STL Volume 30 Number 4 – Skin Therapy Letter https://www.skintherapyletter.com Written by Dermatologists for Dermatologists Wed, 13 Aug 2025 01:08:50 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.1 Lebrikizumab for Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis https://www.skintherapyletter.com/atopic-dermatitis/lebrikizumab/ Tue, 29 Jul 2025 16:43:03 +0000 https://www.skintherapyletter.com/?p=15976 Leah Johnston, MD1; Susan Poelman, MSc, MD, FRCPC2,3; Andrei Metelitsa, MD, FRCPC2,3

1Department of Dermatology, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
2Division of Dermatology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
3Beacon Dermatology, Calgary, AB, Canada

Conflict of interest: Leah Johnston does not have any conflicts of interest to disclose. Andrei Metelitsa has been an advisor and speaker for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Leo, Pfizer, Sanofi. Susan Poelman has been an advisor and speaker for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Leo, Pfizer, Sanofi.
Funding sources: None.

Abstract:
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, relapsing inflammatory skin disease that impacts approximately 10-15% of the population in the United States and Canada. Lebrikizumab is a novel systemic human monoclonal immunoglobulin G4 antibody that inhibits the activity of interleukin-13. In June 2024, lebrikizumab was approved by Health Canada for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD in adults and adolescents who are 12 years of age and older, followed by US Food and Drug Administration approval in September 2024. This review provides an overview of data from clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab in adult patients.

Keywords:atopic dermatitis, lebrikizumab, interleukin-13, IL-13, biologics, eczema, dermatitis

Introduction

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, relapsing inflammatory skin disease that presents with pruritic, erythematous, eczematous patches and plaques that has a predilection for flexural sites. The estimated prevalence of AD in Canada and the United States is 8-16% in adolescents aged 12-17 years and 2-11% in adults.1-7 Approximately 40% of AD patients have moderate-to-severe disease.7 AD has a significant negative impact on quality of life in individuals with the condition and is associated with increased rates of anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances.8 Additionally, AD can be costly to manage for both patients and the healthcare system at large, and previous studies have found that AD has a major adverse impact on workplace productivity and absenteeism.8

First-line treatments for AD include emollients with use of wet wraps and topical agents including corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors.9 Patients who do not achieve an adequate improvement with topical therapies alone or have severe, widespread AD at baseline may require narrowband phototherapy or systemic therapies to improve disease control.10 Currently, three monoclonal antibodies and two small molecule inhibitors have received Health Canada approval for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD (Table 1).10 This review presents efficacy and safety data from clinical trials of lebrikizumab, the most recently approved treatment for AD in patients ≥12 years of age.

Table 1

Lebrikizumab for Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis - image

Mechanism of Action

AD has numerous predisposing genetic and environmental factors that lead to a predominantly T‐helper type 2 (Th2) cell and type 2 innate lymphoid cell (ILC2)‐driven inflammatory response. Activation of Th2 and ILC2 cells leads to an increase in type 2 inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin (IL)‐4, IL‐5, IL‐13, and IL‐31.11 IL‐4 is thought to primarily exert central effects by regulating the development of immune cells, such as Th2 cells, and promoting production of immunoglobulin E (IgE) by B cells. Conversely, IL‐13 primarily acts in the periphery and both cytokines are implicated in the pathogenesis of AD.12 IL‐13 is overexpressed in AD lesions and non‐lesional skin compared to healthy controls and levels of IL‐13 in lesional skin correlate with AD severity.12 IL‐4 and IL‐13 also contribute to cutaneous microbial dysbiosis and disruption of the skin barrier, with IL‐13 predominantly stimulating decreases in antimicrobial peptide and filaggrin protein levels and increasing local expression of IgE and migration of eosinophils.11,13 Both IL‐4 and IL‐13 can bind to IL‐13 receptor α1 (IL‐13Rα1), inducing the formation of a heterodimeric receptor with the IL‐4 receptor α (IL‐4Rα) subunit and subsequently activating downstream JAK1 and tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2)‐mediated pro‐inflammatory pathways.11 IL‐13 also binds to IL‐13Rα2, which plays a negative regulatory role by stimulating IL‐13 degradation.12‐14 Different IL‐13Rα2 receptor epitopes affect IL‐13 clearance rates, which has been observed in asthma studies.12 Dupilumab binds to IL‐4Rα in IL‐4Rα/IL‐13Rα1 receptor complexes and decreases receptor signaling.11,15 Although both lebrikizumab and tralokinumab are monoclonal antibodies that bind to IL‐13, lebrikizumab is known to have the highest binding affinity for IL‐13.12 Lebrikizumab‐bound IL‐13 can still bind to IL‐13Rα1, but formation of IL‐4Rα/IL‐13Rα1 receptor complexes is blocked by lebrikizumab (Figure 1). Tralokinumab prevents IL‐13 from binding to IL‐13Rα1, which also subsequently inhibits IL‐4Rα/IL‐ 13Rα1 heterodimerization.11,12,16 Tralokinumab also inhibits binding of IL‐13 to IL‐13Rα2, which does not occur with lebrikizumab.12 In contrast, lebrikizumab‐bound IL‐13 is transported intracellularly after binding to Il‐13Rα2, where it co‐localizes and is subsequently degraded by lysosomes.12 This mechanism promotes for clearance of IL‐13, while the underlying mechanism of tralokinumab inhibits this process and may lead to persistence of elevated IL‐13 levels.12

Figure 1

Lebrikizumab for Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis - image
Figure 1. Schematic diagram depicting binding of IL-13 to the IL-4Rα/IL-13Rα1 heterodimer receptor and subsequent generation of a type 2 inflammatory response (left) in patients with AD. Lebrikizumab interferes with IL-4Rα/IL-13Rα1 receptor heterodimerization, preventing subsequent JAK1/TYK2 signaling and phosphorylation of signal transducer and activator of transcription 6 (STAT6), and the resulting type 2 inflammatory response (right). Lebrikizumab binds to IL-13 and permits binding of IL-13 to IL-13Rα1 but prevents binding to IL-4Rα.

Production, Administration, Ingredients, Storage and Dosing

Lebrikizumab is a humanized IgG4 monoclonal antibody that consists of two identical heavy gamma chains and two identical light chains.17 Recombinant DNA technology is used to produce lebrikizumab in Chinese Hamster Ovary cells.17

Lebrikizumab is administered via subcutaneous (SC) 125 mg/mL (250 mg in 2 mL sterile solution) injections using either pre‐filled syringes or pre‐filled pens.17 The sterile solution in lebrikizumab is comprised of acetic acid, histidine, polysorbate 20, sucrose, and water. The medication should be stored in a refrigerator with a temperature between 2 and 8 degrees Celsius.

