Search

Background: Atopic eczema is a common childhood skin problem linked with asthma, food allergy and allergic rhinitis that impairs quality of life., Objectives: To determine whether advising parents to apply daily emollients in the first year can prevent eczema and/or other atopic diseases in high-risk children., Design: A United Kingdom, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled prevention trial with follow-up to 5 years., Setting: Twelve secondary and four primary care centres., Participants: Healthy infants (at least 37 weeks' gestation) at high risk of developing eczema, screened and consented during the third trimester or post delivery., Interventions: Infants were randomised (1 : 1) within 21 days of birth to apply emollient (Doublebase Gel®; Dermal Laboratories Ltd, Hitchin, UK or Diprobase Cream®) daily to the whole body (excluding scalp) for the first year, plus standard skin-care advice (emollient group) or standard skin-care advice only (control group). Families were not blinded to allocation., Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was eczema diagnosis in the last year at age 2 years, as defined by the UK Working Party refinement of the Hanifin and Rajka diagnostic criteria, assessed by research nurses blinded to allocation. Secondary outcomes up to age 2 years included other eczema definitions, time to onset and severity of eczema, allergic rhinitis, wheezing, allergic sensitisation, food allergy, safety (skin infections and slippages) and cost-effectiveness., Results: One thousand three hundred and ninety-four newborns were randomised between November 2014 and November 2016; 693 emollient and 701 control. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466/532), 82% (427/519) and 74% (375/506) at 3, 6 and 12 months. At 2 years, eczema was present in 139/598 (23%) in the emollient group and 150/612 (25%) in controls (adjusted relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.16; p = 0.61 and adjusted risk difference -1.2%, 95% confidence interval -5.9% to 3.6%). Other eczema definitions supported the primary analysis. Food allergy (milk, egg, peanut) was present in 41/547 (7.5%) in the emollient group versus 29/568 (5.1%) in controls (adjusted relative risk 1.47, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 2.33). Mean number of skin infections per child in the first year was 0.23 (standard deviation 0.68) in the emollient group versus 0.15 (standard deviation 0.46) in controls; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.09. The adjusted incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema at 2 years was £5337 (£7281 unadjusted). No difference between the groups in eczema or other atopic diseases was observed during follow-up to age 5 years via parental questionnaires., Limitations: Two emollient types were used which could have had different effects. The median time for starting emollients was 11 days after birth. Some contamination occurred in the control group (< 20%). Participating families were unblinded and reported on some outcomes., Conclusions: We found no evidence that daily emollient during the first year of life prevents eczema in high-risk children. Emollient use was associated with a higher risk of skin infections and a possible increase in food allergy. Emollient use is unlikely to be considered cost-effective in this context., Future Research: To pool similar studies in an individual patient data meta-analysis., Trial Registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN21528841., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/67/12) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 29. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background: Bathing babies less frequently and intensively in the first six months of life may prevent eczema, but this has not yet been definitively tested in a randomised controlled trial. Such a trial would require evidence-based support to help parents engage with a minimal bathing routine. The present study reports the development of this support., Methods: We adopted a four-stage design process: (i) Pregnant women and their families (n = 31) were interviewed to ascertain key barriers and facilitators towards following the minimal bathing intervention. (ii) These barriers and facilitators were mapped to behaviour change techniques, focussing on the intervention types of education, persuasion and environmental restructuring, alongside appropriate modes of delivery, and prototype intervention materials were developed. (iii) We iteratively refined these materials in a workshop with multidisciplinary experts and Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) representatives (n = 13) and an (iv) intervention walkthrough with families (n = 5). The design process was informed by the Behaviour Change Wheel, Theoretical framework of acceptability and the Template for intervention description and replication., Results: Social influences and motivational factors are likely to influence both uptake and adherence to the intervention. Anticipated emotional reward from participating in research for the benefit of others was indicated to be a strong facilitator for intervention uptake. Alternatives to bathing, having fun with the baby and the night-time routine, alongside family support, were notable facilitators suggested to aid adherence to the intervention. Barriers included hygiene concerns and anticipated negative social appraisal. Barriers and facilitators were mapped to thirty-six behaviour change techniques, focussing on the intervention types of education, persuasion and environmental restructuring, all of which were embedded into the package of support. The prototype intervention materials received positive feedback from the expert workshop and study walkthrough with families. The final package of support comprises printed and digital prompts and cues, a study booklet, video, and digital tool for self-monitoring., Conclusions: The intervention design process incorporated the 'real world' views and experiences of families, experts and PPIE representatives, alongside criteria for designing behavioural interventions. The effectiveness of the package of support will be tested in a feasibility trial and embedded process evaluation., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Goldsmith et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) are evaluated primarily in placebo-controlled trials with binary efficacy outcomes. In a living systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), we previously analysed continuous efficacy measures., Objectives: To compare binary efficacy outcomes of systemic treatments for AD., Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information (LILACS) database, Global Resource for Eczema Trials (GREAT) database and trial registries up to 1 March 2023. We included randomized trials examining ≥ 8 weeks of treatment with systemic immunomodulatory medications for moderate-to-severe AD. We screened titles, abstracts and full texts and abstracted data independently, in duplicate. Outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving at least 50%, 75% and 90% improvements in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 50, EASI 75 and EASI 90, respectively) and Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) success. We performed random-effects Bayesian NMAs to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) between each intervention for each outcome., Results: Eighty-three trials with 22 122 participants were included in the systematic review. In analyses limited to trials of 8-16 weeks' duration with predominantly adult populations, abrocitinib 200 mg daily (OR 1.5, 95% CrI 1.1-2.2) and upadacitinib 15 mg daily (OR 1.7, 95% CrI 0.9-3.3) and 30 mg daily (OR 2.5, 95% CrI 1.3-5.0) were associated with higher odds of achieving EASI 50 vs. dupilumab. Abrocitinib 100 mg daily (OR 0.7, 95% CrI 0.5-1.0), baricitinib 2 mg daily (OR 0.4, 95% CrI 0.3-0.5) and 4 mg daily (OR 0.5, 95% CrI 0.3-0.7), and tralokinumab (OR 0.4, 95% CrI 0.3-0.6) were associated with lower odds of achieving EASI 50 vs. dupilumab. Results were similar for EASI 75, EASI 90 and IGA success., Conclusions: Supporting results for continuous outcome measures, upadacitinib 30 mg daily and abrocitinib 200 mg daily are the most efficacious with regard to binary efficacy endpoints up to 16 weeks in adults with moderate-to-severe AD, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg daily, dupilumab and abrocitinib 100 mg daily. Dupilumab and both doses of upadacitinib and abrocitinib are more efficacious than baricitinib 4 and 2 mg daily and tralokinumab., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interests A.M.D. has received compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology (Section Editor), American Academy of Dermatology (guidelines writer), National Eczema Association (grant reviewer) and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (consultant); and has received research grants to his institution from the National Eczema Association, Eczema Society of Canada, Canadian Dermatology Foundation, Canadian Institutes for Health Research, US National Institutes of Health and Physicians Services Incorporated Foundation. A.G.E. is an employee of Stratevi, a healthcare consultancy that receives financial compensation from numerous pharmaceutical companies; Stratevi was not involved with the submitted work. Z.Z.N.Y. is an