Patient and caregiver motivators and barriers to eczema clinical trial participation: Analysis of survey data.

Background: Eczema clinical trials (CTs) are increasing in number, yet participation across the eczema community is low. Little is known about patient characteristics and views on motivators and barriers to CT participation (CTP). Objectives: Determine factors that motivate or impede participation in eczema CT and respondent characteristics associated with these factors. Methods: Qualitative thematic analysis was performed on open-ended questions from an online survey that collected respondent demographics, understanding of and experience with CTs, and drivers/barriers to CTP. Mixed-methods analysis included 924 respondents, 728 (78.8%) adults with eczema and 196 (21.2%) caregivers of children with eczema. Results: A large proportion (71.8%) of respondents would potentially participate in CTs. The most common theme for why a respondent considered or would explore CTP was burden of disease (81.0% and 57.3% respectively). Among those who participated in or considered a CT, caregivers (p = 0.001) reported fewer altruistic motivations compared to adult patients, with trends towards men citing disease burden more (57.0% vs. 50.9%) and altruism less (14.5% vs. 19.2%) than women. Lack of awareness (57.7%) was the most common reason for never having considered a CT. Among those who never considered CTP, age (p = 0.012) and eczema severity at its worst (p = 0.002) were associated with reasons why they never participated. Specifically, older and less severe patients had greater perceptions of eligibility as a barrier to CTP. Caregivers more commonly cited fear of CT risks (20% vs. 11.4%) compared to adult patients who cited accessibility concerns (17.7% vs. 8.6%) as barriers to CT exploration. A subgroup of respondents that never considered CTP and extremely unlikely to consider CTs cited more fears/risks/unknowns and accessibility barriers to CTP. No significant differences in motivators or barriers were observed across race/ethnic groups and urban/rural populations. Conclusions: Motivating factors for CTP include greater disease burden; lack of awareness represents a large barrier. Healthcare providers are trusted intermediaries with ability to refer and inform about CTs; they have a potentially significant role in raising awareness and discussing eczema patient/caregiver perspectives related to CTP. Investigators should tailor recruitment approaches and study design where possible to address identified motivators and barriers.

CERS1 is a Biomarker of Staphylococcus aureus Abundance and Atopic Dermatitis Severity.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition characterized by widely variable cutaneous Staphylococcus aureus abundance that contributes to disease severity and rapidly responds to type 2 immune blockade (i.e., dupilumab). The molecular mechanisms regulating S. aureus levels between AD subjects remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To investigate host genes that may be predictive of S. aureus abundance and correspond with AD severity. METHODS: Data derived from the NIH/NIAID-funded (NCT03389893 [ADRN-09]) randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled multicenter study of dupilumab in adults (n=71 subjects) with moderate-severe AD. Bulk RNA-sequencing of skin biopsies (n=57 lesional, 55 non-lesional) was compared to epidermal S. aureus abundance, lipidomics, and AD clinical measures. RESULTS: S. aureus abundance and ceramide synthase 1 (CERS1) expression positively correlated at baseline across both non-lesional (r=0.29, p=0.030) and lesional (r=0.41, p=0.0015) skin. Lesional CERS1 expression also positively correlated with AD severity (i.e., SCORing AD [SCORAD] r=0.44, p=0.0006) and skin barrier dysfunction (transepidermal water loss area under the curve [TEWL AUC] r=0.31, p=0.025) at baseline. CERS1 expression (forms C18:0-sphingolipids) was negatively associated with elongation of very long chain fatty acids (ELOVL6; C16:0→C18:0) expression and corresponded with a shorter chain length sphingolipid composition. Dupilumab rapidly reduced CERS1 expression (day 7) and ablated the relationship with S. aureus abundance and ELOVL6 expression by day 21. CONCLUSION: CERS1 is a unique molecular biomarker of S. aureus abundance and AD severity that may contribute to dysfunctional skin barrier and shorter chain sphingolipid composition through fatty acid sequestration as a maladaptive compensatory response to reduced ELOVL6.

The effect of dupilumab on caregiver- and patient-reported outcomes in young children with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: results from a placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) greatly impacts children/caregivers. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the impact of treatment with dupilumab on caregiver- and patient-reported AD symptoms and quality of life (QoL) in young children. METHODS: In the LIBERTY AD PRESCHOOL (randomized, placebo-controlled) study, children aged 6 months to 5 years with moderate-to-severe AD received dupilumab or placebo plus low-potency topical corticosteroids for 16 weeks. This post-hoc analysis assessed the change from baseline to week 16 in caregiver-reported outcome measures of AD symptoms (e.g., itch and sleep) and QoL of patients and their caregivers/families. RESULTS: Dupilumab (n = 83) vs placebo (n = 79) provided significant improvements in caregiver-reported AD symptoms and QoL. Significant improvements were seen as early as week 4 and sustained through the end of the study. Additionally, dupilumab vs placebo provided rapid and significant improvement in QoL measures for the patients' caregivers/families. LIMITATIONS: Few patients aged <2 years; significance only reported for pre-specified endpoints; Infant's Dermatitis QoL Index severity strata adopted from Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index. CONCLUSION: Dupilumab improved AD symptoms and QoL in patients and their caregivers/families.