The initial loading dose of lebrikizumab is 500 mg (two injections) at baseline and 2 weeks,17 followed by administration every 2 weeks in 250 mg SC doses until 16 weeks. After 16 weeks, the dosing frequency can be decreased to every 4 weeks.17 In some cases, patients who achieved partial responses may be recommended to continue 250 mg every 2 weeks until 24 weeks.18

Pharmacokinetics

Serum levels of lebrikizumab peak at 7-8 days after SC injections and the estimated bioavailability is 86%.17,19 Metabolism of lebrikizumab is theorized to occur through the same protein catabolism pathways that typically degrade endogenous antibodies.19,20 No dose adjustments are required for patients with hepatic or renal insufficiency, or geriatric patients (≥65 years of age).17

Contraindications to Lebrikizumab

Lebrikizumab is contraindicated in patients with known allergies or hypersensitivity to any ingredients in its formulation.17 Clinical trials for lebrikizumab have not been conducted in pediatric patients <12 years of age or >12 years who weigh less than 40 kg, and therefore, it is not currently approved by Health Canada for use in these individuals.17 Lebrikizumab is not currently recommended in pregnant individuals due to a lack of safety data in humans.17 As lebrikizumab is an IgG4 antibody, it is able to cross the placenta. However, studies in pregnant monkeys that tested lebrikizumab at exposure levels that were 18 to 22‐fold higher than the dosages used in humans, no adverse fetal effects were observed.17 Fetal serum levels of lebrikizumab were approximately 30% of maternal serum levels.17 Recent clinical practice guidelines suggest that dupilumab is likely to be safe during pregnancy and other biologics targeting similar pathways are expected to have similar pregnancy safety profiles, though this conclusion cannot be drawn due to the current lack of safety data.21

Clinician-Reported Efficacy Data from Phase 2 and 3 Clinical Trials in AD

Three phase 2 clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of lebrikizumab in adults with moderate-to-severe AD (Table 2).16,22,23 Following completion of phase 2 trials, which demonstrated efficacy for improving AD as well as high safety and tolerability, six phase 3 clinical trials of lebrikizumab have been completed.24-31 Additional long-term phase 3 efficacy and safety trials are currently being conducted.32,33

Table 2

Lebrikizumab for Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis - image
Link to Table 2 enlarged

The ADvocate1 (NCT04146363) and ADvocate2 (NCT04178967) monotherapy, randomized, phase 3 placebo-controlled trials further demonstrated the efficacy of lebrikizumab as a treatment for AD.24-26 The ADvocate trials enrolled both adolescents ≥12 years of age and adults.24-26 The primary outcome in both trials was the proportion of participants who achieved an Investigator Global Assessment score (IGA) of 0 or 1 at 16 weeks, representing complete or near complete clearance of AD.24 The secondary efficacy outcome was the proportion of participants who achieved Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-75, indicating ≥75% improvement from baseline, at 16 weeks. In ADvocate1, 43.1% of the lebrikizumab group and 12.7% of the placebo group achieved an IGA score of 0 or 1 at 16 weeks (P < 0.001).24 EASI-75 was achieved by 58.8% and 16.2%, respectively (P < 0.001).24 In ADvocate2, 33.2% of the lebrikizumab group and 10.8% of the placebo group had IGA 0/1 scores at 16 weeks (P < 0.001), and EASI-75 was achieved in 52.1% and 18.1%, respectively (P < 0.001).24 After 16 weeks, patients in the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials who received treatment with lebrikizumab were randomized to either continue 250 mg every 2 weeks, switch to lebrikizumab 250 mg every 4 weeks, or discontinue treatment with lebrikizumab.25 The primary efficacy endpoint, IGA 0/1, was maintained in 71.2% of the lebrikizumab every 2 weeks group, 76.9% of the lebrikizumab every 4 weeks group, and 47.9% of the group that was switched to placebo after week 16.26 The group that received lebrikizumab 250 mg every 4 weeks had the highest proportion of participants who maintained EASI-75 at the end of 52 weeks of treatment (81.7%), compared to 78.4% of patients in the lebrikizumab 250 mg every 2 weeks group and 66.4% of the lebrikizumab discontinuation group.25 No fluctuations in maintenance of EASI-75 occurred in 70.8% of the lebrikizumab every 2 weeks group, 71.2% of the lebrikizumab every 4 weeks group, and 60.0% of the lebrikizumab withdrawal group.26 During the maintenance treatment period (weeks 16 to 52) in the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, 12.4% of the lebrikizumab every 2 weeks group, 16.1% of the lebrikizumab every 4 weeks group, and 18.3% of the lebrikizumab withdrawal group required treatment with topical therapies to optimize control of their AD.25

The ADhere trial (NCT04250337) was a 16‐week, phase 3 randomized, placebo‐controlled trial of lebrikizumab, combined with low to mid‐potency topical corticosteroids and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors, which participants were instructed to use on an as‐needed basis.27 The primary endpoint, attainment of IGA 0/1 at 16 weeks, occurred in 41.2% of patients in the lebrikizumab 250 mg every 2 weeks group and 22.1% of the placebo injection group (P = 0.01).27 EASI‐75 was achieved in 69.5% of lebrikizumab and 42.2% of placebo group patients (P < 0.001).27 The mean proportion of topical therapy‐free days at 16 weeks was numerically greater in the lebrikizumab group, but this difference was not statistically significant.27

The ADjoin (NCT04392154) trial is a phase 3, long-term, efficacy and safety trial that is pending completion. Preliminary data from this trial demonstrated that 76% of the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trial participants and 79% of the ADhere trial participants maintained IGA 0/1 after 2 years of treatment with lebrikizumab at 250 mg every 4 weeks maintenance dosing.28 This data suggests that lebrikizumab is an effective long-term therapy for maintaining complete or near-complete clearance of AD in patients who have optimal responses at 16 weeks.28

Clinician-Reported Efficacy Data from Phase 3 Trials in Pediatric Patients with AD

The ADore trial (NCT04250350) analyzed the effects of lebrikizumab exclusively in adolescent patients between 12 and 17 years of age with moderate‐to‐severe AD.29 Patients received 500 mg loading doses of lebrikizumab at baseline and week 2, followed by 250 mg every 2 weeks throughout the 52‐week trial.29 The primary endpoint was safety and the proportion of participants who discontinued lebrikizumab due to adverse events. At 4 weeks, 28.6% of patients achieved EASI‐75, which rose to 73.2% at week 16 and continued to steadily increase to 81.9% at the end of the 52‐week trial.29 IGA 0/1 was achieved in 14.4% at week 4, 46.3% at week 16, and 62.6% at week 52.29 Rescue therapies were needed in 27.2% of participants.29 The ADorabale‐1 (NCT05559359) and ADorable‐2 (NCT05735483) trials, two phase 3 placebo‐controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in children aged ≥6 months, are currently in progress.32,33

Subset efficacy analyses from the ADvocate1, ADvocate2, and ADhere trials found that data collected from adolescent patients were consistent with overall population outcomes.30

