Search

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]

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 first part of the guideline includes general information on its scope and purpose, the health questions covered, target users and a methods section. It also provides guidance on which patients should be treated with systemic therapies, as well as recommendations and detailed information on each systemic drug. The systemic treatment options discussed in the guideline comprise conventional immunosuppressive drugs (azathioprine, ciclosporin, glucocorticosteroids, methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil), biologics (dupilumab, lebrikizumab, nemolizumab, omalizumab and tralokinumab) and janus kinase inhibitors (abrocitinib, baricitinib and upadacitinib). Part two of the guideline will address avoidance of provocation factors, dietary interventions, immunotherapy, complementary medicine, educational interventions, occupational and psychodermatological aspects, patient perspective and considerations for paediatric, adolescent, pregnant and breastfeeding patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dupilumab, a first-in-class therapy targeting the two key cytokines involved in the persistent underlying inflammatory pathway in atopic dermatitis (AD), is approved for treatment of moderate-to-severe AD in Europe, USA, Japan and several other countries. To assess dupilumab effects on SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) and component scores (objective and subjective SCORAD) over time in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. This post hoc analysis included 2,444 patients in four placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized, phase 3 trials. SOLO 1 and 2 (NCT02277743; NCT02277769) evaluated 16 weeks of dupilumab monotherapy against placebo. CAFÉ (NCT02755649) and CHRONOS (NCT02260986) evaluated dupilumab with concomitant topical corticosteroids (TCS) against TCS alone for 16 and 52 weeks, respectively. 2,444 patients randomized to treatment in SOLO 1 and 2 (N = 1,379), CAFÉ (N = 325) and CHRONOS (N = 740) were analyzed. Dupilumab treatment significantly improved overall SCORAD and individual components as early as Week 1 or 2, with significant and clinically meaningful differences vs. control through end of treatment (p <.0001). These results occurred irrespective of dupilumab regimen, 300 mg subcutaneously weekly or every 2 weeks. In four large phase 3 trials in adults with moderate-to-severe AD, dupilumab treatment with or without concomitant TCS resulted in rapid and sustained improvements in all SCORAD outcomes vs. placebo or TCS alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, relapsing, inflammatory skin disease. Therapeutic patient education (TPE) has been demonstrated to be effective in AD in reducing disease severity and improving coping and quality of life. Objectives: To describe the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of children and adolescents with AD who had attended TPE sessions, as well as the characteristics of their parents, and compare them with those who did not attend TPE. Methods: Parents of children with AD aged 6–17 years old were recruited from a representative sample of the French population contacted by e‐mail. Sociodemographic data and clinical information were collected in patients and parents. Clinical severity was assessed by parents using a proxy version of the Patient‐Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Attendance to TPE sessions was assessed by the following question 'did your child or one or both parents attended TPE for AD?'. Also, the number of sessions was recorded. Determinants of TPE attendance were evaluated by univariable and multivariable analyses. Results: Data were collected on 1063 parents and children with AD. A total of 131 (12.3%) children and/or parents attended TPE sessions. Most of them attended 2–5 TPE sessions. In that group, there were 85 boys (64.9%), and severity evaluated by POEM was mild in 29.8%, moderate in 52.7% and severe in 17.6% of patients. In the multivariable model, attending TPE sessions was significantly associated with sex of the child (boy vs. girl), consultation with a dermatologist or a paediatrician, high clinical severity and presence of AD in parents. Conclusions: Despite recommendations, the use of TPE in children with AD is still low in France. There is a need for implementing such programmes in the management of the disease, in particular when the disease is severe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In chronic skin diseases such as atopic dermatitis (AD), therapeutic failure due to poor patient adherence to treatment is commonly reported. Therapeutic patient education (TPE) is an approach to improve self‐management and adherence. Several studies demonstrated that TPE programmes have positive effects on disease management resulting in decreased disease severity and improved quality of life in AD patients. Various healthcare professionals (dermatologists, nurses, psychologists, dieticians) have been involved. TPE performed by trained dermatology nurses are highly efficient and improve various health‐related outcomes. The aim of this position paper is to analyse the aims, modalities and efficacy of TPE in AD, to identify specific roles of dermatology nurses, to assess qualification requirements, and to propose practical recommendations. Potential activities of nurses in ongoing and future TPE programmes for AD patients will be discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The patient-oriented eczema measure: development and initial validation of a new tool for measuring atopic eczema severity from the patients' perspective. Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic disease with a strong impact on patients and their families.1 Clinical severity is usually evaluated by the clinician; however, it may be perceived in a different way by the patient and the caregiver. Kappa < 0 represents disagreement, 0-0.20 very low agreement, 0.21-0.40 low agreement, 0.41-0.60 moderate agreement, 0.61-0.80 strong agreement and 0.80-1.00 almost total agreement. [Extracted from the article]

