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: Rademikibart (CBP-201) is a next-generation IL-4 receptor alpha-targeting antibody., Objective: We sought to evaluate rademikibart in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis., Methods: A total of 226 patients were randomized, double-blind, to subcutaneous rademikibart (300 mg every 2 weeks [Q2W], 150 mg Q2W, 300 mg every 4 weeks [Q4W]; plus 600-mg loading dose) or placebo. Randomization began in July 2020. The trial was completed in October 2021., Results: The WW001 phase 2 trial achieved its primary end point: significant percent reduction from baseline in least-squares mean Eczema Area Severity Index (EASI) to week 16 with rademikibart 300 mg Q2W (-63.0%; P = .0007), 150 mg Q2W (-57.6%; P = .0067), 300 mg Q4W (-63.5%; P = .0004) versus placebo (-39.7%). EASI scores decreased significantly with 300 mg Q2W and Q4W at the earliest assessment (week 2), with no evidence of plateauing by week 16. Significant improvements were also observed in secondary end points, including pruritus. Across the primary and secondary end points, efficacy tended to be comparable with 300 mg Q2W and Q4W dosing. Rademikibart and placebo had similar, low incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (48% vs 54%), serious TEAEs (1.8% vs 3.6%), TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation (1.2% vs 1.8%), conjunctivitis of unspecified cause (2.9% vs 0%), herpes (0.6% vs 1.8%), and injection-site reactions (1.8% vs 1.8%). Although no discontinuations were attributed to coronavirus disease 2019, pandemic-related restrictions likely had an impact on trial conduct., Conclusions: Rademikibart was efficacious and well tolerated at Q2W and Q4W intervals. Q4W dosing is a more convenient frequency than approved for current therapies., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has agreed upon the Core Outcome Set (COS) for use in atopic dermatitis (AD) clinical trials, but additional guidance is needed to maximize its uptake., Objectives: To provide answers to some of the commonly asked questions about using the HOME COS; to provide data to help with the interpretation of trial results; and to support sample size calculations for future trials., Methods and Results: We provide practical guidance on the use of the HOME COS for investigators planning clinical trials in patients with AD. It answers some of the common questions about using the HOME COS, how to access the outcome measurement instruments, what training/resources are needed to use them appropriately and clarifies when the COS is applicable. We also provide exemplar data to inform sample size calculations for eczema trials and encourage standardized data collection and reporting of the COS., Conclusions: By encouraging adoption of the COS and facilitating consistent reporting of outcome data, it is hoped that the results of eczema trials will be more comprehensive and readily combined in meta-analyses and that patient care will subsequently be improved., (© 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 and Objective: Investigator's Global Assessment of clear/almost clear skin (IGA 0/1) is a difficult endpoint to achieve after short-term treatment of chronic moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, and does not fully reflect clinically meaningful changes in other parameters. We assessed the impact of tralokinumab versus placebo on other clinically meaningful parameters in patients not achieving IGA 0/1 at week 16 using pooled data from two monotherapy phase III trials, ECZTRA 1 and 2., Methods: This post hoc analysis included patients (n = 1328) from ECZTRA 1 and 2 who did not achieve the co-primary endpoint, IGA 0/1 at week 16 without rescue medication. Endpoints evaluating atopic dermatitis extent and severity included proportions of patients achieving IGA 0/1, 50%, 75%, and 90% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-50/75/90); endpoints evaluating patient-reported outcomes included a ≥ 3-point improvement in worst daily pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), a ≥ 3-point improvement in eczema-related sleep interference (sleep) NRS, a ≥ 4-point improvement in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and DLQI ≤ 5. Specifically, clinically meaningful responses were defined as EASI-50, a ≥ 3-point improvement in itch NRS, or a ≥ 4-point improvement in DLQI at week 16., Results: Among ECZTRA 1 and 2 patients who did not achieve IGA 0/1 at week 16 without rescue medication, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving tralokinumab versus placebo achieved EASI-50 (33.0% vs 13.0%), a ≥ 3-point improvement in itch NRS (22.6% vs 9.4%), or a ≥ 4-point improvement in DLQI (41.2% vs 24.5%) at week 16. In addition, compared with placebo, a numerically greater proportion of tralokinumab-treated patients achieved all three measures of clinically meaningful response (30% vs 18%) or a clinically meaningful change in at least one outcome (48.8% vs 28.5%). Significantly greater proportions of patients receiving tralokinumab versus placebo achieved additional clinician-reported and patient-reported outcomes, such as EASI-75 (13.5% vs 4.1%), EASI-90 (3.5% vs 1.1%), DLQI ≤ 5 (22.5% vs 12.5%), and a ≥ 3-point improvement in sleep NRS (24.5% vs 11.5%)., Conclusions: Tralokinumab provided clinically meaningful responses in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis who did not achieve IGA 0/1 at week 16 and/or used rescue medication. Using multiple validated outcome measures of both efficacy and quality of life, alongside IGA scores, can better characterize tralokinumab treatment responses in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. [Video abstract available] CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03131648 (ECZTRA 1); study start date: 30 May, 2017; primary completion date: 7 August, 2018; study completion date: 10 October, 2019. NCT03160885 (ECZTRA 2); study start date: 12 June, 2017; primary completion date: 4 September, 2019; study completion date: 14 August, 2019. Video abstract: Tralokinumab provides clinically meaningful responses at week 16 in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis who do not achieve IGA 0/1 (MP4 362818 KB)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Core outcome sets (COS) are consensus-driven sets of minimum outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials. COS aim to reduce heterogeneity in outcome measurement and reporting, and selective outcome reporting. Implementing COS into clinical trials is challenging. Guidance to improve COS uptake in dermatology is lacking., Objectives: To develop a structured practical guide to COS implementation., Methods: Members of the Harmonising Outcome Measurement for Eczema (HOME) executive committee developed an expert opinion-based roadmap founded on a combination of a review of the COS implementation literature, the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative resources, input from HOME members and experience in COS development and clinical trials., Results: The data review and input from HOME members was synthesized into themes, which guided roadmap development: (a) barriers and facilitators to COS uptake based on stakeholder awareness/engagement and COS features; and (b) key implementation science principles (assessment-driven, data-centred, priority-based and context-sensitive). The HOME implementation roadmap follows three stages. Firstly, the COS uptake scope and goals need to be defined. Secondly, during COS development, preparation for future implementation is supported by establishing the COS as a credible evidence-informed consensus by applying robust COS development methodology, engaging multiple stakeholders, fostering sustained and global engagement, emphasizing COS ease of use and universal applicability, and providing recommendations on COS use. Thirdly, incorporating completed COS into primary (trials) and secondary (reviews) research is an iterative process starting with mapping COS uptake and stakeholders' attitudes, followed by designing and carrying out targeted implementation projects. Main themes for implementation projects identified at HOME are stakeholder awareness/engagement; universal applicability for different populations; and improving ease-of-use by reducing administrative and study burden. Formal implementation frameworks can be used to identify implementation barriers/facilitators and to design implementation strategies. The effect of these strategies on uptake should be evaluated and implementation plans adjusted accordingly., Conclusions: COS can improve the quality and applicability of research and, so, clinical practice but can only succeed if used and reported consistently. The HOME implementation roadmap is an extension of the original HOME roadmap for COS development and provides a pragmatic framework to develop COS implementation strategies., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Y.A.L. has received honoraria or fees from AbbVie, Sanofi, Genentech, Regeneron, Pfizer and Dexcel Pharma, an independent research grant from AbbVie and has – without personal compensation – provided investigator services for Eli Lilly, Pfizer and AbbVie, all unrelated to this study. E.L.S. reports personal fees from Advances in Cosmetic Medical Derm Hawaii, AbbVie, Amgen, AOBiome, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Aslan Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim USA, Boston Consulting Group, Bristol Myers Squibb, Collective Acumen (CA), CorEvitas, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Evelo Biosciences, Evidera, ExcerptaMedica, FIDE, Forte Bio RX, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Development, LEO Pharma, Medscape, Merck, MauiDerm, MLG Operating, MJH Holding, Pfizer, Physicians World, PRImE, Regeneron, Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis, Roivant, Sanofi-Genzyme, Trevi Therapeutics, Valeant, Vindico Medical Education and WebMD. He also reports grants (or serves in a Principal Investigator role for) from AbbVie, Acrotech Biopharma, Amgen, Arcutis, Aslan, Castle Biosciences, CorEvitas, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Kymab, Kyowa Kirin, National Jewish Health, LEO, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi and Target RWE. These potential conflicts of interest have been reviewed and managed by Oregon Health & Science University. C.A. has received institutional funding from the Dr Wolff Group and Bionorica, and consultancy fees or honoraria from the Dr Wolff Group, Bionorica, Sanofi, LEO Pharma and RHEACELL. He was also involved in the development and testing of one of the HOME core outcome instruments [Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP)]. P.I.S. has received departmental independent research grants for the TREAT NL registry from pharma since December 2019; is involved in performing clinical trials with many pharmaceutical industries that manufacture drugs used for the treatment of, for example, psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, for which financial compensation is paid to the department/hospital; is Chief Investigator of the systemic and phototherapy atopic eczema registry (TREAT NL) for adults and children; and was involved in the development of one of the HOME core outcome instruments (RECAP). K.S.T. was involved in the development and testing of one of the HOME core outcome instruments (RECAP). J.S. reports institutional grants for investigator-initiated research from the German Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), the Federal Ministry of Health (BMG), Federal Ministry of Research and Education (BMBF), European Union, Federal State of Saxony, Novartis, Sanofi, ALK and Pfizer. He has also participated in advisory board meetings as a paid consultant for Sanofi, Eli Lilly and ALK. L.H. has received consultation fees from the University of Oxford on an educational grant funded by Pfizer, unrelated to the submitted work, and was involved in the development of the RECAP instrument. N.K. has received honoraria as a speaker/consultant for Sanofi, Maruho, AbbVie, Eli Lilly Japan, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Janssen Pharma, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Torii Pharmaceutical, Kyowa Kirin, Celgene Japan and LEO Pharma; and has received grants as an investigator from Maruho, Eli Lilly Japan, Sun Pharma, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Torii Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim Japan, Kyowa Kirin, Jansen Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim Japan, A2 Healthcare, AbbVie and LEO Pharma. H.C.W. chaired the HOME core outcome set initiative from 2008 to 2021 and was involved in the development of the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). H.C.W., K.S.T. and L.H. are employed at the research centre where the POEM was developed. The University of Nottingham owns copyright to license POEM – chargeable for commercial users. L.A.A.G. and M.E.J. declare no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Eczematous dermatitis is a major cause of recalcitrant pruritic eruptions in older adults. Although some medications have been implicated, there are limited data demonstrating the utility of medication changes. Objective: To investigate the utility and possible harms of drug cessation trials (DCTs) in chronic eczematous eruptions in the aging (CEEA). Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study utilizing electronic health records of DCTs in adults older than 65 years with CEEA. Results: We identified 646 patients >65 years with new onset eczematous eruptions, 89 (14%) of whom had no identifiable etiology. In this cohort, 35 patients underwent a total of 40 DCTs. Although there was mention of improvement in 17.5% (7/40), all patients sought tertiary care for their persistent rash. Negative outcomes occurred in 45% (18/40), all of which were due to exacerbation of a comorbidity that the medication was prescribed to treat. Conclusion: Our experience suggests that patients with CEEA undergo DCTs that do not improve their dermatitis and can lead to dangerous worsening of underlying conditions. Further study of the etiology of CEEA is needed.

