[[Translated article]]Use of Anifrolumab in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus, and Other Autoimmune Dermatoses.

Anifrolumab is an inhibitor of the type I interferon receptor subunit 1 (IFNAR1) recently approved for the management of moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In 2 clinical trials, it has proven effective to treat cutaneous signs. Although anifrolumab has not been indicated for cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE), multiple cases and case series (20 publications with a total of 78 patients) have shown good and rapid responses with this drug, both in subacute CLE and discoid lupus erythematosus, as well as in lupus panniculitis and perniosis. Two case reports of dermatomyositis have also experienced clinical improvement with anifrolumab. Clinical trials of this drug are ongoing for subacute CLE and discoid lupus erythematosus, systemic sclerosis, and progressive vitiligo. Its most common adverse effects are respiratory infections and herpes zoster. Anifrolumab may be a well-tolerated alternative in the management of CLE.

Sunscreens prescribed to patients with skin of color and/or with melasma: A survey of 221 dermatologists and dermatology residents in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Dark-skinned individuals (DSI) present high rates of melasma and post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation. The use of sunscreens with mineral filters is essential for prevention and treatment. Our objective was to determine the preferences of dermatologists and dermatology residents in the prescription of sunscreens for DSI. METHODS: An anonymous survey of attendees at an online photoprotection event held on March 31, 2022, in Spain. RESULTS: The survey was answered by 66.6% (221/332) of the attendees: 159 dermatologists (71.9%) and 62 dermatology residents (28.1%). Respondents reported recommending the use of sunscreen to a median of 80% of DSI [interquartile range (IQR), 50-90]. Physicians reported prescribing tinted sunscreens to a median percentage of 60% (IQR, 25-90) of DSI with acne; and to a median percentage of 90% (IQR, 58-99) of DSI with melasma. The most prescribed photoprotectors to DSI with melasma were organic broad-spectrum sunscreens with antioxidants: 102/220 (46.4%) and mineral broad-spectrum sunscreens (with iron oxides): 45/220 (20.4%). In DSI with melasma or other pigmentary disorders, the most preferred features of sunscreens were as follows: sun protection factor ≥ 30: 217/221 (98.2%), UVA protection: 214/221 (96.8%), color for camouflage: 150/220 (68.2%) and mineral filters such as titanium dioxide and zinc oxide: 151/220 (68.6%) or iron oxides: 131/220 (59.5%). LIMITATIONS: Online survey, potential inclusion bias. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents reported to prescribe sunscreens to the majority of DSI, and tinted sunscreens for the majority of DSI with pigmentary disorders. However, the most frequently recommended sunscreens for DSI were organic broad-spectrum sunscreens with antioxidants.

Biologics Versus JAK Inhibitors. Part II: Risk of Infections. A Narrative Review.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of infections associated with biological drugs (BD) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) has been extensively explored in the literature. However, there is a dearth of studies that evaluate both pharmacological groups together and, furthermore, compare them. Here, we review the risk of infections associated with BD and JAKi used in dermatology. METHODS: A narrative review was performed. All relevant articles evaluating the risk of infection and opportunistic infections with BD and JAKi between January 2010 and February 2024 were selected. RESULTS: Overall, the incidence of infections, serious infections, and opportunistic infections associated with BD and JAKi is low, but higher than in the general population. JAKi approved for dermatological disorders (abrocitinib, baricitinib, deucravacitinib, upadacitinib, ritlecitinib, and topical ruxolitinib) have been shown to be safe, and present a low rate of infections. We found an elevated risk, especially with anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents, rituximab, and JAKi (particularly tofacitinib at high doses). Specific associations with infections include tuberculosis and tuberculosis reactivation with anti-TNF agents and tocilizumab; candidiasis with anti-interleukin (IL) 17 agents; hepatitis B virus reactivation with rituximab, anti-TNF, and JAKi; and herpes simplex and herpes zoster infections with JAKi (especially tofacitinib and upadacitinib at high doses). The incidence of infections with ustekinumab and anti-IL-23 was very low. Anti-IL-1, nemolizumab, tralokinumab, and omalizumab were not associated with an increased risk of infections. Dupilumab could decrease the incidence of cutaneous infections. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-TNF agents, rituximab, and JAKi (particularly tofacitinib) can increase the risk of infections. Close monitoring of patients undergoing these therapies is recommended. Prospective studies with long-term follow-up are needed to comparatively evaluate the risks of infection deriving from treatment with BD and JAKi.

Solid Facial Edema.

This case report describes nonpitting erythematous edema on the forehead, glabella, nose, and cheeks.

Biologics Versus JAK Inhibitors. Part I: Cancer Risk. A Narrative Review.

