Home-Use Hyaluronic Acid Jet Injectors: Unreliable and Unsafe.

BACKGROUND: Needle-free hyaluronic acid (HA) jet injectors are gaining popularity for rejuvenation treatment. The devices are widely available online and are used for self-injection or in beauty salons by nonphysicians. However, little is known about their performance and safety. OBJECTIVE: To explore the injection efficiency and cutaneous biodistribution patterns administered with home-use compared with medical jet injectors and to assess safety aspects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors injected HA into ex vivo human skin with 4 home-use and 2 medical injectors. The intracutaneous dose of HA was calculated, and the cutaneous biodistribution of HA was assessed using a 3-dimensional Fluorescent Imaging Cryomicrotome System (3D-FICS). Safety aspects were evaluated based on the presence of a manual, CE (conformité européenne) mark, and sterility. RESULTS: The intracutaneous dose delivered by the home-use injectors was markedly lower compared with the medical injectors. 3D imaging for home-use injectors showed superficial epidermal distribution with low distribution volumes. For medical injectors, volumes were substantially larger and mainly middermal. All evaluated safety aspects were lacking. CONCLUSION: Results of this study suggest that the specific combinations of home-use injectors and HA used in this study are unreliable and unsafe, which casts doubts on the performance of these treatments in general.

Upadacitinib treatment in a real-world difficult-to-treat atopic dermatitis patient cohort.

BACKGROUND: Upadacitinib was the first JAK-1 selective inhibitor registered for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Although efficacy and safety have been shown in clinical trials, real-world data on the use of upadacitinib in patients that have been treated with other immunosuppressants and targeted therapies is limited. OBJECTIVES: To provide real-world evidence on the use of upadacitinib treatment in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. METHODS: In this prospective observational single-centre study, all AD patients treated with upadacitinib treatment in the context of standard care were included between August 2021 and September 2022. Clinical outcome measures and adverse events (AEs) were analysed. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were included. The majority (n = 39; 81%) had failed (ineffectiveness) on other targeted therapies, including other JAK inhibitors and biologics. Thirty-four (71%) patients were still using upadacitinib treatment at last follow up (median duration 46.5 weeks). Fourteen (29%) patients discontinued treatment due to ineffectiveness or AE. Upadacitinib treatment led to a significant decrease of disease severity during a median follow up of 37.5 weeks. Median IGA at baseline decreased from 3 (IQR 2-3) to 1.5 (IQR 1-2) at last review (p < 0.001). Median NRS itch decreased from 7 (IQR 5-8) at baseline to 2.25 (IQR 0.25-6.5) at last review (p < 0.001). Three patients discontinued treatment due to AE. Forty-eight AEs were reported, including acne-like eruptions (25%), nausea (13%) and respiratory tract infections (10%). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world cohort, we confirmed that upadacitinib is an effective treatment in a subset of AD patients that have failed several previous systemic immunosuppressive and biologic treatments. Overall, AE were mostly well tolerated and not a reason to discontinue treatment for most patients.

Clinical endpoints of needle-free jet injector treatment: An in depth understanding of immediate skin responses.

OBJECTIVES: Needle-free jet injectors have been used in dermatological practice for many years. However, predefined clinical endpoints that guide physicians to choose optimal device settings have not been clearly defined. Here, we evaluate immediate skin responses as clinical endpoints for needle-free jet injector treatments. METHODS: We injected methylene blue in ex vivo human skin using an electronically-controllable pneumatic injector (EPI; 3-6 bar, 50-130 µl; n = 63), and a spring-loaded jet injector (SLI) with fixed settings (100 µl; n = 9). We measured the immediate skin papule (3D-camera), residual surface fluid (pipette), dermal dye distribution by estimating depth and width, and subcutaneous dye deposition. RESULTS: EPI with 4 bar and 100 µl resulted in the largest skin papule of 48.7 mm3 (35.4-62.6 mm3 ) and widest dermal distribution of 8.0 mm (5.5-9.0 mm) compared to EPI with 6 bar and 100 µl (p < 0.001, p = 0.018, respectively). The skin papule volume showed a significant moderate to high positive correlation with the width and depth of dye distribution in the dermis (rs = 0.63, rs = 0.58, respectively; p < 0.001 for both correlations). SLI showed high variability for all outcome measures. Finally, a trend was observed that a small skin papule (≤7 mm) and little residual surface fluid (≤10% of injection volume) were warning signs for subcutaneous deposition. CONCLUSIONS: The immediate skin papule and residual surface fluid correspond with dermal drug deposition and are relevant clinical endpoints for needle-free jet injector treatments in dermatological practice.