Monoclonal antibodies in phase II and III trials for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a prevalent chronic inflammatory skin disease that significantly affects quality of life and mental health, especially in children. Traditional treatments include chemotherapeutics, topical corticosteroids, and immunomodulatory agents, but recent advances have introduced novel monoclonal antibody therapies. Through this comprehensive review paper, we aim to discuss these therapeutic options and their role in treating atopic dermatitis. AREAS COVERED: A comprehensive search of the NIH Clinical Trials database was conducted from September 2023 to January 2024, focusing on phase 2 and 3 trials for AD treatments. Trials were filtered using keywords such as 'atopic dermatitis,' 'monoclonal antibody,' and 'phase 2/3.' Out of 25 trials analyzed, 11 were in phase 2 and 14 in phase 3. Only U.S.-based trials comparing novel therapies to placebo were included. In addition to the clinical trial database, we utilized the companies' websites and relevant abstracts to gather the latest results. EXPERT OPINION: Currently investigated monoclonal antibodies have the ability to transform management by targeting specific mediators implicated in the inflammatory pathway of AD. The results of Phase II and III trials for monoclonal antibodies demonstrated strong therapeutic potential with significant reductions in EASI scores and represent a promising new targeted treatment option.

A randomized, double-blind, phase III study assessing clinical similarity of SB17 (proposed ustekinumab biosimilar) to reference ustekinumab in subjects with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Ustekinumab (UST) is a safe and effective treatment for moderate-to-severe psoriasis. OBJECTIVES: To compare efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity of the proposed UST biosimilar SB17 with reference UST in subjects with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: In this randomized double-blind study, subjects were randomized to receive 45 mg of SB17 or UST subcutaneously at week 0, 4, and every 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at week 12 with an equivalence margin of [-15%, 15%]. Other secondary efficacy, safety, PK, and immunogenicity endpoints were measured through week 28. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-nine subjects were randomized to SB17, 254 to UST. Adjusted difference of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index change from baseline at week 12 of -0.6% (95% confidence interval; -3.780, 2.579) was within the equivalence margin. Physician's Global Assessment and Dermatology Life Quality Index were also comparable. Overall treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable (SB17: 48.2%, UST: 48.8%). The overall incidence of antidrug antibodies up to Week 28 was 13.3% with SB17 and 39.4% with UST. LIMITATIONS: Data were only through week 28. CONCLUSION: SB17 was clinically biosimilar to UST up to week 28.

Full Guidelines-From the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation: Perioperative management of systemic immunomodulatory agents in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Systemic immunomodulatory agents are indicated in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Perioperative use of these medications may increase the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and complication. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of SSI and complication in patients with chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease receiving immunomodulatory agents (tumor necrosis factor-alfa [TNF-α] inhibitors, interleukin [IL] 12/23 inhibitor, IL-17 inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitors, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 costimulator, phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, Janus kinase inhibitors, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, cyclosporine (CsA), and methotrexate [MTX]) undergoing surgery. METHODS: We performed a search of the MEDLINE PubMed database of patients with chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease on immune therapy undergoing surgery. RESULTS: We examined 48 new or previously unreviewed studies; the majority were retrospective studies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. CONCLUSION: For low-risk procedures, TNF-α inhibitors, IL-17 inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitors, ustekinumab, abatacept, MTX, CsA, and apremilast can safely be continued. For intermediate- and high-risk surgery, MTX, CsA, apremilast, abatacept, IL-17 inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitors, and ustekinumab are likely safe to continue; however, a case-by-case approach is advised. Acitretin can be continued for any surgery. There is insufficient evidence to make firm recommendations on tofacitinib, upadacitinib, and deucravacitinib.

Vaccination recommendations for adults receiving biologics and oral therapies for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: Delphi consensus from the medical board of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

BACKGROUND: For psoriatic patients who need to receive nonlive or live vaccines, evidence-based recommendations are needed regarding whether to pause or continue systemic therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate literature regarding vaccine efficacy and safety and to generate consensus-based recommendations for adults receiving systemic therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis receiving nonlive or live vaccines. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi process, 22 consensus statements were developed by the National Psoriasis Foundation Medical Board and COVID-19 Task Force, and infectious disease experts. RESULTS: Key recommendations include continuing most oral and biologic therapies without modification for patients receiving nonlive vaccines; consider interruption of methotrexate for nonlive vaccines. For patients receiving live vaccines, discontinue most oral and biologic medications before and after administration of live vaccine. Specific recommendations include discontinuing most biologic therapies, except for abatacept, for 2-3 half-lives before live vaccine administration and deferring next dose 2-4 weeks after live vaccination. LIMITATIONS: Studies regarding infection rates after vaccination are lacking. CONCLUSION: Interruption of antipsoriatic oral and biologic therapies is generally not necessary for patients receiving nonlive vaccines. Temporary interruption of oral and biologic therapies before and after administration of live vaccines is recommended in most cases.

