Search

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

Background: Evidence on the (long‐term) safety of systemic immunomodulating therapies in atopic dermatitis (AD) generated by real‐world data is sparse. Objectives: To describe real‐world reported adverse drug reactions (AEs) related to systemic immunomodulating therapy in patients with AD and to compare the incidence rates of AEs with the Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs). Methods: We conducted an observational prospective multi‐centre cohort study, using the TREAT NL registry. All severe AEs, AEs of special interest and serious AEs in adult and paediatric patients on systemic immunomodulating treatment (ciclosporin, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolic acid, dupilumab, tralokinumab, baricitinib and upadacitinib) were assessed. Incidences rates of all (potentially) drug‐related AEs were standardized in patient years and compared to the cumulative incidences in the associated SmPCs. Results: We collected 422 patient years of safety data from 266 patients, of whom 129 (48.5%) reported a total of 224 (potentially) drug‐related AEs. Compared to dupilumab's SmPC, higher incidence rates were found for four AEs (reported ≥5 times): eosinophilia, blepharitis, dry eyes and head and neck erythema (i.e. dupilumab facial redness). A higher incidence rate of fatigue was found in patients on oral methotrexate in our cohort compared to the SmPC. Two new drug‐related AEs (reported ≥5 times) were found in patients on dupilumab, including non‐infectious conjunctivitis and meibomian gland dysfunction. Conclusions: Real‐world reported AEs captured in AD patient registries can add information on the estimated incidence of AEs and benefit clinical decision aids. Future studies using data derived from the TREAT NL registry combined with data from other registries within the TREAT Registry Taskforce will provide more information on (rare) AEs associated with immunomodulating therapy in AD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Systemic treatment is indicated for moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis (AD) refractory to topical treatment. Long‐term evidence, up to 5 years, of off‐label prescribed methotrexate (MTX) and azathioprine (AZA) is lacking. Objectives: To investigate long‐term effectiveness, safety and drug survival of MTX and AZA. Methods: In an open‐label follow‐up phase of a clinical trial, patients were seen every 3 months for 5 years. MTX and AZA doses could be increased or decreased concurrent with daily clinical practice. Primary effectiveness outcomes were mean absolute and relative reduction in SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index and Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) after 5 years compared with baseline. To assess safety, the type, frequency, severity and relatedness to treatment of adverse events were investigated. Drug survival was analysed by Kaplan–Meier curves. Results: Thirty‐five of 43 originally included patients participated, of whom 27 completed the follow‐up. At year 5, the mean relative reduction in SCORAD index was similar in the MTX and AZA groups: 53% and 54% using descriptive analysis. Twelve serious adverse events occurred in 5 years; for three there was a possible causal relationship. Drug survival demonstrated a longer survival for MTX, but survival in both groups was low after 5 years (MTXn = 5, AZAn = 1). Conclusions: Based on this relatively small pragmatic study, MTX and AZA seem to be effective and safe as maintenance treatments in moderate‐to‐severe AD up to 5 years. Few patients in both groups survive on their originally allocated drug although some discontinued because of controlled AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Eczema Area and Severity Index is an investigator‐assessed instrument reporting clinical signs of atopic dermatitis. The instrument is extensively validated in both adult and paediatric populations and recommended as a core outcome measure to assess clinical signs by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema initiative in clinical trials and was recently recommended as an option to measure signs in clinical practice. Here, we review the validation of the instrument using standard assessment criteria, explore controversies and challenges to its universal applicability and highlight future electronic adaptations. We find that the instrument demonstrates adequate performance in the measurement properties recommended by the COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments initiative for instruments reporting clinical signs, is clinically interpretable, and is suitable for all atopic dermatitis severities. Some validation gaps remain. Information reporting on its