Radiation Recall Dermatitis With Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapy.

This case report describes a woman in her 70s with a history of breast cancer and chronic lymphocytic leukemia who presented with a painful rash of the bilateral chest extending onto the flanks.

Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous spesolimab for the prevention of generalised pustular psoriasis flares (Effisayil 2): an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Spesolimab is an anti-interleukin-36 receptor monoclonal antibody approved to treat generalised pustular psoriasis (GPP) flares. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of spesolimab for GPP flare prevention. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial was done at 60 hospitals and clinics in 20 countries. Eligible study participants were aged between 12 and 75 years with a documented history of GPP as per the European Rare and Severe Psoriasis Expert Network criteria, with a history of at least two past GPP flares, and a GPP Physician Global Assessment (GPPGA) score of 0 or 1 at screening and random assignment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous placebo, subcutaneous low-dose spesolimab (300 mg loading dose followed by 150 mg every 12 weeks), subcutaneous medium-dose spesolimab (600 mg loading dose followed by 300 mg every 12 weeks), or subcutaneous high-dose spesolimab (600 mg loading dose followed by 300 mg every 4 weeks) over 48 weeks. The primary objective was to demonstrate a non-flat dose-response curve on the primary endpoint, time to first GPP flare. FINDINGS: From June 8, 2020, to Nov 23, 2022, 157 patients were screened, of whom 123 were randomly assigned. 92 were assigned to receive spesolimab (30 high dose, 31 medium dose, and 31 low dose) and 31 to placebo. All patients were either Asian (79 [64%] of 123) or White (44 [36%]). Patient groups were similar in sex distribution (76 [62%] female and 47 [38%] male), age (mean 40·4 years, SD 15·8), and GPP Physician Global Assessment score. A non-flat dose-response relationship was established on the primary endpoint. By week 48, 35 patients had GPP flares; seven (23%) of 31 patients in the low-dose spesolimab group, nine (29%) of 31 patients in the medium-dose spesolimab group, three (10%) of 30 patients in the high-dose spesolimab group, and 16 (52%) of 31 patients in the placebo group. High-dose spesolimab was significantly superior versus placebo on the primary outcome of time to GPP flare (hazard ratio [HR]=0·16, 95% CI 0·05-0·54; p=0·0005) endpoint. HRs were 0·35 (95% CI 0·14-0·86, nominal p=0·0057) in the low-dose spesolimab group and 0·47 (0·21-1·06, p=0·027) in the medium-dose spesolimab group. We established a non-flat dose-response relationship for spesolimab compared with placebo, with statistically significant p values for each predefined model (linear p=0·0022, emax1 p=0·0024, emax2 p=0·0023, and exponential p=0·0034). Infection rates were similar across treatment arms; there were no deaths and no hypersensitivity reactions leading to discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: High-dose spesolimab was superior to placebo in GPP flare prevention, significantly reducing the risk of a GPP flare and flare occurrence over 48 weeks. Given the chronic nature of GPP, a treatment for flare prevention is a significant shift in the clinical approach, and could ultimately lead to improvements in patient morbidity and quality of life. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Rapid and sustained improvements in Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment scores with spesolimab for treatment of generalized pustular psoriasis flares in the randomized, placebo-controlled Effisayil 1 study.

BACKGROUND: Effisayil 1 was a randomized, placebo-controlled study of spesolimab, which is an anti-IL-36 receptor antibody, in patients presenting with a generalized pustular psoriasis flare. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of spesolimab over the 12-week study. METHODS: The primary endpoint of the study was Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment (GPPGA) pustulation subscore of 0 at week 1. Patients (N = 53) were randomized (2:1) to receive a single intravenous dose of 900 mg spesolimab or placebo on day 1. Patients could receive open-label spesolimab for persistent flare symptoms on day 8. RESULTS: Most patients receiving spesolimab achieved a GPPGA pustulation subscore of 0 (60.0%) and GPPGA total score of 0 or 1 (60.0%) by week 12. In patients randomized to placebo who received open-label spesolimab on day 8, the proportion with GPPGA pustulation subscore of 0 increased from 5.6% at day 8 to 83.3% at week 2. No factors predictive of spesolimab response were identified in patient demographics or clinical characteristics. LIMITATIONS: The effect of initial randomization was not determined conventionally beyond week 1 due to patients receiving open-label spesolimab. CONCLUSION: Rapid control of generalized pustular psoriasis flare symptoms with spesolimab was sustained over 12 weeks, further supporting its potential use as a therapeutic option for patients.