A Review of Topical Tapinarof for the Treatment of Plaque Psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE: This article reviews the efficacy and safety of 1% tapinarof cream for plaque psoriasis. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted from August 2022 to February 2023. The terms tapinarof, VTAMA, benvitimod, GSK2894512, DMVT-505, and WBI-1001 were queried in PubMed. ClinicalTrials.gov was searched to identify ongoing or unpublished studies. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All clinical trials written in English and relevant to pharmacology, efficacy, and safety were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: In two 12-week phase III clinical trials, disease severity assessed by a Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) score of clear or almost clear and a 2-point PGA improvement was 35.4% and 40.2% at week 12 in the 2 trials, respectively. In the 40-week, open-label extension trial, the efficacy and safety results were similar: 40.9% of patients achieved a PGA of 0 at least once during the trial, and 58.2% of patients with PGA ≥ 2 achieved PGA 0/1 at least once. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE IN COMPARISON TO EXISTING DRUGS: Tapinarof is a topical aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist and a first-in-class, potentially promising treatment for plaque psoriasis recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, tapinarof may be an effective and safe topical treatment for mild to severe plaque psoriasis. Head-to-head trials to compare the efficacy and adverse effect profile of tapinarof to other topical treatments are still needed, as are investigation in patients with recent or current use of phototherapy or biologic or nonbiologic systemics. Cost and adherence to treatment may be barriers for treatment efficacy.

Choosing Systemic Agents for Psoriasis.

Treatment options for moderate-to-severe psoriasis depend on drug efficacy and safety, patient preferences, comorbidities, and cost-no drug dominates across all dimensions. Interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitors may be preferred for fast-acting treatment, while the 3-month schedule of risankizumab, ustekinumab, or tildrakizumab may be attractive for patients who prioritize fewer injections. Phototherapy is suitable for patients who wish to avoid systemic agents or when cost is a concern. For patients with poor adherence, infliximab or tildrakizumab may be well suited as they require in-office administration. Dermatologists can educate patients on available therapies to find a regimen best suited to their needs.

Bimekizumab-bkzx for the Treatment of Plaque Psoriasis: A Drug Review.

BACKGROUND: Bimekizumab is a biologic targeting interleukin (IL)-17A/17F, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in 2023. DATA SOURCES: A PubMed search was performed using the keywords "bimekizumab," "plaque psoriasis," and "bimekizumab clinical trials," from origin to August 1, 2024. We included phase I to III trials of bimekizumab for plaque psoriasis, studies published post-FDA approval, and information from the package insert. STUDY SELECTION, DATA EXTRACTION: We summarized 1 phase I, 4 phase II, and 4 phase III trials, and 3 real-world studies published post-FDA approval. DATA SYNTHESIS: Bimekizumab was effective; >85% and 70% of patients achieved PASI90 and PASI100, respectively, in phase III trials. Head-to-head, 85% of bimekizumab patients achieved PASI90 versus 50% of ustekinumab patients. The most frequent adverse event was oral candidiasis (4%-10%); serious adverse events were rare (<1%). Long-term studies confirmed sustained efficacy and consistent safety profile. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE IN COMPARISON TO EXISTING DRUGS: Bimekizumab was more efficacious than other IL-17 inhibitors, ustekinumab, and adalimumab. Real-world data corroborate bimekizumab's efficacy. Bimekizumab had a safety profile like other IL-17 inhibitors, with higher rates of mucocutaneous candidiasis. CONCLUSION: Many patients who failed other IL-17 inhibitors and switched to bimekizumab experienced clearance. The efficacy of bimekizumab in patients who failed other IL-17 blockers may be attributable to bimekizumab's ability to block multiple IL-17 isoforms. Bimekizumab also outperformed tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitors. There may be patients who fail previously available drugs, for reasons including nonadherence, antidrug antibodies, or adverse effects; bimekizumab, which targets additional cytokines, may bridge that gap.