performance in diverse populations, with emphasis on deeply pigmented skin, is promising though limited. Technological adaptations are demonstrating promising initial validation results and may facilitate remote and/or automated assessments assisting clinical care and decentralized clinical trials in the future. We find no strong evidence limiting its use in trials or clinical practice although questions pertaining to the effect of investigator training remain. We recommend that the Eczema Area and Severity Index be used in all interventional atopic dermatitis trials and be considered alongside other recommended clinical practice severity instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: 特应性皮炎(AD)俗称湿疹,是一种可引发剧烈瘙痒和/或疼痛的慢性炎症性皮肤病,可能会影响患者及其家属的睡眠和健康相关的生活质量。该疾病影响了发达国家/地区10–20%左右的人口。AD是全球50大常见疾病之一。全身治疗意味着药物将在体内而非皮肤上发挥疗效,这种治疗方法适用于中度到重度AD患者,以及对其而言局部(敷用在皮肤上)治疗已满足不了治疗需求的患者。大部分全身治疗都缺乏长期证据,用于未标志用途的氨甲喋呤(MTX)和硫唑嘌呤(AZA)处方药(非AD注册药物)的长期证据尤为缺乏。本项在荷兰开展的研究旨在确认MTX和AZA从长期来看是否是一种安全有效的治疗方法。患者参与了一项随机对照试验(一项对用于实际患者的不同治疗方法进行比较的研究)随访研究,在5年研究期间,每3个月将访视患者一次。患者的主治医生可以在必要时增加或减少MTX和AZA的剂量。研究人员使用评分系统比较患者接受治疗5年后的症状与其刚开始接受治疗时的症状,以衡量治疗方法的有效程度。在此案例中,特应性皮炎评分(SCORAD)指数中分数的下降表明,症状和研究者总体评估(IGA)均有所改善。另外还对不良事件(不乐见的副作用)进行了研究。还对药物存活率(即患者持续接受治疗的时长)进行了分析。最初共有43名患者参与了随机对照试验,而后其中35名患者参与了本项随访研究,但只有27名患者完成了为期5年整的随访。在第5年里,SCORAD指数的平均相对下降率与MTX和AZA对照组的相仿。分别为52.8%和53.8%。5年内发生了12起严重不良事件;其中3起不良事件的产生原因可能源于治疗方法。MTX的药物存活率更长,但是5年后,两组的药物存活率都很低(MTX n = 5,AZA n = 1)。基于此项规模相对较小的研究,MTX和AZA对中度到重度AD患者而言,在5年内似乎是一项安全有效的维持性治疗方法。虽然还有少部分患者在继续服用最初分配给他们的药物,但是有些人因为症状已经消除而停止接受了治疗。这种低药物存活率强调了为AD患者采取有效治疗方法的必要性。此外,需要开展更为长期、更为全面的抽样研究。 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) phototherapy is commonly prescribed for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema (AE). The efficacy of NB-UVB, however, has not yet properly been established, as current evidence is of low certainty. Our aim is to assess the short-term and long-term (cost-)effectiveness and safety of NB-UVB in adult AE patients by performing a pragmatic, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint (PROBE) trial. This protocol outlines its methodology., Methods: A pragmatic, multicenter, PROBE trial will be performed with 1:1 randomization of 316 adult patients with moderate-to-severe AE who have inadequate disease control with topical therapy and who are eligible for optimal topical therapy (OTT) or NB-UVB in combination with OTT as a next step. Participants in the interventional arm will receive a minimum of 3 months of OTT combined with 8 to 16 weeks of NB-UVB. The control group receives 3 months of OTT. Following the interventional phase, follow-up will continue for 9 months. Physician-reported and patient-reported outcomes (according to the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) Core Outcome Set) and adverse events are assessed at 4 weeks, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months., Discussion: The UPDATE trial aims to provide high-quality evidence regarding the (cost-)effectiveness and safety of NB-UVB phototherapy in moderate-to-severe AE patients. Challenges that are addressed in the protocol include the possible bias arising from applying open-label treatment and the necessity of introducing OTT into the study design to prevent a high dropout rate., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05704205. Registered on December 8, 2022., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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

Background: The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has established a core outcome set of domains for atopic eczema (AE) clinical trials. Previous consensus meetings have agreed on preferred instruments for clinician-reported signs (Eczema Area and Severity Index, EASI) and patient-reported symptoms (Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure, POEM). This paper reports consensus decisions from the HOME VII meeting., Objectives: To complete the core outcome set for AE by agreeing on core outcome instruments for the domains of quality of life (QoL), long-term control and itch intensity., Methods: A face-to-face consensus meeting was held in Tokyo, Japan (8-10 April 2019) including 75 participants (49 healthcare professionals/methodologists, 14 patients, 12 industry representatives) from 16 countries. Consensus decisions were made by presentations of evidence, followed by whole and small group discussions and anonymous voting using predefined consensus rules., Results: It was agreed by consensus that QoL should be measured using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) for adults, the Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) for children and the Infant's Dermatology Quality of Life Index (IDQoL) for infants. For long-term control, the Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP) instrument