Search

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]

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]

This article explores the genetic and clinical aspects of autosomal recessive congenital ichthyosis (ARCI) caused by mutations in the NIPAL4 and PNPLA1 genes. The study investigates potential treatments for ARCI, including anti-interleukin therapy for cytokine dysregulation and pruritus. The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with these gene mutations and evaluated their response to specific treatments. The results showed varying effects, highlighting the need for further research in this area. The article also includes a table summarizing the genetic variants and clinical features of twelve patients with different forms of ichthyosis and palmoplantar keratoderma. The study was conducted as part of the European Reference Network-SKIN subthematic group Ichthyosis and Palmoplantar Keratoderma and received ethical approval. [Extracted from the article]

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]