A Review of Topical Sirolimus for the Treatment of Facial Angiofibromas in Tuberous Sclerosis Complex.

OBJECTIVE: This article assesses the efficacy, safety, pharmacology, and clinical applications of topical sirolimus 0.2% gel for the treatment of tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC)-associated facial angiofibromas. DATA SOURCES: A review of the literature was conducted using the Medline (PubMed) and EMBASE databases using the keywords topical sirolimus, rapamycin, Hyftor, and tuberous sclerosis. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Articles written in English and relevant to the topic were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: In the phase 2 trial, the mean improvement factor, a composite measure of improved tumor size and redness, was achieved in all patient groups (P < 0.001) with significant responses among the adult and pediatric subgroups at week 12. There were no serious adverse events recorded. In the phase 3 trial, 60% of participants responded to treatment in the sirolimus group compared with 0% in the placebo group with different response rates between the adult and pediatric subgroups at week 12. Sirolimus gel had no serious adverse events, and dry skin was the most common adverse reaction. Patients who had completed the 12-week trials were then enrolled in a long-term trial; angiofibromas had response rates of 78.2% to 0.2% sirolimus gel. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE IN COMPARISON TO EXISTING DRUGS: Topical sirolimus 0.2% is a first-in-class, newly Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor that is a promising and safe, noninvasive alternative to surgical procedures for TSC-associated angiofibromas. CONCLUSIONS: Topical sirolimus 0.2% gel is a moderately effective treatment for TSC-associated facial angiofibromas with an adequate safety profile.

Spesolimab: A Review of the First IL-36 Blocker Approved for Generalized Pustular Psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE: This article reviews clinical trial data that assesses the safety, efficacy, and clinical application of spesolimab, an interleukin-36 (IL-36) blocker, for the treatment of generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP). DATA SOURCES: A review of the literature was conducted using the search terms: "spesolimab," "BI 655130," and "spevigo" in MEDLINE (PubMed) and Clinicaltrials.gov from January 1, 1950 to October 31, 2023. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant articles in English relating to the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of spesolimab were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: In one phase 2 clinical trial evaluating single dose IV spesolimab for GPP flares at day 8, 54% of patients receiving spesolimab had a GPP physician global assessment (GPPGA) pustulation subscore of 0, and 43% had a GPPGA total score of 0 compared with 6% and 11% for the placebo group, respectively. Another phase 2 clinical trial assessing subcutaneous spesolimab found 23% of patients in low-dose, 29% in medium-dose, and 10% of high-dose spesolimab had flares by week 48 compared with 52% of the placebo group. Hazard ratios for time to GPP flare compared with placebo were 0.16 (P = 0.0005), 0.35 (P = 0.0057), and 0.47 (P = 0.027) for the spesolimab groups, respectively. Infection rates were similar across treatment and placebo groups, and severe adverse events such as drug reactions with eosinophilia and systemic symptom (DRESS), cholelithiasis, and breast cancer occurred with spesolimab. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE IN COMPARISON TO EXISTING DRUGS: Spesolimab is a first-in-class IL-36 monoclonal antibody receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of acute GPP flares. It is a safe and effective therapeutic agent in preventing future GPP flares, with no current comparator trials with other GPP agents. CONCLUSION: Spesolimab is a safe and effective treatment for acute GPP flares in adults. Future clinical trials can establish safety and efficacy compared with other agents.

Qualitative investigation of disease course, characteristics and lived experience of generalized pustular psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a relapsing-remitting chronic disease characterized by painful pustules with systemic symptoms that has a negative impact on quality of life. The psychosocial and economic burden of this rare condition is not well characterized. OBJECTIVES: To qualitatively characterize the cumulative burden of GPP on patients' quality of life and psychosocial wellbeing. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients with GPP was performed to collect demographic information, followed by prospective semistructured clinical interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three major themes were revealed: (i) burden of having a chronic disease with an unpredictable course, (ii) an inability to fulfil societal roles results in a loss of identity, and (iii) a physician-patient relationship grounded in trust and transparency can be invaluable in helping patients endure chronic disease. CONCLUSIONS: GPP has a negative impact on patients' quality of life and psychosocial wellbeing. Impairments in daily function and mental health primarily affect patients during flares and influence behaviour during periods of quiescence. A strong patient-physician relationship may help mitigate the impact of GPP.

