‘Save My Skin’: Lumps on Elise’s body make her feel as if a hot screwdriver is being drilled into her skin

Dr Emma Craythorne is known for dealing some of the most severe cases but when Elise walked in to meet her, she realized that her case was different than the ones she had seen so far. Elise suffers from hidradenitis suppurativa, which is a chronic skin condition that develops lumps on places like armpits. 

While only 1% of the population usually suffers from this, Dr Craythorne realized that Elise’s case was extreme. Elise revealed that she had been suffering from this condition for a long time and it happened to be a biological problem. She revealed that her grandmother and mother also suffer from the same but their cases are not as extreme as hers. 

Elise confessed that she often finds it hard to move around because these lumps would hurt her and it was hard to put the pain in words. She added that there have been times when the lumps would burst and puss would drain out of it. Elise’s mother revealed that the pain was close to a hot screwdriver being pressured inside someone’s body. 

To make things worse, suffering from this condition has made Elise turn to food to bear the pain. She often tends to binge eat the times when she wants to take her mind away from the lumps. Elise confessed that there have been times when she has felt embarrassed because of her lumps.

She recalled an incident where she was sitting at the pub and one of her lumps had burst open which left the fluid dripping from her armpits. Elise revealed that one of the ladies turned towards her and said “disgusting”. After having countless experiences like this Elise knew that she wanted to take control of her body and her condition.

She decided to meet Dr Craythorne to help her. The doctor knew that Elise had already tried everything, right from injections to cream, there was nothing that controlled Elise’s condition. She advised her that the best option that she had was to take very powerful drugs that would focus on helping with her condition. 

However, she warned her that there are side effects to it as the drugs increase the chances of cancer. Elise knew that she was desperate and wanted something to be done. This made her say yes to taking the medications. 

After a couple of days, Elise came back to meet Dr Craythorne and explained that she was feeling much better and could see the change in her body. When Dr Craythorne examined her lumps, she was pleased to see that they were drying and in a better condition than before.

‘Save My Skin’ airs on Thursdays at 9 pm ET on TLC.

If you have an entertainment scoop or a story for us, please reach out to us on (323) 421-7515

Source link

Off-Label Prescribing in Dermatology – Dermatology Advisor

With more than 3000 cutaneous diseases that may be treated by dermatologists, there is a wide gap between the number of possible presenting symptoms and the number of effective therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) specifically for these disorders. As such, the use of medications on an off-label basis ꟷ defined as the “prescription of medications for unapproved indications or in unapproved dosage, dosage form, or route of administration” ꟷ is especially common in dermatology practice.1

An earlier study found that off-label prescribing for dermatologic diseases ranged from 17% to 73% in a representative sample of physicians in the United States. Such prescriptions were most common for acne rosacea (73%) and actinic keratosis (52%) and were least common for atopic dermatitis (17%) and psoriasis (16%).2

The “multitudes of diagnosis, the need for therapeutic options, and the long time required by the regulatory agencies to approve new medications make off-label prescriptions for dermatologic diseases so common,” wrote Katlein França, MD, PhD, and Sergio Litewka, MD, MPH, of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Florida in a review published in the International Journal of Dermatology.1

They discussed treatments that are frequently used in this context, :

Botulinum toxin. In addition to its FDA-approved indications for facial esthetic purposes and treatment of primary axillary hyperhidrosis, botulinum toxin is commonly used off-label by dermatologists. Emerging evidence suggests that the drug may be effective in treating a wide range of conditions including pruritic dermatitis, inflammatory dermatitis, fissures and ulcerations, scarring, vulvodynia, and more. 

Biologic drugs. Although multiple biologics are FDA-approved for the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, various off-label uses in dermatology have been reported, such as eczema, hidradenitis suppurativa, lichen planus, topical epidermal necrolysis, acne vulgaris, alopecia areata, aphthous stomatitis, pruritus, keloid, and wound healing, in addition to numerous other conditions.

Spironolactone. This potassium-sparing diuretic has long been used in the treatment of hyperaldosteronism, heart failure, cirrhosis of the liver accompanied by edema and ascites, and nephrotic syndrome. Because of its anti-androgenic activity, spironolactone is now used in the off-label treatment of androgen-dependent dermatologic disorders including adult female acne, hirsutism, hidradenitis suppurativa, and female pattern hair loss.

