Search

IMPORTANCE: There are multiple approved systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis. Lebrikizumab is a newly licensed biologic medication that has been compared to placebo in clinical trials but not to other systemic treatments. OBJECTIVE: To compare reported measures of efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab to other systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis in a living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, the Global Resource of Eczema Trials database, and trial registries were searched from inception through November 3, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials evaluating 8 or more weeks of treatment with systemic immunomodulatory medications for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened in duplicate. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were abstracted in duplicate and random-effects bayesian network meta-analyses were performed. Minimal important differences were used to define important differences between medications. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). The updated analysis was completed from December 13, 2023, to February 20, 2024. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy outcomes were the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scales (PP-NRS) and were compared using mean difference (MD) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). Safety outcomes were serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events. Other outcomes included the proportion of participants with 50%, 75%, and 90% improvement in EASI (EASI-50, -75, -90) and the proportion with success on the Investigator Global Assessment compared using odds ratios with 95% CrI. RESULTS: The study sample included 97 eligible trials, with a total of 24 679 patients. Lebrikizumab was associated with no important difference in change in EASI (MD, −2.0; 95% CrI, −4.5 to 0.3; moderate certainty), POEM (MD, −1.1; 95% CrI −2.5 to 0.2; moderate certainty), DLQI (MD, −0.2; 95% CrI −2.1 to 1.6; moderate certainty), or PP-NRS (MD, 0.1; 95% CrI −0.4, 0.6; high certainty) compared to dupilumab among adults with atopic dermatitis who were treated for up to 16 weeks. Dupilumab was associated with higher odds of efficacy in binary outcomes compared with lebrikizumab. The relative efficacy of other approved systemic medications was similar to that found by previous updates of this living study, with high-dose upadacitinib and abrocitinib demonstrating numerically highest relative efficacy. For safety outcomes, low event rates limited useful comparisons. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this living systematic review and network meta-analysis, lebrikizumab was similarly effective to dupilumab for the short-term treatment of atopic dermatitis in adults. Clinicians and patients can use these comparative data to inform treatment decisions.

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

ABSTRACTBackgroundWe examine sex differences in relation to the nature, frequency, and burden of patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases.Research design and methodsRheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or axial spondyloarthritis patients using etanercept or adalimumab from the Dutch Biologic Monitor were sent bimonthly questionnaires concerning experienced ADRs. Sex differences in the proportion and nature of reported ADRs were assessed. Additionally, 5-point Likert-type scales reported for the burden of ADRs, were compared between sexes.ResultsIn total 748 consecutive patients were included (59% female). From the women 55% reported ≥1 ADR, which was significantly higher than 38% of the men that reported ≥1 ADR (p < 0.001). A total of 882 ADRs were reported comprising 264 distinct ADRs. The nature of the reported ADRs differed significantly between both sexes (p = 0.02). Women in particular reported more injection site reactions than men. The burden of ADRs was similar between sexes.ConclusionsSex differences in the frequency and nature of ADRs, but not in ADR burden, exist during treatment with adalimumab and etanercept in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. This should be taken into consideration when investigating and reporting results on ADRs and when counseling patients in daily clinical practice.

ABSTRACTBackgroundWe aimed to investigate course and burden over time of ADRs attributed to TNFα-inhibitors in IRD-patients, and whether Sankey diagrams and polar plots can visualize this.Research design and methodsData on ADRs experienced during the Dutch Biologic Monitor (January 2017 till December 2022) were used in this study. We selected IRD-patients using a TNFα-inhibitor, reporting skin reactions/infections/injection site reactions and completing ≥3 questionnaires (i.e. the initial report and ≥2 follow-ups). Course was scored as worsening/improving/remaining stable/resolving and as (non-)recurrent. Patients scored burden from 1 (no burden) to 5 (very high burden). Sankey diagrams and polar plots visualized this.Results202 patients were included, reporting 353 ADRs. Most skin reactions were stable (25.0%). Most infections resolved (50.8%). Injection site reactions were mostly recurrent (72.3%). Skin reactions and infections tended to decrease in burden . Infections had highest burden at start, which mostly decreased over time. Injection site reactions had a low and stable burden.ConclusionsSkin reactions attributed to TNFα-inhibitors by IRD-patients are stable with a slightly decreasing burden over time. Infections have highest burden at start but resolved mostly. Injection site reactions have a low and stable burden. Sankey diagrams and polar plots are suitable to visualize this.