Dermatologists' Perspectives on Biosimilars.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilars are biologic agents the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has deemed to have no clinical difference from their reference biologics. In dermatology,  biosimilars are approved for the treatment of psoriasis and hidradenitis suppurativa. Although dermatologists are high prescribers of biologics, they are more reluctant to prescribe biosimilars than other specialists. This survey-based study sought to characterize dermatologists’ current perspectives on biosimilars.  Methods: A 27-question survey was distributed via email to dermatologists between September and October of 2022.  Results: Twenty percent of respondents would not prescribe a biosimilar for an FDA-approved indication. When asked about the greatest barriers to biosimilar adoption, 61% had concerns about biosimilar safety and efficacy, 24% reported uncertainty about state laws for interchangeability and substitutions, and 20% had concerns about biosimilar safety without concerns about efficacy. Thirty-five percent of respondents felt moderately or extremely knowledgeable about biosimilar interchangeability.  Conclusion: Biosimilars are safe and effective for treating approved dermatological conditions and may lower patient costs compared to their reference products. Patients are not always offered biosimilar therapy as an option, which may be due to unfamiliarity among dermatologists.  This survey suggests a need for more research and educational initiatives, such as modules and workshops that focus on biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability guidelines. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(4):doi:10.36849/JDD.7755.

Assessing Patient Preferences for Atopic Dermatitis Treatment: A Review Article of Discrete Choice Experiments.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is one of the most prevalent inflammatory skin conditions, characterized by recurrent eczema with varying degrees of erythema, pruritus, xerosis, and pain. Although there are many treatment options for AD, efficacy is limited by poor adherence, especially for topical medications. Patient preferences for certain vehicle formulations and frequencies of administration, as well as patient aversion to certain adverse effects, can negatively impact adherence and treatment success. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are used to assess preferences in a manner comparable to clinical decision-making. Six discrete choice experiments on AD were analyzed to create a comprehensive data sheet of patient and physician preferences for medication. When choosing a medication, skin clearance, itch relief, and flexible treatments were most important to patients. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(10):847-851.  doi:10.36849/JDD.8056.

Number of Affected Nails Is the Primary Determinant of Efinaconazole 10% Solution Usage for Onychomycosis.

Good adherence to treatment is necessary for the successful treatment of onychomycosis and requires that an appropriate amount of medication be prescribed. Most prescriptions for efinaconazole 10% solution, a topical azole antifungal, are for 4 mL per month but there are no data on patient factors or disease characteristics that impact how much medication is needed. Data from two phase 3 studies of efinaconazole 10% solution for the treatment of toenail onychomycosis were pooled and analyzed to determine monthly medication usage based on the number of affected toenails, percent involvement of the target toenail, body mass index (BMI), and sex. Participants with two or more affected nails required, on average, >4 mL of efinaconazole per month, with increasing amounts needed based on the number of nails with onychomycosis (mean: 4.39 mL for 2 nails; 6.36 mL for 6 nails). In contrast, usage was not greatly impacted by target toenail involvement, BMI, or sex. Together, these data indicate that the number of affected nails should be the major consideration when determining the monthly efinaconazole quantity to prescribe. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(2):110-112.    doi:10.36849/JDD.7676.

Benefit of Topical Combination Therapy for Acne: Analyzing Effect Size Using Number Needed to Treat.

BACKGROUND: Topical acne trials often are confounded by high vehicle response rates and differing outcome measures, making it difficult to compare treatments. Number needed to treat (NNT) can be a simple, clinically meaningful way to indirectly compare treatment options without head-to-head data. NNT is the number of patients who need to be treated with an intervention to observe one additional patient successfully achieving a desired outcome versus vehicle/placebo. While treatment attributes such as adverse events may not be captured, lower NNT is a good indicator of a more effective treatment. METHODS: Following a search of combination topical treatments for acne vulgaris, all treatments that reported pivotal trial efficacy data consistent with the 2018 FDA definition of success were included in NNT analyses.  Results: Of 13 treatments, 7 reported 12-week treatment success rates in 11 phase 3 trials, with similar baseline demographics/disease severity. Treatment success ranged from 26.8% with tretinoin 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide (BPO) 3% cream to 50% with triple-combination clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/adapalene 0.15%/BPO 3.1% gel. NNTs for the triple-combination gel were 4 and 5 (from 2 pivotal trials). Adapalene 0.3%/BPO 2.5% gel had an NNT of 5. Tretinoin/BPO had the largest range between trials, with NNTs of 4 and 9. The other 4 treatments had NNTs ranging from 6 to 8. CONCLUSION: A comparison of combination topical acne treatment trial data, using the same treatment outcome and similar patient populations, resulted in triple-combination clindamycin phosphate/adapalene/BPO gel and adapalene/BPO gel having the most favorable NNTs.J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(2):42-49.  doi:10.36849/JDD.7927.