Design of Effisayil™ 2: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Spesolimab in Preventing Flares in Patients with Generalized Pustular Psoriasis.

INTRODUCTION: Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare autoinflammatory skin disease characterized by flares of widespread erythema with sterile pustules, and can be relapsing with recurrent flares, or persistent with intermittent flares. Spesolimab, a humanized anti-interleukin-36 (IL-36) receptor monoclonal antibody, targets the key IL-36 pathogenetic pathway in GPP. A previous study showed that spesolimab treatment led to rapid pustular and skin clearance in patients with GPP flares, which was sustained for up to 12 weeks. This study investigates the long-term effects of spesolimab on GPP flares, for which no specific treatments are currently available. The Effisayil™ 2 study will assess whether maintenance treatment with subcutaneous spesolimab prevents the occurrence of GPP flares and determine the optimal dosing regimen to achieve this aim. METHODS: Patients will have a documented history of GPP with a Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment (GPPGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) at screening and randomization. Patients will be randomized 1:1:1:1 to three groups receiving a 600-mg subcutaneous loading dose of spesolimab followed by a 300-mg maintenance dose administered every 4 or 12 weeks, or a 300-mg loading dose followed by a 150-mg maintenance dose administered every 12 weeks, and one group receiving placebo, for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint is time to first GPP flare. If a patient experiences a GPP flare during the randomized maintenance treatment period, an open-label intravenous dose of 900-mg spesolimab will be administered, with an option for a second intravenous dose after 1 week. CONCLUSIONS: Effisayil™ 2 is the first placebo-controlled study in patients with GPP to investigate whether maintenance treatment with spesolimab can prevent flares and provide sustained disease control. This study will provide valuable insights on the long-term management of patients with this potentially life-threatening skin disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04399837.

The aim of the Effisayil™ 2 study is to see whether long-term treatment with the antibody spesolimab helps prevent skin flares in people with generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP). Patients can take part in the Effisayil™ 2 study if they have well-controlled GPP before they begin treatment in the study; that is, they will have skin that is clear or almost clear. Patients will be randomly divided into four groups, with similar numbers of patients in each group. In three of the four groups, patients will be given different doses of spesolimab for 48 weeks. In the fourth group, patients will be given a placebo for 48 weeks. The main goal of the study is to see how long it takes patients to have a GPP flare, while they are being given spesolimab or placebo. If any patient has a GPP flare during the study, they can be treated with another dose of spesolimab (and possibly a second dose 1 week later if needed), to help control the GPP flare. In this way, the Effisayil™ 2 study will help doctors and patients to learn how to manage GPP over time, so that GPP flares can be avoided.

Factors Associated With Dermatologic Follow-up vs Emergency Department Return in Patients With Hidradenitis Suppurativa After an Initial Emergency Department Visit.

Importance: Emergency department (ED) visitation is common for the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), whereas dermatology outpatient care is low. The reasons underlying this differential follow-up have not been elucidated. Objective: To assess the interventions and patient factors associated with ED return following an initial ED visit for HS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the IBM® MarketScan® Commercial and Multi-State Medicaid databases (trademark symbols retained per database owner requirement). An HS cohort was formed from patients who had 2 or more claims for HS during the study period of 2010 to 2019 and with at least 1 ED visit for their HS or a defined proxy. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to May 2022. Exposures: Factors analyzed included those associated with the ED visit and patient characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were return to the ED or dermatology outpatient follow-up for HS or related proxy within 30 or 180 days of index ED visit. Results: This retrospective cohort study included 20 269 patients with HS (median [IQR] age, 32 [25-41] years; 16 804 [82.9%] female patients), of which 7455 (36.8%) had commercial insurance and 12 814 (63.2%) had Medicaid. A total of 9737 (48.0%) patients had incision and drainage performed at the index ED visit, 14 725 (72.6%) received an oral antibiotic prescription, and 9913 (48.9%) received an opioid medication prescription. A total of 3484 (17.2%) patients had at least 1 return ED visit for HS or proxy within 30 days, in contrast with 483 (2.4%) who had a dermatology visit (P < .001). Likewise, 6893 (34.0%) patients had a return ED visit for HS or proxy within 180 days, as opposed to 1374 (6.8%) with a dermatology visit (P < .001). Patients with Medicaid and patients who had an opioid prescribed were more likely to return to the ED for treatment of their disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.38-1.58; and OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.58, respectively, within 180 days) and, conversely, less likely to have dermatology follow-up (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.14-0.18; and OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.91, respectively, within 180 days). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study suggests that many patients with HS frequent the ED for their disease but are not subsequently seen in the dermatology clinic for ongoing care. The findings in this study raise the opportunity for cross-specialty interventions that could be implemented to better connect patients with HS to longitudinal care.