Dr. Chernyshov, Dr. Stalder, Dr. Svensson, Dr. Kunz reports no conflict of interest. At least 3 weeks are recommended between the two COVID-19 vaccine doses, which increases the risk of AD flares and loss of AD control if the systemic AD medication is paused or reduced in dose for longer periods. European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis: position on vaccination of adult patients with atopic dermatitis against COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) being treated with systemic medication and biologics. [Extracted from the article]

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a highly pruritic, chronic inflammatory skin disease. The diagnosis is made using evaluated clinical criteria. Disease activity and burden are best measured with a composite score, assessing both objective and subjective symptoms, such as SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD). AD management must take into account clinical and pathogenic variabilities, the patient's age and also target flare prevention. Basic therapy includes hydrating and barrier‐stabilizing topical treatment universally applied, as well as avoiding specific and unspecific provocation factors. Visible skin lesions are treated with anti‐inflammatory topical agents such as corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and pimecrolimus), which are preferred in sensitive locations. Topical tacrolimus and some mid‐potency corticosteroids are proven agents for proactive therapy, which is defined as the long‐term intermittent anti‐inflammatory therapy of frequently relapsing skin areas. Systemic anti‐inflammatory or immunosuppressive treatment is a rapidly changing field requiring monitoring. Oral corticosteroids have a largely unfavourable benefit–risk ratio. The IL‐4R‐blocker dupilumab is a safe, effective and licensed, but expensive, treatment option with potential ocular side‐effects. Other biologicals targeting key pathways in the atopic immune response, as well as different Janus kinase inhibitors, are among emerging treatment options. Dysbalanced microbial colonization and infection may induce disease exacerbation and can justify additional antimicrobial treatment. Systemic antihistamines (H1R‐blockers) only have limited effects on AD‐related itch and eczema lesions. Adjuvant therapy includes UV irradiation, preferably narrowband UVB or UVA1. Coal tar may be useful for atopic hand and foot eczema. Dietary recommendations should be patient‐specific, and elimination diets should only be advised in case of proven food allergy. Allergen‐specific immunotherapy to aeroallergens may be useful in selected cases. Psychosomatic counselling is recommended to address stress‐induced exacerbations. Efficacy‐proven 'Eczema school' educational programmes and therapeutic patient education are recommended for both children and adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editor Atopic dermatitis (AD), a common inflammatory skin condition characterized by chronic or relapsing episodes of eczema, itch and sleep disturbance,1 is associated with psychiatric, infectious and allergic comorbidities. Dr. Hijnen has been investigator, speaker or consultant for Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, LeoPharma, MedImmune/Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Sanofi and ThermoFisher. Dr. Ring has been an advisor or speaker for AbbVie, Allergika, Sanofi-Genzyme, Pfizer, Bencard, LEO Pharma and Mylan. [Extracted from the article]

La dermatite atopique est une maladie multifactorielle fréquente chez l'enfant. L'impact de la maladie sur la qualité de vie des patients et de leur famille est important et sous-estimée. De même, les patients atteints de dermatite atopique sont souvent insuffisamment traités. Les croyances des patients et de leur entourage (dermocorticophobie, rôle des facteurs allergiques...) perturbent l'adhésion thérapeutique et favorise le nomadisme médical. La prise en charge globale d'un patient atteint de dermatite atopique et de sa famille devrait donc intégrer une éducation thérapeutique et être planifiée. La recherche de facteurs aggravants potentiels (allergie alimentaires, surinfection, facteurs psychologiques, eczéma de contact) doit être adaptée au cas par cas. Une allergie alimentaire doit être évoquée en cas de dermatite atopique sévère du nourrisson et en cas de résistance à un traitement local bien conduit. Un plan de traitement doit être négocié avec le patient, adapté à l'âge et à la gravité de la maladie (évaluée par un score clinique et une appréciation de la qualité de vie). L'objectif du traitement est d'une part d'obtenir rapidement une rémission satisfaisante grâce à un traitement d'attaque et d'autre part de maintenir cette rémission au long cours grâce à un traitement d'entretien: cette stratégie doit être explicitée au patient. Les traitements locaux sont à la base de la prise en charge. Les dermocorticoïdes sont utilisés en première intention en traitement d'attaque de la dermatite atopique (tous les jours jusqu'à la rémission) et en traitement d'entretien (dès les premiers symptômes) quelque soit la gravité de la dermatite atopique. La puissance des dermocorticoïdes et leur forme galénique sont adaptées à l'âge et à la localisation de lésions. En seconde intention, le tacrolimus topic (Protopic®, Takrozem®) est utilisé après l'âge de 2 ans, plus volontiers sur le visage et les plis, en traitement d'attaque et d'entretien. La prescription est réservée aux