Clindamycin Phosphate 1.2%/Adapalene 0.15%/Benzoyl Peroxide 3.1% Gel for Male and Female Acne: Phase 3 Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/adapalene 0.15%/benzoyl peroxide 3.1% gel (CAB) is the only fixed-dose triple-combination treatment approved for acne. This post hoc analysis assessed the impact of sex on efficacy and safety/tolerability of CAB. METHODS: In two multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 studies (NCT04214639 and NCT04214652), participants aged ≥9 years with moderate-to-severe acne were randomized (2:1) to 12 weeks of once-daily treatment with CAB or vehicle gel. Pooled data were analyzed by sex. Assessments included treatment success (≥2-grade reduction from baseline in Evaluator’s Global Severity Score and a score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear]), inflammatory/noninflammatory lesion counts, Acne-Specific Quality of Life (Acne-QoL) questionnaire, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and cutaneous safety/tolerability. RESULTS: At week 12, treatment success rates were significantly greater with CAB versus vehicle irrespective of sex (females: 53.7% vs 23.0%; males: 43.1% vs 24.6%; P<0.05, both). CAB-treated female and male participants both experienced greater reductions from baseline versus vehicle in inflammatory (females: 77.7% vs 57.9%; males: 77.5% vs 57.1%; P<0.001, both) and noninflammatory lesions (females: 72.5% vs 45.6%; males: 72.3% vs 49.6%; P<0.001, both). Acne-QoL improvements from baseline to week 12 were significantly greater with CAB than vehicle. No significant differences in any efficacy measures between CAB-treated males and females were observed. Most TEAEs were of mild-to-moderate severity; no sex-based trends for safety/tolerability were observed. CONCLUSIONS: CAB demonstrated comparable efficacy, quality-of-life improvements, and safety in female and male participants with moderate-to-severe acne. As the first fixed-dose, triple-combination topical formulation, CAB represents an important new treatment for acne. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(10):873-881. doi:10.36849/JDD.8484.

Treatment Adherence in Pediatric Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Adherence to pediatric atopic dermatitis (AD) treatment regimens can be complex and a major challenge to optimizing treatment outcome. We aimed to review factors associated with nonadherence in pediatric AD and propose interventions to improve adherence. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for articles from 2000 to February 2023 related to AD and adherence, with an additional update in December 2023. Non-human studies, reviews, commentaries, and meta-analyses were excluded. Articles were sorted into pediatric versus adult study population based on volume. Herein, we examine the results of papers discussing adherence factors related to pediatric patients. RESULTS: A total of 62 studies met inclusion criteria. Thirty-six studies surveyed patients and caregivers (N = 10,268) to identify barriers to treatment adherence. None of the included studies were specific to systemic medications. Barriers included poor caregiver quality of life, inadequate AD-related education, topical corticosteroid (TCS) phobia, unclear therapy-related instructions, and dissatisfaction with physician interaction. Five studies solely measured adherence using medication electronic monitoring systems, Morisky medication adherence scale, or self-reported adherence to measure adherence to topical medications. Twenty-one studies described interventions involving nurse-led or web-based education programs, text message or email reminders, and TCS education. Adherence was improved with caregiver education programs, daily text-message reminders, eczema action plans, TCS potency "traffic light" color system, and frequent follow-up visits. CONCLUSION: Adherence to pediatric AD treatment poses a multifactorial challenge for caregivers and patients. This study provides an index of strategies to optimize adherence, as it is essential for prevention of long-term sequela associated with AD in children. As the AD treatment landscape rapidly expands, further studies are vital to assess pediatric adherence to new topical, oral, and injectable medications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42023488557.

