peytavi said. According to developer Legacy Healthcare’s website, coacillium cutaneous solution is not being developed just for childhood alopecia areata. It is also under investigation as a treatment for persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis. In addition, an oral solution is being tested for cancer-related fatigue.

The study was funded by Legacy Healthcare. Dr. Blume-Peytavi has received research funding and acts as an advisor to the company, among others; four of the study’s coauthors are employees of the company. Dr. Pasquali and Dr. Guttman-Yassky were not involved in the study and had no relevant financial ties to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Knowing whether a patient has radiographic or nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis will not change management, experts say. What matters is recognizing that the patient has inflammatory back pain (IBP) and clinical features of spondyloarthritis and that the patient is referred to a rheumatologist as soon as possible.
 

Out with the old, in with the new

Axial spondyloarthritis is characterized by chronic inflammation of the sacroiliac (SI) joints, and spine. It’s a modern term that includes ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and that refers to opposite ends of a disease spectrum.

Nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) is so termed because there are no definitive visible changes on plain x-rays, although inflammatory changes may be seen on MRI.

Radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) is the same as AS to some extent and is associated with clear signs of joint damage (that is, of past inflammation) on x-rays.

“Axial spondyloarthritis is one disease, and whether it is radiographic or nonradiographic makes zero difference in the management of the patient,” says Atul Deodhar, MD, professor of medicine and medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. The distinction came about in 2009 to facilitate scientific and clinical research, he explains, and to enable the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, which were new at the time, for patients who could not be classified as having AS.

“We have known what ankylosing spondylitis is for a long time because we have been doing plain x-rays of the sacroiliac joints, and if we see classical changes of sacroiliitis, we have the diagnosis. However, MRI changed everything,” Dr. Deodhar says. Now it’s possible to see inflammatory changes in the SI joints and early joint damage, which was not possible to see on x-ray until many years later.
 

Reassuring for patients?

“Currently, we don’t really have different treatments,” Dr. Deodhar notes. Perhaps the only benefit is that it might be reassuring for patients to know that they have the nonradiographic form. Receiving a diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis comes as quite a shock. It’s a diagnosis that is potentially going to affect them for the rest of their lives, and some patients worry that they’ll develop the classic “bamboo” spine of AS, he adds. So, being able to tell patients that they have nr-axSpA and that they are going to be treated early and aggressively may be somewhat comforting.

“It’s a continuum of a disease state, but a lot of people will stay at the nonradiographic stage,” points out Portland-based internist Beth Smith, DO, associate professor of medicine at OHSU.

“A good portion of individuals who may have an MRI that’s positive will either go into remission or just stay at that stage of the disease; they won’t necessarily progress to radiographic sacroiliitis,” she adds.
 

Spotting nr-axSpA in practice

Nr-axSpA can be tricky to spot in clinical practice, and its diagnosis in primary care largely relies on patients’ clinical presentation and identifying IBP. This is the key symptom. When someone younger than 45 years experiences back pain that is characterized by insidious and chronic onset and that improves with anti-inflammatory agents and activity but that worsens with rest and is worse at night, then imaging of the SI joints may be appropriate.

“You have to have that index of suspicion in order to even think about ordering the appropriate imaging test,” Dr. Smith says. IBP may be the big clue, but patients may also return on separate occasions with multiple associated complaints, such as plantar fasciitis, tennis elbow, or other conditions, such as psoriasis, she says.

Ordering HLA-B27 and C-reactive protein tests may be useful prior to conducting any imaging, Dr. Smith says, “and if imaging is ordered, make sure it is an x-ray of the sacroiliac joint, not the lumbar spine.”

Dr. Deodhar cautions: “A single anterior-posterior view of the pelvis is enough to look at the sacroiliac joint.” There is no need to order separate views of the right and left SI joints; doing so will provide no additional useful information and exposes the patient to unnecessary radiation.

Importantly, consider whether an x-ray of the lumbar spine is needed for a patient with chronic back pain, he says. “You should do an investigation that is going to make a difference to your management. If you take 100 patients with back pain, 95% of the time, it is going to be mechanical back pain. Why do an x-ray of the lumbar spine?” Dr. Deodhar asks rhetorically.