pédiatres et aux dermatologues. Les traitements systémiques (ciclosporine, photothérapie, autres immunosuppresseurs) sont exceptionnellement utilisés chez l'enfant. Leur prescription est réservée aux dermatologues. Le Dupilumab est la première biothérapie à avoir l'AMM dans la dermatite atopique. Elle est pour l'instant réservée aux adolescents et adultes. Atopic dermatitis is a chronic and complex pruritic inflammatory skin disease, common among children. There is a consistent association of atopic dermatitis with other atopic and allergic conditions including food allergy, asthma, atopic rhinitis and conjunctivitis, in a progression known as the atopic march. The impact on quality of life is significant and underestimated. Therefore, atopic dermatitis is not enough treated. Beliefs of patients, family and health care professionals decrease the compliance and encourage medical nomadism. Comprehensive care of the patient includes structured therapeutic education and need to be planned. Compounding factors such as food allergy, superinfection, psychological disturbance, allergic contact dermatitis must be taken into account. Infants with severe atopic dermatitis which are resistant to a well-conducted local treatment should be checked for food allergy. A treatment plan needs to be negotiated with the patient, age-adjusted, according to the severity of atopic dermatitis. The disease severity is mainly assessed by scores based on objective and subjective symptoms. Treatment of the flares is as important as long-term control. This needs to be clearly explained to the patient. Topical corticosteroids are important and effective anti-inflammatory drugs to be used in atopic dermatitis flares and have been successfully tested with a proactive approach to treating atopic dermatitis on long-term control basis. Vehicle and strength of topical corticosteroids is adapted on the invidual basis. Topical Tacrolimus is a second line drug treatment and can be use in the same way of topical corticosteroids during flares and remission after 2 years old. This drug is more efficient on the face and folds. Dupilumab is the first biologic to be used in atopic dermatitis with a good efficacy and an acceptable safety profile. Its use is for now restricted to adolescents and adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: A long‐term prospective observational safety study is essential to characterize fully the safety profile of systemic immunomodulating therapies for patients with atopic eczema. The TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce offers a large platform to conduct such research using national registries that collect the same data using a predefined core dataset. Objectives: To present a protocol for a safety study comparing dupilumab with other systemic immunomodulating therapies in children and adults with moderate‐to‐severe atopic eczema, to assess the long‐term safety risk of these therapies in a routine clinical care setting. Methods: We describe a registry‐embedded international observational prospective cohort study. Adult and paediatric patients who start treatment with dupilumab or another systemic immunomodulating agent for their atopic eczema will be included. The primary end point is the incidence of malignancies (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) compared between the treatment groups. Secondary end points include other serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest, such as eye disorders and eosinophilia. Conclusions: This protocol delineates a safety study for dupilumab in adult and paediatric patients with atopic eczema, using a standardized methodological approach across several national registries. The protocol could also be used for other novel systemic immunomodulating therapies, and could provide licensing and reimbursement authorities, pharmaceutical companies and clinicians with safety evidence from a routine clinical care setting. What's already known about this topic? There is a need for long‐term data on the safety of systemic immunomodulating therapies in patients with atopic eczema.Regulatory bodies, such as the European Medicines Agency, increasingly stipulate the collection of such data as part of the licensing agreement for new treatments, to assess the new agent's long‐term safety profile against established therapies.Large numbers of patients with a long duration of follow‐up are necessary in order to detect rare events like malignancies. What does this study add? The TREAT Registry Taskforce offers a platform to conduct such research with a network of multiple national atopic eczema research registries.We present a protocol for an investigator‐initiated multicentre safety study comparing dupilumab with other systemic immunomodulating therapies in adults and subsequently adolescents and children with moderate‐to‐severe atopic eczema.This protocol can be used as a framework for similar studies for other novel systemic immunomodulating therapies across both adult and paediatric populations. Plain language summary available online [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cross‐sectional data on patient burden in adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) from real‐world clinical practice are limited. Objective: This study compared patient‐reported burden associated with adult AD across severity levels from clinical practices in Canada and Europe. Methods: This study included adults (18–65 years) diagnosed with AD by dermatologists, general practitioners or allergists. Participants categorized as mild (n = 547; 37.3%), moderate (n = 520; 35.4%) or severe (n = 400; 27.3%) based on Investigator's Global Assessment completed a questionnaire that included pruritus and pain numerical rating scales, Patient‐Oriented‐Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (PO‐SCORAD) itch