Background: Traditional systemic immunosuppressants and advanced therapies improve signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). However, data are limited in severe and/or difficult-to-treat AD. In the phase 3 JADE COMPARE trial of patients with moderate-to-severe AD receiving background topical therapy, once-daily abrocitinib 200 mg and 100 mg showed significantly greater reductions in the symptoms of AD than placebo and significantly greater improvement in itch response (with abrocitinib 200 mg) than dupilumab at week 2., Objective: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of abrocitinib and dupilumab in a subset of patients with severe and/or difficult-to-treat AD in a post hoc analysis of the JADE COMPARE trial., Methods: Adults with moderate-to-severe AD received once-daily oral abrocitinib 200 mg or 100 mg, dupilumab 300 mg subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks, or placebo with concomitant medicated topical therapy. Severe and/or difficult-to-treat AD subgroups were classified by baseline characteristics [Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) 4, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) > 21, failure or intolerance to prior systemic agents (excluding patients who took only corticosteroids), percentage of body surface area (%BSA) > 50, upper quartiles of EASI (EASI > 38) and %BSA (%BSA > 65), and combined subgroup of IGA 4, EASI > 21, and %BSA > 50, and failure or intolerance to prior systemic agents (excluding patients who took only corticosteroids)]. Assessments included IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) and a ≥ 2-point improvement from baseline, ≥ 75% and ≥ 90% improvement from baseline in EASI (EASI-75 and EASI-90), ≥ 4-point improvement from baseline in Peak Pruritus-Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS4), time to PP-NRS4, least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline in 14-day PP-NRS (days 2-15), Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) up to week 16., Results: The proportion of patients achieving IGA 0/1, EASI-75, and EASI-90 responses was significantly greater with abrocitinib 200 mg than placebo (nominal p < 0.05) across all subgroups with severe and/or difficult-to-treat AD. Across most subgroups, PP-NRS4 response was significantly greater with abrocitinib 200 mg than placebo (nominal p < 0.01); the time to achieve this response was shorter with abrocitinib 200 mg (range 4.5-6.0 days) than abrocitinib 100 mg (range 5.0-17.0 days), dupilumab (range 8.0-11.0 days), and placebo (range 3.0-11.5 days). LSM change from baseline in POEM and DLQI was significantly greater with abrocitinib 200 mg than placebo (nominal p < 0.001) across all subgroups. Clinically meaningful differences were observed between abrocitinib and dupilumab for most evaluated endpoints across several subgroups, including in patients who failed or were intolerant to prior systemic therapy., Conclusions: Abrocitinib provided rapid and substantially greater improvements in skin clearance and quality of life compared with placebo and dupilumab in subgroups of patients with severe and/or difficult-to-treat AD. These findings support the use of abrocitinib for severe and/or difficult-to-treat AD., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03720470., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Despite the need for improved eczema therapies and a rapid increase in available eczema clinical trials, participation remains low. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with clinical trial awareness, interest, and barriers to enrolment and participation. An online survey, administered 1 May to 6 June 2020 to adults (≥ 18 years) with eczema in the USA, was analysed. Among 800 patients included, mean age was 49.4 years, most respondents were female (78.1%), White (75.4%), non-Hispanic (91.4%), and geographically living in an urban/suburban area (Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC) 1-3, 90.8%). Only 9.7% of respondents reported previous participation in clinical trials, while 57.1% had considered participation and 33.2% never considered participation. Higher satisfaction with current eczema therapy, clinical trial literacy, and confidence in finding eczema trial information were all associated with clinical trial awareness, interest, and successful participation. Younger age and having atopic dermatitis were associated with increased awareness, while female gender was a barrier to interest and successful participation.

