Search

BackgroundComparative, real-life and long-term evidence on the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in moderate-to-severe atopic eczema (AE) is limited. Such data must come from well-designed prospective patient registries. Standardization of data collection is needed for direct comparisons and data pooling.ObjectivesTo reach a consensus on how and when to measure the previously defined domain items of the TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce core dataset for research registries for paediatric and adult patients with AE.MethodsProposals for the measurement instruments were based on recommendations of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative, the existing AE database of TREATgermany, systematic reviews of the literature and expert opinions. The proposals were discussed at three face-to-face consensus meetings, one teleconference and via e-mail. The frequency of follow-up visits was determined by an expert survey.ResultsA total of 16 experts from seven countries participated in the 'how to measure' consensus process and 12 external experts were consulted. A consensus was reached for all domain items on how they should be measured by assigning measurement instruments. A minimum follow-up frequency of initially 4 weeks after commencing treatment, then every 3 months while on treatment and every 6 months while off treatment was defined.ConclusionsThis core dataset for national AE research registries will aid in the comparability and pooling of data across centres and country borders, and enables international collaboration to assess the long-term effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy used in patients with AE. What's already known about this topic? Comparable, real-life and long-term data on the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in patients with atopic eczema (AE) are needed. There is a high diversity of outcomes and instruments used in AE research, which require harmonization to enhance comparability and allow data pooling. What does this study add? Our taskforce has reached international consensus on how and when to measure core domain items for national AE research registries. This core dataset is now available for use by researchers worldwide and will aid in the collection of unified data. What are the clinical implications of this work? The data collected through this core dataset will help to gain better insights into the long-term effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in AE and will provide important information for clinical practice. Standardization of such data collection at the national level will also allow direct data comparisons and pooling across country borders (e.g. in the analysis of treatment-related adverse events that require large patient numbers).

BACKGROUND:Evidence of immunomodulatory therapies to guide clinical management of atopic eczema (AE) is scarce, despite frequent and often off-label use. Patient registries provide valuable evidence for the effects of treatments under real-world conditions that can inform treatment guidelines, give the opportunity for health economic evaluation and the evaluation of quality of care, as well as pharmacogenetic and dynamic research, which cannot be adequately addressed in clinical trials. OBJECTIVES:The TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce aims to seek international consensus on a core set of domains and items ('what to measure') for AE research registries, using a Delphi approach. METHODS:Participants from six stakeholder groups were included: doctors, nurses, nonclinical researchers, patients, industry and regulatory body representatives. The eDelphi comprised three sequential online rounds, requesting participants to rate the importance of each proposed domain item. Participants could add domain items to the proposed list in round 1. A final consensus meeting was held to ratify the core set. RESULTS:Participants (n = 479) from 36 countries accessed the eDelphi platform, of whom 86%, 79% and 74% completed rounds 1, 2 and 3, respectively. At the face-to-face consensus meeting attended by 42 participants the final core set was established containing 19 domains with 69 domain items (49 baseline and 20 follow-up items). CONCLUSIONS:This core set of domains and items to be captured by national AE systemic therapy registries will standardize data collection and thereby allow direct comparability across registries and facilitate data pooling between countries. Ultimately, it will provide greater insight into the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of photo- and systemic immunomodulatory therapies.

This report provides a summary of the third meeting of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative held in San Diego, CA, U.S.A., 6-7 April 2013 (HOME III). The meeting addressed the four domains that had previously been agreed should be measured in every eczema clinical trial: clinical signs, patient-reported symptoms, long-term control and quality of life. Formal presentations and nominal group techniques were used at this working meeting, attended by 56 voting participants (31 of whom were dermatologists). Significant progress was made on the domain of clinical signs. Without reference to any named scales, it was agreed that the intensity and extent of erythema, excoriation, oedema/papulation and lichenification should be included in the core outcome measure for the scale to have content validity. The group then discussed a systematic review of all scales measuring the clinical signs of eczema and their measurement properties, followed by a consensus vote on which scale to recommend for inclusion in the core outcome set. Research into the remaining three domains was presented, followed by discussions. The symptoms group and quality of life groups need to systematically identify all available tools and rate the quality of the tools. A definition of long-term control is needed before progress can be made towards recommending a core outcome measure.