Topical calcineurin inhibitors. These agents have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in patients 2 years or older. Promising results have also been observed for several off-label uses such as allergic contact dermatitis, seborrheic dermatitis, psoriasis, rosacea, lichen planus, and vitiligo.

Topical vitamin D analogues. Although the FDA has approved their use for psoriasis treatment, these medications are also prescribed off-label for a range of cutaneous disorders. For example, a systematic review of 165 articles rendered a moderate to strong recommendation for the “use of topical vitamin D in combination with corticosteroids and phototherapy in vitiligo and as monotherapy for various ichthyoses, morphea, pityriasis alba, prurigo nodularis, and polymorphous light eruption.”3

França and Litewka noted that further research is needed to investigate the safety and efficacy of these various novel indications and to standardize dose protocols pertaining to their use.

 “Off-label prescriptions are considered legal, and physicians have the freedom to prescribe any approved drug for any other indication, regardless of the fact that the indication is not approved by regulatory agencies,” they concluded. “While there is no consensus on this subject, physicians are advised to prescribe medications that have a well-accepted therapeutic value in the medical community and only for indications that they believe are in the best interest of the patient.”

To learn more about off-label prescribing in dermatology practice, Dermatology Advisor interviewed Shawn Kwatra, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland and Raja Sivamani, MD, MS, AP, adjunct associate professor of clinical dermatology and director of clinical research at the University of California, Davis, and medical editor of LearnSkin.com.

Dermatology Advisor: What are some commonly used off-label treatments in dermatology? 

Shawn Kwatra, MD: Many dermatologic diseases do not have formal indications, so there is a lot of off-label prescribing in our field. In addition, given the ability to compound topical medicines, dermatology has many conditions treated with off-label formulations. One example is melasma, a condition with hyperpigmented patches, most commonly on the faces of women. Many treatments combine different formulations of hydroquinone with other compounds.

The treatment of chronic itch also uses a variety of off-label treatments. Patients may need to be managed with compounded creams, antidepressants, and the gabapentinoid class of medications. 

Raja Sivamani, MD: Off-label treatments are common in medicine, especially in dermatology. The reason is that not every disease has an FDA-approved treatment, especially if it is rare. In other cases, there are medications that have not been studied for FDA approval but are in common use for a condition through collective experience.

One example is the use of spironolactone for the treatment of acne. Spironolactone has a few supporting studies and is commonly used in the treatment of adult female acne, but it is not an FDA-approved treatment for this purpose.4 However, we have a good understanding of how to use it safely and effectively in the treatment of acne.

On the other hand, there are rare diseases that may not have any FDA-approved treatments, and off-label prescribing is necessary for treatment. Some examples include diseases like necrobiosis lipoidica diabeticorum, cutaneous sarcoidosis, and erythema multiforme major ꟷ diseases rare enough that running large phase 3 studies may not be feasible, and off-label use of medications is necessary for treatment.  

Dermatology Advisor: The review by França and Litewka mentions the ethical implications of this practice, including considerations pertaining to informed consent from patients. What are the relevant issues here for clinicians? For example, how should they address informed consent in off-label prescribing? 

Dr Kwatra: If there haven’t been properly conducted randomized controlled trials for a particular indication, we know less about the adverse event profile of the medication. It’s important for patients to know this and to be aware of the risk for adverse reactions. 

Dr Sivamani: It’s almost unethical to withhold potential treatment options by simply relying on FDA-approved treatment, because many uncommon dermatologic diseases do not have many FDA-approved treatment options and we still need to figure out a reasonable solution for our patients. That said, it’s important to have an open conversation [with patients] about medications that are used off-label and explain that you are [prescribing] a medication that is not FDA-approved for their condition but that you are [prescribing] it for a rational reason.

Many patients and the general public erroneously believe that off-label use of a medication is illegal, and this is an opportunity to educate them that it is not only legal but may make the difference in finding a therapy that could be useful. Also, it’s important to discuss off-label prescribing with the patient so that they are not confused if the pharmacist mentions to them that the prescribed medication is off-label. 

Dermatology Advisor: What are additional recommendations for clinicians regarding this topic?