Effects of Lebrikizumab on Vaccine-Induced Immune Responses

The ADOPT-VA trial (NCT04626297) was a phase 3 placebo-controlled RCT that was conducted to analyze responses to non-live vaccines in patients receiving treatment for AD with lebrikizumab.31 No differences in response rates between the lebrikizumab and placebo groups were observed following the meningococcal conjugate vaccine and the tetanus toxoid booster vaccine.31 Improvements in AD severity and symptoms were similar to results from other lebrikizumab trials.31

It is recommended that patients receive age-appropriate live vaccinations prior to starting lebrikizumab, as they are contraindicated during treatment.17

Patient‐Reported Outcomes

Across published phase 2 and 3 trials, patients who received lebrikizumab 250 mg every 2 weeks had significantly higher rates of achieving a ≥4‐point decrease in Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale severity scores compared to the placebo groups.16,24,27,31 At 52 weeks, more than 60% of participants in the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials maintained this improvement.26 Additionally, sleep loss and the interference of pruritus with sleep were significantly better with lebrikizumab compared to placebo,34 Furthermore, these improvements were associated with higher Dermatology Life Quality Index ratings.35 Patients in the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials who received treatment with lebrikizumab also experienced significant improvements in depression and anxiety ratings compared to placebo.36

Safety Data

A pooled safety analysis of the eight clinical trials of lebrikizumab for AD found that the rates of adverse events (AEs) were 49.2% in participants who were treated with lebrikizumab 250 mg every 2 weeks and 53.1% in participants who received treatment with a placebo, of which 2.3% and 4.4% were classified as severe AEs, respectively.37 AEs leading to treatment discontinuation occurred in 2.3% of lebrikizumab 250 mg every 2 weeks and 1.4% of placebo group participants.37

Conjunctivitis was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) in the lebrikizumab groups (6.5%).37 Allergic conjunctivitis was reported in 1.8% of the lebrikizumab 250 mg every 2 weeks groups and in the TREBLE RCT, more than half (53%, n=8/15) of all instances of conjunctivitis were allergy-related.22,37 Approximately 20% of patients in both the lebrikizumab and placebo groups had a past history of conjunctivitis at baseline, but only 1.8% of the placebo groups developed the condition during the trials.37 Targeting IL-13 signaling is theorized to interfere with maintenance of the conjunctival mucosa by decreasing levels of conjunctival goblet cells, thereby increasing the risk of conjunctivitis.37 Other TEAEs that were more common in participants who received lebrikizumab included nasopharyngitis (4.4%), headache (4.4%), dry eye (1.4%), allergic rhinitis (1.0%), and injection site reactions (2.5%).37 No participants developed anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity reactions.37 Eosinophilia occurred more frequently in the placebo groups (0.8%) than the lebrikizumab every 2 weeks groups (0.6%).37

The lebrikizumab every 2 weeks groups developed herpes zoster (0.6%) and herpes simplex (0.3%) infections at higher rates compared to the placebo groups, in which no cases were reported.37 Eczema herpeticum was not reported in patients receiving lebrikizumab every 2 weeks, while the incidence was 0.7% in the placebo groups.37 Lebrikizumab could theoretically increase the risk of helminth infections, though this was not observed in the lebrikizumab every 2 weeks trial groups.17,37 No confirmed opportunistic infections occurred in any of the lebrikizumab or placebo groups.

Non‐melanoma skin cancers (NMSC) occurred in 0.3% of the lebrikizumab 250 mg every 2 week groups and 0.5% of the placebo groups.37 No other malignancies were observed during the 16‐week trial period in the lebrikizumab 250 mg every 2 weeks and placebo groups.37 In a pooled analysis of all participants who received lebrikizumab with any dosing protocol (including a single dose at baseline), 0.3% of participants developed NMSC and 0.4% developed other malignancies, including prostate cancer (n=1), cutaneous T‐cell lymphoma (n=2), endometrial adenocarcinoma (n=1), invasive breast cancer (n=1), a neuroendocrine tumor (n=1), and metastatic pancreatic carcinoma (n=1).37 All malignancies were classified as unrelated to lebrikizumab by the study investigators and were similar to expected malignancy rates.37

Data from Clinical Trials for Asthma

Asthma is a common comorbidity of AD and in patients with both moderate‐to‐severe asthma and AD, consideration should be given to systemic therapies that can optimize management of both conditions. Some phase 2 and 3 trials of lebrikizumab found reductions in rates of asthma exacerbations and hospitalizations in adolescents and adults with poorly controlled asthma, though other studies have failed to demonstrate consistently significant results.38‐40

Efficacy Comparison of Lebrikizumab to Other Biologics and Small Molecule Inhibitors for AD

A 2024 network meta‐analysis of RCTs that investigated biologics and small molecule inhibitors for moderate‐to‐severe AD found that lebrikizumab, along with dupilumab and tralokinumab, had intermediate efficacy and the most favorable safety profiles.41 While JAK inhibitors, including upadacitinib and abrocitinib, have demonstrated the highest efficacy in improving AD, they were associated with significantly higher rates of AEs. Compared to dupilumab, lebrikizumab has shown a slightly reduced but non‐significant difference in reducing EASI scores from baseline, though dupilumab was associated with a higher chance of achieving EASI‐50 and IGA 0/1 at 16 weeks.42,43 Lebrikizumab showed comparable or superior performance to tralokinumab for clinician and patient‐reported efficacy measures.41,42

A comparative study that analyzed propensity‐matched participant cohorts based on week 16 EASI and % BSA scores from the ADvocate trials and the SOLO‐CONTINUE dupilumab phase 3 RCT found that lebrikizumab every 4 weeks showed comparable or superior maintenance of efficacy outcomes between week 16 and week 52.43 Lebrikizumab may be advantageous due to the less frequent dosing schedule during the maintenance phase, as the FDA‐approved maintenance frequency of dupilumab is every 2 weeks.43

Conclusion

Lebrikizumab is a novel monoclonal IgG4 antibody that targets IL‐13 and prevents IL‐4Rα/IL‐13Rα1 receptor signaling and is approved by Health Canada for the treatment of moderate‐to‐severe AD in adolescents 12 years or older and adults. Lebrikizumab has comparable efficacy to other monoclonal antibody treatments for AD, including dupilumab and tralokinumab, requires less frequent monthly maintenance doses than dupilumab after 16 weeks, and is associated with a lower rate of adverse events compared to JAK inhibitors. Lebrikizumab is a promising option for the treatment of moderate‐to‐severe AD given its favorable safety profile, durable efficacy in long‐term follow‐up studies, and major improvements in pruritus, sleep, and overall quality of life in patients with AD.

References



  1. Silverberg JI, Barbarot S, Gadkari A, et al. Atopic dermatitis in the pediatric population: a cross-sectional, international epidemiologic study. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2021 Apr 1;126(4):417-28.

  2. Wang HY, Pizzichini MM, Becker AB, et al. Disparate geographic prevalences of asthma, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and atopic eczema among adolescents in five Canadian cities. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2010 May 11;21(5):867-77.