Roflumilast Cream, 0.15%, for Atopic Dermatitis in Adults and Children: INTEGUMENT-1 and INTEGUMENT-2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Safe, effective, and well-tolerated topical treatment options available for long-term use in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) are limited and associated with low adherence rates. Objective: To evaluate efficacy and safety of once-daily roflumilast cream, 0.15%, vs vehicle cream in patients with AD. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trials (Interventional Trial Evaluating Roflumilast Cream for the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis 1 and 2 [INTEGUMENT-1 and INTEGUMENT-2]), included patients from sites in the US, Canada, and Poland. Participants were 6 years or older with mild to moderate AD based on Validated Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (assessed on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 [clear] to 4 [severe]). Intervention: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive roflumilast cream, 0.15%, or vehicle cream once daily for 4 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy end point was Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis success at week 4, defined as a score of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline. Secondary end points included Eczema Area and Severity Index and Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale. Safety and local tolerability were also evaluated. Results: Among 1337 patients (654 patients in INTEGUMENT-1 and 683 patients in INTEGUMENT-2), the mean (SD) age was 27.7 (19.2) years, and 761 participants (56.9%) were female. The mean body surface area involved was 13.6% (SD = 11.6%; range, 3.0% to 88.0%). Significantly more patients treated with roflumilast than vehicle achieved the primary end point (INTEGUMENT-1: 32.0% vs 15.2%, respectively; P < .001; INTEGUMENT-2: 28.9% vs 12.0%, respectively; P < .001). At week 4, statistically significant differences favoring roflumilast also occurred for the achievement of at least 75% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (INTEGUMENT-1: 43.2% vs 22.0%, respectively; P < .001; INTEGUMENT-2: 42.0% vs 19.7%, respectively; P < .001). Roflumilast was well tolerated with low rates of treatment-emergent adverse events. At each time point, investigators noted no signs of irritation at the application site in 885 patients who were treated with roflumilast (≥95%), and 885 patients who were treated with roflumilast (90%) reported no or mild sensation at the application site. Conclusions and Relevance: In 2 phase 3 trials enrolling adults and children, once-daily roflumilast cream, 0.15%, improved AD relative to vehicle cream, based on multiple efficacy end points, with favorable safety and tolerability. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04773587, NCT04773600.

Improvement Across Dimensions of Disease with Lebrikizumab Use in Atopic Dermatitis: Two Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Monotherapy Trials (ADvocate1 and ADvocate2).

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis is a complex, chronic, inflammatory skin disease that requires long-term control of symptoms like itch and sleep loss and improvement in quality of life, in addition to reduction of clinical signs. Lebrikizumab is a selective interleukin-13 inhibitor approved in the European Union, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, Canada, and Japan for treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in adults and adolescents. Here, we assess the magnitude of changes across signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis with lebrikizumab monotherapy over the 16-week induction period in two phase 3 studies, ADvocate1 and ADvocate2. METHODS: Eligible adults (aged ≥ 18 years) and adolescents (aged 12 to < 18 years and weighing ≥ 40 kg) with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis were randomized to receive either 250 mg of lebrikizumab or placebo subcutaneously every two weeks. Least squares mean percentage change from baseline through week 16 was compared between lebrikizumab and placebo using mixed model repeated measure analysis for the following endpoints: Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Sleep-Loss Scale, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). RESULTS: In both trials, significant (P < 0.05) improvements were observed for lebrikizumab treatment compared with placebo at each 2-week timepoint for EASI, Pruritus NRS, Sleep-Loss Scale, and POEM, and at each 4-week timepoint for DLQI, through week 16. Statistically significant (P < 0.001) improvements were observed at 16 weeks for lebrikizumab treatment versus placebo in ADvocate1/ADvocate2 for EASI (71.9%/75.0% vs. 35.6%/43.3%), Pruritus NRS (53.3%/46.3% vs. 21.4%/18.0%), Sleep-Loss Scale (57.7%/55.6% vs. 23.9%/25.5%), POEM (54.4%/45.8% vs. 18.8%/16.9%), and DLQI (64.2%/60.5% vs. 28.5%/32.2%). Patient photos show improvements in skin appearance when disease measures improve. CONCLUSIONS: Lebrikizumab monotherapy resulted in significant and fast improvements in multiple dimensions of disease (clinical signs, symptoms, and quality of life) over 16 weeks in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT04146363; NCT04178967.