Dr Kwatra: There is always a balance between treatment with approved therapies vs doing all you can to help your patient when there aren’t approved therapies. For dermatology, most conditions have only a few approved therapies. I think doing your best to make your patient aware of the risks, benefits, and potential adverse events is a must. 

Dr Sivamani: It’s important to let the patient know that even when used off-label the medication has still been reviewed by the FDA at some point, so it is still regulated. Also, it is important to discuss the dose so that the patient is informed of the typical dosing used in the FDA-approved indication and how and why you may be modifying that for off-label use to treat the patient’s condition. 

Dermatology Advisor: What are remaining needs in this area in terms of research and education?

Dr Kwatra: There is a huge lack in dermatology for clinical research studies of common conditions. There are many drugs used off-label but a paucity of properly controlled studies. In addition, more education needs to be provided on available therapies, the relative strength of evidence, and more rigorous information on monitoring and adverse event profiles so that clinicians and patients can be more educated when deciding whether or not to use off-label therapies. 

Dr Sivamani: We are able to use medications off-label as it allows us to expand our toolkit for helping our patients. There is a need for more education around the fact that off-label use of FDA-approved medications is different from the use of non-approved medications, in which the treatment may not be as standardized as an FDA-approved medication. Another important point is that the general public needs to be better educated on what it means to use a medication off-label and why physicians may use off-label medications. 

Follow @DermAdvisor

References

  1. França K, Litewka S. Controversies in off-label prescriptions in dermatology: the perspective of the patient, the physician, and the pharmaceutical companies. Int J Dermatol. 2019;58(7):788-794. doi:10.1111/ijd.14222
  2. Sugarman JH, Fleischer AB Jr, Feldman SR. Off-label prescribing in the treatment of dermatologic disease. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;47(2):217-223 doi:org/10.1067/mjd.2002.120469
  3. Wat H, Dytoc M. Off-label uses of topical vitamin D in dermatology: a systematic review. J Cutan Med Surg. 2014;18(2):91-108. doi:.org/10.2310/7750.2013.13109
  4. Charny JW, Choi JK, James WD. Spironolactone for the treatment of acne in women, a retrospective study of 110 patients. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2017;3(2):111–115. doi:10.1016/j.ijwd.2016.12.002

Source link

Treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa: Surgery and yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae)-exclusion diet. Results after 6 years.

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a complex disorder, the pathogenesis of which is still unsolved. The known association between hidradenitis suppurativa and Crohn’s disease, an autoimmune disease diagnosed with the presence of Anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies of the IgG family, suggests that a much more complex mechanism than a simple infectious disorder is involved. The goal of this study is to report patients’ characteristics and the outcome of 6 years of a yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae)-exclusion diet and surgery in the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa.
We analyzed 185 patients with hidradenitis suppurativa with a self-evaluative questionnaire. Thirty-seven patients were treated in our center following our protocol. The other 148 were members of a support group for patients with hidradenitis suppurativa treated by other centers.
In 80% of patients who had the onset of hidradenitis suppurativa before the age of 30, the female to male ratio was 3.34:1, 74% were active smokers, and 5% also had Crohn’s disease. In the diet group, 70% had an improvement of hidradenitis suppurativa symptomatology, 81% of whom in less than 6 months. Also, 87% of patients demonstrated an immediate recurrence of skin lesions less than a week after consuming a food containing the yeast. Immunologic testing showed intolerance to yeast, wheat, and cow’s milk in 20%, 29%, and 23% of patients, respectively.
The analysis confirmed the stabilization and regression of hidradenitis suppurativa with our diet, presumably by decreasing the local and systemic inflammation, leading to a less invasive operative treatment. These new findings seem to link hidradenitis suppurativa to food intolerance and gut dysbiosis.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Source link

Inflammatory conditions of skin, bowel may be linked

Inflammatory conditions of skin, bowel may be linked

(HealthDay)—There appears to be a link between hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to a review published in the February issue of the International Journal of Dermatology.

Kevin Phan, M.D., from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, and colleagues conducted a systematic literature review to identify studies evaluating the association between HS and IBD.

Based on six included studies, the researchers observed a significant association between HS and IBD. When data were pooled in a meta-analysis, the adjusted effect sizes showed an odds ratio of 2.12. There was a significant association between HS and both Crohn disease (odds ratio, 2.25) and (odds ratio, 1.56).