  3. Williams H, Robertson C, Stewart A, et al. Worldwide variations in the prevalence of symptoms of atopic eczema in the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999 Jan;103(1 Pt 1):125-38.

  4. Drucker AM, Bai L, Eder L, et al. Sociodemographic characteristics and emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalizations for atopic dermatitis in Ontario: a cross-sectional study. CMAJ Open. 2022 Jun 7;10(2):E491-9.

  5. Barbarot S, Auziere S, Gadkari A, et al. Epidemiology of atopic dermatitis in adults: results from an international survey. Allergy. 2018 Jun;73(6):1284-93.

  6. Chiesa Fuxench ZC, Block JK, Boguniewicz M, et al. Atopic Dermatitis in America Study: a cross-sectional study examining the prevalence and disease burden of atopic dermatitis in the US adult population. J Invest Dermatol. 2019 Mar;139(3):583-90.

  7. Fasseeh AN, Elezbawy B, Korra N, et al. Burden of atopic dermatitis in adults and adolescents: a systematic literature review. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2022 Oct 5;12(12):2653-68.

  8. Sidbury R, Alikhan A, Bercovitch L, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis in adults with topical therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023 Jul;89(1):e1-20.

  9. Davis DMR, Drucker AM, Alikhan A, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis in adults with phototherapy and systemic therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024 Feb;90(2):e43-56.

  10. Hanifin JM, Reed ML; Eczema Prevalence and Impact Working Group. A population-based survey of eczema prevalence in the United States. Dermatitis. 2007 Jun;18(2):82-91.

  11. Moyle M, Cevikbas F, Harden JL, et al. Understanding the immune landscape in atopic dermatitis: the era of biologics and emerging therapeutic approaches. Exp Dermatol. 2019 Apr 15;28(7):756-68.

  12. Okragly AJ, Ryuzoji A, Wulur I, et al. Binding, neutralization and internalization of the interleukin-13 antibody, lebrikizumab. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2023 Jul;13(7):1535-47.

  13. Bieber T. Interleukin-13: Targeting an underestimated cytokine in atopic dermatitis. Allergy. 2020 Jan;75(1):54-62.

  14. McCormick SM, Heller NM. Commentary: IL-4 and IL-13 receptors and signaling. Cytokine. 2015 Sep;75(1):38-50.

  15. Harb H, Chatila TA. Mechanisms of dupilumab. Clin Exp Allergy. 2020 Jan;50(1):5-14.

  16. Guttman-Yassky E, Blauvelt A, Eichenfield LF, et al. Efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab, a high-affinity interleukin 13 inhibitor, in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: a phase 2b randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Apr 1;156(4):411-20.

  17. PrEBGLYSSTM (lebrikizumab injection) product monograph. Date of authorization: June 24, 2024. Eli Lilly Canada, Inc. [Internet], Toronto, ON, Canada. [cited September 7, 2024]. Available from: https://pi.lilly.com/ca/ebglyss-ca-pm.pdf

  18. Ebglyss® (lebrikizumab) prescribing information. Date of revision: April 2024. Almirall Ltd. [Internet], Uxbridge, United Kingdom. [cited September 7, 2024]. Available from: https://dermatology.almirallmed.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2024/05/Ebglyss-250-mg-solution-for-injection-in-pre-filled-syringe-and-pen.pdf

  19. Zhu R, Zheng Y, Dirks NL, et al. Model-based clinical pharmacology profiling and exposure-response relationships of the efficacy and biomarker of lebrikizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2017 Oct;46:88-98.

  20. Labib A, Ju T, Yosipovitch G. Managing atopic dermatitis with lebrikizumab – the evidence to date. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2022 Jun 8;15:1065-72.

  21. Adam DN, Gooderham MJ, Beecker JR, et al. Expert consensus on the systemic treatment of atopic dermatitis in special populations. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2023 Jun;37(6):1135-48.

  22. Simpson EL, Flohr C, Eichenfield LF, et al. Efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab (an anti-IL-13 monoclonal antibody) in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled by topical corticosteroids: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase II trial (TREBLE). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 May;78(5):863-71.

  23. Dermira, Inc. J2T-DM-KGAB Protocol (2): A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04146363. Date of approval: May 20, 2020. [Internet]. Accessed Jun 9, 2025. Available from: https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/63/NCT04146363/Prot_000.pdf

  24. Silverberg JI, Guttman-Yassky E, Thaçi D, et al. Two phase 3 trials of lebrikizumab for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. N Engl J Med. 2023 Mar 15;388(12):1080-91.

  25. Blauvelt A, Thyssen JP, Guttman-Yassky E, et al. Efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: 52-week results of two randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled phase III trials. Br J Dermatol. 2023 May 24;188(6):740-8.

  26. Silverberg JI, Wollenberg A, Stein Gold L, et al. Patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis maintain stable response with no or minimal fluctuations with 1 year of lebrikizumab treatment. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2024 Aug;14(8):2249-60.

  27. Simpson EL, Gooderham M, Wollenberg A, et al. Efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab in combination with topical corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with moderateto-severe atopic dermatitis: a randomized clinical trial (ADhere) [published correction appears in JAMA Dermatol. 2023 Sep 1;159(9):1014. doi: 10.1001/ jamadermatol.2023.2199]. JAMA Dermatol. 2023 Jan 11;159(2):182-91.

  28. Nearly 80% of patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis maintained clear or almost clear skin with Lilly’s lebrikizumab monthly maintenance dosing at two years. Eli Lilly and Company. [Internet], Indianapolis, Indiana, United States. [cited October 7, 2024]. Available from: https://investor.lilly.com/news-releases/news-release-details/nearly-80-patients-moderate-severe-atopic-dermatitis-maintained

  29. Paller AS, Flohr C, Eichenfield LF, et al. Safety and efficacy of lebrikizumab in adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a 52-week, open-label, phase 3 study. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2023 Jun 15;13(7):1517-34.

  30. Hebert AA, Flohr C, Hong HC, et al. Efficacy of lebrikizumab in adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: 16-week results from three randomized phase 3 clinical trials. J Dermatolog Treat. 2024 May 12;35(1):2324833.

  31. Soung J, Laquer V, Merola JF, et al. The impact of lebrikizumab on vaccine-induced immune responses: results from a phase 3 study in adult patients with moderate-tosevere atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2024 Aug;14(8):2181-93.

  32. Eli Lilly and Company. ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. A study of lebrikizumab (LY3650150) in participants 6 months to <18 years of age with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (ADorable-1). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT05559359. Updated May 20, 2025. Accessed June 9, 2025. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05559359

  33. Eli Lilly and Company. ClinicalTrials.gov [Internet]. A study of lebrikizumab (LY3650150) in participants 6 months to <18 years of age with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (ADorable-2). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT0573548. Updated May 20, 2025. Accessed June 9, 2025. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05735483

  34. Yosipovitch G, Lio PA, Rosmarin D, et al. Lebrikizumab improved itch and reduced the extent of itch interference on sleep in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: two randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trials. Br J Dermatol. 2024 Jan 23;190(2):289-91.