and sleep visual analogue scales, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Participants were also stratified by inadequate efficacy/intolerance/contraindication to cyclosporine [Cyclo; n = 62 (4 mild, 18 moderate, 40 severe)] and any systemic immunomodulatory agent [IMM; n = 104 (13 mild, 31 moderate, 60 severe)] and compared with the severe group excluding participants identified as Cyclo/IMM. Results: Age was similar across severity groups; the proportion of women was higher in the mild group relative to severe (61.2% vs. 50.5%; P < 0.001). Compared with moderate and mild, participants with severe AD had more comorbidities, higher itch and pain severity, worse sleep and higher levels of anxiety and depression (all P < 0.001). Mean ± SD DLQI score among participants with severe AD (16.2 ± 6.9) showed a large effect on quality of life that was higher than those with moderate (10.2 ± 6.3) and mild (5.5 ± 4.9) (both P < 0.001). The burden among Cyclo and IMM subgroups was generally similar to that of participants with severe AD. Conclusions: Adults with AD reported a substantial burden across multiple domains that was significantly higher in those with severe disease. The burden among participants in the Cyclo/IMM subgroups was similar to those with severe AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trials assessing dupilumab in atopic dermatitis (AD) showed transient eosinophilia in less than 2% of patients.1 The frequency of hypereosinophilia (HE), defined as eosinophil blood count (EBC) >=1500/mm SP 3 sp ,2 was higher (15.8%) in our previous real-life cohort of AD patients treated with dupilumab.3 Since symptomatic HE was reported in asthma trials, we aimed to assess the clinical impact of HE in AD patients receiving dupilumab. Dupilumab-associated hypereosinophilia in patients treated for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis Fifty-nine patients with HE were included among a total of 653 patients receiving dupilumab from 12 hospital centres (Table 1), allowing us to estimate a mean prevalence of HE under dupilumab of 9% {95% CI [7.0-11.6]}. [Extracted from the article]

Summary: Background: Comparative, 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. Objectives: To 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. Methods: Proposals 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. Results: A 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. Conclusions: This 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). Plain language summary available online Respond to this article [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common inflammatory skin disease that affects both children and adults, including a large number of adults of reproductive age. Several guidelines for the treatment of AD exist, yet specific recommendations for the treatment of pregnant or lactating women and for adults planning to have a child are often lacking. This position paper from the European Task force on Atopic Dermatitis (ETFAD) is based on up‐to‐date scientific literature on treating pregnant and lactating women as wells as adults with AD planning to have a child. It is based on the expert opinions of members of the ETFAD and on existing safety data on the proposed treatments, many of which are derived from patients with other inflammatory diseases or from transplantation medicine. For treating future parents, as well as pregnant and lactating women with AD, the use of topical treatments including moisturizers, topical corticosteroids, tacrolimus, antiseptics such as chlorhexidine, octenidine, potassium permanganate and sodium hypochlorite (bleach) is deemed to be safe. Ultraviolet (UV) therapy may also be used. Systemic treatment should be prescribed only after careful consideration. According to the opinion of the ETFAD, treatment should be restricted to systemic corticosteroids and cyclosporine A, and, in selected cases, azathioprine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: In the U.S.A., an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score of ≤ 1 (clear or almost clear skin) has been the standard measure in regulatory outcomes for registration clinical trials in atopic dermatitis (AD), including those supporting the recent approval of dupilumab. Objectives: To evaluate the treatment effect of dupilumab in patients with IGA > 1 at the end of treatment, using other validated outcome measures for AD signs, symptoms and quality of life. Methods: LIBERTY AD SOLO 1 and 2 were two 16‐week, randomized, double‐blind trials enrolling adult patients with moderate‐to‐severe AD (IGA ≥ 3) inadequately controlled with topical treatment. We performed a post hoc analysis in patients receiving dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) or placebo. Outcome measures in patients with IGA > 1 included Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), pruritus numerical rating scale (NRS), affected body surface area (BSA), Patient‐Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). The trials were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02277743 and NCT02277769. Results: At week 16, 278 of 449 dupilumab q2w‐treated patients (median age 36·0 years) and 396 of 443 placebo‐treated patients had IGA > 1. Among patients with IGA > 1 at week 16, dupilumab significantly improved several outcome measures compared with placebo: EASI (−48·9% vs. −11·3%, P < 0·001), pruritus NRS (−35·2% vs. −9·1%, P < 0·001), affected BSA (−23·1% vs. −4·5%, P < 0·001), POEM score ≥ 4‐point improvement (57·4% vs. 21·0%, P < 0·001) and DLQI score ≥ 4‐point improvement (59·3% vs. 24·4%, P < 0·001). Conclusions: In patients with IGA > 1 at week 16, dupilumab induced statistically significant benefits in multiple validated outcome measures compared with placebo. The IGA ≤ 1 end point significantly underestimates