Recurrent Onychomadesis of the Toenails in Children and Adults: A Case Series.

INTRODUCTION: Onychomadesis occurs when the nail plate separates from the nail matrix and nail bed, eventually leading to shedding of the nail. This condition has been attributed to viral infections, autoimmune disorders, drug side effects, and physical trauma. A subset of patients has a recurrent form of onychomadesis without a clear trigger; this phenomenon is not well characterized in the literature. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a case series of pediatric and adult patients with recurrent toenail onychomadesis in order to better characterize the disorder and explore possible etiologies, risk factors, and treatments. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: For the cases herein, we propose microtrauma associated with footwear as the underlying etiology given the periodicity of nail shedding, exclusion of other etiological factors, and presence of predisposing risk factors in certain patients. Many patients saw improvement with application of urea 40% cream, suggesting this can be a valuable part of a treatment strategy, in addition to minimizing injury to involved digits.

Expert guidance on prophylaxis and treatment of dermatologic adverse events with Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy in the thoracic region.

Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are electric fields, delivered via wearable arrays placed on or near the tumor site, that exert physical forces to disrupt cellular processes critical for cancer cell viability and tumor progression. As a first-in-class treatment, TTFields therapy is approved for use in newly diagnosed glioblastoma, recurrent glioblastoma, and pleural mesothelioma. Additionally, TTFields therapy is being investigated in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), brain metastases from NSCLC, pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, and gastric adenocarcinoma. Because TTFields therapy is well tolerated and delivery is locoregional, there is low risk of additive systemic adverse events (AEs) when used with other cancer treatment modalities. The most common AE associated with TTFields therapy is mild-to-moderate skin events, which can be treated with topical agents and may be managed without significant treatment interruptions. Currently, there are no guidelines for oncologists regarding the management of TTFields therapy-related skin AEs in the thoracic region, applicable for patients with pleural mesothelioma or NSCLC. This publication aims to provide guidance on preventing, minimizing, and managing dermatologic AEs in the thoracic region to help improve patient quality of life and reduce treatment interruptions that may impact outcomes with TTFields therapy.

Trial of Spesolimab for Generalized Pustular Psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare, life-threatening, inflammatory skin disease characterized by widespread eruption of sterile pustules. Interleukin-36 signaling is involved in the pathogenesis of this disorder. Spesolimab, a humanized anti-interleukin-36 receptor monoclonal antibody, is being studied for the treatment of GPP flares. METHODS: In a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with a GPP flare in a 2:1 ratio to receive a single 900-mg intravenous dose of spesolimab or placebo. Patients in both groups could receive an open-label dose of spesolimab on day 8, an open-label dose of spesolimab as a rescue medication after day 8, or both and were followed to week 12. The primary end point was a Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment (GPPGA) pustulation subscore of 0 (range, 0 [no visible pustules] to 4 [severe pustulation]) at the end of week 1. The key secondary end point was a GPPGA total score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear skin) at the end of week 1; scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater disease severity. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients were enrolled: 35 were assigned to receive spesolimab and 18 to receive placebo. At baseline, 46% of the patients in the spesolimab group and 39% of those in the placebo group had a GPPGA pustulation subscore of 3, and 37% and 33%, respectively, had a pustulation subscore of 4. At the end of week 1, a total of 19 of 35 patients (54%) in the spesolimab group had a pustulation subscore of 0, as compared with 1 of 18 patients (6%) in the placebo group (difference, 49 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 21 to 67; P<0.001). A total of 15 of 35 patients (43%) had a GPPGA total score of 0 or 1, as compared with 2 of 18 patients (11%) in the placebo group (difference, 32 percentage points; 95% CI, 2 to 53; P = 0.02). Drug reactions were reported in 2 patients who received spesolimab, in 1 of them concurrently with a drug-induced hepatic injury. Among patients assigned to the spesolimab group, infections occurred in 6 of 35 (17%) through the first week; among patients who received spesolimab at any time in the trial, infections had occurred in 24 of 51 (47%) at week 12. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 23 of 50 patients (46%) who received at least one dose of spesolimab. CONCLUSIONS: In a phase 2 randomized trial involving patients with GPP, the interleukin-36 receptor inhibitor spesolimab resulted in a higher incidence of lesion clearance at 1 week than placebo but was associated with infections and systemic drug reactions. Longer and larger trials are warranted to determine the effect and risks of spesolimab in patients with pustular psoriasis. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; Effisayil 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03782792.).