Few data exist on differences in treatment effectiveness and safety in atopic dermatitis patients of different skin types.

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.

ABSTRACTBackgroundSystematically registering ADRs in electronic health records (EHRs) likely contribute to patient safety as it enables the exchange of drug safety data. Currently, ADRs registrations by healthcare professionals (HCPs) is suboptimal. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators perceived by HCPs to register ADRs systematically in EHRs.Research Design and MethodsA qualitative study with individual interviews was conducted among specialist physicians and hospital pharmacists from 10 different Dutch hospitals. A semi-structured interview guide was used to identify experienced barriers and facilitators for systematically registering ADRs. Data was analyzed following thematic analysis. Themes within barriers and facilitators were aligned with the Capability–Opportunity-Motivation–Behavior (COM-B) framework.ResultsIn total, 16 HCPs were interviewed. Identified barriers were: lack of knowledge to recognize ADRs, time constraints, inadequate IT system, lack of support, stuck in routine, and not recognizing the importance of registering ADRs. Identified facilitators were: enhanced knowledge and awareness of ADRs, functional IT systems, expanding accountability for registration, and motivation toward registering.ConclusionsBarriers and facilitators for registering spanned all aspects of the COM-B model and occurred in individual, social and environmental domains. Addressing these aspects could improve the registration of ADRs and may contribute to patient safety.

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

IMPORTANCE: A clear dosing regimen for methotrexate in psoriasis is lacking, and this might lead to a suboptimal treatment. Because methotrexate is affordable and globally available, a uniform dosing regimen could potentially optimize the treatment of patients with psoriasis worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To reach international consensus among psoriasis experts on a uniform dosing regimen for treatment with methotrexate in adult and pediatric patients with psoriasis and identify potential future research topics. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between September 2020 and March 2021, a survey study with a modified eDelphi procedure that was developed and distributed by the Amsterdam University Medical Center and completed by 180 participants worldwide (55 [30.6%] resided in non-Western countries) was conducted in 3 rounds. The proposals on which no consensus was reached were discussed in a conference meeting (June 2021). Participants voted on 21 proposals with a 9-point scale (1-3 disagree, 4-6 neither agree nor disagree, 7-9 agree) and were recruited through the Skin Inflammation and Psoriasis International Network and European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology in June 2020. Apart from being a dermatologist/dermatology resident, there were no specific criteria for participation in the survey. The participants worked mainly at a university hospital (97 [53.9%]) and were experienced in treating patients with psoriasis with methotrexate (163 [91.6%] had more than 10 years of experience). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In a survey with eDelphi procedure, we tried to reach consensus on 21 proposals. Consensus was defined as less than 15% voting disagree (1-3). For the consensus meeting, consensus was defined as less than 30% voting disagree. RESULTS: Of 251 participants, 180 (71.7%) completed all 3 survey rounds, and 58 participants (23.1%) joined the conference meeting. Consensus was achieved on 11 proposals in round 1, 3 proposals in round 2, and 2 proposals in round 3. In the consensus meeting, consensus was achieved on 4 proposals. More research is needed, especially for the proposals on folic acid and the dosing of methotrexate for treating subpopulations such as children and vulnerable patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this eDelphi consensus study, consensus was reached on 20 of 21 proposals involving methotrexate dosing in patients with psoriasis. This consensus may potentially be used to harmonize the treatment with methotrexate in patients with psoriasis.

ABSTRACTBackgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) on adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are increasingly used in cohort event monitoring (CEM) to obtain a better understanding of patients’ real-world experience with drugs. Despite the leading role for patients, little is known about their perspectives on CEM systems.Research design and methodsIn a cross-sectional open survey following the rationale of the Technology Acceptance Model, we aimed to obtain insight in patients’ perspectives on the perceived usefulness, ease of use and attitude toward using a PRO-based drug safety monitoring system for ADRs attributed to biologics.ResultsPatients considered structural reporting of ADRs in web-based questionnaires as useful and not burdensome. It was preferred to link the questionnaire frequency to regular hospital consultations or the biologic administration schedule. Various respondents were interested in sharing questionnaires with their medical specialist (49.0%) or pharmacist (34.2%), and suggested to minimize the questionnaire frequency in case of an unaltered situation or absence of ADRs.ConclusionsPatients’ perspectives should be considered in the setup of PRO-based CEM studies, as this contributes to data quality and patient centeredness. Since incorporation of patients’ perspectives in CEM studies is indispensable, a delicate balance should be found between user-friendliness and study aims.

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