It should also be borne in mind that x-rays can be nonspecific, and several conditions may mimic sacroiliitis, such as osteitis condensans ilii in women who have given birth, osteoarthritis of the SI joints, and old infection of the SI joints.
 

MRIs need specialist interpretation

MRIs of the lumbar spine are overused to diagnose back pain, and while they might be sensitive to early inflammatory changes in SI joints, they require an expert eye for interpretation.

“MRI of the SI joints is to be used wisely in patients when there is enough clinical suspicion,” Dr. Deodhar advises. Even when an MRI is negative for sacroiliitis, patients could still have axial spondyloarthritis.

MRIs of the SI joints are needed, but not of the lumbar spine, he stresses. Views of the lumbar spine may show only signs of disk degeneration and perhaps osteoarthritis.

Moreover, Dr. Deodhar says, “MRI is so sensitive that we used to think that bone marrow edema is good enough for telling us there is sacroiliitis.” However, even people without IBP can have bone marrow edema; “exercise can show bone marrow edema,” he says.

So, “If there’s a suspicion of axial spondyloarthritis, the patient should be referred to a rheumatologist,” who will discuss the interpretation with highly specialized musculoskeletal radiologists.
 

Take-home messages

Whether it is nr-axSpA or r-axSpA, “the burden of disease for the patient is the same; treatment is the same,” says Dr. Deodhar. Patients should be referred to a rheumatologist as soon as possible if axial spondyloarthritis is suspected. A single x-ray of the pelvis should be performed to see the SI joints, but MRIs should be left to secondary care, he suggests.

Dr. Smith notes: “Having that index of suspicion of an inflammatory etiology for the back pain is essential.” It ensures that “patients can get early and appropriate treatment for a disease that’s very different from the mechanical back pain that we mostly see in primary care.”

Dr. Deodhar has received research grants or has acted as a consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Smith reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Knowing whether a patient has radiographic or nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis will not change management, experts say. What matters is recognizing that the patient has inflammatory back pain (IBP) and clinical features of spondyloarthritis and that the patient is referred to a rheumatologist as soon as possible.
 

Out with the old, in with the new

Axial spondyloarthritis is characterized by chronic inflammation of the sacroiliac (SI) joints, and spine. It’s a modern term that includes ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and that refers to opposite ends of a disease spectrum.

Nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) is so termed because there are no definitive visible changes on plain x-rays, although inflammatory changes may be seen on MRI.

Radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) is the same as AS to some extent and is associated with clear signs of joint damage (that is, of past inflammation) on x-rays.

“Axial spondyloarthritis is one disease, and whether it is radiographic or nonradiographic makes zero difference in the management of the patient,” says Atul Deodhar, MD, professor of medicine and medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. The distinction came about in 2009 to facilitate scientific and clinical research, he explains, and to enable the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, which were new at the time, for patients who could not be classified as having AS.

“We have known what ankylosing spondylitis is for a long time because we have been doing plain x-rays of the sacroiliac joints, and if we see classical changes of sacroiliitis, we have the diagnosis. However, MRI changed everything,” Dr. Deodhar says. Now it’s possible to see inflammatory changes in the SI joints and early joint damage, which was not possible to see on x-ray until many years later.
 

Reassuring for patients?

“Currently, we don’t really have different treatments,” Dr. Deodhar notes. Perhaps the only benefit is that it might be reassuring for patients to know that they have the nonradiographic form. Receiving a diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis comes as quite a shock. It’s a diagnosis that is potentially going to affect them for the rest of their lives, and some patients worry that they’ll develop the classic “bamboo” spine of AS, he adds. So, being able to tell patients that they have nr-axSpA and that they are going to be treated early and aggressively may be somewhat comforting.

“It’s a continuum of a disease state, but a lot of people will stay at the nonradiographic stage,” points out Portland-based internist Beth Smith, DO, associate professor of medicine at OHSU.

“A good portion of individuals who may have an MRI that’s positive will either go into remission or just stay at that stage of the disease; they won’t necessarily progress to radiographic sacroiliitis,” she adds.
 

Spotting nr-axSpA in practice

Nr-axSpA can be tricky to spot in clinical practice, and its diagnosis in primary care largely relies on patients’ clinical presentation and identifying IBP. This is the key symptom. When someone younger than 45 years experiences back pain that is characterized by insidious and chronic onset and that improves with anti-inflammatory agents and activity but that worsens with rest and is worse at night, then imaging of the SI joints may be appropriate.