Disease burden and patient characteristics associated with systemic therapy utilization among adults with atopic dermatitis: data from CorEvitas Atopic Dermatitis Registry.

BACKGROUND: The decision to initiate advanced systemics in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) is complex. OBJECTIVES: To explore disease burden and clinical characteristics of patients with moderate-to-severe AD and identify characteristics associated with initiating new systemics. METHODS: Data from prospective, longitudinal, non-interventional CorEvitas AD Registry were evaluated. Differences in demographic and clinical characteristics, comorbidities, disease severity (vIGA-AD™; body surface area (BSA); Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI); SCORing AD [SCORAD]), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed between systemic and non-systemic therapy groups. RESULTS: Of 883 patients, 673 were newly prescribed systemics and 210 were not. Non-systemic therapy group had higher than expected rates of severe disease at enrollment based on vIGA-AD = 4 (39%), mean BSA involvement (31%), and mean EASI (19). PROs for non-systemic therapy group indicated elevated burden from AD on quality of life and poor disease control. SCORAD, peak pruritus in the past 24 h, history of biologics, and facial pallor, were significantly associated with initiation of systemics at enrollment. CONCLUSION: While disease burden likely influences the initiation of systemic therapy, many patients with significant burden are not treated with systemics for unclear reasons. Further research is needed to identify other factors, beyond disease severity, that influence this decision.

A Practical Guide to Using Oral JAK Inhibitors for Atopic Dermatitis from the International Eczema Council.

BACKGROUND: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKinibs) have the potential to dramatically alter the landscape of atopic dermatitis (AD) management due to their promising efficacy results from phase 3 trials and rapid onset of action. However, JAKinibs are not without risk, and their use is not appropriate for all AD patients, making this a medication class that dermatologists should understand and consider when treating patients with moderate-to-severe AD. OBJECTIVE: This consensus expert opinion statement from the International Eczema Council (IEC) provides a pragmatic approach to prescribing JAKinibs, including choosing appropriate patients, dosing, clinical and lab monitoring, as well as long-term use. METHODS: An international cohort of authors from the IEC with expertise in JAKinibs selected topics of interest and were formed into authorship groups covering 10 subsections. The groups performed topic-specific literature reviews, consulted up-to-date adverse event (AE) data, referred to product labels and provided analysis and expert opinion. The manuscript guidance and recommendations were reviewed by all authors as well as the IEC Research Committee. RESULTS: We recommend JAKinibs be considered for patients with moderate to severe AD seeking the benefits of rapid reduction in disease burden and itch, oral administration, and the potential for flexible dosing. Baseline risk factors should be assessed prior to prescribing JAKinibs, including increasing age, venous thromboembolisms, malignancy, cardiovascular health, kidney/liver function, pregnancy and lactation, and immunocompetence. Patients being considered for JAKinib therapy should be current on vaccinations and we provide a generalized framework for laboratory monitoring, though clinicians should consult individual product labels for recommendations as there are variations among the JAKinib class. Patients who achieve disease control should be maintained on the lowest possible dose, as many of the observed AEs occurred in a dose-dependent manner. Future studies are needed in AD patients to assess the durability and safety of continuous long-term use of JAKinibs, combination medication regimens, and the effects of flexible, episodic treatment over time. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to initiate a JAKinib should be shared among patient and provider, accounting for AD severity and personal risk/benefit assessment, including consideration of baseline health risk factors, monitoring requirements and treatment costs.

Interleukin-1α inhibitor bermekimab in patients with atopic dermatitis: randomized and nonrandomized studies.

Bermekimab is a human-derived recombinant monoclonal antibody that exhibits immunoregulatory activity by specifically blocking interleukin-1α activity. Four phase 2 studies evaluated efficacy and safety of bermekimab in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). In addition, a novel human skin explant model was developed to assess bermekimab pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics and proteomic/transcriptomic effects. Study 1 (NCT03496974, N = 38) was an open-label, dose escalation study of subcutaneous bermekimab (200 mg or 400 mg). Study 2 (NCT04021862, N = 87) was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized (1:1:1) study of subcutaneous bermekimab (400 mg every week (qw) or every 2 weeks) or placebo. GENESIS (NCT04791319, N = 198) was a double-blind, placebo- and active-comparator-controlled, randomized (1:1:2:2) study of placebo, subcutaneous bermekimab (350 mg or 700 mg qw), or dupilumab. LUNA (NCT04990440, N = 6) was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized (4:1) study of intravenous bermekimab 800 mg qw or placebo. A novel human ex vivo skin pharmacodynamic assay supported phase 0 (NCT03953196) and phase 1 (NCT04544813) studies. In Study 1, 400 mg subcutaneous bermekimab showed improvement in efficacy assessments (e.g., ≥ 75% improvement of EASI over baseline, IGA 0/1, and worst itch); however, efficacy was not confirmed in Study 2 or GENESIS. Consequently, GENESIS and LUNA were terminated early. The novel human ex vivo skin pharmacodynamic assay demonstrated that bermekimab reduced downstream skin injury responses. Although bermekimab showed potential as an AD treatment in preclinical and early open-label trials, larger controlled studies (Study 2 and GENESIS) did not confirm those initial results.

