Prescribing Patterns of Dupilumab for Atopic Dermatitis in Adults: Retrospective, Observational Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common inflammatory disease caused by a type 2 T helper cell-mediated immune response to environmental antigens. Approximately 1 in 5 patients with AD presents with moderate to severe disease, and treatments approved by the Food and Drug Administration include emollients, topical glucocorticoids, and calcineurin inhibitors. Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, improves AD via inhibition of interleukin-4 and interleukin-13.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to characterize the prescribing patterns of dupilumab for AD in adults at a large university-affiliated health system.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted using electronic data from the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics database, assessing data from the University of Colorado Medical Campus and its affiliates. The outcome measured was the prevalence of dupilumab prescribed for adults with AD (n=6421), between March 28, 2013, and March 28, 2021. We assessed whether the characteristics of patients who received dupilumab were different from those who did not. Each patient characteristic was assessed using a univariate logistic regression with the binary outcome of receiving or not receiving dupilumab.

RESULTS

We found a population prevalence of 5.6% (6421/114,476) for AD. In our cohort, Black patients with AD were more than twice as likely to have received dupilumab compared to White patients (odds ratio 2.352, 95% CI 1.58-3.39). Patients with a diagnosis of atopic neurodermatitis were approximately twice as likely to have received dupilumab compared to those with other diagnostic variants of AD (odds ratio 1.87, 95% CI 1.01-3.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that both patient racial characteristics and specific AD diagnoses were associated with variations in dupilumab prescription patterns.

Distinguishing Gender Identity From Biological Sex in Dermatologic Health Care: Methods, Harms, and Paths Forward

Accurate assessment of gender identity and biological sex in dermatology research is crucial since their conflation or poor demarcation undermines patient respect and study accuracy. Clearer guidance is needed for health care researchers, particularly in light of the notable disparities in skin disease rates, skincare practices, literature representation, and the persistent underrepresentation of transgender and nonbinary patients.

The Importance of Gender-Neutral Terminology in Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Programs: A Call to Action

The use of risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) programs is frequently required for prescriptions with potentially teratogenic effects, especially in the field of dermatology. Among these REMS programs, the most well-known example is isotretinoin, an oral retinoid that uses the iPLEDGE system. iPLEDGE has strict regulations and a lengthy approval process, and until recently, patients were grouped into 3 categories: male, female, or female of reproductive potential. This strict grouping has posed problems in the medical community, especially for gender-diverse individuals where their perceived gender conflates with their assigned grouping causing patient-specific distress. The distinction between gender-a multifactorial perception of identity-and biological sex is addressed under new iPLEDGE guidelines. Dermatologists now register patients under one of 2 categories: patients who can become pregnant and those who cannot become pregnant. This change simultaneously improves the accessibility to isotretinoin among gender-diverse individuals, while limiting prescription barriers. Despite initial success being limited due to lengthy system conversions, a registration process based on reproductive potential ultimately enhances iPLEDGE's goal to prevent potential birth defects. We propose that other REMS programs follow the standard set by the iPLEDGE system, including those for the medications thalidomide, acitretin, and mycophenolate mofetil, all of which currently have a similar taxonomy to that of the old iPLEDGE system. Implementing the standardization of gender-neutral terminology can maximize enrollment and minimize distress. Current and ongoing refinement of iPLEDGE and other REMS is needed to build protocols solely around the prevention of birth defects without regard to sex or gender.

Dermatology Journals' Editorial Boards Require Improved Gender Equity: JMIR Dermatology's Future Directions

Gender disparities exist across all facets of academic medicine including within the editorial boards of dermatology journals. Only 22% of these editorial boards comprised women, even though 51% of full-time, faculty dermatologists are female. When inviting academic dermatologists to our editorial board at JMIR Dermatology, we invited 50% women to represent the gender distribution of academic dermatologists; however, we have not sufficiently reached gender equity among accepted editorial board members. We will continue to strive toward the goal of gender equity on our editorial board and invite other dermatology journals to do the same.

From the Cochrane Library: Interventions for Cutaneous Molluscum Contagiosum

Collapse

From the Cochrane Library: Optical Coherence Tomography for Diagnosing Skin Cancer in Adults

Collapse

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion of Dermatology Journals and Their Editorial Board Members

Dermatology as a whole suffers from minority underrepresentation. We conducted a search of the top 60 dermatology journals for mention of their approach to increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within their publication through editorial board members or peer-review processes. Of those 60, only 5 had DEI statements or editorial board members dedicated to increasing DEI. There are publications with checklists and frameworks for increasing DEI within the literature. We propose that more journals implement these resources within their peer-review process to increase diversity within their publication.