“Our results highlight that all patients with HS should be clinically screened for symptoms of IBD and symptomatic patients referred for further investigations,” the authors write. “It should also be noted that cutaneous Crohn’s disease and inguinal/perineal HS have a clinical overlap, and this needs to be considered in any patient with severe perineal HS.”


Psoriasis linked to increased risk for inflammatory bowel disease


More information:
Abstract/Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Citation:
Inflammatory conditions of skin, bowel may be linked (2020, February 28)
retrieved 28 February 2020
from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-02-inflammatory-conditions-skin-bowel-linked.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Source link

InflaRx Announces Positive Initial Data from Ongoing Phase IIa Open Label Study with IFX-1 in Patients Suffering from Pyoderma Gangraenosum

  • Two out of the first five patients dosed with IFX-1 achieved complete remission
  • Dose escalation warranted by pharmacodynamic analysis and approved by relevant authorities for a total enrollment of 18 patients in 3 dose cohorts
  • InflaRx to present initial data at the SVB Leerink Global Healthcare Conference today at 9:00 am EST (3:00 pm CET).

JENA, Germany, Feb. 26, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — InflaRx N.V. (IFRX), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing anti-inflammatory therapeutics by targeting the complement system, announces positive initial data from the first 5 patients in the Phase IIa open label study with IFX-1 in patients suffering from Pyoderma Gangraenosum (PG).

PG is a rare and debilitating neutrophil-driven, autoinflammatory skin disease, characterized by an acute, destructive ulcerating process of the skin, primarily occurring on the legs but also other regions of the body. The exact prevalence of PG is not yet known, but it is estimated that up to 50,000 patients in the US and Europe are affected by this disease. There are currently no FDA approved therapies for the treatment of PG.

The ongoing Phase IIa open label, proof-of-concept study has thus far enrolled 5 patients with PG under primary investigator Dr. Afsaneh Alavi, Assistant Prof. of Dermatology, University of Toronto. “These are the first reported data investigating complement inhibition in Pyoderma Gangraenosum, and they provide encouraging early evidence that inhibiting C5a may provide treatment benefit for these tremendously suffering patients,” Dr. Alavi explained. “A complete healing response in 2 out of 5 patients who failed to respond to standard of care therapy can be interpreted as drug activity of IFX-1 since placebo responses in previous PG trials are known to be low,” she added.

Patients in this first dosing group are being treated with 800mg of IFX-1 biweekly for 12 weeks after an initial run-in phase with three doses of 800mg on day 1, 4 and 8 of the study, with a three-month observational period. The main objectives of the study are the evaluation of the safety and efficacy of IFX-1 in patients with PG. Efficacy is being evaluated by a responder rate defined as Physician Global Assessment ≤3 of the target ulcer at various timepoints and time to complete closure (remission) of the target ulcer. Out of the first 5 initial patients dosed with IFX-1, 2 patients achieved complete closure of the target ulcer. One patient completed the treatment period demonstrating a full healing of the disease, including all other affected areas. This patient continues to remain disease free approximately 2 months after being taken off IFX-1 therapy. The second patient had almost complete healing of all other PG affected areas except for one minimal opening. This patient is close to completion of therapy. Both patients in remission had previously failed to respond to different therapeutic treatment attempts, including high dose glucocorticoids, and both patients showed elevated C5a levels in plasma at baseline. An additional patient who completed the study showed initial wound healing activity in the first 2-3 weeks of treatment, but no wound size decrease or closure was detected. The remaining 2 patients who are still under treatment have severe disease, including very large and extensive ulcers. Both patients did not show a healing response but are eligible for a dose escalation. Pharmacodynamic analysis of the C5a levels over time of treatment indicated that a dose escalation may provide better control over C5a levels throughout the treatment period.

The drug was well tolerated and no drug-related severe adverse events (SAE) have been recorded to date in the study.

“These are encouraging first signs of drug activity for IFX-1 in PG, and we are eager to investigate the approved dose escalation in additional patients as we are enlarging the current study,” commented Prof. Niels C. Riedemann, CEO and Founder of InflaRx.

The Phase IIa open label study will continue to enroll patients with two approved additional dose escalation schemes in a sequential manner. The targeted patient number for enrollment is expected to be 18.