Associate Editor for the British Journal of Dermatology. B.W.M.A. is a Patient Associate Editor for the British Journal of Dermatology. P.I.S. has consulted for Sanofi and AbbVie (unpaid), was Principal Investigator (PI) of the Methotrexate vs. Azathioprine for severe Atopic Dermatitis (MAcAD) study, received departmental independent research grants for the TREAT NL registry, for which she is Chief Investigator (CI), from pharma companies since December 2019, and is involved in performing clinical trials with Sanofi, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis, Leo Pharma and Galderma, for which financial compensation is paid to the department/hospital. J.S. received institutional funding for investigator-initiated trials from Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer and ALK; has received fees for consulting from Novartis and Pfizer; and is co-PI of the German national AD registry TREATgermany, which is funded by Sanofi Aventis Deutschland, Galderma, LEO Pharma and Lilly Deutschland. C.F. is CI of the UK National Institute for Health Research-funded TREAT (ISRCTN15837754) and SOFTER (NCT03270566) trials, as well as the UK–Irish Atopic eczema Systemic Therapy Register (A-STAR; ISRCTN11210918) and a PI in the European Union (EU) Horizon 2020-funded BIOMAP Consortium (http://www.biomap-imi.eu/). He also leads the EU Trans-Foods consortium. His department has received funding from Sanofi-Genzyme and Pfizer for skin microbiome work. He has also received compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology (Section Editor) and EuroGuiDerm (guidelines lead). M.L., R.E., D.P.-M., R.M., T.B. and B.R. declare no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Treat-to-target (T2T) is a pragmatic therapeutic strategy being gradually introduced into dermatology after adoption in several other clinical areas. Atopic dermatitis (AD), one of the most common inflammatory skin diseases, may also benefit from this structured and practical therapeutic approach. We aimed to evaluate existing data regarding the T2T approach in dermatology, with a specific focus on AD, as well as the views of International Eczema Council (IEC) members on the potential application of a T2T approach to AD management. To do so, we systematically searched for peer-reviewed publications on the T2T approach for any skin disease in the PubMed and Scopus databases up to February 2022 and conducted a survey among IEC members regarding various components to potentially include in a T2T approach in AD. We identified 21 relevant T2T-related reports in dermatology, of which 14 were related to psoriasis, five to AD, one for juvenile dermatomyositis and one for urticaria. In the IEC member survey, respondents proposed treatable traits (with itch, disease severity and sleep problems getting the highest scores), relevant comorbidities (with asthma being selected most commonly, followed by anxiety and depression in adults), recommended specialists that should define the approach in AD (dermatologists, allergists and primary care physicians were most commonly selected in adults), and applicable assessment tools (both physician- and patient-reported), in both adult and paediatric patients, for potential future utilization of the T2T approach in AD. In conclusion, while the T2T approach may become a useful tool to simplify therapeutic goals and AD management, its foundation in AD is only starting to build. A multidisciplinary approach, including a wide range of stakeholders, including patients, is needed to further define the essential components needed to utilize T2T in AD., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: Recent discoveries have led to the suggestion that enhancing skin barrier from birth might prevent eczema and food allergy., Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of daily all-over-body application of emollient during the first year of life for preventing atopic eczema in high-risk children at 2 years from a health service perspective. We also considered a 5-year time horizon as a sensitivity analysis., Methods: A within-trial economic evaluation using data on health resource use and quality of life captured as part of the BEEP trial alongside the trial data. Parents/carers of 1394 infants born to families at high risk of atopic disease were randomised 1:1 to the emollient group, which were advised to apply emollient (Doublebase Gel or Diprobase Cream) to their child at least once daily to the whole body during the first year of life or usual care. Both groups received advice on general skin care. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema in the primary cost-effectiveness analysis. Secondary analysis, undertaken as a cost-utility analysis, reports incremental cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) where child utility was elicited using the proxy CHU-9D at 2 years., Results: At 2 years, the adjusted incremental cost was £87.45 (95% CI -54.31, 229.27) per participant, whilst the adjusted proportion without eczema was 0.0164 (95% CI -0.0329, 0.0656). The ICER was £5337 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. Adjusted incremental QALYs were very slightly improved in the emollient group, 0.0010 (95% CI -0.0069, 0.0089). At 5 years, adjusted incremental costs were lower for the emollient group, -£106.89 (95% CI -354.66, 140.88) and the proportion without eczema was -0.0329 (95% CI -0.0659, 0.0002). The 5-year ICER was £3201 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. However, when inpatient costs due to wheezing were excluded, incremental costs were lower and incremental effects greater in the usual care group., Conclusions: In line with effectiveness endpoints, advice given in the BEEP trial to apply daily emollient during infancy for eczema prevention in high-risk children does not appear cost-effective., (© 2023 The Authors. Clinical & Experimental Allergy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: see Appendix S1.

Importance: Safe and effective long-term treatments for adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) are limited., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of interleukin-13-targeted treatment with tralokinumab monotherapy in adolescents with AD., Design, Setting, and Participants: The 52-week, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 ECZTRA 6 trial was conducted from July 17, 2018, through March 16, 2021, at 72 centers across 10 countries in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Enrolled patients were 12 to 17 years old with moderate to severe AD (Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] score ≥3; Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI] ≥16)., Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to tralokinumab (150 or 300 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks for 16 weeks. Patients with an IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) and/or 75% or higher improvement in EASI (EASI 75) at week 16 without rescue medication received maintenance treatment; other patients switched to open-label tralokinumab, 300 mg, every 2 weeks., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points at week 16 were an IGA score of 0 or 1 and/or achieving EASI 75. Key secondary end points were a reduction of Adolescent Worst Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale of 4 or more, change in SCORing AD, and change in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index from baseline to week 16. Safety end points were the number of adverse events and serious adverse events., Results: Of 301 patients randomized, 289 comprised the full analysis set (median [IQR] age, 15.0 [13.0-16.0] years; 149 [51.6%] male). More patients receiving tralokinumab, 150 mg, (n = 98), and tralokinumab, 300 mg (n = 97), achieved an IGA score of 0 or 1 without rescue medication at week 16 (21 [21.4%] and 17 [17.5%], respectively) vs placebo (n = 94; 4 [4.3%]) (adjusted difference, 17.5% [95% CI, 8.4%-26.6%]; P < .001 and 13.8% [95% CI, 5.3%-22.3%]; P = .002, respectively). More patients receiving tralokinumab, 150 mg (28 [28.6%]), and tralokinumab, 300 mg, (27 [27.8%]) vs placebo (6 [6.4%]) achieved EASI 75 without rescue at week 16 (adjusted difference, 22.5% [95% CI, 12.4%-32.6%]; P < .001 and 22.0% [95% CI, 12.0%-32.0%]; P < .001, respectively). Proportions of patients with Adolescent Worst Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale reduction of 4 or more from baseline were greater with tralokinumab, 150 mg (23.2%), and tralokinumab, 300 (25.0%), vs placebo (3.3%), and adjusted mean changes were greater in SCORing AD with tralokinumab, 150 mg (-27.5), and tralokinumab, 300 mg (-29.1), vs placebo (-9.5) and in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index with tralokinumab, 150 mg (-6.1), and tralokinumab, 300 mg (-6.7), vs placebo (-4.1) at week 16. At week 52, tralokinumab efficacy was maintained without rescue in more than 50% of patients meeting primary end point(s) at week 16. In the open-label phase, IGA score of 0 or 1 and EASI 75 were achieved in 33.3% and 57.8%, respectively, at week 52. Tralokinumab was well tolerated, without frequency of conjunctivitis increasing through week 52., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, tralokinumab was efficacious and well tolerated, supporting its value for treating adolescents with moderate to severe AD., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03526861.