Background: Phototherapy is used to treat atopic dermatitis (AD). Evidence for its efficacy, impact on quality of life, cost‐effectiveness and short‐ and long‐term safety with real‐life usage is weak. Objectives: We established a taskforce to examine how phototherapy is currently being used as a treatment for AD across the United Kingdom and Europe to inform our understanding and guide future research into management of patients with AD using UV‐based phototherapies. Methods: An anonymous electronic multiple‐response survey exploring phototherapy prescribing practices and experience of phototherapy modalities was developed by the study authors and sent to members of phototherapy networks from the United Kingdom and Europe. Responses were received between February and July 2021. Results: About 144 respondents from 27 European countries completed the survey. NBUVB was the most widely used [n = 138 (96%)]. Home‐based NBUVB was available in 8/27 countries (25/144 respondents, 17%). Oral psoralen‐UVA (PUVA) was more widely available than bath PUVA (n = 106, 74% vs. n = 60, 42%) and used mainly in adult patients. 49/144 (34%) of respondents had access to UVA1. Phototherapy would be considered instead of systemic treatment in 96% of adults and 82% of children for NBUVB, versus 40% of adults and 3% of children for PUVA. Starting doses, standard dosing increments, length of treatment courses, lifetime limits for treatments and thresholds for performing annual skin assessments varied between responders. Conclusions: NBUVB was the most widely used phototherapy for AD in adult and paediatric patients, while PUVA and UVA1 were less used. Prescribing practices varied considerably, highlighting the lack of consensus practice in many different aspects of phototherapy for the treatment of AD in children and adults. This indicates that further studies are required to determine optimal phototherapeutic regimens for AD and informs our understanding of parameters that should be included in future high‐quality randomized controlled trials (RCT) of phototherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited data about the clinical meaningfulness of the Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) and Patient‐Oriented SCORAD (PO‐SCORAD), particularly in children with mild‐to‐moderate AD. Regular use of patient‐reported outcomes, may deliver more accurate information about the overall health status of AD patients than routine but sparse physician assessments. Objective: To confirm the correlation between SCORAD, PO‐SCORAD, Patient‐Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) and Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA). To evaluate the interpretability and clinical usefulness of the SCORAD and PO‐SCORAD scores in children. Methods: Data were drawn from a 12‐week randomized controlled trial in 335 children, aged 2–6 years, with mainly mild‐to‐moderate AD. Investigators captured SCORAD and IGA at each study visit. Parents used PO‐SCORAD twice‐weekly, and POEM once‐weekly. Results: There were strong correlations between PO‐SCORAD and SCORAD (r = 0.874), PO‐SCORAD and POEM (0.734) and PO‐SCORAD and IGA (0.613). The best fit ('k' statistic: 0.68) between SCORAD and IGA classes was noted for the following SCORAD categories: <12 (clear/almost clear); 12–25 (mild); and ≥25 (moderate/severe). PO‐SCORAD area under the curve over 8 weeks was significantly greater than that of SCORAD (p = 0.0002), giving a better estimate of disease severity between visits. Patients with a flare within the next 7 days had significantly higher PO‐SCORAD scores 7 days before the flare (p < 0.0001). Moderate erythema was the most significant flare predictor (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: PO‐SCORAD is robust and reliable and appears to warrant far greater utility in routine clinical practice than other scores. PO‐SCORAD, used twice‐weekly, may improve the management of patients with AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a heterogeneous inflammatory skin disease with different clinical phenotypes based on factors such as age, race, comorbidities, and clinical signs and symptoms. The effect of these factors on therapeutic responses in AD has only been scarcely studied and not for upadacitinib. Currently, there is no biomarker predicting response to upadacitinib. Objectives: Evaluate the efficacy of the oral Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib across patient subgroups (baseline demographics, disease characteristics and prior treatment) in patients with moderate‐to‐severe AD. Methods: Data from phase 3 studies (Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2 