About IFX-1:
IFX-1 is a first-in-class monoclonal anti-human complement factor C5a antibody, which highly and effectively blocks the biological activity of C5a and demonstrates high selectivity towards its target in human blood. Thus, IFX-1 leaves the formation of the membrane attack complex (C5b-9) intact as an important defense mechanism, which is not the case for molecules blocking the cleavage of C5. IFX-1 has been demonstrated to control the inflammatory response driven tissue and organ damage by specifically blocking C5a as a key “amplifier” of this response in pre-clinical studies. IFX-1 is believed to be the first monoclonal anti-C5a antibody introduced into clinical development. Approximately 300 people have been treated with IFX-1 in clinical trials, and the antibody has been shown to be well tolerated. IFX-1 is currently being developed for various inflammatory indications, including Hidradenitis Suppurativa, ANCA-associated vasculitis and Pyoderma Gangraenosum.

About Pyoderma Gangraenosum (PG):
PG is a rare ulcerative skin disorder that can lead to chronic painful and difficult to treat wounds. It occurs in people in their 40s and 50s. Many PG patients also suffer from other autoimmune disorders, including inflammatory bowel diseases like ulcerative colitis, arthritides like rheumatoid arthritis, and hematological diseases such as multiple myeloma.

Patients suffer from severe pain, long healing times, and frequent relapses. There are no FDA approved drugs currently approved for the treatment of PG. Current treatment options include the use of systemic immunosuppression in rapidly progressing cases.

C5a is a key factor for neutrophil tissue infiltration and neutrophil activation, which are believed to play a key amplifying role in PG. Thus, C5a inhibition may be able to prevent neutrophil infiltration and activation in PG patients. Given the detected activity of C5a inhibition by IFX-1 in another neutrophil-driven skin disorder, Hidradenitis Suppurativa, InflaRx is currently conducting a Phase IIa clinical study to investigate a potential benefit of IFX-1 for patients suffering from PG. This study is currently recruiting patients.

About InflaRx N.V.:
InflaRx (IFRX) is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on applying its proprietary anti-C5a technology to discover and develop first-in-class, potent and specific inhibitors of C5a. Complement C5a is a powerful inflammatory mediator involved in the progression of a wide variety of autoimmune and other inflammatory diseases. InflaRx was founded in 2007, and the group has offices and subsidiaries in Jena and Munich, Germany, as well as Ann Arbor, MI, USA. For further information please visit www.inflarx.com.

Contacts:

InflaRx N.V.
Jordan Zwick – Global Head of Business Development & Corporate Strategy
Email: jordan.zwick[at]inflarx.de
Tel: +1 585-329-5807

MC Services AG
Katja Arnold, Laurie Doyle, Andreas Jungfer
Email: inflarx[at]mc-services.eu
Europe: +49 89-210 2280
US: +1-339-832-0752

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This press release contains forward-looking statements. All statements other than statements of historical fact are forward-looking statements, which are often indicated by terms such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “could,” “intend,” “target,” “project,” “estimate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential” or “continue” and similar expressions. Forward-looking statements appear in a number of places throughout this release and may include statements regarding our intentions, beliefs, projections, outlook, analyses and current expectations concerning, among other things, our ongoing and planned preclinical development and clinical trials, the timing of and our ability to make regulatory filings and obtain and maintain regulatory approvals for our product candidates, our intellectual property position, our ability to develop commercial functions, expectations regarding clinical trial data, our results of operations, cash needs, financial condition, liquidity, prospects, future transactions, growth and strategies, the industry in which we operate, the trends that may affect the industry or us and the risks uncertainties and other factors described under the heading “Risk Factors” in InflaRx’s periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These statements speak only as of the date of this press release and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Given these risks, uncertainties and other factors, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, and we assume no obligation to update these forward-looking statements, even if new information becomes available in the future, except as required by law.

Source link

Page Not Found | Allure

Source link

Adalimumab Plus Hydroxychloroquine Leads to Hair Regrowth in Lichen Planopilaris

A case report for a patient with lichen planopilaris (LPP) revealed significant hair regrowth when originator adalimumab (Humira) was added to the patient’s hydroxychloroquine regimen. Adalimumab was originally prescribed for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

“This case report highlights the promise for further understanding of this condition and its treatments,” the authors wrote. “We suggest further investigation of adalimumab and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of LPP.”