  35. Soung J, Ständer S, Gutermuth J, et al. Lebrikizumab monotherapy impacts on quality of life scores through improved itch and sleep interference in two phase 3 trials. J Dermatolog Treat. 2024 Apr 28;35(1):2329240.

  36. Lio PA, Armstrong A, Gutermuth J, et al. Lebrikizumab improves quality of life and patient-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2024 Jul;14(7):1929-43.

  37. Stein Gold L, Thaçi D, Thyssen JP, et al. Safety of lebrikizumab in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: an integrated analysis of eight clinical trials. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 Jul;24(4):595-607.

  38. Corren J, Szefler SJ, Sher E, et al. Lebrikizumab in uncontrolled asthma: reanalysis in a well-defined type 2 population [published correction appears in J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2024 Jul;12(7):1950. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2024.06.007]. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2024 May;12(5):1215-24.

  39. Gallagher A, Edwards M, Nair P, et al. Anti-interleukin-13 and anti-interleukin-4 agents versus placebo, anti-interleukin-5 or anti-immunoglobulin-E agents, for people with asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Oct 19;10(10):CD012929.

  40. Kardas G, Panek M, Kuna P, et al. Monoclonal antibodies in the management of asthma: dead ends, current status and future perspectives. Front Immunol. 2022 Dec 6;13:983852.

  41. Chu AWL, Wong MM, Rayner DG, et al. Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2023 Dec;152(6):1470-92.

  42. Drucker AM, Lam M, Prieto-Merino D, et al. Systemic immunomodulatory treatments for atopic dermatitis: living systematic review and network meta-analysis update [published correction appears in JAMA Dermatol. 2024 Sep 1;160(9):1012. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.3600]. JAMA Dermatol. 2024 Sep 1;160(9):936-44.

  43. Rand K, Ramos-Goñi JM, Akmaz B, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of the long-term efficacy maintenance and adverse event rates of lebrikizumab versus dupilumab in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis [published correction appears in Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2024 Jan;14(1):183-5. doi: 10.1007/s13555-023-01076-x]. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2024 Jan;14(1):169-82.


Purchase Article PDF for $1.99

]]>
Nanodermatology https://www.skintherapyletter.com/dermatology/nanodermatology/ Tue, 29 Jul 2025 13:43:35 +0000 https://www.skintherapyletter.com/?p=15986 Claire Fason, BA and Stephen K. Tyring, MD, PhD, MBA1,2

1Center for Clinical Studies, Webster, TX, USA
2Department of Dermatology, University of Texas Health and Sciences Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding sources: None.

Abstract:
Nanodermatology has been an emerging area of research and drug development in the last two decades. Nanodermatology lies at the intersection of nanotechnology, chemical engineering, biophysics, and pharmacology. Increasing research has yielded potential benefits of nanotechnology in the treatment of various skin conditions via enhanced transdermal drug delivery. Nanoparticles, defined as particles ranging from 1 to 1000 nanometers, have been more frequently explored for their potential role in targeted drug delivery systems. Nanocarriers, which include liposomes, ethosomes, and vesicle carriers, have been increasingly investigated to improve efficacy of various drugs via enhanced delivery to the target site. Many dermatologic conditions are preferentially treated with topical formulations to locally target the affected area and reduce systemic absorption, but these formulations are limited in their penetration. The ability of topical formulations to effectively deliver active ingredients to the target site is uncertain, therefore nanoparticles have been increasingly investigated as an approach to boost drug delivery to the deeper layers of the skin, improve absorption, and decrease adverse effects. Enhanced drug delivery utilizing nanoparticles has been successfully trialed for treatment of psoriasis, vitiligo, acne vulgaris, and atopic dermatitis in many research studies, however more investigation is needed prior to utilization in humans.

Keywords:nanodermatology, nanoparticles, enhanced drug delivery, nanocarriers

Introduction

Nanodermatology has been an emerging area of research and drug development in the last decades. Nanodermatology lies at the intersection of nanotechnology, chemical engineering, biophysics, and pharmacology. Increasing research has exhibited potential benefits of nanotechnology in the treatment of various skin conditions via enhanced transdermal drug delivery.1

Nanoparticles, defined as particles ranging from 1 to 1000 nanometers, have been increasingly investigated for their potential role in targeted drug delivery systems. Nanocarriers, which include liposomes, ethosomes, and vesicle carriers, have been more frequently explored in order to improve the efficacy of various drugs via enhance delivery to the target site.

Many dermatologic conditions are preferentially treated with topical formulations to locally target the affected area and reduce systemic absorption, but topical formulations are limited in their penetration. The ability of topical formulations to effectively deliver active ingredients to the target site is uncertain, therefore nanoparticles have been increasingly investigated as an approach to increase drug delivery to the deeper layers of the skin, improve absorption, and decrease adverse effects.2

This article will discuss the promising application of nanotechnology as a route of increased transdermal drug delivery in order to treat various common dermatological conditions, including psoriasis, vitiligo, acne vulgaris and atopic dermatitis, as well as nanoparticle utilization in sun protection.

Psoriasis

Psoriasis is a common inflammatory skin disorder, affecting over 125 million people worldwide, that can range in presentation from erythematous plaques to pustules. Traditionally, mild psoriasis can be treated with topical medications, including corticosteroids, betamethasone/calcipotriol, calcineurin inhibitors, and retinoids.3 However, moderate to severe disease often requires systemic treatments such as methotrexate, cyclosporine, and biologic agents. These systemic treatments often come with the risk of significant adverse effects.

Multiple drug‐loaded nanoparticles and nanocarriers have been found to have promising potential in the treatment of psoriasis, while minimizing the risk for adverse effects and maximizing transdermal drug delivery.4 Tazarotene (TZ), a topical antipsoriatic retinoid with significant irritation potential, was loaded into fluidized spanlastic nanovesicles that measured about 260 nanometers. When compared to commercially available topical tazarotene, researchers found that the nanovesicles not only showed higher antipsoriatic activity in human subjects but also demonstrated deeper penetration during ex vivo testing.5 Tacrolimus, an immunosuppressive agent that has often been used topically to treat psoriasis, exhibits poor cutaneous bioavailability, particularly in hyperkeratotic plaques. Therefore, topical tacrolimus ointment was compared to a micelle nanocarrier tacrolimus formula. The micelle formula showed increased tacrolimus delivery into the stratum corneum and epidermis when compared to the traditional topical tacrolimus ointment.6