Background: The effectiveness of emollients for preventing atopic dermatitis/eczema is controversial. The Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention trial evaluated the effects of daily emollients during the first year of life on atopic dermatitis and atopic conditions to age 5 years., Methods: 1394 term infants with a family history of atopic disease were randomized (1:1) to daily emollient plus standard skin-care advice (693 emollient group) or standard skin-care advice alone (701 controls). Long-term follow-up at ages 3, 4 and 5 years was via parental questionnaires. Main outcomes were parental report of a clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis and food allergy., Results: Parents reported more frequent moisturizer application in the emollient group through to 5 years. A clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis between 12 and 60 months was reported for 188/608 (31%) in the emollient group and 178/631 (28%) in the control group (adjusted relative risk 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.30). Although more parents in the emollient group reported food reactions in the previous year at 3 and 4 years, cumulative incidence of doctor-diagnosed food allergy by 5 years was similar between groups (92/609 [15%] emollients and 87/632 [14%] controls, adjusted relative risk 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.45). Findings were similar for cumulative incidence of asthma and hay fever., Conclusions: Daily emollient application during the first year of life does not prevent atopic dermatitis, food allergy, asthma or hay fever., (© 2022 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce is a collaborative international network of registries collecting data of atopic eczema (AE) patients receiving systemic and phototherapy with the common goal to provide long-term real-world data on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of therapies. A core dataset, consisting of domains and domain items with corresponding measurement instruments, has been developed to harmonize data collection., Objectives: We aimed to give an overview of the status and characteristics of the eight established TREAT registries, and to perform a mapping exercise to examine the degree of overlap and pooling ability between the national registry datasets. This will allow us to determine which research questions can be answered in the future by pooling data., Methods: All eight registries were asked to share their dataset and information on the current status and characteristics. The overlap between the core dataset and each registry dataset was identified (according to the domains, domain items and measurement instruments of the TREAT core dataset)., Results and Conclusions: A total of 4702 participants have been recruited in the eight registries as of 1st of May 2022. Of the 69 core dataset domain items, data pooling was possible for 69 domain item outcomes in TREAT NL (the Netherlands), 61 items in A-STAR (UK and Ireland), 38 items in TREATgermany (Germany), 36 items in FIRST (France), 33 items in AtopyReg (Italy), 29 items in Biobadatop (Spain), 28 items in SCRATCH (Denmark) and 20 items in SwedAD (Sweden). Pooled analyses across all registries can be performed on multiple important domain items, covering the main aims of analysing data on the (cost-)effectiveness and safety of AE therapies. These results will facilitate future comparative or joint analyses., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

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., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

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., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: Clinical trials of systemic therapies for atopic dermatitis (AD) often exclude patients based on age and comorbidities., Objectives: We conducted a scoping review of observational studies and survey of International Eczema Council (IEC) members on the treatment of AD in patients with liver disease, renal disease, viral hepatitis, HIV, or history of malignancy., Methods: We searched MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, and Web of Science from inception to September 14, 2020. We mapped the available evidence on the use of cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, systemic corticosteroids, and dupilumab for AD in older adults (≥65 years) and adults with the previously mentioned comorbidities. We surveyed IEC members on their preferred systemic medications for each patient population., Results: We identified 25 studies on the use of systemic medications in special populations of adults with AD. Although IEC members preferred dupilumab as the first-line systemic agent across all special populations, many could not identify viable third-line systemic therapy options for some populations., Conclusions: Data on systemic therapy for AD for older adults and adults with comorbidities are limited. Although IEC members' access to systemic therapies differs geographically, expert opinion suggests that dupilumab is preferred for those patients., Competing Interests: A.M.D. has received compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology (reviewer and section editor), American Academy of Dermatology (guidelines writer), and National Eczema Association (grant reviewer). He has been a paid consultant for Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health. C.F. has received compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology (section editor). He is a chief investigator of the UK National Institute for Health Research–funded TREatment of Severe Atopic Eczema Trial and Softened Water for Eczema prevention trials as well as the UK-Irish Atopic eczema Systemic Therapy Register (A-STAR). He is also a principle investigator in the European Union Horizon 2020–funded BIOMAP Consortium (http://www.biomap-imi.eu/). His department has received funding from Sanofi-Genzyme for skin microbiome work. J.P.T. has been an advisor, investigator, or speaker for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, AbbVie, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, and Eli Lilly & Co. K.K. has received grants from Japan Tobacco, Inc; Kyowa Kirin; LEO Pharma; Maruho; Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma; Ono Pharmaceutical; Pola Pharma; Procter & Gamble Company; Taiho Pharma; and Torii Pharmaceutical. R.B. is an advisory board member, consultant, speaker, and/or investigator for and receives honoraria and/or grant from AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena Pharma, Asana BioSciences, Bellus Health, Bluefin Biomedicine, Boehringer-Ingelheim, CARA, Eli Lilly, Evidera, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, RAPT, Respivant, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Target RWE. R.B. is also an employee and shareholder of Innovaderm Research. V.A. is a principal investigator in the project 2018/23211-0 (Atopic Dermatitis) for FAPESP-Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo and is a consultant and/or investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Sanofi, and Ely-Lilly. A.N. an advisory board member, consultant, speaker, and/or investigator for and receives honoraria and/or grant from AbbVie, Celgene, Sanofi-Genzyme, Pierre Fabre, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma, Galderma, Incyte, IsisPharma, Leo Pharma, L'Oréal, Novartis, Medac SAS, and Pfizer. The other authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.)

Importance: Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis are being evaluated primarily in placebo-controlled trials; network meta-analysis can provide relative efficacy and safety estimates for treatments that have not been compared head to head., Objective: To compare reported measures of efficacy and assessments of safety in clinical trials of systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis in a living systematic review and network meta-analysis., Data Sources: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, Global Resource of EczemA Trials database, and trial registries were searched through June 15, 2021., Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials examining 8 or more weeks of treatment with systemic immunomodulatory medications for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis were included after screening titles, abstracts, and papers in duplicate., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were abstracted in duplicate. Bayesian network meta-analyses and assessed Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation certainty of evidence were performed. The updated analysis was completed from June to December 2021., Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes include change in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scales (PP-NRS)., Results: Since October 2019, 21 new studies were added, for a total of 60 trials with 16 579 patients. Up to 16 weeks of treatment in adults, abrocitinib, 200 mg daily (mean difference [MD], 2.2; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.2-4.0; high certainty) and upadacitinib, 30 mg daily (MD, 2.7; 95% CrI, 0.6-4.7; high certainty) were associated with reduced EASI slightly more than dupilumab, 600 mg then 300 mg every 2 weeks. Abrocitinib, 100 mg daily (MD, -2.1; 95% CrI, -4.1 to -0.3; high certainty), baricitinib, 4 mg daily (MD, -3.2; 95% CrI, -5.7 to -0.8; high certainty), baricitinib, 2 mg daily (MD, -5.2; 95% CrI, -7.5 to -2.9; high certainty) and tralokinumab, 600 mg then 300 mg every 2 weeks (MD, -3.5; 95% CrI, -5.8 to -1.3; high certainty) were associated with reduced EASI slightly less than dupilumab. There was little or no difference between upadacitinib, 15 mg daily, and dupilumab (MD, 0.2; 95% CrI, -1.9 to 2.2; high certainty). The pattern of results was similar for POEM, DLQI, and PP-NRS., Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, abrocitinib, 200 mg; and upadacitinib, 30 mg daily, were associated with slightly better scores than dupilumab, and upadacitinib, 15 mg daily, was associated with similar scores to dupilumab. Abrocitinib, 100 mg daily, baricitinib, 4 mg and 2 mg daily, and tralokinumab, 300 mg, every 2 weeks were associated with slightly worse scores.