The patient, a 61-year-old woman, had a 2-year history of painful nodules and abscesses located in her groin and a 4-month history of patchy hair loss on her scalp suggestive of LPP, for which she was prescribed hydroxychloroquine, 200 mg twice a day, 5 days a week, and clobetasol 0.05% scalp lotion twice a day for 3 months.

The nodules and abscesses in her groin were consistent with Hurley stage II HS. She was prescribed clindamycin and rifampin for this.

However, at the 2-month follow up, her LPP was unimproved and her HS was resistant to clindamycin and rifampin. The patient was then started on adalimumab at 160 mg in week 1, with dose reductions thereafter.  

At a follow-up 3 months later, substantial improvements in both HS and RA were observed, including reduction of HS nodules and abscesses on the groin, and the patient’s LPP patches had hair regrowth and reduction in redness. Six months later, further hair regrowth was noted.

Prior to the changes in treatment, the patient’s scalp presented scarring patches (alopecia) in her frontal hairline, a receding hairline, and follicular hyperkeratosis consistent with frontal fibrosing alopecia. All showed improvements with the addition of adalimumab.

The authors stated that a possible “combined therapeutic effect of adalimumab and hydroxychloroquine” may be responsible for the improvement in LPP, including the hair regrowth.

LPP is a type of scarring hair loss that occurs when lichen plaus, a relatively common inflammatory skin disease, affects areas of skin where hair grows. It destroys the hair follicle and replaces it with scarring, resulting in permanent hair loss. LPP’s causes and pathology are unknown.

Prior studies have reported that adalimumab yielded positive results in the management of cutaneous and oral lichen planus. Additionally, an older case report showed successful use of adalimumab to treat therapy resistant LPP and folliculitis decalvans, although no hair regrowth was reported.

Hair regrowth has not been reported for those treated exclusively with hydroxychloroquine or a combination of hydroxychloroquine and topical corticosteroids. In some cases, investigations have reported more hair loss in patients on hydroxychloroquine, leading the authors in this case to conclude that hydroxychloroquine alone was unlikely to have caused the hair regrowth.

“Current therapeutic options for LPP often fail to alleviate active inflammation and prevent disease progression,” making LPP difficult to treat, the authors wrote, concluding that this case opens the door for further investigation of the combined effects of adalimumab and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of LPP.

Reference

Alam MS, LaBelle B. Treatment of lichen planopilaris with adalimumab in a patient with hidradenitis suppurativa and rheumatoid arthritis. JAAD Case Reports. 2020;6(3):219-221. doi:10.1016/j.jdcr.2019.12.016.

Source link

Hidradenitis Suppurativa Increases Risk for Inflammatory Arthritis

Patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) have an increased risk for developing ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis, study research published in JAMA Dermatology suggests.

Longitudinal claims data from commercially insured patients in the United States were used to identify patients who had received a diagnosis of HS from 2003 to 2016. The date for cohort entry of the group of patients with HS was the first recorded date of HS diagnosis after ≥180 days of continuous enrollment. After 1:1 propensity score matching, there were 60,872 patients in the dataset with HS and 60,872 patients in the dataset without HS.

The investigators assessed rates of ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, other spondyloarthritis (reactive arthropathy, spinal enthesopathy, sacroiliitis, or unspecified inflammatory spondylopathies), and rheumatoid arthritis during follow-up in both groups. Follow-up was defined as the period between the date of cohort entry until either occurrence of inflammatory arthritis, death, disenrollment, or end of data stream.

Before cohort entry, both patient groups were free of arthritis. During a median follow-up period of 1.5 years (interquartile range, 0.6-3.1 years), patients in the HS group had a significantly higher risk for developing ankylosing spondylitis (incidence rate, 0.60 vs 0.36 per 1000; hazard ratio [HR], 1.65; 95% CI, 1.15-2.35), psoriatic arthritis (incidence rate, 0.84 vs 0.58 per 1000; HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.08-1.93), and rheumatoid arthritis (incidence rate, 4.54 vs 3.86 per 1000; HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.31). There was no difference in the HS and non-HS groups in terms of the risk for other spondylarthritis (incidence rate, 3.07 vs 3.00 per 1000, respectively; HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.17).