In addition to improved delivery of classic topical treatments, researchers have been utilizing nanotechnology to investigate the transdermal delivery potential of drugs traditionally used as systemic therapy, such as methotrexate and cyclosporine. Both methotrexate and cyclosporine are typically reserved for severe psoriasis due to the significant risks of toxicity and adverse effects. However, when combined with nanotechnology, these drugs can be applied topically, therefore greatly minimizing the risk for systemic adverse effects.4

Cyclosporine, a calcineurin inhibitor, is incredibly effective as a systemic therapy for psoriasis, but unfortunately, its use comes with risks of nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity, metabolic disruptions, and immunosuppression.7 In an imiquimod induced psoriatic plaque on mice, cyclosporine‐loaded liposomes were more effective at reducing psoriatic features than cyclosporine gel.8

Like cyclosporine, systemic methotrexate has shown great utility in the treatment of psoriasis, however there is risk of significant side effects. In an in vivo skin deposition study, methotrexate niosomes, or non‐ionic surfactant vesicles, resulted in a greater percentage of drug deposition in the skin when compared to a simple methotrexate topical solution.9 Similarly, gold nanoparticles loaded with methotrexate led to improvement of scaling, erythema, epidermal thickness, and parakeratosis in mice models with imiquimod induced psoriasis. The methotrexate‐gold nanoparticles also showed deeper penetration when compared to topical methotrexate. Additionally, after treatment there was no significant difference in the blood count, AST, and ALT of the treatment group when compared to the control.10

Nanoparticles have not only allowed for greater skin penetration and drug delivery than classical topical treatments, but they have also allowed researchers to create topical formulations of systemic medications that come with risk of significant adverse effects. More research is needed to compare the efficacy of systemic therapy with nanoparticle formulations.

Vitiligo

Vitiligo, an acquired disorder characterized by the development of depigmented macules, is thought to be caused by autoimmune destruction of melanocytes. Treatment is typically focused on preventing progression and inducing some degree of repigmentation. Recent investigation into the utility of nanodermatology has led to exciting treatment potential.

Berberine, an isoquinoline alkaloid, despite exhibiting potential benefit as a topical vitiligo treatment, has limited utility due to its poor skin permeability. In order to improve delivery, berberine was loaded into hyalurosomes, which are modified nanovesicles that have enhanced skin penetration abilities and are non‐irritating. In human skin studies, berberine hyalurosomes showed greater permeability and greater drug retention when compared to a conventional berberine gel. In a vitiligo‐induced mouse model, the berberine loaded hyalurosomes showed a significant return of normal pigmentation that was greater than the conventional berberine gel.11

Psoralen in combination with ultraviolet light (PUVA) is a common treatment for vitiligo. However, psoralen has weak percutaneous permeability. Resveratrol, a sirtuin activator, has the potential to manage vitiligo by reducing oxidative stress, therefore psoralen and resveratrol were loaded into ultra deformable liposomes and used as combination antioxidants in PUVA therapy for vitiligo. This combination not only demonstrated greater skin penetration but also showed significant melanin stimulation and tyrosinase activity. Administration of a nanocarrier loaded with resveratrol and psoralen in combination with UV light therapy stimulated pigment and reduced oxidative stress, making it a promising potential therapy for vitiligo.12

While the mechanism of vitiligo is not completely understood, oxidative stress is believed to play a significant role in the disease. Platinum and palladium have been investigated for their strong antioxidant properties as they are inducers of superoxide dismutase.13 PAPLAL, a topical cream consisting of platinum and palladium nanoparticles, has been shown to be an effective treatment for vitiligo that was refractory to first‐line therapies including narrow band UVB and topical corticosteroids.14

Acne Vulgaris

Acne vulgaris is one of the most common skin conditions, affecting up to 90 percent of adolescents with presentation ranging from mild to severe. The pathophysiology is multifactorial, making treatment complicated. Therapeutic options for mild to moderate acne typically consists of topical agents, including retinoids, antibiotics, benzoyl peroxide, and salicylic acid, whereas treatment for severe acne consists of oral therapy with isotretinoin, antibiotics, or hormonal agents.15

While topical tretinoin is an effective treatment, its use is limited by low water solubility and high instability in air and heat. Its use also comes with the risk of significant skin irritation and dryness. Therefore, nanocarriers have been investigated to achieve greater photostability and lower irritation potential. Tretinoin was encapsulated into solid lipid nanoparticles which improved its photostability and showed significantly less irritation when compared to the gel formula in an animal model.16

Similar to tretinoin, adapalene has been widely used in the treatment of acne vulgaris since gaining US FDA approval in 2016, however it has limited bioavailability in the hair follicle and its use also comes with the risk of irritation and dryness. Adapalene was successfully encapsulated into tyrosine derived nanospheres (TyroSphere™). In ex vivo follicular penetration studies, the tyrospheres significantly enhanced adapalene delivery to the pilosebaceous unit, when compared with commercially available adapalene. In vitro irritation studies also demonstrated decreased irritation potential of the tyrosphere formula.17

Atopic Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common chronic inflammatory skin condition that presents with dry, eczematous, erythematous patches, and pruritus. AD is likely mediated by a combination of epidermal changes, increased immunoglobulin E levels, and T-helper 1 and 2 proliferation which leads to elevated levels of inflammatory cytokines. Traditionally, topical corticosteroids have been the treatment of choice for acute flares, however long-term use of topical corticosteroids can cause skin atrophy.

Liposomes, composed of phospholipids, have a strong affinity for the stratum corneum, allowing for increased skin permeability and uptake. Both betamethasone 17‐valerate (BMV), a moderate potency corticosteroid, and diflucortolone valerate (DFV), a high potency corticosteroid, were loaded into liposomes. The liposomes showed 2.68 to 3.22 times greater retention in the stratum corneum and epidermis when compared to the commercially available BMV and DFV creams. In pharmacodynamic evaluation, the liposome formula showed greater anti‐inflammatory activity when compared to the commercial creams, despite the liposome gel having 10 percent less active drug than the commercial cream. This result was thought to be due to enhanced delivery and decreased systemic absorption. Finally, in rat models, AD was induced by dinitrofluorobenzene, and the liposomes formulas not only showed lower erythema, edema, and scratching behaviors, but also to the commercial creams.18

In a similar study, chitosan nanoparticles were loaded with hydrocortisone (HC) and hydroxytyrosol (HT). These nanoparticles exhibited deeper penetration and a higher concentration of drug in the epidermal layer. This could reduce the dose and frequency of drug application needed for effective treatment, which could decrease the risk of adverse effects. Systemic adverse effects of glucocorticoids include hypocalcemia and hyperglycemia. When commercially available hydrocortisone was repeatedly applied to rat models, they showed a significant decrease in serum calcium concentration and an increase in serum glucose concentration, while the HC‐HT nanoparticle solution did not cause any biochemical derangements. This demonstrates that utilizing a nanoparticle drug delivery system could potentially reduce systemic adverse effects of glucocorticoids, while also increasing skin penetration.19

While corticosteroids have been considered the first‐line for AD, other topical calcineurin inhibitors, like tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, are being increasingly utilized in AD. Calcineurin inhibitors are often considered safer for long‐term use and use on sensitive areas like the face, but they often cause an uncomfortable burning sensation at the site of application. Tacrolimus has a high molecular weight and poor water solubility which limits its permeability. To reach therapeutic dosing, larger quantities of topical tacrolimus must be applied, which increases the risk of irritation. Chitosan nanoparticles were used as the carrier for tacrolimus. The nanoparticle solution led to greater drug retention in the stratum corneum, epidermis, and dermis than the commercially available cream. In AD induced rat models, AD was successfully managed with the nanoparticle solution containing one‐third the dose in the commercially available cream.20

Sunscreen

Sunscreen commonly contains minerals like zinc oxide and titanium dioxide as the primary active sun protection agents. However, sunscreens with these ingredients are typically opaque and white, which lends cosmetic concerns to many users. Many cosmeceutical companies have begun incorporating nanoparticles into their sunscreens in an attempt to create a more desirable and better tolerated formula.