or the Atopic Dermatitis Control Test (ADCT) should be used. Consensus was not reached over the frequency of data collection for long-term control. The peak itch numerical rating scale (NRS)-11 past 24 h was recommended as an additional instrument for the symptom domain in trials of older children and adults. Agreement was reached that all core outcome instruments should be captured at baseline and at the time of primary outcome assessment as a minimum., Conclusions: For now, the core outcome set for clinical trials in AE is complete. The specified domains and instruments should be used in all new clinical trials and systematic reviews of eczema treatments., (© 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: For many years dermatologists have had access to few therapies for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema (AE). New promising therapies are entering the market but conventional phototherapies and systemic therapies have more well-known safety profiles, lower costs and wider availability., Objectives: To provide insight into current prescribing practices of conventional phototherapy and systemic immunomodulatory therapies for adults with chronic AE, and the factors influencing these prescribing practices, before biologics and other novel therapeutics become routine clinical practice., Methods: In this exploratory study dermatologists were invited to participate in an online survey via a mailing list of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology and national societies. Data were collected on participant characteristics (including clinical practice data), the use of phototherapies and systemic therapies, and factors influencing their use., Results: From 30 European countries, 238 out of 361 dermatologists willing to participate (65·9%) completed the survey, with 229 meeting the inclusion criteria. For phototherapy (prescribed by 84·7%), most preferred narrowband ultraviolet B as first line (80·9%) and psoralen plus ultraviolet A as second (21·6%). For systemic therapy (prescribed by 95·2%) ciclosporin (54·1%), oral corticosteroids (32·6%) and methotrexate (30·7%) were used first line. Dermatologists relied mostly on personal experience for prescribing phototherapy and systemic therapy. Azathioprine and mycophenolic acid were prescribed by only 135 (59·0%) and 85 (37·1%) participants in total, mostly due to a lack of personal experience., Conclusions: This study provides insight into prescribing practices for conventional phototherapy and systemic therapy in Europe and shows that off-label therapies are also preferred as first-line choice of systemic therapy., (© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has established a core outcome set of domains for atopic eczema clinical trials. Previous consensus meetings have agreed upon preferred instruments for clinician-reported signs (Eczema Area and Severity Index - EASI) and patient-reported symptoms (Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure - POEM). This paper reports consensus decisions from the HOME VII meeting., Objective: To complete the core outcome set for atopic eczema by agreeing upon core outcome instruments for the domains of quality of life, long-term control and itch intensity., Methods: Face-to-face consensus meeting held in Tokyo, Japan (8 th to 10 th April, 2019) including 74 participants (47 healthcare professionals/methodologists, 14 patients, 13 industry representatives), from 16 countries. Consensus decisions were made by presentations of evidence, followed by whole and small group discussions and anonymous voting using pre-defined consensus rules., Results: It was agreed by consensus that quality of life should be measured using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) for adults, the Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) for children, and the Infant's Dermatology Quality of Life Index (IDQoL) for infants. For long-term control, the Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP) instrument or the Atopic Dermatitis Control Test (ADCT) should be used. Consensus was not reached over the frequency of data collection for long-term control. The peak itch numerical rating scale(NRS)-11 past 24 hours was recommended as an additional instrument for the symptom domain in trials of older children and adults. Agreement was reached that all core outcome instruments should be captured at baseline and at the time of primary outcome assessment as a minimum., Conclusions: For now, the core outcome set for clinical trials in atopic eczema is complete. The specified domains and instruments should be used in all new clinical trials and systematic reviews of eczema treatments., (This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.)

