Search

Importance: Outcome measurement is an essential component of value-based health care and can aid patient care, quality improvement, and clinical effectiveness evidence generation. The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema Clinical Practice initiative aims to identify a list of validated, feasible, outcome measurement instruments recommended to measure atopic dermatitis (AD) in the clinical practice setting. The clinical practice set is a list of instruments that clinicians can pick and choose from to suit their needs in the context of clinical care., Objective: To recommend instruments to measure clinical signs of AD in clinical practice., Evidence Review: Following the predefined roadmap, a mixed methods design was implemented and incorporated systematic reviews and qualitative consensus methods. Previous systematic reviews identified few clinical signs instruments with sufficient validation for recommendation. An updated systematic review evaluating the validity of clinical signs instruments informed an international meeting to reach consensus on recommended instruments to measure AD clinical signs in clinical practice. Consensus was defined as less than 30% disagreement. An in-person consensus exercise was held in Montreal, Canada, on October 16, 2022. The 34 attendees included patient and patient advocate research partners, health care professionals, researchers, methodologists, and industry representatives., Findings: The updated systematic review found that the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Scoring Atopic Dermatitis, and objective Scoring Atopic Dermatitis were the only instruments that demonstrated sufficient performance in all assessed measurement properties. The modified EASI and Signs Global Assessment × Body Surface Area instruments were also recommended. The EASI, Validated Investigator Global Assessment, and Investigator's Global Assessment multiplied by or measured concurrently with a body surface area measure achieved consensus in criteria and were adopted., Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus statement by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema initiative suggests that when assessing and documenting clinical signs of AD, there are several valid and feasible instruments that can best fit a clinician's specific practice needs. These instruments should improve and standardize the documentation of signs severity, help determine the effect of treatment, facilitate the generation of clinical effectiveness evidence, and enhance the implementation of value-based health care.

More severe atopic dermatitis and psoriasis are associated with a higher cumulative impact on quality of life, multimorbidity and healthcare costs. Proactive, early intervention in those most at risk of severe disease may reduce this cumulative burden and modify the disease trajectory to limit progression. The lack of reliable biomarkers for this at-risk group represents a barrier to such a paradigm shift in practice. To expedite discovery and validation, the BIOMarkers in Atopic Dermatitis and Psoriasis (BIOMAP) consortium (a large-scale European, interdisciplinary research initiative) has curated clinical and molecular data across diverse study designs and sources including cross-sectional and cohort studies (small-scale studies through to large multicentre registries), clinical trials, electronic health records and large-scale population-based biobanks. We map all dataset disease severity instruments and measures to three key domains (symptoms, inflammatory activity and disease course), and describe important codependencies and relationships across variables and domains. We prioritize definitions for more severe disease with reference to international consensus, reference standards and/or expert opinion. Key factors to consider when analysing datasets across these diverse study types include explicit early consideration of biomarker purpose and clinical context, candidate biomarkers associated with disease severity at a particular point in time and over time and how they are related, taking the stage of biomarker development into account when selecting disease severity measures for analyses, and validating biomarker associations with disease severity outcomes using both physician- and patient-reported measures and across domains. The outputs from this exercise will ensure coherence and focus across the BIOMAP consortium so that mechanistic insights and biomarkers are clinically relevant, patient-centric and more generalizable to current and future research efforts., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest S.M.L. has received funding from a Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship in Clinical Science (205039/Z/16/Z). A.E. has received research funding from Almirall, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, the Danish National Psoriasis Foundation, the Simon Spies Foundation and the Kgl Hofbundtmager Aage Bang Foundation, and honoraria as consultant and/or speaker from Amgen, AbbVie, Almirall, LEO Pharma, Zuellig Pharma Ltd., Galapagos NV, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd., Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Union Therapeutics, Galderma, Dermavant, UCB, Mylan, Bristol Myers Squibb, McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Horizon Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. E.d.J. has received research grants for the department of dermatology of Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen from AbbVie, BMS, Janssen Pharmaceutica, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, ZonMw, KCE, NWO, the National Psoriasis Foundation USA and Horizon 2020 European funding (Immuniverse). She has acted as consultant and/or paid speaker for and/or participated in research sponsored by companies that manufacture drugs used for the treatment of psoriasis or eczema including AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galapagos, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Lilly, Novartis, LEO Pharma, Sanofi and UCB. All funding is not personal but goes to the Institution Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen. M.A.M.-H. has carried out consultancy for Sanofi, Pfizer and LEO Pharma and is one of the main investigators of the TREAT NL registry. A.B. reports multiple grants from H2020 and HEurope with various industry partners. L.S. reports grants from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Almirall, the Danish National Psoriasis Foundation and the LEO Foundation and honoraria as consultant and/or speaker for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, Janssen, UCB, Almirall, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galderma and Sanofi. S.K.M. has received research funding (but no personal payments) from Wellcome Trust, British Skin Foundation, European Lead Factory EU/IMI (multiple pharma participants), Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust, Rosetrees Trust, Stoneygate Trust, anonymous donations from people with eczema, Pfizer, AbbVie, Sosei Heptares, Janssen and Unilever. J.N.B. has received honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Samsung and Sun Pharma. C.H.S. reports grants from an MRC-funded stratified medicine consortium with multiple industry partners, grants from IMI (Horizon 2020-funded) European consortium with multiple industry partners, and other funding from AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim and SOBI, outside the submitted work, and is Chair of UK guidelines on biologic therapy in psoriasis., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