Biologics for Treatment of Pityriasis Rubra Pilaris: A Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the published efficacy and adverse event rates associated with existing biologics for the treatment of pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP). DATA SOURCES: A literature review using the PubMed database (January 1990-July 2023) was conducted. Multiple search combinations were conducted using "pityriasis rubra pilaris" and various biologics as keywords to identify relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Inclusion criteria included all study types that were published within the past 30 years in English and mentioned at least one biologic and PRP. A preliminary search yielded a total of 499 results. After screening using inclusion and exclusion criteria, 77 relevant articles (69 case reports, 5 case series, 2 clinical trials, and 1 retrospective analysis) were analyzed. DATA SYNTHESIS: TNF-α inhibitors have been evaluated and are effective in treating PRP. However, recent treatment with anti-interleukin (IL)-17 and anti-IL-23 therapies such as ustekinumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are emerging as new treatment options with a mean improvement in PRP Area and Severity Index scores, change in severity of erythema, scaling, and thickness of PRP lesions. From initial clinical trials, secukinumab and ixekizumab are promising treatment options for achieving remission. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review compares the efficacy for numerous biologics and a discussion to guide clinicians on benefits and risks in choosing a biologic for PRP patients. CONCLUSIONS: Biologics may be a favourable treatment option leading to greater patient adherence due to reduced dosing frequencies, improvement in quality of life, and reduction in frequency and severity of flares.

Non-Systemic Medication for the Treatment of Prurigo Nodularis: A Systematic Review.

Prurigo nodularis (PN) is a skin disease characterized by firm, itchy, erythematous lesions. Treatment consists of systemic and non-systemic modes of therapy. Non-systemic forms of treatment are first-line and include topical corticosteroids, topical steroid-sparing agents, and phototherapy. The objective was to review the efficacy of non-systemic treatment used to treat PN. A systematic search was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023412012). The search consisted of keywords and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and translated to Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus. Google Scholar was also searched for the first 200 articles. Article quality of evidence was scored using GRADE criteria. The search yielded 1151 results; 37 met criteria for inclusion. There were 14 studies on phototherapy, and 11 studies on topical corticosteroids, most of which were also combined with topical antihistamines, antipruritics, and/or phototherapy. There were 2 studies each on topical antipruritics used in isolation, vitamin D analogues, and intralesional triamcinolone acetonide. There was 1 study each on topical pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, 2% dinitrochlorobenzene, cryotherapy, acupuncture, and the Paul Gerson Unna boot. Most were case reports and case series, although 2 randomized controlled trials on phototherapy and topical pimecrolimus were included. Corticosteroids had varying levels of positive response in patients and appeared more effective when used in combination or under occlusive dressing. Phototherapy is likely effective, but the risk of relapse is high. Cryotherapy may also be a lesion-directed agent to circumvent challenges to adherence and avoidance of systemic medication.

Overview of Dermatological Manifestations Associated with the COVID-19 Infection.

COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 that is characterized by respiratory symptoms, fever, and chills.[1] While these systemic symptoms are widely known and well understood, there have also been reports of dermatological manifestations in patients with COVID-19. These manifestations include chilblain-like lesions, maculopapular lesions, urticarial lesions, necrosis, and other varicella-like exanthems.[2] The pathogenesis of these lesions are not well understood, but the procoagulant and pro-inflammatory state induced by COVID-19 infections may be contributing to varied cutaneous manifestations.[3] Drug interactions and concurrent hypersensitivity reactions have also been postulated.[4] This review aims to compile and analyze various retrospective studies and case reports to summarize the clinical presentation of dermatological lesions associated with COVID-19 infections and suggest further areas of research.

Bromhidrosis treatment modalities: A literature review.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for Bromhidrosis include botulinum toxin therapy, microwave-based therapy, laser therapy, and surgical intervention. Limited studies compare their efficacies. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this literature review is to compare the efficacy and safety of these treatments for bromhidrosis. METHODS: A PubMed search included terms bromhidrosis and bromhidrosis AND treatment. RESULTS: A total of 25 articles were reviewed. Botulinum toxin therapy shows consistent benefit but requires repeated therapies. Microwave therapies have shown promising results but require larger cohort sizes with bromhidrosis. Similarly, laser therapy has shown promise with biopsy-proven results, but long-lasting effects remain unknown. Surgery has the best long-term prognosis, but the ideal surgical method remains unknown. LIMITATIONS: Each study varied in their treatment interval and method of assessing bromhidrosis, making direct comparisons difficult. CONCLUSIONS: Managing bromhidrosis requires shared decision making with the patient. Mild-to-moderate symptoms may be treated initially with botulinum toxin therapy. In cases that are refractory, laser therapy should be considered, as it is better studied than microwave therapy currently. Lastly, if the condition is severe and refractory to other options, surgery can be considered, although the ideal method remains unknown.