Monkeypox Vaccination and Cutaneous Considerations for the Dermatologist

Monkeypox has infected over 18,000 individuals in the United States since the first reported case on May 17, 2022.1 Monkeypox is a variola poxvirus that is related to smallpox, but monkeypox symptoms (fever, painful vesicular or pustular rash, and lymphadenopathy) are milder and fatalities are rare.

Cochrane Skin Group's Global Social Media Reach: Content Analysis of Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter Posts

BACKGROUND

Researchers in all medical specialties increasingly use social media to educate the public, share new publications with peers, and diversify their audiences.

OBJECTIVE

Given Cochrane Skin Group's expanded use of social media in the past years, we aimed to characterize Cochrane Skin Group's international social media audience and identify themes that result in increased content engagement.

METHODS

Cochrane Skin Group's Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter analytics data were extracted for follower demographics and the most viewed posts within a 3-year span (June 2019 to June 2022).

RESULTS

Overall, Cochrane Skin Group had the highest number of followers on Facebook (n=1037). The number of Instagram and Twitter followers reached 214 and 352, respectively. The greatest numbers of Facebook followers were from Brazil, Egypt, and India, with 271, 299, and 463 followers, respectively. Facebook's most viewed post about Cochrane Skin Group's annual meeting received 1041 views. The top post on Instagram, which introduced Cochrane Skin Group's social media editors, received 2522 views.

CONCLUSIONS

Each of the social media platforms used by Cochrane Skin Group reached varying audiences all over the world. Across social media platforms, posts regarding Cochrane Skin Group meetings, members, and professional opportunities received the most views. Overall, Cochrane Skin Group's multiplatform social media approach will continue to grow an international audience, connecting people interested in skin disease.

Participation in Clinical Trials Among Academic Dermatologists Affiliated With Veterans Affairs Hospitals: Survey Study

Background

Clinical trials have led to the development of new and effective therapies for many dermatologic conditions. To our knowledge, there is no published study that has quantified and described the degree of involvement in clinical trials among academic dermatologists and their university affiliates.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to characterize the involvement of academic dermatology departments in clinical trials research.

Methods

An online survey was sent to 211 Veterans Affairs (VA)–employed dermatologists. It comprised 20 questions related to the number of clinical trials, support staff dedicated to clinical research, skin diseases studied, and the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on conducting clinical research. Three rounds of survey invitations were sent over a 3-month period (March to May 2021). Data from all survey responses were reviewed for quantitative and descriptive analyses of the key outcome measures.

Results

A total of 48 dermatologists completed the survey and provided their university affiliations and details of involvement in clinical trials research. Over half of participants (n=25, 58.1%) with a university affiliate reported that their affiliated dermatology department had a dedicated clinical trials unit. Basal cell carcinoma was the most frequently studied skin condition (n=9, 18.8%), followed by atopic dermatitis and psoriasis (n=4, 8.3% each); 66.7% of participants reported no current clinical trials participation. Of those conducting clinical trials, 87% (n=18) noted that COVID-19 was a barrier to conducting trials, with 52.2% (n=11) citing disrupted or decreased trials due to the pandemic.

Conclusions

Although many dermatologists with university affiliations reported having a dedicated clinical trials unit at their institution, a majority of those surveyed reported not taking part in any active trials. Overall, the diseases investigated in academic clinical trials appear to follow national trends, though some of the top dermatological diseases are underrepresented in clinical trials research. A key limitation of our study was the low response rate (~23%) and that the survey responses from the sample of VA-based dermatologists may not be generalizable to all academic dermatology departments in the United States. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic appeared to play a significant role in disrupting active trials.

From the Cochrane Library: Interventions for Cellulitis and Erysipelas

Collapse

Pharmaceutical Payments to Authors of Dermatology Guidelines After Publication

Collapse

From the Cochrane Library: Interventions for the Prevention of Herpes Simplex Labialis (Cold Sores on the Lips)

Collapse

From the Cochrane Library: Interventions for Hidradenitis Suppurativa

Collapse

Intent to Change Sun-Protective Behaviors Among Hispanic People After a UV Photoaging Intervention: Cohort Study

Background

Mortality rates from melanoma are higher among Hispanic populations than non-Hispanic White (NHW) populations. Interventions to improve sun safety are needed. The Reveal Imager is a camera that uses standard cross-polarized flash photography to record surface and subsurface skin conditions.