and AD Up) were utilized for this post hoc analysis. Adults and adolescents with moderate‐to‐severe AD were randomized to receive once daily oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg or placebo; patients enrolled in the AD Up study received concomitant topical corticosteroids. Data from the Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 studies were integrated. Results: A total of 2584 patients were randomized. A consistently greater proportion of patients achieved at least 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index, a 0 or 1 on the validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis, and improvement in itch (including an achievement of a reduction of ≥4; and score of 0/1 in Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale) with upadacitinib compared with placebo at Week 16, regardless of age, sex, race, body mass index, AD severity, body surface area involvement, history of atopic comorbidities or asthma, or previous exposure to systemic therapy or cyclosporin. Conclusions: Upadacitinib had consistently high skin clearance rates and itch efficacy across subgroups of patients with moderate‐to‐severe AD through Week 16. These results support upadacitinib as a suitable treatment option in a variety of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03569293 (Measure Up 1), NCT03607422 (Measure Up 2) and NCT03568318 (AD Up). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dupilumab is the first biotherapy available for the treatment of moderate‐to‐severe childhood atopic dermatitis (AD). Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dupilumab in daily practice. Methods: Patients aged 6–11, who had received a first dose of dupilumab, were included in this multicentre retrospective cohort study. The primary endpoint was change in SCORAD after 3 months of treatment. Secondary endpoints were change in IGA score at 3 months, proportion of patients with SCORAD50 and SCORAD75, description of adverse events and proportion of children in our cohort who would be excluded from pivotal phase 3 clinical trial. Results: Eighty patients were included. After 3 months of treatment, there was a significant decrease in SCORAD (mean: 21.8 ± 13.8 vs 53.9 ± 18.5; P < 0.0001) and IGA (1.3 ± 0.8 vs 3.5 ± 0.7; P < 0.0001). Conjunctivitis was observed in 11.3% (n = 9/80); three patients experienced dupilumab facial redness (DFR); 17.5% (n = 14/80) reported injection site reactions; 6.3% (n = 5/80) discontinued treatment. 61.2% (n = 49/80) children were ineligible in the phase 3 trial. Limitations: There is no control group. Because it was a real life study based on information from patient medical records in a French multicentre cohort, we cannot rule out the presence of reporting bias generated by the use of patient reported characteristics and missing information. Conclusion: These real‐life data confirm the efficacy and safety of dupilumab in children with moderate to severe AD extended to dyshidrosis and atopic prurigo, but it also revealed a lower frequency of DFR and conjunctivitis. However, administration in injectable form may be a barrier in this age group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The evidence‐ and consensus‐based guideline on atopic eczema was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. Four consensus conferences were held between December 2020 and July 2021. Twenty‐nine experts (including clinicians and patient representatives) from 12 European countries participated. This second part of the guideline includes recommendations and detailed information on basic therapy with emollients and moisturizers, topical anti‐inflammatory treatment, antimicrobial and antipruritic treatment and UV phototherapy. Furthermore, this part of the guideline covers techniques for avoiding provocation factors, as well as dietary interventions, immunotherapy, complementary medicine and educational interventions for patients with atopic eczema and deals with occupational and psychodermatological aspects of the disease. It also contains guidance on treatment for paediatric and adolescent patients and pregnant or breastfeeding women, as well as considerations for patients who want to have a child. A chapter on the patient perspective is also provided. The first part of the guideline, published separately, contains recommendations and guidance on systemic treatment with conventional immunosuppressive drugs, biologics and janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as information on the scope and purpose of the guideline, and a section on guideline methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]