Background: A long-term prospective observational safety study is essential to characterize fully the safety profile of systemic immunomodulating therapies for patients with atopic eczema. The TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce offers a large platform to conduct such research using national registries that collect the same data using a predefined core dataset., Objectives: To present a protocol for a safety study comparing dupilumab with other systemic immunomodulating therapies in children and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema, to assess the long-term safety risk of these therapies in a routine clinical care setting., Methods: We describe a registry-embedded international observational prospective cohort study. Adult and paediatric patients who start treatment with dupilumab or another systemic immunomodulating agent for their atopic eczema will be included. The primary end point is the incidence of malignancies (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) compared between the treatment groups. Secondary end points include other serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest, such as eye disorders and eosinophilia., Conclusions: This protocol delineates a safety study for dupilumab in adult and paediatric patients with atopic eczema, using a standardized methodological approach across several national registries. The protocol could also be used for other novel systemic immunomodulating therapies, and could provide licensing and reimbursement authorities, pharmaceutical companies and clinicians with safety evidence from a routine clinical care setting. What's already known about this topic? There is a need for long-term data on the safety of systemic immunomodulating therapies in patients with atopic eczema. Regulatory bodies, such as the European Medicines Agency, increasingly stipulate the collection of such data as part of the licensing agreement for new treatments, to assess the new agent's long-term safety profile against established therapies. Large numbers of patients with a long duration of follow-up are necessary in order to detect rare events like malignancies. What does this study add? The TREAT Registry Taskforce offers a platform to conduct such research with a network of multiple national atopic eczema research registries. We present a protocol for an investigator-initiated multicentre safety study comparing dupilumab with other systemic immunomodulating therapies in adults and subsequently adolescents and children with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema. This protocol can be used as a framework for similar studies for other novel systemic immunomodulating therapies across both adult and paediatric populations., (© 2019 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Dupilumab is the first biologic registered for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), and efficacy was shown in phase III clinical trials (primary outcome at week 16 was reached in 38% of patients). Currently, there are limited daily practice data available for dupilumab, especially when it is combined with systemic immunosuppressants., Objectives: To evaluate dupilumab treatment in daily practice in patients with AD., Methods: In this observational cohort study, we prospectively included all adult patients with AD who had been treated with dupilumab in two university hospitals in the Netherlands. Concomitant systemic immunosuppressive treatment was monitored. Physician-reported outcome measures and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after ≥ 12 weeks of follow-up were analysed. We used a linear mixed-effects model to determine changes in scores during follow-up., Results: Ninety-five patients were included. Of these, 62 patients were using systemic immunosuppressants at baseline; the use of systemic immunosuppressants was continued during dupilumab treatment in 43 patients. From baseline to 16 weeks of treatment, the estimated mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score (0-72) decreased from 18·6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 16·0-21·4)] to 7·3 (95% CI 5·4-10·0), and the estimated mean PROMs showed a decrease of 41-66%. Investigator's Global Assessment 0 or 1 (clear/almost clear) was reached in 38% of the patients. Five patients discontinued dupilumab treatment due to side-effects or ineffectiveness. Eye symptoms and orofacial (nonocular) herpes simplex virus (HSV) reactivation were reported in 62% and 8% of the patients, respectively., Conclusions: Dupilumab treatment in daily practice shows a clinically relevant improvement of physician-reported outcome measures and PROMs, which is in line with efficacy data from clinical trials. Besides frequently reported eye symptoms and orofacial (nonocular) HSV reactivation, there were no apparent safety concerns. What's already known about this topic? Dupilumab has been shown to be an efficacious treatment for atopic dermatitis in several clinical trials. However, it is known that there may be considerable differences in patient characteristics and treatment responses between clinical trials and daily practice. What does this study add? This study presents the first experience with dupilumab treatment in 95 patients with atopic dermatitis in daily practice in two Dutch university hospitals. Less stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria and follow-up schedules, in contrast to those used in clinical trials, might better represent daily practice. Dupilumab treatment shows a clinically relevant improvement of physician- and patient-reported outcome measures; besides patient-reported eye symptoms (in 59 of 95 patients; 62%) and an apparent increase in orofacial (nonocular) herpes simplex virus reactivation (eight of 95 patients; 8%), there were no other safety concerns during follow-up up to 16 weeks of dupilumab treatment., (© 2019 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Comparative, real-life and long-term evidence on the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in moderate-to-severe atopic eczema (AE) is limited. Such data