A study limitation was the reliance on claims data, which limited the ability to make causal conclusions about the relationship between HS and inflammatory arthritis.

Despite these limitations, the investigators suggest that “physicians treating patients with HS should be aware of symptoms suggestive of inflammatory arthritis, including morning stiffness and joint pain or swelling.”

Disclosure: Several study authors declared affiliations with the pharmaceutical industry. Please see the original reference for a full list of authors’ disclosures.

Follow @DermAdvisor

Reference

Schneeweiss MC, Kim SC, Schneeweiss S, Rosmarin D, Merola JF. Risk of inflammatory arthritis after a new diagnosis of hidradenitis suppurativa [published online January 22, 2020]. JAMA Dermatol. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.4590

Source link

Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment Market Business Opportunities Analysis 2019-2027 – Jewish Market Reports

Global Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment Market – From PMR’s Viewpoint

Decorated with a team of 300+ analysts, PMR Insights serves each and every requirement of the clients while preparing market reports. With digital intelligence solutions, we offer actionable insights to our customers that help them in overcoming market challenges. Our dedicated team of professionals perform an extensive survey for gathering accurate information associated with the market.  

PMR, in its latest business report elaborates the current situation of the global Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market in terms of volume (x units), value (Mn/Bn USD), production, and consumption. The report scrutinizes the market into various segments, end uses, regions and players on the basis of demand pattern, and future prospect.

In this Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market study, the following years are considered to project the market footprint:

  • History Year: 2014 – 2018
  • Base Year: 2018
  • Estimated Year: 2019
  • Forecast Year: 2019 – 2029

Request Sample Report @ https://www.persistencemarketresearch.co/samples/31202

On the basis of product type, the global Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market report covers the key segments,

key players of the hidradenitis suppurativa treatment market are: Pfizer Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc. AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, AbbVie Inc.,  Merck & Co., Inc., TARGET Pharma Solutions, Inc.,  and Novartis AG.

The report on Hidradenitis suppurativa treatment market covers exhaustive analysis on:

  • Market Segments
  • Market Dynamics
  • Historical Actual Market Size, 2014 – 2018
  • Market Size & Forecast 2019 to 2029
  • Supply & Demand Value Chain
  • Market Current Trends/Issues/Challenges
  • Competition & Companies involved
  • Technology
  • Value Chain
  • Market Drivers and Restraints

Regional analysis for Hidradenitis suppurativa treatment market includes

  • North America
  • Latin America
  • Europe
  • East Asia
  • South Asia
  • Oceania
  • Middle East & Africa

 Report on Hidradenitis suppurativa treatment market highlights:

  • Shifting industry dynamics
  • In-depth market segmentation
  • Historical, current and projected industry size
  • Recent industry trends
  • Key competition landscape
  • Strategies of key players and product offerings
  • Potential and niche segments/regions exhibiting promising growth
  • A neutral perspective towards market performance

Request Report Methodology @ https://www.persistencemarketresearch.co/methodology/31202 

The Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market research addresses the following queries:

  1. Why end use remains the top consumer of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment in region?
  2. Which segment does the consumers highly prefer?
  3. How will the global Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market look like by the end of the forecast period?
  4. What innovative technologies are the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment players using to get an edge over their rivals?
  5. What are the restraints affecting the growth of the global Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market?

After reading the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market report, readers can

  • Get hints about various agreements, product launches, acquisitions, and R&D projects of different Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market players.
  • Outline prominent regions holding significant share in the global Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market alongwith the key countries.
  • Investigate a comparative study between leading and emerging Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market vendors.
  • Comprehensive evaluation on the changing pattern of consumers across various regions.
  • Important trends affecting the adoption pattern of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment in various industries.

Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market players – Player 1, Player 2, Player 3, and Player 4, among others represent the global Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market. The market study depicts an extensive analysis of all the players running in the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market report based on distribution channels, local network, innovative launches, industrial penetration, production methods, and revenue generation. Further, the market strategies, and mergers & acquisitions associated with the players are enclosed in the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market report.

For any queries get in touch with Industry Expert @ https://www.persistencemarketresearch.co/ask-an-expert/31202 

About us: 

PMR is a third-platform research firm. Our research model is a unique collaboration of data analytics and market research methodology to help businesses achieve optimal performance. 