Background: Observational studies suggest an increased risk of eczema in children living in hard versus soft water areas, and there is, therefore, an interest in knowing whether softening water may prevent eczema. We evaluated the feasibility of a parallel-group assessor-blinded pilot randomized controlled trial to test whether installing a domestic ion-exchange water softener before birth in hard water areas reduces the risk of eczema in infants with a family history of atopy., Methods: Pregnant women living in hard water areas (>250 mg/L calcium carbonate) in and around London UK, were randomized 1:1 antenatally to either have an ion-exchange water softener installed in their home or not (ie to continue to receive usual domestic hard water). Infants were assessed at birth and followed up for 6 months. The main end-points were around feasibility, the primary end-point being the proportion of eligible families screened who were willing and able to be randomized. Clinical end-points were evaluated including frequency of parent-reported doctor-diagnosed eczema and visible eczema on skin examination. Descriptive analyses were conducted, and no statistical testing was performed as this was a pilot study., Results: One hundred and forty-nine families screened were eligible antenatally and 28% (41/149) could not have a water softener installed due to technical reasons or lack of landlord approval. Eighty of 149 (54%) were randomized, the primary end-point. Two participants withdrew immediately after randomization, leaving 39 participants in each arm (78 total). Attrition was 15% (12/78) by 6 months postpartum. All respondents (n = 69) to the study acceptability questionnaire reported that the study was acceptable. Fifty-six of 708 (7.9%) water samples in the water softener arm were above the hard water threshold of 20 mg/L CaCO 3 . At 6 months of age 27/67 infants (40%) developed visible eczema, 12/36 (33%) vs. 15/31 (48%) in the water softener and control groups, respectively, difference -15% (95% CI -38, 8.3%), with most assessments (≥96%) remaining blinded. Similarly, a lower proportion of infants in the water softener arm had parent-reported, doctor-diagnosed eczema by 6 months compared to the control arm, 6/17 (35%) versus 9/19 (47%), difference -12% (95% CI -44, 20%)., Conclusion: A randomized controlled trial of water softeners for the prevention of atopic eczema in high-risk infants is feasible and acceptable., Trial Registration: NCT03270566 (clinicaltrials.gov)., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Atopic eczema (AE), also known as atopic dermatitis, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes significant burden. Phototherapy is sometimes used to treat AE when topical treatments, such as corticosteroids, are insufficient or poorly tolerated., Objectives: To assess the effects of phototherapy for treating AE., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to January 2021., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials in adults or children with any subtype or severity of clinically diagnosed AE. Eligible comparisons were any type of phototherapy versus other forms of phototherapy or any other treatment, including placebo or no treatment., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard Cochrane methodology. For key findings, we used RoB 2.0 to assess bias, and GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. Primary outcomes were physician-assessed signs and patient-reported symptoms. Secondary outcomes were Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), safety (measured as withdrawals due to adverse events), and long-term control., Main Results: We included 32 trials with 1219 randomised participants, aged 5 to 83 years (mean: 28 years), with an equal number of males and females. Participants were recruited mainly from secondary care dermatology clinics, and study duration was, on average, 13 weeks (range: 10 days to one year). We assessed risk of bias for all key outcomes as having some concerns or high risk, due to missing data, inappropriate analysis, or insufficient information to assess selective reporting. Assessed interventions included: narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB; 13 trials), ultraviolet A1 (UVA1; 6 trials), broadband ultraviolet B (BB-UVB; 5 trials), ultraviolet AB (UVAB; 2 trials), psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA; 2 trials), ultraviolet A (UVA; 1 trial), unspecified ultraviolet B (UVB; 1 trial), full spectrum light (1 trial), Saalmann selective ultraviolet phototherapy (SUP) cabin (1 trial), saltwater bath plus UVB (balneophototherapy; 1 trial), and excimer laser (1 trial). Comparators included placebo, no treatment, another phototherapy, topical treatment, or alternative doses of the same treatment. Results for key comparisons are summarised (for scales, lower scores are better): NB-UVB versus placebo/no treatment There may be a larger reduction in physician-assessed signs with NB-UVB compared to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (mean difference (MD) -9.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.62 to -15.18; 1 trial, 41 participants; scale: 0 to 90). Two trials reported little difference between NB-UVB and no treatment (37 participants, four to six weeks of treatment); another reported improved signs with NB-UVB versus no treatment (11 participants, nine weeks of treatment). NB-UVB may increase the number of people reporting reduced itch after 12 weeks of treatment compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.72, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.69; 1 trial, 40 participants). Another trial reported very little difference in itch severity with NB-UVB (25 participants, four weeks of treatment). The number of participants with moderate to greater global improvement may be higher with NB-UVB than placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.17; 1 trial, 41 participants). NB-UVB may not affect rates of withdrawal due to adverse events. No withdrawals were reported in one trial of NB-UVB versus placebo (18 participants, nine weeks of treatment). In two trials of NB-UVB versus no treatment, each reported one withdrawal per group (71 participants, 8 to 12 weeks of treatment). We judged that all reported outcomes were supported with low-certainty evidence, due to risk of bias and imprecision. No trials reported HRQoL. NB-UVB versus UVA1 We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to UVA1 to be very low certainty for all outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (MD -2.00, 95% CI -8.41 to 4.41; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 108), or patient-reported itch after six weeks (MD 0.3, 95% CI -1.07 to 1.67; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 10). Two split-body trials (20 participants, 40 sides) also measured these outcomes, using different scales at seven to eight weeks; they reported lower scores with NB-UVB. One trial reported HRQoL at six weeks (MD 2.9, 95% CI -9.57 to 15.37; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 30 to 150). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events over 12 weeks (13 participants). No trials reported IGA. NB-UVB versus PUVA We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to PUVA (8-methoxypsoralen in bath plus UVA) to be very low certainty for all reported outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (64.1% reduction with NB-UVB versus 65.7% reduction with PUVA; 1 trial, 10 participants, 20 sides). There was no evidence of a difference in marked improvement or complete remission after six weeks (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.89; 1 trial, 9/10 participants with both treatments). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events in 10 participants over six weeks. The trials did not report patient-reported symptoms or HRQoL. UVA1 versus PUVA There was very low-certainty evidence, due to serious risk of bias and imprecision, that PUVA (oral 5-methoxypsoralen plus UVA) reduced physician-assessed signs more than UVA1 after three weeks (MD 11.3, 95% CI -0.21 to 22.81; 1 trial, 40 participants; scale: 0 to 103). The trial did not report patient-reported symptoms, IGA, HRQoL, or withdrawals due to adverse events. There were no eligible trials for the key comparisons of UVA1 or PUVA compared with no treatment. Adverse events Reported adverse events included low rates of phototoxic reaction, severe irritation, UV burn, bacterial superinfection, disease exacerbation, and eczema herpeticum., Authors' Conclusions: Compared to placebo or no treatment, NB-UVB may improve physician-rated signs, patient-reported symptoms, and IGA after 12 weeks, without a difference in withdrawal due to adverse events. Evidence for UVA1 compared to NB-UVB or PUVA, and NB-UVB compared to PUVA was very low certainty. More information is needed on the safety and effectiveness of all aspects of phototherapy for treating AE., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Importance: Dupilumab subcutaneous injection is approved for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in adolescents, but there has been too little research on an efficacious systemic oral treatment with a favorable benefit-risk profile for adolescents with moderate-to-severe AD., Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of oral abrocitinib plus topical therapy in adolescents with moderate-to-severe AD., Design, Setting, and Participants: The phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study JADE TEEN was conducted in countries of the Asia-Pacific region, Europe, and North America in patients aged 12 to 17 years with moderate-to-severe AD and an inadequate response to 4 consecutive weeks or longer of topical medication or a need for systemic therapy for AD. The study was conducted between February 18, 2019, and April 8, 2020. The data were analyzed after study completion., Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive once-daily oral abrocitinib, 200 mg or 100 mg, or placebo for 12 weeks in combination with topical therapy., Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary end points were achievement of an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) response of clear (0) or almost clear (1) with improvement of 2 or more grades from baseline (IGA 0/1) and 75% or greater improvement from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) response at week 12. Key secondary end points included 4-point or greater improvement in Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS4) at week 12. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored., Results: This study included 285 adolescents with moderate-to-severe AD (145 boys [50.9%] and 140 girls [49.1%]), of whom 160 (56.1%) were White and 94 (33.0%) were Asian; the median age was 15 years (interquartile range 13-17 years). Substantially more patients treated with abrocitinib (200 mg or 100 mg) vs placebo achieved an IGA response of 0/1 (46.2%; 41.6% vs 24.5%; P < .05 for both), EASI-75 (72.0%; 68.5% vs 41.5%; P < .05 for both), and PP-NRS4 (55.4%; 52.6% vs 29.8%; P < .01 for 200 mg vs placebo) at week 12. Adverse events were reported for 59 (62.8%), 54 (56.8%), and 50 (52.1%) patients in the 200 mg, 100 mg, and placebo groups, respectively; nausea was more common with abrocitinib, 200 mg (17 [18.1%]) and 100 mg (7 [7.4%]). Herpes-related AEs were infrequent; 1 (1.1%), 0, and 2 (2.1%) patients had serious AEs., Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that oral abrocitinib combined with topical therapy was significantly more effective than placebo with topical therapy in adolescents with moderate-to-severe AD, with an acceptable safety profile., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03796676.

Background: As an evidence resource for the currently planned European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) clinical practice guideline "systemic treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD)," we critically appraised evidence on systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe AD., Methods: We systematically identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the safety and efficacy of systemic treatments for AD up to February 2020. Primary efficacy outcomes were clinical signs, AD symptoms and health-related quality of life. Primary safety outcomes included cumulative incidence rates for (serious) adverse events. Trial quality was assessed applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Meta-analyses were conducted where appropriate., Results: 50 RCTs totalling 6681 patients were included. Trial evidence was identified for apremilast, azathioprine (AZA), baricitinib, ciclosporin A (CSA), corticosteroids, dupilumab, interferon-gamma, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), mepolizumab, methotrexate (MTX), omalizumab, upadacitinib and ustekinumab. Meta-analyses were indicated for the efficacy of baricitinib [EASI75 RD 0.16, 95% CI (0.10;0.23)] and dupilumab [EASI75, RD 0.37, 95% CI (0.32;0.42)] indicating short-term (ie 16-week treatment) superiority over placebo. Furthermore, efficacy analyses of AZA and CSA indicated short-term superiority over placebo; however, nonvalidated scores were used and can therefore not be compared to EASI., Conclusion: The most robust, replicated high-quality trial evidence is present for the efficacy and safety of dupilumab for up to 1 year in adults. Robust trial evidence was further revealed for AZA, baricitinib and CSA. Methodological restrictions led to limited evidence-based conclusions for all other systemic treatments. Head-to-head trials with novel systemic treatments are required to clarify the future role of conventional therapies., (© 2020 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Food allergy is thought to develop through transcutaneous sensitization, especially in the presence of skin barrier impairment and inflammation. Regular moisturizer application to infant skin could potentially promote transcutaneous sensitization and the development of food allergy., Objectives: We tested this hypothesis in the Enquiring About Tolerance (EAT) study population., Methods: The EAT study was a population-based randomized clinical trial conducted from January 15, 2008, to August 31, 2015, and recruited 1303 exclusively breastfed 3-month-old infants and their families from England and Wales. At enrollment at 3 months, families completed a questionnaire that included questions about frequency and type of moisturizer applied, use of corticosteroid creams, and parental report of dry skin or eczema. Infants were examined for visible eczema at the enrollment visit., Results: A statistically significant dose-response relationship was observed between parent-reported moisturization frequency at 3 months of age and the subsequent development of food allergy. Each additional moisturization per week was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.20 (95% CI, 1.13-1.27; P < .0005) for developing food allergy. For infants with no visible eczema at the enrollment visit, the corresponding adjusted odds ratio was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.07-1.30; P = .001) and for those with eczema at the enrollment visit, 1.20 (95% CI, 1.11-1.31; P < .0005). Moisturizer frequency showed similar dose-response relationships with the development of both food and aeroallergen sensitization at 36 months., Conclusions: These findings support the notion that regular application of moisturizers to the skin of young infants may promote the development of food allergy through transcutaneous sensitization., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Several studies have identified an association between water hardness and atopic eczema (AE); however, there is a paucity of longitudinal data in early life., Objectives: To examine whether water hardness is associated with an increased risk of AE and skin barrier dysfunction in infants and to assess effect modification by filaggrin (FLG) loss-of-function variants., Methods: We performed a longitudinal analysis of data from infants in the Enquiring About Tolerance (EAT) study, who were enrolled at 3 months and followed up until 36 months of age., Results: Of 1303 infants enrolled in the EAT study, 91·3% (n = 1189) attended the final clinic visit and 94·0% (n = 1225) of participants' families completed the 36-month questionnaire. In total, 761 (58·4%) developed AE by 36 months. There was no overall association between exposure to harder (> 257 mg L -1 CaCO 3 ) vs. softer (≤ 257 mg L -1 CaCO 3 ) water: adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1·07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·92-1·24. However, there was an increased incidence of AE in infants with FLG mutations exposed to hard water (adjusted HR 2·72, 95% CI 2·03-3·66), and statistically significant interactions between hard water plus FLG and both risk of AE (HR 1·80, 95% CI 1·17-2·78) and transepidermal water loss (0·0081 g m -2 h -1 per mg L -1 CaCO 3 , 95% CI 0·00028-0·016)., Conclusions: There is evidence of an interaction between water hardness and FLG mutations in the development of infantile AE., (© 2019 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Abrocitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, was effective and well tolerated in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in a phase 2b trial. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of abrocitinib monotherapy in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis., Methods: In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial (JADE MONO-1), patients (aged ≥12 years) with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (Investigator Global Assessment score ≥3, Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI] score ≥16, percentage of body surface area affected ≥10%, and Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score ≥4) with a bodyweight of 40 kg or more, were enrolled at 69 sites in Australia, Canada, Europe, and the USA. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to oral abrocitinib 100 mg, abrocitinib 200 mg, or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. Randomisation was done using an interactive response technology system, stratified by baseline disease severity and age. Patients, investigators, and the funder of the study were masked to study treatment. The coprimary endpoints were the proportion of patients who had achieved an Investigator Global Assessment response (score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear] with a ≥2-grade improvement from baseline), and the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 75% improvement in EASI score from baseline (EASI-75) score, both assessed at week 12. Efficacy was assessed in the full analysis set, which included all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study medication. Safety was assessed in all randomised patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03349060., Findings: Between Dec 7, 2017, and March 26, 2019, 387 patients were enrolled: 156 were assigned to abrocitinib 100 mg, 154 to abrocitinib 200 mg, and 77 to placebo. All enrolled patients received at least one dose of study treatment and thus were evaluable for 12-week efficacy. Of the patients with available data for the coprimary endpoints at week 12, the proportion of patients who had achieved an Investigator Global Assessment response was significantly higher in the abrocitinib 100 mg group than in the placebo group (37 [24%] of 156 patients vs six [8%] of 76 patients; p=0·0037) and in the abrocitinib 200 mg group compared with the placebo group (67 [44%] of 153 patients vs six [8%] of 76 patients; p<0·0001). Of the patients with available data for the coprimary endpoints at week 12, compared with the placebo group, the proportion of patients who had achieved an EASI-75 response was significantly higher in the abrocitinib 100 mg group (62 [40%] of 156 patients vs nine [12%] of 76 patients; p<0·0001) and abrocitinib 200 mg group (96 [63%] of 153 patients vs nine [12%] of 76 patients; p<0·0001). Adverse events were reported in 108 (69%) of 156 patients in the abrocitinib 100 mg group, 120 (78%) of 154 patients in the abrocitinib 200 mg group, and 44 (57%) of 77 patients in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in five (3%) of 156 patients in the abrocitinib 100 mg group, five (3%) of 154 patients in the abrocitinib 200 mg group, and three (4%) of 77 patients in the placebo group. No treatment-related deaths were reported., Interpretation: Monotherapy with oral abrocitinib once daily was effective and well tolerated in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis., Funding: Pfizer., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2019 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) have an increased risk of bacterial skin infections, which cause significant morbidity and, if untreated, may become systemic. Staphylococcus aureus colonizes the skin of most patients with AD and is the most common organism to cause infections. Overt bacterial infection is easily recognized by the appearance of weeping lesions, honey-coloured crusts and pustules. However, the wide variability in clinical presentation of bacterial infection in AD and the inherent features of AD - cutaneous erythema and warmth, oozing associated with oedema, and regional lymphadenopathy - overlap with those of infection, making clinical diagnosis challenging. Furthermore, some features may be masked because of anatomical site- and skin-type-specific features, and the high frequency of S. aureus colonization in AD makes positive skin swab culture of suspected infection unreliable as a diagnostic tool. The host mechanisms and microbial virulence factors that underlie S. aureus colonization and infection in AD are incompletely understood. The aim of this article is to present the latest evidence from animal and human studies, including recent microbiome research, to define the clinical features of bacterial infections in AD, and to summarize our current understanding of the host and bacterial factors that influence microbial colonization and virulence., (© 2019 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Skin barrier dysfunction precedes eczema development. We tested whether daily use of emollient in the first year could prevent eczema in high-risk children., Methods: We did a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in 12 hospitals and four primary care sites across the UK. Families were approached via antenatal or postnatal services for recruitment of term infants (at least 37 weeks' gestation) at high risk of developing eczema (ie, at least one first-degree relative with parent-reported eczema, allergic rhinitis, or asthma, diagnosed by a doctor). Term newborns with a family history of atopic disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to application of emollient daily (either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel) for the first year plus standard skin-care advice (emollient group) or standard skin-care advice only (control group). The randomisation schedule was created using computer-generated code (stratified by recruiting centre and number of first-degree relatives with atopic disease) and participants were assigned to groups using an internet-based randomisation system. The primary outcome was eczema at age 2 years (defined by UK working party criteria) with analysis as randomised regardless of adherence to allocation for participants with outcome data collected, and adjusting for stratification variables. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN21528841. Data collection for long-term follow-up is ongoing, but the trial is closed to recruitment., Findings: 1394 newborns were randomly assigned to study groups between Nov 19, 2014, and Nov 18, 2016; 693 were assigned to the emollient group and 701 to the control group. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466 of 532) at 3 months, 82% (427 of 519) at 6 months, and 74% (375 of 506) at 12 months in those with complete questionnaire data. At age 2 years, eczema was present in 139 (23%) of 598 infants with outcome data collected in the emollient group and 150 (25%) of 612 infants in the control group (adjusted relative risk 0·95 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·16], p=0·61; adjusted risk difference -1·2% [-5·9 to 3·6]). Other eczema definitions supported the results of the primary analysis. Mean number of skin infections per child in year 1 was 0·23 (SD 0·68) in the emollient group versus 0·15 (0·46) in the control group; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1·55 (95% CI 1·15 to 2·09)., Interpretation: We found no evidence that daily emollient during the first year of life prevents eczema in high-risk children and some evidence to suggest an increased risk of skin infections. Our study shows that families with eczema, asthma, or allergic rhinitis should not use daily emollients to try and prevent eczema in their newborn., Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Atopic eczema affects 20% of UK children, and environmental factors are important in its aetiology. Several observational studies suggest an increased risk of atopic eczema in children living in hard water areas. The Softened Water for Eczema Prevention pilot trial tests the feasibility of installing domestic ion-exchange water softeners around the time of birth to reduce the risk of atopic eczema in children with a family history of atopy. A further aim is to explore the pathophysiological mechanisms for this in an embedded mechanistic study., Methods and Analysis: Multicentre parallel group assessor-blinded randomised controlled pilot trial. Participants are newborn babies (n=80) living in a hard water (>250 mg/L calcium carbonate) area at risk of developing atopic eczema because of a family history of atopy. Participants will be randomised prior to birth in a 1:1 ratio. The intervention group will have an ion-exchange water softener installed prior to birth. The control group will receive their usual domestic hard water supply. Follow-up will be until 6 months of age. Data will be collected at birth (baseline), 1, 3 and 6 months of age. The main outcome is the proportion of eligible families screened who are willing and able to be randomised. Several secondary feasibility and clinical endpoints will also be evaluated, alongside mechanistic outcomes. Data will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. There will be no hypothesis testing for the clinical outcomes. Study acceptability will be evaluated through semistructured interviews., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been reviewed and given a favourable opinion by the North West-Liverpool East Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 17/NW/0661). The results of the study will be reported at international conferences and in peer-reviewed scientific journals. We will send participating families a summary of the pilot trial results., Trial Registration Number: NCT03270566., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CF has received investigator-led research funding from Sanofi. His department has received clinical trial funding from Sanofi and AbbVie to test novel therapeutics in patients with paediatric atopic eczema. MJC is an investigator and consultant for Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Pfizer, Leo, Galapagos, Novartis, Boots, L’Oreal, Dermavant, Menlo, Reckitt Benckiser, Oxagen, Johnson & Johnson, Hyphens, Astellas, Amlar, AbbVie, Galderma and Procter & Gamble. Harvey Water Softeners (HWS) contributed to the design and operational running of the study (supply and installation of water softeners, testing of water samples). Final decisions around design and conduct were made independently by investigators. HWS will not be involved in the analysis or interpretation of the results., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