must come from well-designed prospective patient registries. Standardization of data collection is needed for direct comparisons and data pooling., Objectives: To reach a consensus on how and when to measure the previously defined domain items of the TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce core dataset for research registries for paediatric and adult patients with AE., Methods: Proposals for the measurement instruments were based on recommendations of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative, the existing AE database of TREATgermany, systematic reviews of the literature and expert opinions. The proposals were discussed at three face-to-face consensus meetings, one teleconference and via e-mail. The frequency of follow-up visits was determined by an expert survey., Results: A total of 16 experts from seven countries participated in the 'how to measure' consensus process and 12 external experts were consulted. A consensus was reached for all domain items on how they should be measured by assigning measurement instruments. A minimum follow-up frequency of initially 4 weeks after commencing treatment, then every 3 months while on treatment and every 6 months while off treatment was defined., Conclusions: This core dataset for national AE research registries will aid in the comparability and pooling of data across centres and country borders, and enables international collaboration to assess the long-term effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy used in patients with AE. What's already known about this topic? Comparable, real-life and long-term data on the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in patients with atopic eczema (AE) are needed. There is a high diversity of outcomes and instruments used in AE research, which require harmonization to enhance comparability and allow data pooling. What does this study add? Our taskforce has reached international consensus on how and when to measure core domain items for national AE research registries. This core dataset is now available for use by researchers worldwide and will aid in the collection of unified data. What are the clinical implications of this work? The data collected through this core dataset will help to gain better insights into the long-term effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in AE and will provide important information for clinical practice. Standardization of such data collection at the national level will also allow direct data comparisons and pooling across country borders (e.g. in the analysis of treatment-related adverse events that require large patient numbers)., (© 2019 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

The development of core outcome sets (COSs; ie, a minimum set of core outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials or in clinical practice for a specific condition) in dermatology is increasing in pace. A total of 44 dermatology-related COS projects have been registered in the online Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials database (http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/search) and include studies on 26 different skin diseases. With the increasing number of COSs in dermatology, care is needed to ensure the delivery of high-quality COSs that meet quality standards when using state-of-the-art methods. In 2015, the Cochrane Skin-Core Outcome Set Initiative (CS-COUSIN) was established. CS-COUSIN is an international, multidisciplinary working group aiming to improve the development and implementation of COSs in dermatology. CS-COUSIN has developed guidance on how to develop high-quality COSs for skin diseases and supports dermatology-specific COS initiatives. Currently, 17 COS development groups are affiliated with CS-COUSIN and following standardized COS development processes. To ensure successful uptake of COSs in dermatology, researchers, clinicians, systematic reviewers, guideline developers, and other stakeholders should use existing COSs in their work., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evidence of immunomodulatory therapies to guide clinical management of atopic eczema (AE) is scarce, despite frequent and often off-label use. Patient registries provide valuable evidence for the effects of treatments under real-world conditions that can inform treatment guidelines, give the opportunity for health economic evaluation and the evaluation of quality of care, as well as pharmacogenetic and dynamic research, which cannot be adequately addressed in clinical trials., Objectives: The TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce aims to seek international consensus on a core set of domains and items ('what to measure') for AE research registries, using a Delphi approach., Methods: Participants from six stakeholder groups were included: doctors, nurses, nonclinical researchers, patients, industry and regulatory body representatives. The eDelphi comprised three sequential online rounds, requesting participants to rate the importance of each proposed domain item. Participants could add domain items to the proposed list in round 1. A final consensus meeting was held to ratify the core set., Results: Participants (n = 479) from 36 countries accessed the eDelphi platform, of whom 86%, 79% and 74% completed rounds 1, 2 and 3, respectively. At the face-to-face consensus meeting attended by 42 participants the final core set was established containing 19 domains with 69 domain items (49 baseline and 20 follow-up items)., Conclusions: This core set of domains and items to be captured by national AE systemic therapy registries will standardize data collection and thereby allow direct comparability across registries and facilitate data pooling between countries. Ultimately, it will provide greater insight into the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of photo- and systemic immunomodulatory therapies., (© 2018 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