clinically relevant dupilumab treatment effects. What's already known about this topic? An Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear skin) is considered the regulatory standard for treatment success in trials of patients with atopic dermatitis in the U.S.A.It is currently unknown whether patients receiving dupilumab treatment for moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis derive clinical and quality‐of‐life benefit even if they have an end‐of‐treatment IGA score > 1. What's does this study add? This post hoc analysis of patients with an end‐of‐treatment IGA score > 1 from two randomized, placebo‐controlled trials showed that after 16 weeks of treatment dupilumab significantly improved their outcome measures compared with placebo, including measures of signs, symptoms and quality of life.These results show that the regulatory IGA ≤ 1 end point used in clinical trials significantly underestimates clinically relevant dupilumab treatment effects, underscoring potential limitations of the IGA scale. Linked Comment: de Bruin‐Weller. Br J Dermatol 2019; 181:12–13. Respond to this article [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Atopic eczema (also known as eczema) is a chronic, inflammatory skin condition that often afflicts patients' health and well‐being. The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative recommends that 'long‐term control of eczema' is measured in all clinical trials 3 months or longer in duration. However, little has been published on what eczema control means to those living with or treating atopic eczema. Objectives: To (i) develop understanding of what eczema control means to patients, carers and clinicians and (ii) explore the feasibility and acceptability of different ways of measuring eczema control in the long term. Methods: Online focus groups explored patients/carers experiences in the UK, the United States, the Netherlands, France, Sweden and Japan, and an international online survey gathered views of clinicians. The framework method was used to analyse the focus groups, and thematic analysis was used to analyse survey data. All findings were integrated into a theoretical framework to create overarching themes that cut across these diverse groups. Results: Eight focus groups with patients (16 years+) and eight groups with carers of children took place (N = 97). Sixty‐two people took part in the survey. Eczema control was described as a multifaceted construct involving changes in disease activity, the treatment and management of the condition and psychological, social and physical functioning. Patient/carer measurement allows personal accounts and frequent measurement, whilst clinician measurement was deemed less subjective. The burden on patients/carers and issues for analysing and interpreting data should be considered. Conclusions: This study formed the basis of judging the content validity and feasibility of measurement instruments/methods to assess control of eczema in clinical trials. This online approach to an international qualitative study is an example of how core outcome set developers with limited resources can engage with multiple stakeholder groups on an international basis to inform consensus meeting discussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: 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. What's already known about this topic? Evidence of photo‐ and systemic immunomodulatory therapies to guide clinical management for atopic eczema (AE) is scarce, despite frequent and often off‐label use.There is a need to gather long‐term, comparative and real‐life data on the effectiveness, safety and cost‐effectiveness of these therapies beyond the confines of short‐term randomized controlled trials, especially when new biological and small‐molecule therapies are entering clinical practice.Patient registries can provide valuable data to address these issues. What does this study add? By performing an international Delphi exercise, consensus was reached on a core set of domains and items to be captured by national AE patient registries.This core set will standardize data collection and thereby allow direct comparability across registries and facilitate data pooling between countries. What are the clinical implications of this work? Ultimately, this core set will provide greater insight into the effectiveness, safety and cost‐effectiveness of photo‐ and systemic immunomodulatory therapies.This may fill the current gaps of evidence and lead to new guidelines for daily clinical practice, and thereby may contribute to the improvement of the care of children and adults with AE. Respond to this article Plain language summary available online [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: There are gaps in our knowledge of the prevalence of adult atopic dermatitis (AD). Objective: To estimate the prevalence of AD in adults and by disease severity. Methods: This international, cross‐sectional, web‐based survey was performed in the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, and Japan. Adult members of online respondent panels were sent a questionnaire for AD identification and severity assessment; demographic quotas ensured population representativeness for each country. A diagnosis of AD required subjects to be positive on the modified UK Working Party/ISAAC criteria and self‐report of ever having an AD diagnosis by a physician. The proportion of subjects with AD who reported being treated for their condition was determined and also used to estimate prevalence. Severity scales were Patient‐Oriented SCORAD, Patient‐Orientated Eczema Measure, and Patient Global Assessment. Results: Among participants by region, the point prevalence of adult AD in the overall/treated populations was 4.9%/3.9% in the US, 3.5%/2.6% in Canada, 4.4%/3.5% in the EU, and 