We sought to examine the relationship globally between UVR dose exposure and current eczema prevalences. ISAAC Phase Three provided data on eczema prevalence for 13- to 14-year-olds in 214 centers in 87 countries and for 6- to 7-year-olds in 132 centers in 57 countries. Linear and nonlinear associations between (natural log transformed) eczema prevalence and the mean, maximum, minimum, standard deviation, and range of monthly UV dose exposures were assessed using linear mixed-effects regression models. For the 13- to 14-year-olds, the country-level eczema prevalence was positively and linearly associated with country-level monthly mean (prevalence ratio = 1.31 [95% confidence interval = 1.05-1.63] per kJ/m 2 ) and minimum (1.25 [1.06-1.47] per kJ/m 2 ) UVR dose exposure. Linear and nonlinear associations were also observed for other metrics of UV. Results were similar in trend, but nonsignificant, for the fewer centers with 6- to 7-year-olds (e.g., 1.24 [0.96-1.59] per kJ/m 2 for country-level monthly mean UVR). No consistent within-country associations were observed (e.g., 1.05 [0.89-1.23] and 0.92 [0.71-1.18] per kJ/m 2 for center-level monthly mean UVR for the 13- to 14- and 6- to 7-year-olds, respectively). These ecological results support a role for UVR exposure in explaining some of the variation in global childhood eczema prevalence., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Quality of life (QoL) is one of the core outcome domains identified by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative to be assessed in every eczema trial. There is uncertainty about the most appropriate QoL instrument to measure this domain in infants, children and adolescents., Objectives: To systematically evaluate the measurement properties of existing measurement instruments developed and/or validated for the measurement of QoL in infants, children and adolescents with eczema., Methods: A systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase, complemented by a thorough hand search of reference lists, retrieved studies on measurement properties of eczema QoL instruments for infants, children and adolescents. For all eligible studies, we judged the adequacy of the measurement properties and the methodological study quality with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Results from different studies were summarized in a best-evidence synthesis and formed the basis to assign four degrees of recommendation., Results: Seventeen articles, three of which were found by hand search, were included. These 17 articles reported on 24 instruments. No instrument can be recommended for use in all eczema trials because none fulfilled all required adequacy criteria. With adequate internal consistency, reliability and hypothesis testing, the U.S. version of the Childhood Atopic Dermatitis Impact Scale (CADIS), a proxy-reported instrument, has the potential to be recommended depending on the results of further validation studies. All other instruments, including all self-reported ones, lacked significant validation data., Conclusions: Currently, no QoL instrument for infants, children and adolescents with eczema can be highly recommended. Future validation research should primarily focus on the CADIS, but also attempt to broaden the evidence base for the validity of self-reported instruments., (© 2016 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Eczema is a common chronic or chronically relapsing, inflammatory skin disease that exerts a substantial negative impact on quality of life (QoL). The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has used a consensus-based process which identified QoL as one of the four core outcome domains to be assessed in all eczema clinical trials. A number of measurement instruments exist to measure QoL in infants, children, and adolescents with eczema, and there is a great variability in both content and quality of the instruments used. Therefore, the objective of the proposed research is to comprehensively and systematically assess the measurement properties of the existing measurement instruments that were developed and/or validated for the measurement of patient-reported QoL in infants, children, and adolescents with eczema., Methods/design: This study is a systematic review of the measurement properties of patient-reported measures of QoL developed and/or validated for infants, children, and adolescents with eczema. A systematic literature search will be carried out in MEDLINE via PubMed and EMBASE using a selection of relevant search terms. Eligible studies will be primary empirical studies evaluating, describing, or comparing measurement properties of QoL instruments for infants, children, and adolescents with eczema. Two reviewers will independently perform eligibility assessment and data abstraction. Evidence tables will be used to record study characteristics, instrument characteristics, measurement properties, and interpretability. The adequacy of the measurement properties will be assessed using predefined criteria. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist will be used to evaluate the methodological quality of included studies. A best evidence synthesis will be undertaken if more than one study has examined a particular measurement property., Discussion: The proposed systematic review will yield a comprehensive assessment of measurement properties of existing QoL instruments in infants, children, and adolescents with eczema. The results will serve as a basis to recommend a QoL measurement instrument for infants, one for children, and one for adolescents for use in future clinical trials., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42015023483.

A number of studies have suggested that early life exposure to antibiotics can lead to an increased risk of developing eczema. This systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies, involving children or young adults aged 0-25 years, assessed the impact of antibiotic exposure either in utero or during the first 12 months of life on subsequent eczema risk. Twenty studies examined the association between prenatal and/or postnatal exposure to antibiotics and development of eczema. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for the 17 studies examining postnatal antibiotic exposure was 1.41 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30-1.53]. The pooled OR for the 10 longitudinal studies was 1.40 (95% CI 1.19-1.64), compared with a pooled OR of 1.43 (95% CI 1.36-1.51) for the seven cross-sectional studies. There was a significant dose-response association, suggesting a 7% increase in the risk of eczema for each additional antibiotic course received during the first year of life [pooled OR 1.07 (95% CI 1.02-1.11)]. Finally, the pooled OR for the four studies relating to antenatal exposure was 1.30 (95% CI 0.86-1.95). We conclude that exposure to antibiotics in the first year of life, but not prenatally, is more common in children with eczema., (© 2013 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in children is increasing. Sensitization to contact allergens can start in early infancy. The epidermal barrier is crucial for the development of sensitization and elicitation of ACD. Factors that may influence the onset of sensitization in children are atopic dermatitis, skin barrier defects and intense or repetitive contact with allergens. Topical treatment of ACD is associated with cutaneous sensitization, although the prevalence is not high. ACD because of haptens in shoes or shin guards should be considered in cases of persistent foot eruptions or sharply defined dermatitis on the lower legs. Clinical polymorphism of contact dermatitis to clothing may cause difficulties in diagnosing textile dermatitis. Toys are another potentially source of hapten exposure in children, especially from toy-cosmetic products such as perfumes, lipstick and eye shadow. The most frequent contact allergens in children are metals, fragrances, preservatives, neomycin, rubber chemicals and more recently also colourings. It is very important to remember that ACD in young children is not rare, and should always be considered when children with recalcitrant eczema are encountered. Children should be patch-tested with a selection of allergens having the highest proportion of positive, relevant patch test reactions. The allergen exposure pattern differs between age groups and adolescents may also be exposed to occupational allergens. The purpose of this review is to alert the paediatrician and dermatologist of the frequency of ACD in young children and of the importance of performing patch tests in every case of chronic recurrent or therapy-resistant eczema in children., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Some have suggested a protective effect of tuberculosis (TB) infection on allergic disease risk, but few studies have examined the association between the two. We therefore investigated whether TB disease and bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination in early life protect against allergic disease. Information on allergic disease symptoms, past TB disease, and BCG vaccination as well as potential confounding factors was gathered by parental questionnaire from a randomly selected subset of 23,901 8- to 12-yr-old schoolchildren in 20 centers in both developed and developing countries. Children were also physically examined for flexural eczema and underwent skin prick testing. Pooled odds ratio (OR) estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) across study centers were calculated, using random effects meta-analysis models. There were 245 (1.0%) reported cases of TB disease, and 66.3% (15,857) of all children received the BCG vaccine. Asthma, hay fever, and flexural eczema symptoms in the past year as well as flexural eczema on skin examination were all positively linked to a history of TB (adjusted pooled OR 'wheeze in the past year' = 2.27, 95% CI 1.52-3.41; adjusted pooled OR 'hay fever symptoms in the past year' = 2.23, 1.22-4.09; adjusted pooled OR 'flexural eczema symptoms in the past year' = 3.21, 2.01-5.12; adjusted pooled OR 'flexural eczema on skin examination' = 4.04, 1.71-9.56). Even higher risk estimates were seen for severe asthma and eczema symptoms [adjusted OR = 4.02 (2.17-7.47) and adjusted OR = 6.31 (2.19-18.17), respectively]. There was no significant association between past TB and skin prick test positivity (adjusted pooled OR = 1.32, 0.87-2.02). BCG vaccination during the first year of life was also not associated with any of the allergy outcomes. We found a uniform positive association between TB and all allergic disease outcomes, including eczema on skin examination. As this was a cross-sectional study, it is unclear whether this positive association is attributable to a causal relationship, and further longitudinal studies are required., (© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.)