Sunscreens with zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles have been shown, in an in vitro study, to provide enhanced sun protection. Additionally, sunscreen containing nanoparticles demonstrated improved texture with no residual white cast when compared to creams with zinc oxide and titanium dioxide particles.21

However, some studies have shown that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles lead to an alteration in the recommended UVA/UVB ratio. Currently, the FDA recommends that at least one‐third of the overall sun protection factor should be against UVA. Reducing the size of the zinc oxide and titanium dioxide particles confers an increased UVB protection at the expense of UVA protection. In order to mitigate this, some researchers have recommended that using various sizes of particles in one formulation, for example using micro and nano zinc oxide (20‐ 200 nanometers) particles and nano titanium dioxide (20‐35 nanometers) particles may remedy this discrepancy. However, more research is needed to determine the ideal size of particles to adhere to the recommended 3 to 1 UVB/UVA ratio.22

Concerns

As nanoparticle use increases both in treatment of skin disease and in cosmetics, there are concerns regarding the long-term health effects and potential toxicities. The potential for nanoparticles to accumulate in the skin and contain harmful impurities are important considerations regarding toxicity.23

Due to rising concerns that nanoparticles are depositing into deeper layers of the skin and causing cellular damage, multiple studies have sought to determine the long-term effects of utilizing nanoparticles in various formulations. One study found that both coated and uncoated zinc oxide nanoparticles localized primarily in the stratum corneum with limited penetration into viable epidermis. This study also found that the nanoparticles did not alter the skin barrier function or the redox state of the viable epidermis.24 There are also concerns regarding the ability of titanium dioxide to induce DNA damage and potentially act as a carcinogen.25 However, the carcinogenic effects of titanium dioxide are typically seen after subcutaneous injection or inhalation of nanoparticles.26

There is conflicting data regarding the penetration of zinc and titanium nanoparticles, and thus the ability for these nanoparticles to cause damage. However, despite the conflicting data, the consensus appears to be that nanoparticles in sunscreens and skin care do not pose a health risk, however more research and collaboration is needed between the scientific and cosmetic communities as many cosmetic companies do not advertise their products as containing nanoparticles.25,27

Conclusion

Nanoparticles, defined as a particle ranging from 1 to 1000 nanometers, have shown extremely encouraging potential in targeted drug delivery systems in the treatment of various dermatologic diseases and conditions. Not only do nanoparticles or nanocarriers exhibit increased penetration and retention of existing topical drugs, but they also have been employed to create topical formulations of drugs that are primarily given as systemic therapy. This allows drugs like methotrexate and cyclosporine to be used topically and without the risk of severe adverse effects. Overall, the utilization of nanoparticles as an enhanced drug delivery system is an incredibly promising area of research with exciting implications in the treatment of many common dermatologic conditions. Nanocarriers appear to be safe, however more research and development is needed as the majority of current research is being done in animal models. It is also important for cosmeceutical and scientific communities to collaborate on research, particularly when it comes to utilization of nanoparticles in sunscreens. Cosmetic companies should also be encouraged to publish or advertise the use of nanoparticles in their products.

References



  1. Raszewska‐Famielec M, Flieger J. Nanoparticles for topical application in the treatment of skin dysfunctions‐an overview of dermo‐cosmetic and dermatological products. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Dec 15;23(24):15980.

  2. Ramanunny AK, Wadhwa S, Gulati M, et al. Nanocarriers for treatment of dermatological diseases: Principle, perspective and practices. Eur J Pharmacol. 2021 Jan 5;890:173691.

  3. Menter A, Korman NJ, Elmets CA, et al.; American Academy of Dermatology. Guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Section 3. Guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with topical therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009 Apr;60(4):643‐59.

  4. Damiani G, Pacifico A, Linder DM, et al. Nanodermatology‐based solutions for psoriasis: State‐of‐the art and future prospects. Dermatol Ther. 2019 Nov;32(6):e13113.

  5. Elmowafy E, El‐Gogary RI, Ragai MH, et al. Novel antipsoriatic fluidized spanlastic nanovesicles: in vitro physicochemical characterization, ex vivo cutaneous retention and exploratory clinical therapeutic efficacy. Int J Pharm. 2019 Sep 10;568:118556.

  6. Lapteva M, Mondon K, Möller M, et al. Polymeric micelle nanocarriers for the cutaneous delivery of tacrolimus: a targeted approach for the treatment of psoriasis. Mol Pharm. 2014 Sep 2;11(9):2989‐3001.

  7. Hardinger K, Magee CC. Pharmacology of calcineurin inhibitors. In: UpToDate, Connor RF (Ed), Wolters Kluwer. Available from: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/pharmacology‐of‐calcineurin‐inhibitors#H17. Accessed on June 3, 2025.

  8. Walunj M, Doppalapudi S, Bulbake U, et al. Preparation, characterization, and in vivo evaluation of cyclosporine cationic liposomes for the treatment of psoriasis. J Liposome Res. 2020 Mar;30(1):68‐79.

  9. Abdelbary AA, AbouGhaly MH. Design and optimization of topical methotrexate loaded niosomes for enhanced management of psoriasis: application of Box‐Behnken design, in‐vitro evaluation and in‐vivo skin deposition study. Int J Pharm. 2015 May 15;485(1‐2):235‐43.

  10. Fratoddi I, Benassi L, Botti E, et al. Effects of topical methotrexate loaded gold nanoparticle in cutaneous inflammatory mouse model. Nanomedicine. 2019 Apr;17:276‐86.

  11. Elhalmoushy PM, Elsheikh MA, Matar NA, et al. Novel berberine‐loaded hyalurosomes as a promising nanodermatological treatment for vitiligo: biochemical, biological and gene expression studies. Int J Pharm. 2022 Mar 5;615:121523.

  12. Doppalapudi S, Mahira S, Khan W. Development and in vitro assessment of psoralen and resveratrol co‐loaded ultradeformable liposomes for the treatment of vitiligo. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2017 Sep;174:44‐57.