2.1%/1.5% in Japan. The prevalence was generally lower for males vs females, and decreased with age. Regional variability was observed within countries. Severity varied by scale and region; however, regardless of the scale or region, proportion of subjects reporting severe disease was lower than mild or moderate disease. Conclusions: Prevalence of adult AD ranged from 2.1% to 4.9% across countries. Severe AD represented a small proportion of the overall AD population regardless of measure or region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Résumé Les maladies allergiques sont en constante augmentation depuis quelques années. Avec le vieillissement de la population, les dépenses de santé vont s’accroître également. Le coût de la médecine curative, qui a considérablement été développée ces dernières décennies ne pourra plus être supporté demain. Ainsi les traitements de nombreuses maladies chroniques telles que les allergies doivent être reconsidérés. Les thérapies existantes telles que l’immunothérapie ne sont pas efficaces pour tous les types d’allergies et il n’existe aucun moyen validé de prévenir ces maladies. Les nouvelles stratégies thérapeutiques des maladies chroniques se focalisent aujourd’hui sur le développement de la médecine personnalisée ou médecine 4P (prédictive, préventive, personnalisée et participative). Ainsi, l’élaboration de vaccins ou encore d’aliment-santé à destination des populations à risque est en cours. Allergic diseases have been increasing constantly over the past few years. With the population aging, the rising cost of healthcare is inevitable. The increasing cost of curative medicine, which has developed considerably during recent decades, will no longer be accepted. Thus, the treatment of many chronic diseases, including allergies, must be reconsidered. Current treatments such as allergen immunotherapy are not effective enough for all the different types of allergies and no valid preventive treatment exists. New strategies for the treatment of chronic diseases are now being focused on the development of personalized medicine and on 4P (preventive, personalized, predictive, and participative) medicine. For instance, vaccines or health food products are currently being developed for populations at risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Atopic dermatitis ( AD) is a clinically defined, highly pruritic, chronic inflammatory skin disease of children and adults. The diagnosis is made using evaluated clinical criteria. Disease activity is best measured with a composite score assessing both objective signs and subjective symptoms, such as SCORAD. The management of AD must consider the clinical and pathogenic variabilities of the disease and also target flare prevention. Basic therapy includes hydrating topical treatment, as well as avoidance of specific and unspecific provocation factors. Anti-inflammatory treatment of visible skin lesions is based on topical glucocorticosteroids and the topical calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and pimecrolimus. Topical calcineurin inhibitors are preferred in sensitive locations. Tacrolimus and mid-potent steroids are proven for proactive therapy, which is long-term intermittent anti-inflammatory therapy of the frequently relapsing skin areas. Systemic anti-inflammatory or immunosuppressive treatment is indicated for severe refractory cases. Biologicals targeting key mechanisms of the atopic immune response are promising emerging treatment options. Microbial colonization and superinfection may induce disease exacerbation and can justify additional antimicrobial treatment. Systemic antihistamines (H1R-blockers) may diminish pruritus, but do not have sufficient effect on lesions. Adjuvant therapy includes UV irradiation, preferably UVA1 or narrow-band UVB 311 nm. Dietary recommendations should be patient specific and elimination diets should only be advised in case of proven food allergy. Allergen-specific immunotherapy to aeroallergens may be useful in selected cases. Psychosomatic counselling is recommended to address stress-induced exacerbations. 'Eczema school' educational programmes have been proven to be helpful for children and adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background It is not yet known whether the risk of developing atopic dermatitis ( AD) is influenced by preterm birth. Moreover, AD risk has not been assessed in a large sample of extremely preterm infants (< 29 weeks' gestation). Objectives To determine whether the risk of AD is influenced by preterm birth. Methods We investigated the relationship between gestational age ( GA) and AD using data from two independent population-based cohorts, including a total of 2329 preterm infants, of whom 479 were born extremely preterm. Results There was a lower percentage of children with AD in the extremely preterm group compared with those born at a greater GA (Epipage cohort, 2-year outcome: 13·3% for 24-28 weeks, 17·6% for 29-32 weeks, 21·8% for 33-34 weeks, P = 0·02; LIFT cohort, 5-year outcome: 11% for 24-28 weeks, 21·5% for 29-32 weeks, 19·6% for 33-34 weeks, P = 0·11). After adjusting for confounding variables, a lower GA (< 29 weeks) was significantly associated with decreased risk of AD in the Epipage cohort [adjusted odds ratio ( aOR) 0·57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·37-0·87; P = 0·009] and the LIFT cohort ( aOR 0·41, 95% CI 0·18-0·90; P = 0·03). Conclusions Very low GA (< 29 weeks) was associated with a lower risk of AD compared with higher GA (29-34 weeks) and full-term birth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is a paucity of evidence for the use of systemic agents in children with atopic eczema refractory to conventional therapy, resulting in considerable variation in patient management. Objectives The European TREatment of severe Atopic