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: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is characterized by T H 2-dominated skin inflammation and systemic response to cutaneously encountered antigens. The T H 2 cytokines IL-4 and IL-13 play a critical role in the pathogenesis of AD. The Q576->R576 polymorphism in the IL-4 receptor alpha (IL-4Rα) chain common to IL-4 and IL-13 receptors alters IL-4 signaling and is associated with asthma severity., Objective: We sought to investigate whether the IL-4Rα R576 polymorphism is associated with AD severity and exaggerates allergic skin inflammation in mice., Methods: Nighttime itching interfering with sleep, Rajka-Langeland, and Eczema Area and Severity Index scores were used to assess AD severity. Allergic skin inflammation following epicutaneous sensitization of mice 1 or 2 IL-4Rα R576 alleles (QR and RR) and IL-4Rα Q576 (QQ) controls was assessed by flow cytometric analysis of cells and quantitative RT-PCR analysis of cytokines in skin., Results: The frequency of nighttime itching in 190 asthmatic inner-city children with AD, as well as Rajka-Langeland and Eczema Area and Severity Index scores in 1116 White patients with AD enrolled in the Atopic Dermatitis Research Network, was higher in subjects with the IL-4Rα R576 polymorphism compared with those without, with statistical significance for the Rajka-Langeland score. Following epicutaneous sensitization of mice with ovalbumin or house dust mite, skin infiltration by CD4 + cells and eosinophils, cutaneous expression of Il4 and Il13, transepidermal water loss, antigen-specific IgE antibody levels, and IL-13 secretion by antigen-stimulated splenocytes were significantly higher in RR and QR mice compared with QQ controls. Bone marrow radiation chimeras demonstrated that both hematopoietic cells and stromal cells contribute to the mutants' exaggerated allergic skin inflammation., Conclusions: The IL-4Rα R576 polymorphism predisposes to more severe AD and increases allergic skin inflammation in mice., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Atopic dermatitis onset usually occurs in childhood. Persistence of disease into adolescence and adulthood is common. It is important to evaluate new treatment options in adolescents because of the high unmet need in this population., Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib to treat moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in adolescents., Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified analysis of adolescents enrolled in 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 clinical trials in more than 20 countries across Europe, North and South America, Oceania, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region from July 2018 through December 2020. Participants were adolescents aged 12 to 17 years with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Data analysis was performed from April to August 2021., Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to once-daily oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo alone (Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2) or with topical corticosteroids (AD Up)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Safety and efficacy, including at least a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index from baseline and validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) at week 16 (coprimary end points)., Results: A total of 552 adolescents (290 female; 262 male) were randomized. Mean (SD) age was 15.4 (1.8), 15.5 (1.7), and 15.3 (1.8) years for adolescents in Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up, respectively. In Measure Up 1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up, respectively, a greater proportion of adolescents (% [95% CI]) achieved at least 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index at week 16 with upadacitinib 15 mg (73% [63%-84%], 69% [57%-81%], 63% [51%-76%]), and upadacitinib 30 mg (78% [68%-88%], 73% [62%-85%], 84% [75%-94%]), than with placebo (12% [4%-20%], 13% [5%-22%], 30% [19%-42%]; nominal P < .001 for all comparisons vs placebo). Similarly, a greater proportion of adolescents treated with upadacitinib achieved a validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of 0 or 1 at week 16 and improvements in quality of life with upadacitinib than with placebo. Upadacitinib was generally well tolerated in adolescents. Acne was the most common adverse event, and all acne events were mild or moderate., Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis of 3 randomized clinical trials, upadacitinib was an effective treatment for adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, with an acceptable safety profile., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03569293 (Measure Up 1), NCT03607422 (Measure Up 2), and NCT03568318 (AD Up).

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.)

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.