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., (© 2023 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

This publication is an update of the "Consensus on the therapeutic management of atopic dermatitis - Brazilian Society of Dermatology" published in 2019, considering the novel, targeted-oriented systemic therapies for atopic dermatitis. The initial recommendations of the current consensus for systemic treatment of patients with atopic dermatitis were based on a recent review of scientific published data and a consensus was reached after voting. The Brazilian Society of Dermatology invited 31 experts from all regions of Brazil and 2 international experts on atopic dermatitis who fully contributed to the process. The methods included an e-Delphi study to avoid bias, a literature search and a final consensus meeting. The authors added novel approved drugs in Brazil and the indication for phototherapy and systemic therapy for AD. The therapeutical response to systemic treatment is hereby reported in a suitable form for clinical practice and is also part of this updated manuscript., (Copyright © 2023 Sociedade Brasileira de Dermatologia. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Measuring outcomes in clinical practice can aid patient care, quality improvement, and real-world evidence generation. The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) Clinical Practice initiative is developing a list of validated, feasible instruments to measure atopic eczema in clinical care. Prior work identified symptoms and long-term control as the most important domains to measure in clinical practice. The Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) and the Patient-Oriented Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Index (PO-SCORAD) were recommended by consensus to measure symptoms in clinical practice, but a need for instruments to measure itch intensity specifically was recognized. The HOME group also previously decided that long-term control should be captured by repeated measurements of eczema control. Recommended instruments to measure eczema control in clinical practice have not been defined., Objective: To recommend instruments to measure eczema control and itch intensity in patients with atopic eczema in clinical practice., Evidence Review: Available instruments to measure eczema control and itch intensity were identified through systematic reviews, informing a consensus process held at the HOME VIII virtual online meeting (October 6 and October 9, 2020). Feasibility aspects were highlighted to optimize instrument selection for the clinical practice. Consensus on an instrument was reached if fewer than 30% of the voters disagreed., Findings: Of 7 identified instruments, the Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP) and Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) were the recommended instruments to measure eczema control (3 of 63 [5%] and 7 of 69 [10%] of voters disagreed, respectively). A single-question patient global assessment garnered support, but the current available instrument did not reach consensus. Six available itch-intensity instruments were identified. Of them, 3 instruments were recommended by consensus: a peak 24-hour numeric rating scale (NRS)-itch, and 1-week NRS-itch instruments from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Itch Questionnaire, measuring average and peak itch (11 of 63 [17%], 14 of 63 [22%], and 16 of 59 [27%] voters disagreed, respectively)., Conclusions and Relevance: Clinicians and patients are encouraged to incorporate these well-validated, quick-to-perform, and easy-to-use instruments into their clinic, selecting the instruments that best fit their need. These assessments are meant to enhance, not replace, the patient-clinician encounter, and to support real-world research and health care improvement.