Reducing Skin Toxicities from EGFR Inhibitors with Topical BRAF Inhibitor Therapy.

Treatment of cancer with EGFR inhibitors is limited by on-target skin toxicities induced by inhibition of the MAPK pathway. BRAF inhibitors are known to paradoxically activate the MAPK downstream of EGFR, which we confirmed using human skin keratinocytes. We then conducted a phase I clinical trial testing the hypothesis that topical therapy with the BRAF inhibitor LUT014 could improve skin toxicities induced by EGFR inhibitors. Ten patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who had developed acneiform rash while being treated with cetuximab or panitumumab were enrolled in three cohorts. LUT014 was well tolerated, and there were no dose-limiting toxicities. The acneiform rash improved in the 6 patients who started with grade 2 rash in the low and intermediate cohorts. We conclude that topical LUT014 is safe and efficacious in improving rash from EGFR inhibitors, consistent with the mechanism of action inducting paradoxical MAPK activation. SIGNIFICANCE: BRAF inhibitor topical therapy could avoid dose reductions of EGFR inhibitors, locally treating the main dose-limiting skin toxicity of this class of agents.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 2113.

Psoriasis and mortality in the United States: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a multifactorial disease that has been associated with multiple systemic disorders. Despite its role in mediating cardiovascular, metabolic, and pulmonary disorders, few studies have examined the independent mortality risk associated with psoriasis. OBJECTIVE: To determine the independent relationship between psoriasis and all-cause mortality in a nationally representative sample of the US population. METHODS: Retrospective population-based cohort study of adults and adolescents older than 10 years (N = 13 031) who participated in National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (2003-2006 and 2009-2010). Psoriasis status was determined from a self-reported medical history questionnaire. Mortality data are linked from national databases. RESULTS: Psoriasis was present in 2.7% of the study population. Over an average median follow-up of 52.3 months, psoriasis was significantly associated with increased mortality risk (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.01-3.93; P = .047) with adjustment for demographics, smoking, and comorbidities including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, chronic kidney disease, and stroke. These comorbidities mediated 15.5%, 5.9%, 8.7%, 11.7%, 4.2%, and 4.7% of the association between psoriasis and mortality, respectively. CONCLUSION: Psoriasis is independently associated with an increased risk of mortality. This relationship is partially mediated by an increased prevalence of the cardiovascular, infectious, and neoplastic disorders seen among patients with psoriasis.

Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated with Selective Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors: Overview, Prevention, and Management Guidelines.

Fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinases, which are expressed on the cell membrane, are involved in a wide range of biological functions such as cell proliferation, survival, migration, and differentiation. The identification of FGFR fusions and other alterations in a wide range of solid tumors, including cholangiocarcinoma and bladder cancer, has resulted in the development of several selective FGFR inhibitors for use in these indications, for example, infigratinib, erdafitinib, derazantinib, pemigatinib, and futibatinib. In addition to the typical adverse events associated with tyrosine kinases, the FGFR inhibitors appear to give rise to a number of adverse events affecting the skin. Here we describe these skin events, which include the more common nail adverse events (e.g., onycholysis), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, and stomatitis, as well as less common reactions such as calciphylaxis. This review aims to provide oncologists with an understanding of these dermatologic events and proposes guidelines for the management of treatment-emergent dermatologic adverse events. Awareness of possible adverse events associated with specific drugs should allow physicians to educate patients as to what to expect and implement effective management plans at the earliest possible opportunity, thereby preventing premature discontinuation while maintaining patient quality of life. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Identification of fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) aberrations in cholangiocarcinoma and bladder cancer led to development of selective FGFR inhibitors for these indications, based on clinical benefit and safety profiles. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) include those affecting skin, hair, and nails, a unique class effect of these agents. These are usually mild to moderate in severity. This work reviewed skin AEs reported with FGFR inhibitors and provides management guidelines for physicians, aiming to increase awareness of skin events and provide effective treatment strategies. Early intervention and effective management may improve treatment adherence, optimize outcomes, and improve quality of life.