Objective

This study aims to determine the intervention’s effectiveness in increasing awareness of sun damage and exposure reduction between Hispanic and NHW populations.

Methods

A cohort of 322 participants, aged ≥18 years, were recruited from community events in 2018. Baseline information was collected on demographics, sun exposure, and perception of risk factors. A facial image was then captured using the Reveal Imager. The results were explained and counseling on sun safety was given, followed by filling out an immediate postimage survey. Chi-square tests, analysis of variance, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, McNemar tests, and multivariable logistic regression were used.

Results

At follow-up, 125 of 141 (89%) Hispanic participants reported that viewing the UV photoaged image influenced intent-to-change sun protection behaviors, compared to 88 of 121 (73%) NHW participants (odds ratio 2.9, 95% CI 1.5-5.6). Of 141 Hispanic participants, 96 (68%) reported that they intended to increase sunscreen use, compared to only 41 of 121 (34%) NHW participants (P<.001).

Conclusions

We demonstrated an application of Reveal Imager for education and risk assessment. The Reveal Imager was especially helpful in motivating intention to change sun exposure among Hispanic populations.

The Global, Regional, and National Burden of Psoriasis: Results and Insights From the Global Burden of Disease 2019 Study

Background: Psoriasis is a common, chronic, inflammatory, debilitating, systemic disease with a great impact on healthcare systems worldwide. As targeted therapies have transformed the therapeutic landscape, updated estimates of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) imposed by psoriasis are necessary in order to evaluate the effects of past health care policies and to orient and inform new national and international healthcare strategies. Methods: Data were extracted from the GBD 2019 study, which collates a systematic review of relevant scientific literature, national surveys, claims data, and primary care sources on the prevalence of psoriasis. Prevalence data were combined with disability weight (DW) to yield years lived with disability (YLDs). Measures of burden at global, regional, and national levels were generated for incidence, prevalence, and YLDs, due to psoriatic disease. All measures were reported as absolute numbers, percentages, and crude and age-adjusted rates per 100,000 persons. In addition, psoriasis burden was assessed by socio-demographic index (SDI). Findings: According to the GBD 2019 methodology, there were 4,622,594 (95% uncertainty interval or UI 4,458,904-4,780,771) incident cases of psoriasis worldwide in 2019. The age-standardized incidence rate in 2019 was 57.8 (95% UI 55.8-59.7) per 100,000 people. With respect to 1990, this corresponded to a decrease of 20.0% (95% UI -20.2 to -19.8). By sex, the age-standardized incidence rate was similar between men [57.8 (95% UI 55.8-59.8) per 100,000 people] and women [(57.8 (95% UI 55.8-59.7) per 100,000 people]. With respect to 1990, this corresponded to a decrease by 19.5% (95% UI -19.8 to -19.2) and by 20.4% (95% UI -20.7 to -20.2) for men and women, respectively. The age-standardized incidence rate per 100,000 persons was found to vary widely across geographic locations. Regionally, high-income countries and territories had the highest age-standardized incidence rate of psoriasis [112.6 (95% UI 108.9-116.1)], followed by high-middle SDI countries [69.4 (95% UI 67.1-71.9)], while low SDI countries reported the lowest rate [38.1 (95% UI 36.8-39.5)]. Similar trends were detected for prevalence and YLDs. Conclusion: In general, psoriasis burden is greatest in the age group of 60-69 years, with a relatively similar burden among men and women. The burden is disproportionately greater in high-income and high SDI index countries of North America and Europe. With advances in psoriasis therapeutics, objective evaluation of psoriasis disease burden is critical to track the progress at the population level.