To support companies in overcoming complex business challenges, we follow a multi-disciplinary approach. At PMR, we unite various data streams from multi-dimensional sources. By deploying real-time data collection, big data, and customer experience analytics, we deliver business intelligence for organizations of all sizes. 

Contact us: 

305 Broadway, 7th Floor

New York City, NY 10007

United States

Ph.no. +1-646-568-7751

 

Source link

Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment Market Dynamics, Segments and Supply Demand 2019 – 2029 – Instant Tech Market News

PMR’s report on global Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market

The global market of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment is US$ xx Mn/Bn in 2018 with xx% CAGR from 2014 to 2018 and it is spectated to peg US$ xx Mn/Bn by the end of 2029 with a CAGR of xx% from 2019 to 2029. The Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market study analyzes the historic, current and future behavior of the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market with the help of DROT analysis and Porter’s Five Forces analysis.

The Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market report has considered 2018 as the base year, 2014-2018 as the historic period and 2019-2029 as the forecast period. Important segments by product type covered in the report include product 1, product 2, product 3 and product 4. Key end uses analyzed in the research consist of end use 1, end use 2, end use 3 and end use 4.

Request Sample Report @ https://www.persistencemarketresearch.co/samples/31202

key players of the hidradenitis suppurativa treatment market are: Pfizer Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc. AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, AbbVie Inc.,  Merck & Co., Inc., TARGET Pharma Solutions, Inc.,  and Novartis AG.

The report on Hidradenitis suppurativa treatment market covers exhaustive analysis on:

  • Market Segments
  • Market Dynamics
  • Historical Actual Market Size, 2014 – 2018
  • Market Size & Forecast 2019 to 2029
  • Supply & Demand Value Chain
  • Market Current Trends/Issues/Challenges
  • Competition & Companies involved
  • Technology
  • Value Chain
  • Market Drivers and Restraints

Regional analysis for Hidradenitis suppurativa treatment market includes

  • North America
  • Latin America
  • Europe
  • East Asia
  • South Asia
  • Oceania
  • Middle East & Africa

 Report on Hidradenitis suppurativa treatment market highlights:

  • Shifting industry dynamics
  • In-depth market segmentation
  • Historical, current and projected industry size
  • Recent industry trends
  • Key competition landscape
  • Strategies of key players and product offerings
  • Potential and niche segments/regions exhibiting promising growth
  • A neutral perspective towards market performance

Request Report Methodology @ https://www.persistencemarketresearch.co/methodology/31202 

What insights does the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market report offer to the readers?

  • Accurate growth rate of the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market in Y-o-Y (Year-on-Year) and CAGR, both in percentages as well as numbers.
  • Key regions and countries offering lucrative opportunities to Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market stakeholders.
  • Basic information regarding the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment , including definition, classification and uses.
  • Regulatory norms imposed on the consumption of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment .
  • In-depth examination of upstream raw materials, downstream demand, and present market landscape.

The Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market answer the following questions:

  • What innovative products are being introduced by the players in the global Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market?
  • Which end use industry uses Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment the most and for what purposes?
  • Which version of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment is witnessing the highest demand?
  • In terms of value and volume, which regions hold the largest share?
  • How does the global Hidradenitis Suppurativa Treatment market on the basis of region over the historic and forecast period?

Reasons to choose Persistent Market Research:

  • Modern industrial tools to keep pace with recent industrial trends.
  • Reports tailored according to clients’ requirements.
  • Available 24/7.
  • Accurate information regarding specific market growth.
  • Approach research scientists for innovative manufacturing processes.

For any queries get in touch with Industry Expert @ https://www.persistencemarketresearch.co/ask-an-expert/31202 

About us:

PMR is a third-platform research firm. Our research model is a unique collaboration of data analytics and market research methodology to help businesses achieve optimal performance.

To support companies in overcoming complex business challenges, we follow a multi-disciplinary approach. At PMR, we unite various data streams from multi-dimensional sources. By deploying real-time data collection, big data, and customer experience analytics, we deliver business intelligence for organizations of all sizes.

Contact us:

305 Broadway, 7th Floor

New York City, NY 10007

United States

Ph.no. +1-646-568-7751

Source link