Background: Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective for preventing eczema or food allergy., Objectives: Primary objective To assess the effects of skin care interventions such as emollients for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants. Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy., Search Methods: We performed an updated search of the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in September 2021. We searched two trials registers in July 2021. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews, and scanned conference proceedings to identify further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (&gt; 37 weeks) infants (≤ 12 months) without pre-existing eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition. Eligible comparisons were standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions could include moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required., Data Collection and Analysis: This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured at the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician-assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen., Main Results: We identified 33 RCTs comprising 25,827 participants. Of these, 17 studies randomising 5823 participants reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review.  We included 11 studies, randomising 5217 participants, in one or more meta-analyses (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta-analysis), with 10 of these studies providing IPD; the remaining 6 studies were included in the narrative results only.   Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. Twenty-five studies, including all those contributing data to meta-analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta-analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although the definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow-up ranged from 24 hours to three years. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported information on our prespecified outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. We assessed most of the evidence in the review as low certainty and had some concerns about risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. We assessed the evidence for the primary food allergy outcome as high risk of bias due to the inclusion of only one trial, where findings varied based on different assumptions about missing data. Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change the risk of eczema by one to three years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; risk difference 5 more cases per 1000 infants, 95% CI 28 less to 47 more; moderate-certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) or time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). Skin care interventions during infancy may increase the risk of IgE-mediated food allergy by one to three years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.49; low-certainty evidence; 976 participants, 1 trial) but may not change risk of allergic sensitisation to a food allergen by age one to three years (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.71; low-certainty evidence; 1794 participants, 3 trials). Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial); however, this was only seen for cow's milk, and may be unreliable due to over-reporting of milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.75; risk difference 17 more cases per 1000 infants, 95% CI one more to 38 more; moderate-certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase the risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) and stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low-certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although CIs for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions were wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk. Preplanned subgroup analyses showed that the effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, filaggrin (FLG) mutation, chromosome 11 intergenic variant rs2212434, or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and eczema or food allergy development., Authors' Conclusions: Based on low- to moderate-certainty evidence, skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema; may increase risk of food allergy; and probably increase risk of skin infection. Further study is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might prevent eczema or food allergy., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: The relationship between atopic dermatitis (AD) severity, sleep disturbance (SD), and health-related outcomes is not fully elucidated., Objective: The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of SD in adult AD and its relationship with AD severity and health outcomes among the US population., Methods: A cross-sectional, US population-based survey study of 2893 adults was performed., Results: Among adults meeting the UK Diagnostic Criteria for AD, 255 (40.7%) reported 1 or more, 67 (11.1%) reported 3 to 4, and 57 (9.5%) reported 5 to 7 nights of SD in the past week; 475 (79.7%) reported at least some trouble sleeping in the past 3 days. Moderate and severe Patient-Oriented Scoring AD, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure, and Numeric Rating Scale-itch and Numeric Rating Scale-skin pain scores were associated with more severe SD compared with those without AD. More frequent and severe SDs were associated with higher Dermatology Life Quality Index, lower 12-item Short-Form Health Survey, and higher Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores. Significant mediation by SD severity was observed between Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure and Numeric Rating Scale-itch with Dermatology Life Quality Index, 12-item Short-Form Health Survey physical and mental component scores, HADS-anxiety and HADS-depression scores, diagnosed anxiety, and heart disease., Conclusions: Atopic dermatitis and AD severity are associated with SDs. Sleep disturbances considerably impact quality of life and other health outcomes in adults with AD., (Copyright © 2021 American Contact Dermatitis Society. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: Tralokinumab, as monotherapy or in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS), has exhibited marked efficacy through 52 weeks in phase 3 trials of adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis and additional efficacy in a long-term extension trial. Early changes in patient-reported symptoms have not been communicated., Objective: To evaluate early changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) across the ECZTRA 1, 2, and 3 tralokinumab trials., Methods: Monotherapy data (ECZTRA 1 + 2) was pooled; ECZTRA 3 evaluated tralokinumab plus optional TCS. The PROs were assessed through the trials., Results: A total of 1596 and 380 patients were randomized in ECZTRA 1 and 2 and ECZTRA 3, respectively. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between groups. Early separation from placebo was observed in percentage improvement in worst average daily pruritus numerical rating score (NRS) (week 1, ECZTRA 1 + 2; week 2, ECZTRA 3) and from day 2 in ECZTRA 1 and 2 daily data. More tralokinumab-treated patients achieved clinically meaningful improvements (≥ 4 points) in NRS by week 2 (ECZTRA 1 + 2) or week 3 (ECZTRA 3) vs placebo. Improvements in eczema-related sleep NRS were seen within 2 weeks (week 1, ECZTRA 1 + 2; week 2, ECZTRA 3), supported by similar improvements in other sleep measures. Meaningful changes in Dermatology Life Quality Index were observed from week 2 (ECZTRA 1 + 2). Results were supported by numerical differences from placebo in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure total score (week 2, both data sets)., Conclusion: Tralokinumab with or without TCS exhibited early and clinically meaningful improvements vs placebo in several PROs, which may be beneficial to patients because atopic dermatitis symptom relief is a key treatment concern for patients., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the impact of atopic dermatitis on families of pediatric patients., Study Design: This cross-sectional, web-based survey of children/adolescents (6 months to <18 years old) with atopic dermatitis and their parents and caregivers was conducted in 18 countries encompassing North America, Latin America, Europe, Middle East/Eurasia, and East Asia. Children and adolescents with atopic dermatitis and their parents and caregivers were identified by the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood criteria and ever being told by a physician that they had "eczema". Atopic dermatitis severity was assessed using the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure and the Patient Global Assessment. Atopic dermatitis impact on families' lives was evaluated using the Dermatitis Family Impact questionnaire and stand-alone questions on hours of atopic dermatitis-related care (past week) and missed work days (past 4 weeks) owing to their child's atopic dermatitis., Results: A total of 7465 pairs of pediatric participants with atopic dermatitis and their parents or caregivers were surveyed. Across age groups, the Dermatitis Family Impact questionnaire total score for all regions ranged from 7.1 to 8.6, 13.2 to 14.9, and 17.0 to 17.2 for Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure mild, moderate, and severe atopic dermatitis, respectively. Subscale scores showed that greater atopic dermatitis severity had a greater impact on all family life domains, including sleep and tiredness. No specific patterns or trends were observed across age groups. Time spent on childcare and missed work days increased with atopic dermatitis severity., Conclusions: Across pediatric age groups and geographic regions, greater atopic dermatitis severity was associated with a greater negative impact on physical, emotional, social, and economic components of family life., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Core outcome sets are critically important outcomes that should be measured in clinical trials. Their absence in atopic dermatitis is a form of research waste and impedes combining evidence to inform patient care. Here, we articulate the rationale for core outcome sets in atopic dermatitis and review the work of the international Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema group from its inception in Munich, 2010. We describe core domain determination (what should be measured), to instrument selection (how domains should be measured), culminating in the complete core outcome measurement set in Tokyo, 2019. Using a "road map," Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema includes diverse research methods including Delphi and nominal group techniques informed by systematic reviews of properties of candidate instruments. The 4 domains and recommended instruments for including in all clinical trials of atopic dermatitis are patient symptoms, measured by Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure and peak Numerical Rating Scale 11 for itch intensity over 24 hours, clinical signs measured using the Eczema Area and Severity Index, quality of life measured by the Dermatology Life Quality Index series for adults, children, and infants, and long-term control measured by either Recap of atopic eczema or Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Type 2 inflammatory diseases often coexist in patients. Dupilumab targets type 2 inflammation and has demonstrated treatment benefits in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) with an acceptable safety profile., Objective: This post hoc analysis across five phase 3 studies in patients with moderate to severe AD or asthma, or severe CRSwNP, evaluated time of onset and duration of the treatment response., Methods: Patients received subcutaneous dupilumab 200/300 mg or placebo. Assessments included the Eczema Area and Severity Index, Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale, and Dermatology Life Quality Index in AD; pre-bronchodilator FEV 1 , daily morning peak expiratory flow, and symptom scores in asthma; and University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test, daily nasal congestion, and loss of smell scores in CRSwNP., Results: At week 2 after the initiation of dupilumab versus placebo, 67.8% versus 36.5% of AD patients achieved a clinically meaningful benefit (Eczema Area and Severity Index: 50% or greater improvement; Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale: 3 point or greater improvement; or Dermatology Life Quality Index: 4 point or greater improvement) (P < .001). Moreover, 61.6% versus 39.9% of asthma patients achieved improvements in pre-bronchodilator FEV 1 of 100 mL or greater and 48.8% versus 26.3% achieved 200 mL or greater improvement (both P < .001); 33.2% versus 5.6% of CRSwNP patients regained a sense of smell (P < .001). Treatment effects further improved or were sustained to the end of treatment., Conclusions: Clinically meaningful responses were achieved rapidly after the first dupilumab dose in AD, asthma, or CRSwNP and were sustained throughout treatment (see Video in this article's Online Repository at www.jaci-inpractice.org)., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Atopic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects approximately 18 million people in the United States. Assessing the extent and severity of atopic dermatitis is critical for determining baseline disease burden and treatment effectiveness for both investigators and clinicians. Considerable efforts over the past several decades have been made in developing a highly validated instrument called the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI). Although several guides exist for the EASI, questions continue to arise regarding its use and interpretation. This review was developed to serve as the definitive guide for the EASI and to address commonly asked questions., Competing Interests: E.L.S. reports personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Aslan Pharma, Boston Consulting Group, Collective Acumen, LLC (CA), Dermira, Eli Lilly, Evidera, ExcerptaMedica, Forte Bio RX, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Development, Leo Pharm, Medscape LLC, Pfizer, Physicians World LLC, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Trevi Therapeutics, and WebMD. He also reports grants (or principal investigator role) from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Aslan, Corevita, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Leo Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and TARGET-DERM. These potential conflicts of interest have been reviewed and managed by OHSU. 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: Primary results from the Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 studies demonstrated upadacitinib efficacy and safety through 16 weeks in patients with atopic dermatitis. Longer-term outcomes remain unknown., Objective: To evaluate long-term (52 weeks) efficacy and safety of upadacitinib treatment in patients with atopic dermatitis., Design, Setting, and Participants: Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 are ongoing double-blind, placebo-controlled, replicate phase 3 randomized clinical trials that include adults and adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis at 151 and 154 centers, respectively. Cutoffs for this analysis were December 21, 2020 (Measure Up 1), and January 15, 2021 (Measure Up 2)., Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive once-daily oral upadacitinib 15 mg, 30 mg, or placebo. At week 16, patients randomized at baseline to receive upadacitinib 15 mg (273 and 260 patients in Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2, respectively) and 30 mg (270 and 268 patients) continued assigned treatment; placebo-treated patients were rerandomized 1:1 to receive upadacitinib 15 mg (121 and 120 patients in Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2, respectively) or 30 mg (123 and 121 patients) in a double-blinded manner., Main Outcomes and Measures: Safety and efficacy, including 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index and Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) with 2 or greater grades of improvement, were assessed., Results: Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 included a total of 1609 patients (mean [SD] age, 33.8 [15.6] years; 727 women [45.2%]; 882 men [54.8%]). Efficacy at week 16 was maintained through week 52. At week 52, 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index was achieved by 82.0% (95% CI, 77.0%-86.9%) and 79.1% (95% CI, 73.9%-84.4%) of patients continuing the 15-mg dose and 84.9% (95% CI, 80.3%-89.5%) and 84.3% (95% CI, 79.6%-89.0%) of patients continuing the 30-mg dose (for Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2, respectively); Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) with 2 or greater grades of improvement was achieved by 59.2% (95% CI, 52.9%-65.5%) and 52.6% (95% CI, 46.2%-59.1%) and 62.5% (95% CI, 56.3%-68.7%) and 65.1% (95% CI, 58.9%-71.2%) of patients in the Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 studies, respectively. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was low overall but was slightly higher for the upadacitinib 30-mg dose. Both upadacitinib doses were well tolerated with no new safety signals., Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis of follow-up data from 2 randomized clinical trials, longer-term treatment of adolescents and adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis with upadacitinib demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile, with sustained efficacy responses through 52 weeks., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03569293 (Measure Up 1) and NCT03607422 (Measure Up 2).