eczema in children Taskforce ( TREAT) survey was established to collect data on current prescribing practice, to identify factors influencing the use of specific systemic agents, and to inform the design of a clinically relevant intervention study. Methods Consultant physician members of the paediatric dermatology societies and interest groups of eight European countries were invited to participate in a web-based survey. The multiple-response format questionnaire collated data on clinical practice in general, as well as detailed information on the use of systemic agents in refractory paediatric atopic eczema. Results In total, 343/765 members (44·8%) responded to the invitational emails; 89·2% were dermatologists and 71% initiate systemic immunosuppression for children with severe atopic eczema. The first-line drugs of choice were ciclosporin (43·0%), oral corticosteroids (30·7%) and azathioprine (21·7%). Ciclosporin was also the most commonly used second-line medication (33·6%), with methotrexate ranked as most popular third choice (26·2%). Around half of the respondents (53·7%) replied that they routinely test and treat reservoirs of cutaneous infection prior to starting systemic treatment. Across the eight countries, penicillins were the first-line antibiotic of choice (78·3%). Conclusions In the absence of a clear evidence base, the European TREAT survey confirms the wide variation in prescribing practice of systemic immunosuppression in refractory paediatric atopic eczema. The results will be used to inform the design of a randomized controlled trial relevant to patient management across Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis statement on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) infection and atopic dermatitis Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a complex disease with elevated risk of respiratory comorbidities.[[1]] Severely affected patients are often treated with immune-modulating systemic drugs.[[3]] On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the 2019 novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-Cov-2) epidemic to be a pandemic. If systemic treatment of AD needs to be paused, patients should be supplied with ample topical therapy and guidance on the amount needed to prevent flares until systemic therapy can be reinstated. [Extracted from the article]

Summary: Atopic eczema (also called 'atopic dermatitis' or just 'eczema') is a common skin disease. Most people with atopic eczema can control their eczema with topical therapies (applied directly to the skin) such as emollients and topical corticosteroids. Some people, however, have moderate‐to‐severe disease that cannot be well managed with those therapies. Systemic therapy (acting on the whole body), with tablets or injections, is needed in these people to improve their symptoms effectively. Dupilumab is a new systemic medication (since 2018) for treating people with moderate‐to‐severe eczema. It has been approved both in the U.S.A. and the E.U. for people who are 12 years or older. In order to compare the safety of dupilumab with other systemic therapies, researchers need data on the safety of all those medications in real practice. The registries of the TREAT Registry Taskforce collect data on both the effectiveness and safety of all systemic therapies for atopic eczema. Countries such as the U.K., Ireland, the U.S.A., Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal are participating in TREAT. All those countries collect data the same way, so that the data are comparable. This article describes a protocol on how to use all these international data to compare the safety of dupilumab with other systemic treatments. This is important both for physicians and patients, to allow them to make informed decisions on which treatment is best for them. This is a summary of the study: TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce: protocol for a European safety study of dupilumab and other systemic therapies in patients with atopic eczema Linked Article: Bosma et al. Br J Dermatol 2020; 182:1423–1429 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Moderate‐to‐severe atopic eczema (AE) is often treated with phototherapy (light treatment) or systemic therapy (medication that works throughout the whole body). Long‐term data on effectiveness and safety of these treatments is currently missing. To address this issue, data on paediatric and adult patients who use or used these treatments in a real‐life setting should be collected in national research registries. Ideally, these national registries should be compatible, so that data can be combined and analysed from as many patients as possible (which is needed to find rare side‐effects, for example). Therefore, every country needs to collect the same data in the same way. For this purpose the international TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce has been established. It has already standardised which items need to be measured (e.g. disease severity, side effects). This study addresses the two remaining issues: how and when to measure these items. To determine how to measure the items (i.e. which measurement instruments to use), the authors used the recommendations from the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative, relevant literature (published scientific studies), an already existing AE registry in Germany, and expert opinions. The proposals were discussed at multiple meetings and via email. This resulted in agreement (consensus) on how to measure the already standardised item‐set. The issue of when to measure the items, the follow‐up frequency, was resolved with an online survey. Consensus was reached on a minimum follow‐up frequency of 4 weeks after starting treatment, then every 3 months whilst on treatment and every 6 months whilst off treatment. A