“You have to have that index of suspicion in order to even think about ordering the appropriate imaging test,” Dr. Smith says. IBP may be the big clue, but patients may also return on separate occasions with multiple associated complaints, such as plantar fasciitis, tennis elbow, or other conditions, such as psoriasis, she says.

Ordering HLA-B27 and C-reactive protein tests may be useful prior to conducting any imaging, Dr. Smith says, “and if imaging is ordered, make sure it is an x-ray of the sacroiliac joint, not the lumbar spine.”

Dr. Deodhar cautions: “A single anterior-posterior view of the pelvis is enough to look at the sacroiliac joint.” There is no need to order separate views of the right and left SI joints; doing so will provide no additional useful information and exposes the patient to unnecessary radiation.

Importantly, consider whether an x-ray of the lumbar spine is needed for a patient with chronic back pain, he says. “You should do an investigation that is going to make a difference to your management. If you take 100 patients with back pain, 95% of the time, it is going to be mechanical back pain. Why do an x-ray of the lumbar spine?” Dr. Deodhar asks rhetorically.

It should also be borne in mind that x-rays can be nonspecific, and several conditions may mimic sacroiliitis, such as osteitis condensans ilii in women who have given birth, osteoarthritis of the SI joints, and old infection of the SI joints.
 

MRIs need specialist interpretation

MRIs of the lumbar spine are overused to diagnose back pain, and while they might be sensitive to early inflammatory changes in SI joints, they require an expert eye for interpretation.

“MRI of the SI joints is to be used wisely in patients when there is enough clinical suspicion,” Dr. Deodhar advises. Even when an MRI is negative for sacroiliitis, patients could still have axial spondyloarthritis.

MRIs of the SI joints are needed, but not of the lumbar spine, he stresses. Views of the lumbar spine may show only signs of disk degeneration and perhaps osteoarthritis.

Moreover, Dr. Deodhar says, “MRI is so sensitive that we used to think that bone marrow edema is good enough for telling us there is sacroiliitis.” However, even people without IBP can have bone marrow edema; “exercise can show bone marrow edema,” he says.

So, “If there’s a suspicion of axial spondyloarthritis, the patient should be referred to a rheumatologist,” who will discuss the interpretation with highly specialized musculoskeletal radiologists.
 

Take-home messages

Whether it is nr-axSpA or r-axSpA, “the burden of disease for the patient is the same; treatment is the same,” says Dr. Deodhar. Patients should be referred to a rheumatologist as soon as possible if axial spondyloarthritis is suspected. A single x-ray of the pelvis should be performed to see the SI joints, but MRIs should be left to secondary care, he suggests.

Dr. Smith notes: “Having that index of suspicion of an inflammatory etiology for the back pain is essential.” It ensures that “patients can get early and appropriate treatment for a disease that’s very different from the mechanical back pain that we mostly see in primary care.”

Dr. Deodhar has received research grants or has acted as a consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Smith reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Knowing whether a patient has radiographic or nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis will not change management, experts say. What matters is recognizing that the patient has inflammatory back pain (IBP) and clinical features of spondyloarthritis and that the patient is referred to a rheumatologist as soon as possible.
 

Out with the old, in with the new

Axial spondyloarthritis is characterized by chronic inflammation of the sacroiliac (SI) joints, and spine. It’s a modern term that includes ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and that refers to opposite ends of a disease spectrum.

Nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) is so termed because there are no definitive visible changes on plain x-rays, although inflammatory changes may be seen on MRI.

Radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) is the same as AS to some extent and is associated with clear signs of joint damage (that is, of past inflammation) on x-rays.

“Axial spondyloarthritis is one disease, and whether it is radiographic or nonradiographic makes zero difference in the management of the patient,” says Atul Deodhar, MD, professor of medicine and medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. The distinction came about in 2009 to facilitate scientific and clinical research, he explains, and to enable the use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, which were new at the time, for patients who could not be classified as having AS.

“We have known what ankylosing spondylitis is for a long time because we have been doing plain x-rays of the sacroiliac joints, and if we see classical changes of sacroiliitis, we have the diagnosis. However, MRI changed everything,” Dr. Deodhar says. Now it’s possible to see inflammatory changes in the SI joints and early joint damage, which was not possible to see on x-ray until many years later.
 