This is the report from the fifth meeting of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema initiative (HOME V). The meeting was held on 12-14 June 2017 in Nantes, France, with 81 participants. The main aims of the meeting were (i) to achieve consensus over the definition of the core domain of long-term control and how to measure it and (ii) to prioritize future areas of research for the measurement of the core domain of quality of life (QoL) in children. Moderated whole-group and small-group consensus discussions were informed by presentations of qualitative studies, systematic reviews and validation studies. Small-group allocations were performed a priori to ensure that each group included different stakeholders from a variety of geographical regions. Anonymous whole-group voting was carried out using handheld electronic voting pads according to predefined consensus rules. It was agreed by consensus that the long-term control domain should include signs, symptoms, quality of life and a patient global instrument. The group agreed that itch intensity should be measured when assessing long-term control of eczema in addition to the frequency of itch captured by the symptoms domain. There was no recommendation of an instrument for the core outcome domain of quality of life in children, but existing instruments were assessed for face validity and feasibility, and future work that will facilitate the recommendation of an instrument was agreed upon., (© 2018 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has defined four core outcome domains for a core outcome set (COS) to be measured in all atopic eczema (AE) trials to ensure cross-trial comparison: clinical signs, symptoms, quality of life and long-term control., Objectives: The aim of this paper is to report on the consensus process that was used to select the core instrument to consistently assess symptoms in all future AE trials., Methods: Following the HOME roadmap, two systematic reviews were performed which identified three instruments that had sufficient evidence of validity, reliability and feasibility to be considered for the final COS., Results: At the fourth international HOME meeting, there was broad consensus among all stakeholders that the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) should be used as the core instrument (87·5% agreed, 9·4% unsure, 3·1% disagreed)., Conclusions: All relevant stakeholders are encouraged to use POEM as the chosen instrument to measure the core domain of symptoms in all future AE clinical trials. Other instruments of interest can be used in addition to POEM., (© 2016 British Association of Dermatologists.)

'Symptoms' is a core outcome domain for atopic eczema (AE) trials, agreed by consensus as part of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative. To standardize and validate the core domain symptoms and symptom instruments for AE trials the HOME roadmap is followed. Its first step is to establish if and how symptoms have been measured in published AE treatment trials. Therefore the Global Resource for Eczema Trials database was used to collect all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments for AE between January 2000 and April 2014. Study selection and data extraction were performed by three reviewers independently. We identified the use of symptoms in 295 of 378 trials (78%). Symptoms as a primary end point were applied by 147 RCTs (50%). Seventeen different symptoms were measured, but mostly itch and sleep loss. Symptoms were assessed by only 37% of trials by a stand-alone symptom measurement. Overall 63% of RCTs used a composite instrument, and 30 different instruments were identified. The Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index was the most commonly applied, but only 23% of RCTs reported the SCORAD symptom score separately. This systematic review demonstrates that symptoms, most frequently itch and sleep loss, are commonly reported in AE treatment trials, but are measured using many different instruments. Often symptoms are evaluated as part of a composite instrument, and currently it is not possible to extract symptoms-only data from most published studies. Future trials should report symptom scores to permit meta-analysis of the core outcomes., (© 2016 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

This article is a report of the fourth meeting of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative held in Malmö, Sweden on 23-24 April 2015 (HOME IV). The aim of the meeting was to achieve consensus over the preferred outcome instruments for measuring patient-reported symptoms and quality of life for the HOME core outcome set for atopic eczema (AE). Following presentations, which included data from systematic reviews, consensus discussions were held in a mixture of whole group and small group discussions. Small groups were allocated a priori to ensure representation of different stakeholders and countries. Decisions were voted on using electronic keypads. For the patient-reported symptoms, the group agreed by vote that itch, sleep loss, dryness, redness/inflamed skin and irritated skin were all considered essential aspects of AE symptoms. Many instruments for capturing patient-reported symptoms were discussed [including the Patient-Oriented SCOring Atopic Dermatitis index, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Self-Administered Eczema Area and Severity Index, Itch Severity Scale, Atopic Dermatitis Quickscore and the Nottingham Eczema Severity Score] and, by consensus, POEM was selected as the preferred instrument to measure patient-reported symptoms. Further work is needed to determine the reliability and measurement error of POEM. Further work is also required to establish the importance of pain/soreness and the importance of collecting information regarding the intensity of symptoms in addition to their frequency. Much of the discussion on quality of life concerned the Dermatology Life Quality Index and Quality of Life Index for Atopic Dermatitis; however, consensus on a preferred instrument for measuring this domain could not be reached. In summary, POEM is recommended as the HOME core outcome instrument for measuring AE symptoms., (© 2016 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)