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is frequently misdiagnosed and undertreated, resulting in increased morbidity. In 2019, the Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Care Initiative was launched globally to investigate barriers to AD care and note good practice interventions to improve care. The initiative included a literature review to define the challenges in AD and a survey of 32 AD centers to define good practice interventions. One topic studied was best practices for clinical assessment and diagnosis. The literature review revealed the primary gaps included difficulty differentiating AD from other skin disorders, diagnosing atypical AD, staging AD severity in individual patients, and delays in assessment and treatment due to referral time lag. The best clinical practices used by leading AD centers included the use of validated diagnostic criteria, established AD scoring tools including patient-reported outcome measures and electronic health records (EHR), the formation of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), and improved communication between health care providers (HCPs) and patients. Most centers worked with patient advocacy groups and implemented educational programs for HCPs. AD centers are overcoming issues in AD care. Educating health care providers and the public, using screening surveys, using established guidelines, and communicating with MCTs and patients through EHRs are the most frequently used strategies., (© 2021 The Authors. Dermatologic Therapy published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Optimal management of atopic dermatitis requires a comprehensive assessment of response to treatment in order to inform therapeutic decisions. In a real-world setting, successful response to atopic dermatitis treatment is measured by sustained improvements in signs, symptoms, and quality of life. Post-hoc analyses of a 1-year, randomized, double-blinded, placebo- controlled trial (NCT02260986) of dupilumab with concomitant topical corticosteroids in 421 adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (of whom 315/106 received placebo/dupilumab (of whom 315 received placebo and 106 received dupilumab) was performed to assess the proportion of responders to dupilumab through a multidimensional composite endpoint. At 6-months, 80.2% of dupilumab-treated vs 40.0% placebo patients (p < 0.0001) achieved improvement in signs (Eczema Area and Severity Index ≤ 7), symptoms (worst itch score ≤ 4), or quality of life (Dermatology Life Quality Index ≤5), representative of minimal/clear atopic dermatitis. All 3 endpoints, indicative of no/minimal atopic dermatitis, were achieved by 44.3% of dupilumab-treated vs 10.2% placebo patients (p < 0.0001) and sustained through 1 year. Dupilumab treatment provided sustained clinically meaningful improvement in signs, symptoms, and quality of life in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.

Background: Ruxolitinib (RUX) cream demonstrated potent anti-inflammatory and antipruritic efficacy in a phase 2 study in adults with atopic dermatitis (AD)., Objective: To evaluate 8-week efficacy and safety in 2 phase 3 studies of RUX cream in patients with AD., Methods: Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Atopic Dermatitis Study 1 (NCT03745638) and Study 2 (NCT03745651) enrolled patients aged ≥12 years with AD for ≥2 years, an Investigator's Global Assessment score of 2/3, and 3%-20% affected body surface area. Patients were randomized 2:2:1 to twice-daily 0.75% RUX cream, 1.5% RUX cream, or vehicle cream for 8 continuous weeks. The primary endpoint was Investigator's Global Assessment treatment success at week 8 (Investigator's Global Assessment score of 0/1 and ≥2-grade improvement from baseline)., Results: In the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Atopic Dermatitis Study 1 and 2, 631 and 618 patients were randomized (631/577 analyzed for efficacy). Significantly more patients achieved Investigator's Global Assessment treatment success with 0.75% RUX cream (50.0%/39.0%) and 1.5% RUX cream (53.8%/51.3%) versus vehicle (15.1%/7.6%; P < .0001) at week 8. Significant itch reductions versus vehicle were reported within 12 hours of first application of 1.5% RUX (P < .05). Application site reactions were infrequent (<1%) and lower with RUX versus vehicle; none were clinically significant., Limitations: Longer-term safety data are not yet available., Conclusions: RUX cream showed anti-inflammatory and prompt antipruritic effects with superior efficacy versus vehicle and was well tolerated., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Dr Papp has received honoraria or clinical research grants as a consultant, speaker, scientific officer, advisory board member, and/or Steering Committee member for AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, Anacor, Arcutis, Astellas, Bausch Health/Valeant, Baxalta, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Can-Fite, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, Dow Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte Corporation, InflaRx, Janssen, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, LEO, Medimmune, Meiji Seika Pharma, Merck (MSD), Merck Serono, Mitsubishi Pharma, Moberg Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, PRCL Research, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis/Genzyme, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, and UCB. Dr Szepietowski has served as an advisor for AbbVie, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Menlo Therapeutics, and Trevi; has received speaker honoraria from AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and Eli Lilly; and has received clinical trial funding from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Galapagos, Holm, Incyte Corporation, InflaRX, Janssen-Cilag, Menlo Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Trevi, and UCB. Dr Kircik has served as an investigator, consultant, or speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Anaptys, Arcutis, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Glenmark, Incyte Corporation, Kamedis, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, Menlo, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and Taro. Dr Toth has served as an investigator for AbbVie, Avillion, Amgen, Arcutis, Astellas, Astion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Dermira, DS BioPharma, Dow Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte Corporation, Isotechnika, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and UCB Biopharma. Dr Eichenfield has served as an investigator, consultant, speaker, or data safety monitoring board member for AbbVie, Almirall, Arcutis, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Forte Biosciences, Galderma, Ichnos/Glenmark, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Otsuka, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr Leung has served as an advisor, investigator, or speaker for Incyte Corporation, LEO Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Aimmune, Novartis, Sanofi, and Regeneron. Dr Forman has received honoraria, clinical research grants, or fees as a consultant, speaker, advisory board member, and/or investigator for AbbVie, Aclaris Therapeutics, Asana BioSciences, AstraZeneca, Athenex, Celgene Corporation, Cutanea Life Sciences, Eli Lilly, Incyte Corporation, Innovaderm Research, Novartis, Pfizer, Promius Pharma, Regeneron, UCB, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, and XBiotech. Drs Venturanza, Sun, and Kuligowski are employees and shareholders of Incyte Corporation. Dr Simpson is an investigator for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, LEO Pharma, Merck, Pfizer, and Regeneron and is a consultant with honorarium for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Forte Bio, Galderma, Incyte Corporation, LEO Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Valeant., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Assessment of chronic hand eczema (CHE) is complex and warrants standardization., Objective: We sought to guide clinicians on the assessment of CHE., Methods: An electronic questionnaire regarding the diagnosis and assessment of CHE was completed by councilors (n=45) of the International Eczema Council, an international group of clinicians and researchers with expertise in CHE. The survey consisted of 52 statements for consensus., Results: Overall, nine statements (17.3%) had strong, twenty-three (44.2%) moderate, 12 (23.1%) low, and 8 (15.4%) very low levels of agreement. Five statements had considerable disagreement, including the value of conducting a skin biopsy (62.2% disagreement), investigating for possible type 1 reactions (60.0%), conducting a fungal culture (44.4%), finding no history of relevant allergens and/or irritants (31.1%) in most or all cases, and performing patch testing irrespective of lesion location and morphology (28.9%). Agreement was generally highest among respondents from Europe (28.6-77.8% agreement), followed by Asia (7.1%-35.7% agreement), North America (0%-35.5% agreement), and other (0%-13.3% agreement)., Conclusions: There were substantial differences of agreement, suggesting there are many knowledge and/or practice gaps with respect to CHE. Future research is needed to inform evidence-based and/or consensus guidelines for CHE., Competing Interests: J.I.S. was a consultant and/or advisory board member for Asana, Leo Pharma, Regeneron, and Sanofi. D.C. was a consultant and received honorarium from Ferndale Laboratories, Asana, Leo, UCB, FSJ, FIDE; owns stock or stock options for Dermira, Medimetriks, Brickell Biotech, Kadmon, Evommune; and is on Board of Directors for Kadmon, Evommune, and Dermira. R.B. is an advisory board member, consultant, speaker, and/or investigator for and received honoraria and/or grants from, AbbVie, Almirall, Anaptys Bio, Arcutis, Aristea, Bausch Health/Valeant, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Escalier, Janssen, Kineta, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sienna and UCB. He is also an employee and shareholder of Innovaderm Research. Corporate support was provided to the International Eczema Council by Abbvie, Arena, Asana, Celgene, Chugai, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly and Company, Galderma, Incyte, Kyowa Kirin, Leo Foundation, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Genzyme and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sienna. E.G.-Y. is an employee of Mount Sinai and has received research funds (grants paid to the institution) from Abbvie, Almirall, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Asana Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Boerhinger-Ingelhiem, Celgene, Dermavant, DS Biopharma, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Glenmark/Ichnos Sciences, Innovaderm, Janssen, Kiniksa, Kyowa Kirin, Leo Pharma, Novan, Novartis, Pfizer, Ralexar, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sienna Biopharma, UCB and Union Therapeutics/Antibiotx; and is a consultant for Abbvie, Aditum Bio, Almirall, Alpine, Amgen, Arena, Asana Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Bluefin Biomedicine, Boerhinger-Ingelhiem, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Botanix, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, Celgene, Clinical Outcome Solutions, DBV, Dermavant, Dermira, Douglas Pharmaceutical, DS Biopharma, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Evelo Bioscience, Evidera, FIDE, Galderma, GSK, Haus Bioceuticals, Ichnos Sciences, Incyte, Kyowa Kirin, Larrk Bio, Leo Pharma, Medicxi, Medscape, Neuralstem, Noble Insights, Novan, Novartis, Okava Pharmaceuticals, Pandion Therapeutics, Pfizer, Principia Biopharma, RAPT Therapeutics, Realm, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, SATO Pharmaceutical, Sienna Biopharma, Seanegy Dermatology, Seelos Therapeutics, Serpin Pharma, Siolta Therapeutics, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, Sun Pharma, Target PharmaSolutions and Union Therapeutics, Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Ventyx Biosciences, Vimalan. Consultant for Abbvie, Aditum Bio, Almirall, Amgen, Asana Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Boerhinger-Ingelhiem, Cara Therapeutics, Celgene, Concert, DBV, Dermira, DS Biopharma, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Galderma, Ichnos Sciences, Incyte Kyowa Kirin, Leo Pharma, Pandion Therapeutics, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Sienna Biopharma, Target PharmaSolutions and Union Therapeutics. J.P.T. has been an Advisor, Investigator or Speaker for Abbvie, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly & Co., and Regeneron. E.S. reports grants from Eli Lilly, Incyte, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Leo Pharmaceutical, Merck, Pfizer, and Regeneron, and personal fees from Abbvie, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Forte Bio Rx, Incyte, Leo, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Genzyme. T.A. is an advisory board member and/or consultant for Leo Pharma, Sanofi, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Abbvie. A.W. has no funding or conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Contact Dermatitis Society.)

