Evaluating minority representation across health care settings in hidradenitis suppurativa and psoriasis.

Background: Females and minorities have been underrepresented in clinical research despite legislative efforts, including in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) and psoriasis (PsO) clinical trials. Objective: To identify differences in demographic breakdowns of HS and PsO patients between health care settings to uncover any causative health disparities. Methods: This study reports racial, ethnic, and sex of HS and PsO patient populations across the emergency department (ED), inpatient, clinical trial, and registry settings. In addition, 95% confidence intervals are used as proxies of statistical significance to compare demographics between settings. Results: Female, Hispanic, and Black patients were underrepresented in HS clinical trials compared to their population prevalence (female: 63.7% vs 73.5%; Hispanic: 3.8% vs 12.0%; Black: 9.1% vs 20.3%). Female and Black patients were underrepresented in PsO trials compared to their population prevalence (female: 33.0% vs 54.8%; Black: 2.2% vs 5.7%). Black patients were overrepresented in the inpatient and ED settings in HS (inpatient vs ED vs population prevalence: 49.9% vs 49.9% vs 20.3%) and in the inpatient setting in PsO (inpatient vs population prevalence: 19.8% vs 5.7%). Limitations: The main limitation is the reliability and generalizability of the published studies used to compare demographics across settings. Conclusion: Underrepresentation of females and minorities in HS and PsO clinical trials is consistent with published literature. Overrepresentation of Black patients in acute care settings is likely multifactorial.

A safety review of biologic therapies for the management of hidradenitis suppurativa and unmet needs.

INTRODUCTION: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, debilitating inflammatory skin disorder characterized by nodules, abscesses, fistulae, and significant scarring in intertriginous areas rich in apocrine glands. Immunomodulator drugs, including biologics, are a mainstay of treatment for this disease. AREAS COVERED: This review details the safety profiles of various biologic therapies currently available commercially that have been tried for HS as assessed in clinical trials and observational studies. As the only Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medication for the treatment of moderate-to-severe HS, adalimumab is discussed in the most detail. Additional biologic medications, including tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) inhibitors, interleukin 1 (IL-1) inhibitors, IL-12 and IL-23 inhibitors, IL-17 inhibitors, and IL-23 inhibitors, are discussed as well. Safety concerns in special populations, including pregnant women and children, are outlined. EXPERT OPINION: Existing data support excellent short-term and long-term safety profiles for adalimumab, although caution must be taken with use in high-risk patient populations, including those with chronic infections or increased risk of malignancy. Based on their safety data for other indications, additional biologic agents appear safe in HS as well. However, further research is needed to fully understand the safety profiles of these medications in the HS population.

Examining the prior authorization process, patient outcomes, and the impact of a pharmacy intervention: A single-center review.

BACKGROUND: Dermatology experiences a disproportionately high burden of prior authorizations (PAs). OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of a centralized pharmacy intervention on the PA process and the impact of PAs on patient outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of PAs submitted for medications before and after implementation of pharmacy intervention was conducted. RESULTS: PA was required for 8.1% of all prescriptions. PAs were most frequently submitted for topical steroids, topical antibiotics and antifungals, and topical retinoids. Most common indications included acne, psoriasis, and dermatitis. Biologic agents (55.2%) and brand-name only medications (42.8%) required PA at higher rates. Pharmacy intervention resulted in shorter time to PA submission (4 days vs 1 day, P < .001) and decision (6 days vs 1 day, P < .001) and higher approval rates (63.9% vs 80.6%, P < .001) but did not decrease the total number of PAs. Patients with approved PAs had higher likelihood of disease improvement vs those with denied PAs (71.1% vs 58.0%, P = .013). LIMITATIONS: Data were collected from a single academic institution. Patient medication compliance was not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The current PA process may result in delays in care and a negative impact on patients. A centralized pharmacy intervention is an effective measure but does not eliminate the overall burden of PAs.