Prevention and Management of Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Tumor Treating Fields in Patients With Glioblastoma.

Importance: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are an anti-mitotic treatment approved for treating newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma, and mesothelioma. TTFields in glioblastoma comprise alternating electric fields (200 kHz) delivered continuously, ideally for ≥18 h/day, to the tumor bed via transducer arrays placed on the shaved scalp. When applied locoregionally to the tumor bed and combined with systemic temozolomide chemotherapy, TTFields improved overall survival vs. temozolomide alone in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Improved efficacy outcomes with TTFields were demonstrated, while maintaining a well-tolerated and manageable safety profile. The most commonly-reported TTFields-associated adverse events (AEs) are beneath-array dermatologic events. Since survival benefit from TTFields increases with duration-of-use, prevention and management of skin AEs are critical to maximize adherence. This paper describes TTFields-associated dermatological AEs and recommends prevention and management strategies based on clinical trial evidence and real-world clinical experience. Observations: TTFields-associated skin reactions include contact dermatitis (irritant/allergic), hyperhidrosis, xerosis or pruritus, and more rarely, skin erosions/ulcers and infections. Skin AEs may be prevented through skin-care and shifting (~2 cm) of array position during changes. TTFields-related skin AE management should be based on clinical phenotype and severity. Depending on diagnosis, recommended treatments include antibiotics, skin barrier films, moisturizers, topical corticosteroids, and antiperspirants. Water-based lotions, soaps, foams, and solutions with minimal impact on electrical impedance are preferred with TTFields use over petroleum-based ointments, which increase impedance. Conclusions: Early identification, prophylactic measures, and symptomatic skin AE management help patients maximize TTFields usage, while maintaining quality-of-life and optimizing therapeutic benefit. Implications for practice: TTFields confer a survival benefit in patients with glioblastoma that correlates positively with duration of daily use. Skin events (rash) are the primary treatment-related AE that can limit duration of use. The recommendations described here will help healthcare professionals to recognize, prevent, and manage dermatologic AEs associated with TTFields treatment. These recommendations may improve cutaneous health and support adherence to therapy, both of which would maximize treatment outcomes.

Pemphigus foliaceus in a patient with gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated with adjuvant imatinib mesylate.

Pemphigus is an autoimmune bullous disease with a number of described associations, including medications, which have been grouped into three structural categories - thiol drugs, phenol drugs, and drugs with neither functional group [1]. Discontinuation of the offending medication is considered a mainstay of therapy. We report a patient in whom the onset of pemphigus foliaceus was associated with initiation of imatinib mesylate adjuvant therapy in a patient with resected gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Imatinib was continued because of the survival benefit to the patient with a resected, high risk GIST. Treatment with rituximab resulted in near resolution of his blistering rash and follow up enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) demonstrated reference range immunoreactivity for both desmoglein 1 and desmoglein 3. After dose increase of imatinib therapy owing to tumor growth, the patient subsequently again developed a similar eruption. Re-biopsy and ELISA were consistent with recurrence of pemphigus. In conclusion, although the patient's pemphigus was cleared with a single cycle of rituximab infusions while continuing imatinib therapy, the disease returned after imatinib dose was increased a year later, suggesting a dose-response relationship.

Navigating immunosuppression in a pandemic: A guide for the dermatologist from the COVID Task Force of the Medical Dermatology Society and Society of Dermatology Hospitalists.

Dermatologists treating immune-mediated skin disease must now contend with the uncertainties associated with immunosuppressive use in the context of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Although the risk of infection with many commonly used immunosuppressive agents remains low, direct data evaluating the safety of such agents in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are scarce. This article reviews and offers guidance based on currently available safety data and the most recent COVID-19 outcome data in patients with immune-mediated dermatologic disease. The interdisciplinary panel of experts emphasizes a stepwise, shared decision-making approach in the management of immunosuppressive therapy. The goal of this article is to help providers minimize the risk of disease flares while simultaneously minimizing the risk of iatrogenic harm during an evolving pandemic.