Shared Decision-making in Dermatology: A Scoping Review.

Importance: Shared decision-making (SDM) can improve the quality of care for patients. The extent to which this tool has been used and the evidence supporting its use in dermatology have not been systematically examined. Objective: To perform a scoping review of the literature regarding SDM in dermatology. Evidence Review: Searches of Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Sciverse Scopus, and EBM Reviews were conduced on July 11, 2019, and March 6, 2020. There were no limits on date, type of article, language, or subject for the initial search. A total of 1673 titles and abstracts were screened by 2 independent reviewers in the Covidence mixed-methods platform. Forty-one full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. For inclusion, articles needed to include a dermatologic diagnosis as well as discussion of SDM or patient decision aids. Two independent reviewers screened 29 full-text articles for inclusion and extracted qualitative data using a set of 26 predefined codes. Qualitative coding was applied to excerpts to categorize the article, define and describe advantages and disadvantages of SDM, understand patient and physician requests for SDM, and discuss methods of implementation. Findings: Despite a small number of articles on SDM (n = 29) in dermatology, the selected literature provided consistent messages regarding the importance of SDM for dermatology and a number of strategies and tools for implementation. Medical dermatology was the most common subspecialty studied, with melanoma, psoriasis, and connective tissue diseases most examined. Only 5 publications introduced SDM tools specifically for dermatologic conditions; of these, only 2 tools were validated. Barriers to implementation that were cited included time and a lack of training for clinicians, although the literature also provided potential solutions to these issues. All articles emphasized the value of SDM for both patients and physicians. Conclusions and Relevance: The literature regarding SDM in dermatology consistently suggests that it is a useful tool for providing patient-centered care. Established tools have been proposed since 2012. More research is needed to implement better practices, especially in dermatologic subspecialties. However, there are substantial suggestions from the literature for strategies and tools with which to begin a shared decision-making practice.

Integrated Safety Analysis of Abrocitinib for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis From the Phase II and Phase III Clinical Trial Program.

BACKGROUND: Pivotal phase III studies demonstrated that abrocitinib, an oral, once-daily, JAK1-selective inhibitor, is effective treatment for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) as monotherapy and in combination with topical therapy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety of abrocitinib 200 mg and 100 mg in an integrated analysis of a phase IIb study, four phase III studies, and one long-term extension study. METHODS: Two cohorts were analyzed: a placebo-controlled cohort from 12- to 16-week studies and an all-abrocitinib cohort including patients who received one or more abrocitinib doses. Adverse events (AEs) of interest and laboratory data are reported. RESULTS: Total exposure in the all-abrocitinib cohort (n = 2856) was 1614 patient-years (PY); exposure was ≥ 24 weeks in 1248 patients and ≥ 48 weeks in 606 (maximum 108 weeks). In the placebo-controlled cohort (n = 1540), dose-related AEs (200 mg, 100 mg, placebo) were nausea (14.6%, 6.1%, 2.0%), headache (7.8%, 5.9%, 3.5%), and acne (4.7%, 1.6%, 0%). Platelet count was reduced transiently in a dose-dependent manner; 2/2718 patients (200-mg group) had confirmed platelet counts of < 50 × 103/mm3 at week 4. Incidence rates (IRs) were 2.33/100PY and 2.65/100 PY for serious infection, 4.34/100PY and 2.04/100PY for herpes zoster, and 11.83/100PY and 8.73/100PY for herpes simplex in the 200-mg and 100-mg groups, respectively. IRs for nonmelanoma skin cancer, other malignancies, and major adverse cardiovascular events were < 0.5/100PY for both doses. Five venous thromboembolism events occurred (IR 0.30/100PY), all in the 200-mg group. There were three deaths due to gastric carcinoma (diagnosed at day 43), sudden death, and COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Abrocitinib, with proper patient and dose selection, has a manageable tolerability and longer-term safety profile appropriate for long-term use in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. TRIAL REGISTRIES: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02780167, NCT03349060, NCT03575871, NCT03720470, NCT03627767, NCT03422822.

Efficacy and Safety of Baricitinib Combined With Topical Corticosteroids for Treatment of Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, effectively reduced disease severity in moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in 2 phase 3 monotherapy studies. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of 4 mg and 2 mg of baricitinib in combination with background topical corticosteroid (TCS) therapy in adults with moderate to severe AD who previously had an inadequate response to TCS therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 randomized clinical trial, BREEZE-AD7 (Study of Baricitinib [LY3009104] in Combination With Topical Corticosteroids in Adults With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis) was conducted from November 16, 2018, to August 22, 2019, at 68 centers across 10 countries in Asia, Australia, Europe, and South America. Patients 18 years or older with moderate to severe AD and an inadequate response to TCSs were included. After completing the study, patients were followed up for up to 4 weeks or enrolled in a long-term extension study. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 2 mg of baricitinib once daily (n = 109), 4 mg of baricitinib once daily (n = 111), or placebo (n = 109) for 16 weeks. The use of low-to-moderate potency TCSs was allowed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear), with a 2-point or greater improvement from baseline at week 16. Results: Among 329 patients (mean [SD] age, 33.8 [12.4] years; 216 [66%] male), at week 16, a vIGA-AD score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) was achieved by 34 patients (31%) receiving 4 mg of baricitinib and 26 (24%) receiving 2 mg of baricitinib compared with 16 (15%) receiving placebo (odds ratio vs placebo, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.4-5.6]; P = .004 for the 4-mg group; 1.9 [95% CI, 0.9-3.9]; P = .08 for the 2-mg group). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 64 of 111 patients (58%) in the 4-mg group, 61 of 109 patients (56%) in the 2-mg group, and 41 of 108 patients (38%) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 patients (4%) in the 4-mg group, 2 (2%) in the 2-mg group, and 4 (4%) in the placebo group. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, and folliculitis. Conclusions and Relevance: A dose of 4 mg of baricitinib in combination with background TCS therapy significantly improved the signs and symptoms of moderate to severe AD, with a safety profile consistent with previous studies of baricitinib in AD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03733301.