INTRODUCTION: Biological drugs (BD) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have revolutionized the treatment of diverse dermatoses. However, there are concerns regarding their safety, especially the risk of cancer and opportunistic infections. Here, we discuss the risk of cancer associated with the BD and JAKi used in dermatology. METHODS: A narrative review was carried out. All relevant articles evaluating the risk of cancer associated with BD or JAKi and published between January 2010 and February 2024 were selected. RESULTS: Multiple large studies have evaluated the association between BD, JAKi and cancer risk. However, there is a lack of prospective, comparative studies. Overall, patients undergoing BD and JAKi present a cutaneous cancer incidence similar to that in the general population. The drugs more strongly associated with non-skin cancer risk were anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNFs) agents and JAKi (especially tofacitinib and oral ruxolitinib). This risk appears to increase with age, the presence of other factors (such as chronic immunosuppression from previous drugs or other comorbidities), and specific diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and myelodysplastic syndrome. Conversely, BD such as interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23 inhibitors may even reduce the risk of some visceral and hematological malignancies. In patients with dermatological conditions such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, the risk of malignancies may be lower than in other subgroups, and probably comparable to the general population. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of cancer in patients undergoing BD or JAKi is generally low. This incidence can be higher in elderly patients with RA or myelodysplastic syndrome, and in those undergoing prolonged therapy with tofacitinib or ruxolitinib (oral), or anti-TNF agents.

Dermatomyositis unleashed by immune checkpoint inhibitors. Three additional cases and a review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized the treatment of several locally advanced and metastatic tumors. They enhance the effector function of the immune system, consequently leading to different immune-related adverse events. The aim of the present study was to describe three cases of dermatomyositis (DM) triggered by ICI diagnosed at our institution and to perform a review of the literature. METHODS: We performed a retrospective clinical, laboratory, and pathological evaluation of three cases of DM triggered by ICI belonging to a cohort of 187 DM patients from the Clinic Hospital Muscle Research Group of Barcelona from January 2009 to July 2022. Moreover, we undertook a narrative review of the literature from January 1990 to June 2022. RESULTS: Cases from our institution were triggered by avelumab, an anti-PD-1 ligand (PD-L1), nivolumab, and pembrolizumab, both anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1). One of these patients had locally advanced melanoma, and two had urothelial carcinoma. The severity and response to treatment were heterogeneous among the different cases. All were positive at high titers for anti-TIF1γ autoantibodies; in one of them, serum before the onset of ICI was available, and anti-TIF1γ autoantibodies were already present. RNA expression of IFNB1, IFNG and genes stimulated by these cytokines were markedly elevated in these patients. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, data from our patients and the narrative review suggest that early positivity to anti-TIF1γ unleashed by ICI may play a role in the development of full-blown DM, at least in some cases.

High-risk mucosal human papillomavirus-associated squamous cell carcinoma of the fingers presents distinctive clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes: a bicentric retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: High-risk mucosal human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) seems to play a role in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), particularly in nail tumours, where genitodigital transmission has been suggested. The role of HR-HPV in nonungual cSCC of the finger needs to be clarified. AIM: To evaluate the prevalence, clinicopathological characteristics, surrogates and outcomes of HR-HPV in cSCC of the finger. METHODS: This was an observational bicentric study including patients with an excised in situ or invasive cSCC located on the finger. Differences in HR-HPV and non-HR-HPV tumours were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (45 tumours) were included. HR-HPV was detected in 33% of cases (22% HPV type 16). The mean age was lower in patients with HR-HPV than in those with non-HR-HPV (62·4 vs. 81·1 years, P = 0·001). HR-HPV tumours were smaller (10 mm vs. 15 mm, P = 0·07) and more frequently intraepidermal (60% vs. 20%, P = 0·004). The absence of elastosis (P = 0·030) and inflammation (P = 0·026) and the presence of basaloid morphology (P = 0·003) were surrogates of HR-HPV detection. Mean p16 positivity was 61% in HR-HPV and 36% in non-HR-HPV tumours (P = 0·061). Recurrence after surgery was more common in HR-HPV tumours (58% vs. 34%), although this was not statistically significant. HR-HPV was detected in 27% of the nonungual tumours. CONCLUSION: HR-HPV-associated cSCC of the finger appears in younger patients, is smaller and is less infiltrative than non-HR-HPV tumours. The presence of a basaloid morphology and the absence of elastosis and inflammation could be used as markers for HR-HPV detection. The high prevalence of HR-HPV in nonungual cSCC suggests its aetiopathogenic role in these tumours.

Photoprotection for people with skin of colour: needs and strategies.

Skin of colour or pigmented skin has unique characteristics: it has a higher eumelanin-to-pheomelanin ratio, more mature melanosomes, an increased amount of melanin distributed in the upper layers of the epidermis, and more efficient DNA repair compared with lighter skin. However, individuals with skin of colour are at a significant risk of skin damage caused by ultraviolet radiation, including the development of photodermatoses and photoageing changes such as uneven skin tone, and are predisposed to pigmentary disorders. In fact, one of the most common conditions leading to dermatology consultations by patients with skin of colour is photoexacerbated pigmentary disorders. Unfortunately, individuals with skin of colour may be less prone to engage in photoprotective measures, including the use of sunscreens. Physicians are also less likely to prescribe sunscreens for them. There is thus a clear need for better education on photodamage and for more efficient and suitable photoprotection in populations with skin of colour. However, this need has thus far only partially been met, and the development of sunscreen products designed to provide optimal photoprotection for people with skin of colour remains a challenge. Targeted sunscreens for individuals with skin of colour require optimal cosmetic appeal (leaving no white residue and not disrupting skin tone). They should include broad-spectrum [ultraviolet (UV)B/UVA] protection with high sun protection factor, as well as protection against long-wave UVA (UVA1) and visible light, as these wavelengths are capable of inducing or augmenting pigmentary disorders. They may also contain depigmenting agents for patients with pigmentary disorders.