From the Cochrane Library: Topical Treatments for Cutaneous Warts

Collapse

From the Cochrane Library: Interventions for Impetigo

Collapse

Artificial intelligence (AI) comparison of social media-based patient-reported outcomes of PD-1, BRAF, and CTLA-4 inhibitors for melanoma treatment

e21572

Background: Due to side effects and adverse psychosocial factors, there can often be a disconnect between clinical impression and the patient perspective of treatment. Melanoma patients frequently use social media to discuss their disease sentiments and outcomes, providing a window into patient insight, otherwise not readily attainable. We analyzed publicly available full text posts on multiple social media platforms concerning melanoma treatments PD-1 inhibitors (pembrolizumab/Keytruda, nivolumab), BRAF inhibitors (dabrafenib, vemurafenib), and CTLA-4 inhibitor (ipilimumab/Yervoy) associated with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) terms to compare and identify patient burden. Methods: Millions (12,599,313) of publicly available online social media text data were extracted and run through Brandwatch Artificial Intelligence-powered database and machine learning algorithm to categorize treatment-specific posts with PGIC terms associated with sentiment. Results: Out of 52,962 posts related to a select list of melanoma treatments, we identified Keytruda (6,080), nivolumab (1,614), dabrafenib (529), vemurafenib (329), and ipilimumab (1715) posts. The top ten types of posts by volume for each treatment were predominantly positive for PGIC terms (improving, well, progress) while being associated with negative emotions (fear and sadness). Patient-perceived better treatments were associated with decrease fear. PD-1 inhibitor Keytruda displayed markedly less fear (56.9%) with a very high positive PGIC (92.3%) in comparison with PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab with decreased positive PGIC (78.0%) and increased fear (81.6%). Likewise, this patten was discovered for the BRAF inhibitors and CTLA-4 inhibitor, albeit less distinct: dabrafenib (positive PGIC 86.4%, fear 71.9%), vemurafenib (positive PGIC 78.0%, 81.6%), ipilimumab (positive PGIC 75.0%, fear 79.3%). Conclusions: Our initial results indicate that despite patients reporting good outcomes from melanoma treatment, they remain fearful. Nonetheless, a trend is identified between patient-perceived better treatment and decreased patient fear. This analysis can help bridge the gap of understanding patient perspective and provides an indication for translation into more effective clinical and pharmaceutical response.

Systemic treatments for eczema: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Eczema is a common and chronic, relapsing, inflammatory skin disorder. It seriously impacts quality of life and economic outcomes, especially for those with moderate to severe eczema. Various treatments allow sustained control of the disease; however, their relative benefit remains unclear due to the limited number of trials directly comparing treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of different types of systemic immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe eczema using NMA and to generate rankings of available systemic immunosuppressive treatments for eczema according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to August 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic immunosuppressive agents for moderate to severe atopic eczema when compared against placebo or any other eligible eczema treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We synthesised data using pair-wise analysis and NMA to compare treatments and rank them according to their effectiveness. Effectiveness was assessed primarily by determining the proportion of participants who achieved at least 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) and improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Safety was evaluated primarily by considering the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) and infection. We deemed short-term follow-up as ≤ 16 weeks and long-term follow-up as > 16 weeks. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for these primary outcomes using six domains of CiNEMA grading.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 74 studies, with 8177 randomised participants. Approximately 55% of participants were male, with average age of 32 years (range 2 to 84 years), although age and gender were unreported for 419 and 902 participants, respectively. Most of the included trials were placebo controlled (65%), 34% were head-to-head studies (15% assessed the effects of different doses of the same drug), and 1% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. All trials included participants with moderate to severe eczema, but 62% of studies did not separate data by severity; 38% of studies assessed only severe eczema. The total duration of included trials ranged from 2 weeks to 60 months, whereas treatment duration varied from a single dose (CIM331, KPL-716) to 60 months (methotrexate (MTX)). Seventy studies were available for quantitative synthesis; this review assessed 29 immunosuppressive agents from three classes of interventions. These included (1) conventional treatments, with ciclosporin assessed most commonly; (2) small molecule treatments, including phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors; and (3) biological treatments, including anti-CD31 receptors, anti-interleukin (IL)-22, anti-IL-31, anti-IL-13, anti-IL-12/23p40, anti-OX40, anti-TSLP, anti-CRTH2, and anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibodies, but most commonly dupilumab. Most trials (73) assessed outcomes at a short-term duration ranging from 2 to 16 weeks, whereas 33 trials assessed long-term outcomes, with duration ranging from 5 to 60 months. All participants were from a hospital setting. Fifty-two studies declared a source of funding, and of these, pharmaceutical companies funded 88%. We rated 37 studies as high risk; 21, unclear risk, and 16, low risk of bias, with studies most commonly at high risk of attrition bias. Network meta-analysis suggests that dupilumab ranks first for effectiveness when compared with other biological treatments. Dupilumab is more effective than placebo in achieving EASI75 (risk ratio (RR) 3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.51 to 3.69) and improvement in POEM score (mean difference 7.30, 95% CI 6.61 to 8.00) at short-term follow-up (high-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain of the effects of dupilumab when compared with placebo, in terms of the proportion of participants who achieve EASI75 (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.60) at longer-term follow-up. Low-certainty evidence indicates that tralokinumab may be more effective than placebo in achieving short-term EASI75 (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.34), but there was no evidence for tralokinumab to allow us to assess short-term follow-up of POEM or long-term follow-up of EASI75. We are uncertain of the effect of ustekinumab compared with placebo in achieving EASI75 (long-term follow-up: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.45; short-term follow-up: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.97; both very low certainty). We found no evidence on ustekinumab for the POEM outcome. We are uncertain whether other immunosuppressive agents that targeted our key outcomes influence the achievement of short-term EASI75 compared with placebo due to low- or very low-certainty evidence. Dupilumab and ustekinumab were the only immunosuppressive agents evaluated for longer-term EASI75. Dupilumab was the only agent evaluated for improvement in POEM during short-term follow-up. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence indicates a lower proportion of participants with SAEs after treatment with QAW039 and dupilumab compared to placebo during short-term follow-up, but low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in SAEs during short-term follow-up of other immunosuppressive agents compared to placebo. Evidence for effects of immunosuppressive agents on risk of any infection during short-term follow-up and SAEs during long-term follow-up compared with placebo was of low or very low certainty but did not indicate a difference. We did not identify differences in other adverse events (AEs), but dupilumab is associated with specific AEs, including eye inflammation and eosinophilia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that dupilumab is the most effective biological treatment for eczema. Compared to placebo, dupilumab reduces eczema signs and symptoms in the short term for people with moderate to severe atopic eczema. Short-term safety outcomes from clinical trials did not reveal new safety concerns with dupilumab. Overall, evidence for the efficacy of most other immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe atopic eczema is of low or very low certainty. Given the lack of data comparing conventional with newer biological treatments for the primary outcomes, there remains high uncertainty for ranking the efficacy and safety of conventional treatments such as ciclosporin and biological treatments such as dupilumab. Most studies were placebo-controlled and assessed only short-term efficacy of immunosuppressive agents. Further adequately powered head-to-head RCTs should evaluate comparative long-term efficacy and safety of available treatments for moderate to severe eczema.