Background: Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and capacitance are used in atopic dermatitis (AD) trials to provide objective data on clinical change and response to therapy. Many barrier devices are costly, limiting their utility. GPSkin is a novel low-cost, patient-operable device that measures both TEWL and capacitance via smartphone application., Objective: This validation study investigated the correlation of GPSkin with the AquaFlux and Corneometer, and the reliability of these devices, in patients with AD., Methods: Fifty AD patients with varying disease severity performed self-measurements with GPSkin, while investigators collected data with all 3 devices, on both nonlesional and lesional skin., Conclusion: GPSkin and AquaFlux demonstrated strong correlation for TEWL on nonlesional and lesional skin by Spearman's correlation (r s ), independent of device user. For capacitance, GPSkin and the Corneometer showed moderate correlation when obtained by patients, yet a strong correlation when obtained by a clinician. Despite good correlation, GPSkin showed poor agreement with both the AquaFlux and Corneometer in Bland-Altman plots. GPSkin underestimated both TEWL and capacitance. Overall, the devices had good test-retest reliability. None of the devices could discriminate between AD severity states. While GPSkin marks an exciting advancement in barrier technology, further study is needed for validation on AD skin., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Importance: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, recurrent, inflammatory skin disease with an unmet need for treatments that provide rapid and high levels of skin clearance and itch improvement., Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib vs dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe AD., Design, Setting, and Participants: Heads Up was a 24-week, head-to-head, phase 3b, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, double-dummy, active-controlled clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib with dupilumab among 692 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were candidates for systemic therapy. The study was conducted from February 21, 2019, to December 9, 2020, at 129 centers located in 22 countries across Europe, North and South America, Oceania, and the Asia-Pacific region. Efficacy analyses were conducted in the intent-to-treat population., Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 and treated with oral upadacitinib, 30 mg once daily, or subcutaneous dupilumab, 300 mg every other week., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was achievement of 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) at week 16. Secondary end points were percentage change from baseline in the Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) (weekly average), proportion of patients achieving EASI100 and EASI90 at week 16, percentage change from baseline in Worst Pruritus NRS at week 4, proportion of patients achieving EASI75 at week 2, percentage change from baseline in Worst Pruritus NRS (weekly average) at week 1, and Worst Pruritus NRS (weekly average) improvement of 4 points or more at week 16. End points at week 24 included EASI75, EASI90, EASI100, and improvement of 4 points or more in Worst Pruritus NRS from baseline (weekly average). Safety was assessed as treatment-emergent adverse events in all patients receiving 1 or more dose of either drug., Results: Of 924 patients screened, 348 (183 men [52.6%]; mean [SD] age, 36.6 [14.6] years) were randomized to receive upadacitinib and 344 were randomized to receive dupilumab (194 men [56.4%]; mean [SD] age, 36.9 [14.1] years); demographic and disease characteristics were balanced among treatment groups. At week 16, 247 patients receiving upadacitinib (71.0%) and 210 patients receiving dupilumab (61.1%) achieved EASI75 (P = .006). All ranked secondary end points also demonstrated the superiority of upadacitinib vs dupilumab, including improvement in Worst Pruritus NRS as early as week 1 (mean [SE], 31.4% [1.7%] vs 8.8% [1.8%]; P < .001), achievement of EASI75 as early as week 2 (152 [43.7%] vs 60 [17.4%]; P < .001), and achievement of EASI100 at week 16 (97 [27.9%] vs 26 [7.6%]; P < .001). Rates of serious infection, eczema herpeticum, herpes zoster, and laboratory-related adverse events were higher for patients who received upadacitinib, whereas rates of conjunctivitis and injection-site reactions were higher for patients who received dupilumab., Conclusions and Relevance: During 16 weeks of treatment, upadacitinib demonstrated superior efficacy vs dupilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe AD, with no new safety signals., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03738397.