  13. Tsuji G, Hashimoto‐Hachiya A, Takemura M, et al. Palladium and platinum nanoparticles activate AHR and NRF2 in human keratinocytes‐implications in vitiligo therapy. J Invest Dermatol. 2017 Jul;137(7):1582‐6.

  14. Shibata T, Yoshikawa R, Ichihashi M. The novel therapy for vitiligo vulgaris: topical use of cosmetic cream of platinum nanoparticles and palladium nanoparticles which show strong catalase‐like activity. J Pigment Disord. 2015;2(6):1000184.

  15. Sutaria AH, Masood S, Saleh HM, et al. Acne vulgaris. [Updated 2023 Aug 17]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan‐. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459173/

  16. Shah KA, Date AA, Joshi MD, et al. Solid lipid nanoparticles (SLN) of tretinoin: potential in topical delivery. Int J Pharm. 2007 Dec 10;345(1‐2):163‐71.

  17. Ramezanli T, Zhang Z, Michniak‐Kohn BB. Development and characterization of polymeric nanoparticle‐based formulation of adapalene for topical acne therapy. Nanomedicine. 2017 Jan;13(1):143‐52.

  18. Eroğlu İ, Azizoğlu E, Özyazıcı M, et al. Effective topical delivery systems for corticosteroids: dermatological and histological evaluations. Drug Deliv. 2016 Jun;23(5):1502‐13.

  19. Siddique MI, Katas H, Amin MC, et al. In‐vivo dermal pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of skin targeting nanoparticles for corticosteroid treatment of atopic dermatitis. Int J Pharm. 2016 Jun 30;507(1‐2):72‐82.

  20. Yu K, Wang Y, Wan T, et al. Tacrolimus nanoparticles based on chitosan combined with nicotinamide: enhancing percutaneous delivery and treatment efficacy for atopic dermatitis and reducing dose. Int J Nanomedicine. 2017 Dec 22;13:129‐42.

  21. Singh P, Nanda A. Enhanced sun protection of nano‐sized metal oxide particles over conventional metal oxide particles: an in vitro comparative study. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2014 Jun;36(3):273‐83.

  22. Smijs TG, Pavel S. Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens: focus on their safety and effectiveness. Nanotechnol Sci Appl. 2011 Oct 13;4:95‐112.

  23. Nasir A. Nanodermatology: a glimpse of caution just beyond the horizon ‐ part II. Skin Therapy Lett. 2010 Oct;15(9):4‐7.

  24. Leite‐Silva VR, Le Lamer M, Sanchez WY, et al. The effect of formulation on the penetration of coated and uncoated zinc oxide nanoparticles into the viable epidermis of human skin in vivo. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2013 Jun;84(2):297‐308.

  25. Tran DT, Salmon R. Potential photocarcinogenic effects of nanoparticle sunscreens. Australas J Dermatol. 2011 Feb;52(1):1‐6.

  26. Shi H, Magaye R, Castranova V, et al. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles: a review of current toxicological data. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2013 Apr 15;10:15.

  27. Nohynek GJ, Dufour EK. Nano‐sized cosmetic formulations or solid nanoparticles in sunscreens: a risk to human health? Arch Toxicol. 2012 Jul;86(7):1063‐75.


Purchase Article PDF for $1.99

]]>
Update on Drugs & Devices: July-August 2025 https://www.skintherapyletter.com/drug-updates/july-august-2025/ Tue, 29 Jul 2025 11:44:13 +0000 https://www.skintherapyletter.com/?p=16013 Dupilumab SC injection

Trade Name: Dupixent®
Company: Sanofi and Regeneron

Approval Dates/Comments: The US FDA recently approved two new indications for dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody blocking interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13 receptor signaling. In April 2025, dupilumab was approved for the treatment of adults and adolescents aged ≥12 years with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) who remain symptomatic despite histamine-1 (H1) antihistamine treatment. The approval is based on positive results from Phase 3 trials (LIBERTY-CUPID) demonstrating significant reductions in itch severity and urticaria activity with dupilumab vs. placebo. Additionally, in June 2025, dupilumab was approved for the treatment of adults with bullous pemphigoid. Approval was based on data from the LIBERTY-BP ADEPT Phase 2/3 study, with dupilumab achieving sustained remission and reduced disease severity, as well as demonstrating significant improvements in disease control and itch reduction.


Garadacimab-gxii for SC injection

Trade Name: Andembry®
Company: CSL Behring

Approval Dates/Comments: In June 2025, the FDA approved garadacimab-gxii, a first-in-class, once-monthly, self-injectable treatment for the prevention of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks in patients aged ≥12 years. This monoclonal antibody is the only prophylactic HAE therapy that targets factor XIIa, a protein that starts the HAE inflammatory cascade. The approval was based on findings from the pivotal VANGUARD trial, which demonstrated an 87% reduction in frequency of HAE attacks with garadacimab vs. placebo.


Roflumilast foam, 0.3%

Trade Name: Zoryve®
Company: Arcutis Biotherapeutics

Approval Dates/Comments: In May 2025, the FDA expanded the approved indications of this once-daily, steroid-free, topical selective phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor to include the treatment of plaque psoriasis of the scalp and body in adult and pediatric patients ≥12 years of age. Regulatory approval was based on findings from the ARRECTOR study, which demonstrated statistically significant improvements in scalp and body psoriasis symptoms with roflumilast foam vs. placebo with significant reductions in scalp and body itch. Treatment was well-tolerated, with adverse events such as headache, diarrhea, and nausea occurring in <4% of patients.


Ustekinumab-hmny for SC injection

Trade Name: Starjemza®
Company: Bio-Thera Solutions Hikma Pharmaceuticals

Approval Dates/Comments: In May 2025, the FDA approved this human IL-12 and IL-23 antagonist as a biosimilar referencing the originator product Stelara® (ustekinumab, Janssen). The approval covers the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, active psoriatic arthritis, moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.


Ustekinumab biosimilar SC/IV use

Trade Name: Otulfi®
Company: Fresenius Kabi

Approval Dates/Comments: In May 2025, Otulfi® became commercially in Canada for treating adult patients with multiple inflammatory diseases including moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and active psoriatic arthritis. Health Canada approval was granted in December 2024. In the US, Otulfi® (ustekinumab-aauz) was approved by the FDA in September 2024 and became commercially available in March 2025.


Prademagene zamikeracel gene-modified cellular sheets

Trade Name: Zevaskyn™
Company: Abeona Therapeutics

Approval Dates/Comments: The FDA approved the first and only autologous cell-based gene therapy in April 2025 for the treatment of wounds in adult and pediatric patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Approval was based on the pivotal Phase 3 VIITAL™ study, which demonstrated significant wound healing and pain reduction after a single treatment with a favorable safety profile.

Purchase Article PDF for $1.99

]]>