Background: Exclusive breastfeeding for at least 4 months is recommended by many governments and allergy organizations to prevent allergic disease., Objectives: To investigate whether exclusive breastfeeding protects against childhood eczema., Methods: Study subjects comprised 51,119 randomly selected 8- to 12-year-old schoolchildren in 21 countries. Information on eczema and breastfeeding was gathered by parental questionnaire. Children were also examined for flexural eczema and underwent skin prick testing. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for each study centre and then pooled across populations., Results: There was a small increase in the risk of reported 'eczema ever' in association with 'breastfeeding ever' and breastfeeding < 6 months [pooled adjusted OR 1·11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·00-1·22 and OR 1·10, 95% CI 1·02-1·20, respectively]. There was no significant association between reported 'eczema ever' and breastfeeding > 6 months (pooled adjusted OR 1·09, 95% CI 0·94-1·26). Risk estimates were very similar for exclusive breastfeeding < 2 months, 2-4 months and > 4 months and for eczema symptoms in the past 12 months and eczema on skin examination. As for more severe eczema, breastfeeding per se conveyed a risk reduction on sleep disturbed eczema (pooled adjusted OR 0·71, 95% CI 0·53-0·96), but this effect was lost where children had been exclusively breastfed for > 4 months (pooled adjusted OR 1·02, 95% CI 0·67-1·54). Allergic sensitization and a history of maternal allergic disease did not modify any of these findings., Conclusions: Although there was a protective effect of ever having been breastfed on more severe disease, we found no evidence that exclusive breastfeeding for 4 months or longer protects against eczema. Our results are consistent with findings from a recent systematic review of prospective studies. The U.K. breastfeeding guidelines with regard to eczema should be reviewed. Intervention studies are now required to explore how and when solids should be introduced alongside breastfeeding to aid protection against eczema and other allergic diseases., (© 2011 The Authors. BJD © 2011 British Association of Dermatologists 2011.)

Introduction: Eczema, as defined by the World Allergy Organization (WAO) revised nomenclature in 2003, affects 15% to 20% of school children and 2% to 5% of adults worldwide. About 50% of people with eczema demonstrate atopy, with specific immunoglobulin E responses to allergens., Methods and Outcomes: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of topical medical treatments, and dietary interventions in adults and children with established eczema? What are the effects of breastfeeding, reducing allergens, or dietary interventions for primary prevention of eczema in predisposed infants? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)., Results: We found 54 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions., Conclusions: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: breastfeeding, controlling house dust mites, corticosteroids, dietary exclusion of eggs or cow's milk, elementary diets, emollients, essential fatty oils, few-foods diet, multivitamins, pimecrolimus, probiotics, pyridoxine, reducing maternal dietary allergens, tacrolimus, vitamin E, and zinc supplements.

The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) is the largest epidemiological study ever performed and the only truly global allergy study. This review summarises the childhood eczema-related findings from ISAAC and discusses how these fit into our current understanding of eczema aetiology, with particular emphasis on worldwide time trends in eczema prevalence, climatic and dietary risk factors, breastfeeding, the role of skin barrier impairment and allergic sensitisation., (Copyright © 2010 SEICAP. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)

Background: Filaggrin loss-of-function (FLG) mutations are associated with eczema and skin barrier impairment, but it is unclear whether skin barrier impairment precedes phenotypic eczema in FLG mutation carriers., Objectives: To study the association between FLG mutations, skin barrier impairment and clinical eczema at 3 months of age., Methods: A total of 88 infants were examined for eczema. Disease severity was determined by the SCORAD eczema severity score. Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) was measured on unaffected forearm skin. Venous blood samples were screened for the four most common FLG mutations found in the U.K. white population (R501X, 2282del4, R2447X and S3247X). Median SCORAD and TEWL measurements in children with and without eczema and FLG mutations were compared., Results: Thirty-three per cent (29/88) of children had clinical eczema. Median SCORAD was 10·6 (range 3·5-31·0). TEWL (g m⁻² h⁻¹) was higher in children with eczema compared with unaffected infants (median TEWL 14·24 vs. 11·24, P < 0·001). Higher TEWL was associated with more severe disease (r = 0·59, P < 0·001, median TEWL, SCORAD < 15, 13·1 vs. 29·6, SCORAD ≥ 15, P = 0·029). Clinically dry skin was associated with higher TEWL, even in the absence of eczema (median TEWL 17·55 vs. 11·08, P = 0·008). Seventeen per cent (15/88) of children carried at least one FLG mutation. FLG mutation carriers were significantly more likely to have clinically dry skin, even in the absence of eczema [odds ratio (OR) 8·50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·09-66·58, P = 0·042]. FLG mutation carriers were also more likely to have eczema by 3 months of age (OR 4·26, 95% CI 1·34-13·57, P = 0·014). FLG mutations were significantly associated with higher median TEWL (all children, FLG 'yes' 21·59 vs. FLG 'no' 11·24, P < 0·001), even without clinical eczema (FLG 'yes' 15·99 vs. FLG 'no' 10·82, P = 0·01)., Conclusions: By the age of 3 months, FLG mutations are associated with an eczema phenotype, dry skin and TEWL. The observation that TEWL is elevated in unaffected FLG mutation carriers suggests that skin barrier impairment precedes clinical eczema.