The evolving discoveries in atopic dermatitis (AD) broaden our understanding of the pathogenesis of the disease and, above all, enable better management for patients. Dupilumab was the first biologic for AD, and since its approval, many new treatments have emerged in both late- and early-stage clinical trials. These trials have led to a further understanding of the pathogenesis of AD and to the identification of additional potential therapeutic targets. This review will highlight the emerging therapies and provide approaches on how to choose the right treatment for your patients., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur together in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective in preventing eczema or food allergy., Objectives: Primary objective To assess effects of skin care interventions, such as emollients, for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy., Search Methods: We searched the following databases up to July 2020: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We contacted field experts to identify planned trials and to seek information about unpublished or incomplete trials., Selection Criteria: RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (0 to 12 months) without pre-existing diagnosis of eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition were included. Comparison was standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions included moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required., Data Collection and Analysis: This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured by the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician-assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen., Main Results: This review identified 33 RCTs, comprising 25,827 participants. A total of 17 studies, randomising 5823 participants, reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review. Eleven studies randomising 5217 participants, with 10 of these studies providing IPD, were included in one or more meta-analysis (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta-analysis). Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported our outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. Twenty-five studies, including all those contributing data to meta-analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta-analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow-up ranged from 24 hours to two years. We assessed most of this review's evidence as low certainty or had some concerns of risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. Evidence for the primary food allergy outcome was rated as high risk of bias due to inclusion of only one trial where findings varied when different assumptions were made about missing data. Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change risk of eczema by one to two years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; moderate-certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) nor time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). It is unclear whether skin care interventions during infancy change risk of IgE-mediated food allergy by one to two years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.47; 996 participants, 1 trial) or allergic sensitisation to a food allergen at age one to two years (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.69; 1055 participants, 2 trials) due to very low-certainty evidence for these outcomes. Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial). However, this was only seen for cow's milk, and may be unreliable due to significant over-reporting of cow's milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.77; moderate-certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) or stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low-certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although confidence intervals for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions are wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk. Preplanned subgroup analyses show that effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, FLG mutation,  or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and risk of developing eczema or food allergy., Authors' Conclusions: Skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema, and probably increase risk of skin infection. Effects of skin care interventions on risk of food allergy are uncertain. Further work is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might promote or prevent eczema and to evaluate effects on food allergy based on robust outcome assessments., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

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: 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.)

Core outcome sets (COSs) are consensus-derived minimum sets of outcomes to be assessed in a specific situation. COSs are being increasingly developed to limit outcome-reporting bias, allow comparisons across trials, and strengthen clinical decision making. Despite the increasing interest in outcomes research, methods to develop COSs have not yet been standardized. The aim of this paper is to present the Harmonizing Outcomes Measures for Eczema (HOME) roadmap for the development and implementation of COSs, which was developed on the basis of our experience in the standardization of outcome measurements for atopic eczema. Following the establishment of a panel representing all relevant stakeholders and a research team experienced in outcomes research, the scope and setting of the core set should be defined. The next steps are the definition of a core set of outcome domains such as symptoms or quality of life, followed by the identification or development and validation of appropriate outcome measurement instruments to measure these core domains. Finally, the consented COS needs to be disseminated, implemented, and reviewed. We believe that the HOME roadmap is a useful methodological framework to develop COSs in dermatology, with the ultimate goal of better decision making and promoting patient-centered health care.

Background: Identification of modifiable risk factors for the development of eczema is of major public health significance., Objective: This study aimed to determine the effects of obesity in adolescence on the prevalence, severity, and quality of life of patients with eczema., Methods: We used the 2007-2008 National Survey of Children's Health, including a nationally representative sample of 45,897 adolescents aged 10 to 17 years. Caregiver report of eczema, health status, height, weight, number of health conditions, use of health services, and sociodemographics were assessed., Results: The prevalences of overweight (20.3% vs 15.4%) and obesity (16.8% vs 15.4%) were increased in adolescents with eczema compared with adolescents without eczema (Rao-Scott χ, P < 0.0001). A body mass index for-age-percentile (BMIP) of 50 to 94 (logistic regression, odds ratio [OR], 1.61 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.32-1.97]) and greater than or equal to 95 (1.46 [1.15-1.86]) was associated with higher odds of eczema compared with 5% to 49%. Moderate to severe eczema was higher with BMIP of 50 to 94 (41.2%; OR, 2.46 [95% CI, 1.73-3.51]) and greater than or equal to 95 (45.7%; 2.95 [1.73-3.51]) compared with 5 to 49 (22.2%). There was a significant interaction between race/ethnicity and BMIP in multivariate regression models of eczema severity, such that BMIP remained significant in Hispanics (OR, 3.24 [95% CI, 1.56-6.71]), non-Hispanic whites (3.64 [1.93-6.84]), Asians (57.17 [4.02-813.10]), Pacific Islanders/Alaskan Natives (90,336.3 [11,963.80-682,111.0]), and multiracial/other (3.99 [1.23-12.98]) but not in non-Hispanic blacks (1.88 [0.91-3.91]) and American Indians (2.12 [0.11-42.33]). Obese adolescents with eczema had higher odds of having only good (OR, 2.67 [95% CI, 1.56-4.56]) or fair (2.60 [1.35-5.03]) health compared with excellent overall health, had higher number of chronic health conditions (34.6% vs 18.0% with ≥2 conditions; P ≤ 0.003), and used more health services than most children of the same age compared with nonobese children (31.2% vs 21.5%; P = 0.01)., Conclusions: Obesity in adolescence is associated with increased eczema prevalence and severity, poorer overall health, and increased chronic health conditions and health care utilization.

Background: Little is known about the predictors of eczema severity in the US population., Objectives: We sought to determine the distribution and associations of childhood eczema severity in the United States., Methods: We analyzed the data from the 2007 National Survey of Children's Health, a prospective questionnaire-based study of a nationally representative sample of 91,642 children (range, 0-17 years)., Results: The prevalence of childhood eczema was 12.97% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 12.42-13.53); 67.0% (95% CI, 64.8-69.2) had mild disease, 26.0% (95% CI, 23.9-28.1) had moderate disease, and 7.0% (95% CI, 5.8-8.3) had severe disease. There was significant statewide variation of the distribution of eczema severity (Rao-Scott χ, P = 0.004), with highest rates of severe disease in Mid-Atlantic and Midwestern states. In univariate models, eczema severity was increased with older age, African American and Hispanic race/ethnicity, lower household income, oldest child in the family, home with a single mother, lower paternal/maternal education level, maternal general health, maternal/paternal emotional health, dilapidated housing, and garbage on the streets. In multivariate survey logistic regression models using stepwise and backward selection, moderate-to-severe eczema was associated with older age, lower household income, and fair or poor maternal health but inversely associated with birthplace outside the United States., Conclusions: These data indicate that environmental and/or lifestyle factors play an important role in eczema severity.

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with multiple comorbid conditions, such as asthma and food allergy. We sought to determine the impact of eczema severity on the development of these disorders and other non-atopic comorbidities in AD., Methods: We used the 2007 National Survey of Children's Health, a prospective questionnaire-based study of a nationally representative sample of 91,642 children aged 0-17 yr. Prevalence and severity of eczema, asthma, hay fever and food allergy, sleep impairment, healthcare utilization, recurrent ear infections, and visual and dental problems were determined., Results: In general, more severe eczema is correlated with poorer overall health, impaired sleep, and increased healthcare utilization, including seeing a specialist, compared with children with mild or moderate disease (Rao-Scott chi-squared test, p < 0.0001). Severe eczema was associated with a higher prevalence of comorbid chronic health disorders, including asthma, hay fever, and food allergies (p < 0.0001). In addition, the severity of eczema was directly related to the severity of the comorbidities. These associations remained significant in multivariate logistic regression models that included age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Severe eczema was also associated with recent dental problems, including bleeding gums (p < 0.0001), toothache (p = 0.0004), but not broken teeth (p = 0.04) or tooth decay (p = 0.13)., Conclusions: These data indicate that severe eczema is associated with multiple comorbid chronic health disorders, impaired overall health, and increased healthcare utilization. Further, these data suggest that children with eczema are at risk of decreased oral health. Future studies are warranted to verify this novel association., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Using the 2003 National Survey of Children's Health sponsored by the federal Maternal and Child Health Bureau, we calculated prevalence estimates of eczema nationally and for each state among a nationally representative sample of 102,353 children 17 years of age and under. Our objective was to determine the national prevalence of eczema/atopic dermatitis in the US pediatric population and to further examine geographic and demographic associations previously reported in other countries. Overall, 10.7% of children were reported to have a diagnosis of eczema in the past 12 months. Prevalence ranged from 8.7 to 18.1% between states and districts, with the highest prevalence reported in many of the East Coast states, as well as in Nevada, Utah, and Idaho. After adjusting for confounders, metropolitan living was found to be a significant factor in predicting a higher disease prevalence with an odds ratio of 1.67 (95% confidence interval of 1.19-2.35, P=0.008). Black race (odds ratio 1.70, P=0.005) and education level in the household greater than high school (odds ratio 1.61, P=0.004) were also significantly associated with a higher prevalence of eczema. The wide range of prevalence suggests that social or environmental factors may influence disease expression.