Reassuring for patients?

“Currently, we don’t really have different treatments,” Dr. Deodhar notes. Perhaps the only benefit is that it might be reassuring for patients to know that they have the nonradiographic form. Receiving a diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis comes as quite a shock. It’s a diagnosis that is potentially going to affect them for the rest of their lives, and some patients worry that they’ll develop the classic “bamboo” spine of AS, he adds. So, being able to tell patients that they have nr-axSpA and that they are going to be treated early and aggressively may be somewhat comforting.

“It’s a continuum of a disease state, but a lot of people will stay at the nonradiographic stage,” points out Portland-based internist Beth Smith, DO, associate professor of medicine at OHSU.

“A good portion of individuals who may have an MRI that’s positive will either go into remission or just stay at that stage of the disease; they won’t necessarily progress to radiographic sacroiliitis,” she adds.
 

Spotting nr-axSpA in practice

Nr-axSpA can be tricky to spot in clinical practice, and its diagnosis in primary care largely relies on patients’ clinical presentation and identifying IBP. This is the key symptom. When someone younger than 45 years experiences back pain that is characterized by insidious and chronic onset and that improves with anti-inflammatory agents and activity but that worsens with rest and is worse at night, then imaging of the SI joints may be appropriate.

“You have to have that index of suspicion in order to even think about ordering the appropriate imaging test,” Dr. Smith says. IBP may be the big clue, but patients may also return on separate occasions with multiple associated complaints, such as plantar fasciitis, tennis elbow, or other conditions, such as psoriasis, she says.

Ordering HLA-B27 and C-reactive protein tests may be useful prior to conducting any imaging, Dr. Smith says, “and if imaging is ordered, make sure it is an x-ray of the sacroiliac joint, not the lumbar spine.”

Dr. Deodhar cautions: “A single anterior-posterior view of the pelvis is enough to look at the sacroiliac joint.” There is no need to order separate views of the right and left SI joints; doing so will provide no additional useful information and exposes the patient to unnecessary radiation.

Importantly, consider whether an x-ray of the lumbar spine is needed for a patient with chronic back pain, he says. “You should do an investigation that is going to make a difference to your management. If you take 100 patients with back pain, 95% of the time, it is going to be mechanical back pain. Why do an x-ray of the lumbar spine?” Dr. Deodhar asks rhetorically.

It should also be borne in mind that x-rays can be nonspecific, and several conditions may mimic sacroiliitis, such as osteitis condensans ilii in women who have given birth, osteoarthritis of the SI joints, and old infection of the SI joints.
 

MRIs need specialist interpretation

MRIs of the lumbar spine are overused to diagnose back pain, and while they might be sensitive to early inflammatory changes in SI joints, they require an expert eye for interpretation.

“MRI of the SI joints is to be used wisely in patients when there is enough clinical suspicion,” Dr. Deodhar advises. Even when an MRI is negative for sacroiliitis, patients could still have axial spondyloarthritis.

MRIs of the SI joints are needed, but not of the lumbar spine, he stresses. Views of the lumbar spine may show only signs of disk degeneration and perhaps osteoarthritis.

Moreover, Dr. Deodhar says, “MRI is so sensitive that we used to think that bone marrow edema is good enough for telling us there is sacroiliitis.” However, even people without IBP can have bone marrow edema; “exercise can show bone marrow edema,” he says.

So, “If there’s a suspicion of axial spondyloarthritis, the patient should be referred to a rheumatologist,” who will discuss the interpretation with highly specialized musculoskeletal radiologists.
 

Take-home messages

Whether it is nr-axSpA or r-axSpA, “the burden of disease for the patient is the same; treatment is the same,” says Dr. Deodhar. Patients should be referred to a rheumatologist as soon as possible if axial spondyloarthritis is suspected. A single x-ray of the pelvis should be performed to see the SI joints, but MRIs should be left to secondary care, he suggests.

Dr. Smith notes: “Having that index of suspicion of an inflammatory etiology for the back pain is essential.” It ensures that “patients can get early and appropriate treatment for a disease that’s very different from the mechanical back pain that we mostly see in primary care.”

Dr. Deodhar has received research grants or has acted as a consultant to multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Smith reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.