complete core dataset is now available that will help with the standardised collection of data of paediatric and adult AE patients on photo‐ and systemic therapies. This will help, in time, answer questions on the long‐term effectiveness and safety of these treatments and improve care for moderate‐to‐severe AE patients. Linked Article: Vermeulen et al. Br J Dermatol 2019; 181:492–504 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Atopic eczema (AE) is sometimes severe enough to need strong medicines, but there is not much information available to help doctors select the right treatment. Published trials of different drugs are difficult to assess because they include carefully selected patients and measure responses in different ways. Data from patients actually using these drugs outside of research trials, collected in a registry, could provide a much better picture of long‐term, real‐life experience, but only if everyone reports their observations in the same terms ("outcome measures"). In this study the international TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce conducted an online exercise to agree a minimum set of variables that should be measured and reported to AE registries. An initial list of 119 possible items was sent to 479 participants in 36 countries: mostly doctors but also nurses, researchers, patients, industry and regulatory body representatives; 86% responded, rating each item from 0 (not important) to 9 (critical). The list was whittled down through two further rounds; after each round, a summary of the responses was fed back and participants were invited to either keep or change their original answers. Finally, 42 participants attended a consensus meeting and agreed a core set of 49 baseline items and 20 follow‐up items. Hopefully standardising outcome measures in future trials will fill the current gaps of evidence and improve the care of people with AE. However, as the accompanying editorial points out, agreeing outcome measures is only one of many challenges in developing effective registries. Linked Article: Gerbens et al. Br J Dermatol 2019; 180:790–801 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors reflect on the need to validate eczema diagnosis to improve the reliability of epidemiological studies. They reference the article "Assessment of atopic dermatitis using self-report and caregiver report: a multicentre validation study" by JI Silverberg and colleagues which appeared within the issue.

The article comments on a study by C. H. Lin and colleagues which investigated the link between atopic dermatitis (AD) and type 1 diabetes (T1DM). Topics discussed include the higher incidence of AD in patients with T1DM, the use of Cox proportional hazards regression model to analyze AD risk, and the possibility of the existence of different endophenotypes within the AD and T1DM spectrum.

Résumé La dermatite atopique (DA) de l’adulte est une maladie fréquente dont la prévalence a considérablement augmenté ces dernières décennies dans les pays industrialisés. Elle peut s’associer à d’autres manifestations atopiques. Son impact sur la qualité de vie des patients est souvent sous-estimé. Les mécanismes physiopathologiques à l’œuvre dans la DA sont multiples : anomalie fonctionnelle innée de la barrière cutanée liée en partie à des mutations du gène de la filaggrine, protéine structurale majeure de l’épiderme ; anomalie de l’immunité innée et adaptative avec un profil de réponse de type Th2 à la phase aiguë et de type Th1 à la phase chronique ; dysbiose des microbiomes intestinaux et cutanés ; facteurs environnementaux. Le diagnostic de DA est clinique et il n’existe aucun biomarqueur prédictif de la sévérité ou de l’évolution de la maladie. Les principaux diagnostics différentiels à évoquer sont la gale, le psoriasis, une toxidermie, un eczéma de contact, un lymphome cutané T épidermotrope, un déficit immunitaire primitif et un syndrome de Netherton. La prise en charge thérapeutique est difficile et doit intégrer un programme d’éducation thérapeutique. Elle fait appel en première intention aux dermocorticoïdes, en prenant soin de dépister une éventuelle corticophobie. Les indications des immunosuppresseurs systémiques sont rares et relèvent d’équipes spécialisées. Le dupilumab (anti-IL4/IL13) pourrait être la première thérapie ciblée efficace dans la DA. Les thérapies ciblant spécifiquement les mécanismes du prurit représentent une perspective thérapeutique séduisante. Atopic dermatitis (AD) of the adult is a common skin disease. Its prevalence has greatly increased during the past decades. AD is commonly associated with other atopic disorders. Its impact on quality of life is often underestimated. Various immunopathologic mechanisms are involved in AD: innate epidermal barrier dysfunction due to filaggrin gene mutations, innate and adaptative abnormalities of the immune system (an initial Th2 phase precedes a chronic Th1 phase), intestinal and cutaneous microbiomes dysbiosis, and environmental factors. Diagnosis of AD is clinical and there is no predictive biomarker of future severity. The main differential diagnoses are: scabies, psoriasis, cutaneous adverse reaction, cutaneous T cell lymphoma, primary immunodeficiency, and Netherton's syndrome. Therapeutic management is challenging and should integrate a therapeutic education program. Topical corticosteroids are the first line treatment, including a preliminary assessment of possible topical corticosteroids phobia. Systemic treatments are recommended in severe, chronic and resistant AD, after careful evaluation in a reference centre. Dupilumab, an IL4/IL13 inhibitor, might be the first effective targeted therapy in AD, whereas therapies that specifically target the mechanisms of pruritus represent an exciting perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]