Background: Patients with hand eczema frequently have a history of atopic dermatitis or atopy. No specific morphologic pattern of hand eczema helps distinguish atopic hand eczema from other etiologies. There are few studies of hand eczema prevalence and morphology in a well-defined population of patients with atopic dermatitis., Methods: We evaluated 777 consecutive patients with atopic dermatitis (diagnosed by standard criteria) for hand involvement. An additional 100 patients had further evaluations, including evaluation of the historical and morphologic characteristics of their hand eczema., Results: The prevalence of hand involvement in patients with active atopic dermatitis was 58.9% (458 of 777 patients). Nail dystrophy was present in 16% (124 of 777) of patients. There was a significant trend toward an increasing prevalence of hand involvement with increasing age. Hand eczema tended to involve primarily the dorsal hand surfaces and the volar wrist., Conclusions: The hands are frequently involved in patients with active atopic dermatitis and present unique physical, social, and therapeutic challenges for patients. During the evaluation of patients presenting with hand eczema, the involvement of dorsal hand surfaces and the volar wrist may suggest atopic dermatitis as a contributing etiologic factor.

IntroductionAs new topical and systemic treatments become available for atopic dermatitis (AD), there is a need to understand how treatments are being used in routine clinical practice, their comparative effectiveness and their long-term safety in diverse clinical settings.Methods and analysisThe TARGET-DERM AD cohort is a longitudinal, observational study of patients with AD of all ages, designed to provide practical information on long-term effectiveness and safety unobtainable in traditional registration trials. Patients with physician-diagnosed AD receiving prescription treatment (topical or systemic) will be enrolled at academic and community clinical centres. Up to 3 years of retrospective medical records, 5 years of prospective medical records, and optional biological samples and patient-reported outcomes will be collected. The primary aims include characterisation of AD treatment regimens, evaluation of response to therapy, and description of adverse events.Ethics and disseminationTARGET-DERM has been approved by a central IRB (Copernicus Group IRB, 5000 Centregreen Way Suite 200, Cary, North Carolina 27513) as well as local and institutional IRBs. No additional Ethics Committee reviews. Results will be reviewed by a publications committee and submitted to peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT03661866, pre-results.

IntroductionThe impact of crisaborole ointment, a nonsteroidal phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor for the treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD), on quality of life (QoL) was assessed in two identically designed phase 3 studies (AD-301: NCT02118766; AD-302: NCT02118792, both at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ).MethodsIn both studies, patients aged ≥ 2 years with mild to moderate AD per the Investigator's Static Global Assessment were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive crisaborole or vehicle twice daily for 28 days. QoL was assessed using the Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) (2-15 years), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) (≥ 16 years), and the Dermatitis Family Impact Questionnaire (DFI) (parents/caregivers/family of patients aged 2-17 years). Established QoL score severity bands provided clinical context.ResultsGreater mean improvement in QoL was observed in crisaborole-treated patients than in vehicle-treated patients at day 29 [mean change from baseline (∆BL), CDLQI: - 4.6 vs. - 3.0; P < 0.001; DLQI: - 5.2 vs. - 3.5; P = 0.015]. At baseline, more than half the patients had a "moderate effect" or higher of AD on QoL. At day 29, there was a trend toward more crisaborole- than vehicle-treated patients having "small effect" to "no effect", The QoL of parents/caregivers/family improved more for crisaborole-treated than for vehicle-treated patients (∆BL, DFI: - 3.7 vs. - 2.7; P = 0.003).ConclusionCrisaborole treatment results in clinically meaningful improvement in QoL for patients and their parents/caregivers/families.Trial registrationAD-301: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02118766; AD-302: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02118792.FundingAnacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer Inc., New York, NY.

Introduction: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is characterized by intense itch and other symptoms that negatively impact quality of life (QoL). This study evaluates the effect of upadacitinib (an oral selective Janus kinase inhibitor) monotherapy on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe AD over 16 weeks. Methods: This integrated analysis of the double-blind, placebo-controlled periods of phase 3 monotherapy clinical trials Measure Up 1 (NCT03569293) and Measure Up 2 (NCT03607422) assessed itch (Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale [WP-NRS] and SCORing Atopic Dermatitis [SCORAD]), skin pain and symptom severity (AD Symptom Scale), symptom frequency (Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure), sleep (AD Impact Scale [ADerm-IS] and SCORAD), daily activities and emotional state (ADerm-IS), QoL (Dermatology Life Quality Index [DLQI] and Children's DLQI), mental health (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and patient impressions (Patient Global Impression of Severity, Patient Global Impression of Change, and Patient Global Impression of Treatment). Results: Data from 1683 patients (upadacitinib 15 mg, n = 557; upadacitinib 30 mg, n = 567; placebo, n = 559) were analyzed. A greater proportion of patients receiving upadacitinib versus placebo experienced improvements in itch (≥ 4-point improvement on WP-NRS) by week 1 (upadacitinib 15 mg, 11.2%; upadacitinib 30 mg, 17.7%; placebo, 0.5%; P < 0.001), with response rates sustained through week 16 (upadacitinib 15 mg, 47.1%; upadacitinib 30 mg, 59.8%; placebo, 10.4%; P < 0.001). Improvements were similar for PROs assessing skin pain/symptoms, sleep, daily activities, QoL, emotional state, mental health, and patient impressions of disease severity and treatment. Responses generally improved rapidly (within 1–2 weeks), increased through weeks 4–6, and were maintained through week 16. Conclusions: Once-daily oral upadacitinib monotherapy improved response rates across PROs compared with placebo. Upadacitinib therapy resulted in rapid, sustained improvements in PROs measuring symptom burden and QoL in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe AD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT03569293 and NCT03607422. Plain Language Summary: Atopic dermatitis, or eczema, is characterized by itchy, dry, inflamed skin. These symptoms often make it difficult for patients to get adequate sleep. Patients with atopic dermatitis may also experience anxiety, depression, reduced self-confidence, social isolation, disruption to daily activities like school and work, and decreased quality of life. Many atopic dermatitis symptoms, including itch and psychological impact, are difficult for doctors to assess. Thus, it is important to consider patients' descriptions of their symptoms and quality of life, particularly when assessing treatment benefit. Upadacitinib is an orally administered drug approved to treat moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. We investigated how upadacitinib (15 mg or 30 mg) given once daily to adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in the Measure Up 1 and 2 clinical trials impacts their symptoms and quality of life over a 16-week period. We compared changes in patient-reported itch, pain, sleep, daily activities, emotional state, mental health, and overall quality of life among patients in the clinical trials who received upadacitinib with those in the same studies who received a dummy (placebo) treatment. Upadacitinib improved patient-reported symptoms and quality of life early in the clinical trials, often within the first 1–2 weeks. The extent of the improvements increased through weeks 4–6 of treatment and lasted through week 16. Patients who received upadacitinib reported greater improvements in symptoms and quality of life than did patients who received placebo. Upadacitinib treatment resulted in rapid and lasting improvements in the well-being of patients with atopic dermatitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]