Use of artificial intelligence for analyzing emotion vs patient global impression of change of melanoma treatments

e24177

Background: The link between melanoma patients’ emotions and their impressions of treatments response are poorly understood. With the rise of social media, patients use online platforms to communicate their concerns related to melanoma treatments. In this study, we utilize real-world data collected from social media with search terms focused on treatment-specific Patients’ Global Impression of Change (PGIC) compared with their emotions. We aim to identify and focus melanoma patient perspective trends to improve patient-centered care. Methods: Social media data mining of search terms were extracted from millions of publicly available interactions on Twitter and other online platforms from May/2008 to January/2020 using Crimson Hexagon (database of real-time social media posts). Results: For chemotherapy posts, the top three emotions by volume were negative alongside negative PGIC “worse” (Worse/Sadness 700, Worse/Fear 596, Worse/Disgust 403, and “decline” (Decline/Sadness 262, Decline/Fear 186, Decline/Disgust 57). Interestingly, Sadness, Fear, and Disgust were as prevalent alongside positive PGIC “well” and “cured” (Well/Sadness 3577, Well/Fear 2545, and Well/Disgust 1770; Cured/Sadness 518, Cured/Disgust 275, and Cured/Fear 167). For Keytruda treatment posts, emotions in negative PGIC “worse” were (Worse/Fear 117, Worse/Anger 68, Worse/Sadness 6). In positive PGIC “well”, results were (Well/Fear 880, Well/Sadness 366, Well/Anger 186). Further analysis will compare these emotional sentiments with a spectrum of PGIC terms and specific types of melanoma treatments. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first investigation of online patient melanoma treatments associated with PGIC terms. The findings indicate a trend of negative emotions even when patients have reported wellness or being cured by treatment. While treatments may be effective, patients are not necessarily satisfied. Correlating changes in emotions with perceived changes in disease severity can provide insight into patient perspectives, which has implications in translating clinical response and a need for continued emotional support in patients with treatment response.