Emollient application from birth to prevent eczema in high-risk children: the BEEP RCT.

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.

Eczema is a troublesome itchy skin condition affecting 1 in 5 children and 1 in 10 UK adults. There is no cure and affected children are more likely to develop food allergies. We wanted to see if we could prevent eczema by protecting the skin of babies at higher risk of developing eczema (with an immediate relative with eczema, asthma or hay fever) with moisturisers used to treat dry skin. Previous research suggested that protecting the skin barrier might also prevent food allergy. One thousand three hundred and ninety-four families took part in a study; half of them were asked to apply moisturiser every day to their newborn baby for the first year and half to look after their baby's skin in the normal way. At the age of 2 years, we did not see any difference in how common eczema was between the two groups: 23% had eczema in the moisturiser group and 25% in the normal care group. It did not matter how we defined eczema ­ whether examined by a researcher or parent report. We did not find any differences in related conditions like asthma or hay fever either. We found that children using moisturisers had seen their doctor slightly more often for mild skin infections. There was a hint that food allergy might have been increased in the moisturiser group, but there was not enough data to be sure. We followed up the children to age 5 years, but we still did not find any benefits from using moisturisers in early life. Since this study, other similar research has been done using newer types of moisturisers, but their results are the same. This study shows that using daily moisturisers on healthy babies with a high risk of eczema does not prevent eczema. It is one less thing for busy families to worry about.

Ruxolitinib Cream in Adolescents/Adults with Atopic Dermatitis Meeting Severity Thresholds for Systemic Therapy: Exploratory Analysis of Pooled Results from Two Phase 3 Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Standard therapy for patients with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) typically includes topical therapies; however, patients with more extensive AD and/or AD refractory to topical therapy may benefit from systemic treatment. Ruxolitinib cream monotherapy has demonstrated superior antipruritic and anti-inflammatory effects versus vehicle in patients with mild to moderate AD, and long-term disease control with as-needed use. Here, efficacy/safety of 1.5% ruxolitinib cream through 52 weeks was assessed in a subset of patients with moderate and/or more extensive disease. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of TRuE-AD1/TRuE-AD2 included patients who, at baseline, had Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score of 3, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) ≥ 16, and affected body surface area (BSA) ≥ 10% (higher severity of disease threshold subgroup). Disease control and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Of 1249 patients in the overall population, 78 (6.2%) met all higher severity of disease threshold criteria (continuous-use vehicle-controlled period: 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, n = 32; vehicle, n = 13); 28 and 4 of these patients, respectively, continued as-needed 1.5% ruxolitinib cream during the long-term safety (LTS) period. At week 8 (continuous-use), IGA-treatment success (IGA 0/1, with ≥ 2-grade improvement from baseline) was achieved by 19/32 (59.4%) patients applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream versus no patients applying vehicle. In the LTS period, those achieving clear/almost clear skin increased from 19/28 patients (67.9%; continuous-use: week 8) to 18/23 patients (78.3%; as-needed use: week 52) in patients applying ruxolitinib cream from day 1. Ruxolitinib cream was well tolerated, with few application site reactions, regardless of disease severity threshold. Efficacy and safety results were similar to the overall study population. CONCLUSION: Patients with AD who meet standard disease severity eligibility criteria for systemic therapy may achieve IGA-treatment success with clear/almost clear skin with continuous-use ruxolitinib cream, and maintain long term-disease control with as-needed ruxolitinib cream monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03745638/NCT03745651.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a skin condition that causes itchy, dry, and inflamed skin. For many people AD is controlled with medication that is applied to the skin. However, for some people medication that is taken orally or injected (i.e., systemic treatment) may be needed. Systemic treatment can sometimes be challenging. Doctors use a variety of tools to measure AD severity and apply standard criteria to help determine if a person should receive systemic treatment. In the TRuE-AD1/TRuE-AD2 clinical trials, itch and inflammation improved in people with mild to moderate AD after they applied ruxolitinib cream twice daily for 8 weeks. When people then applied ruxolitinib cream to areas of AD only when it was needed for another 44 weeks, ruxolitinib cream provided long-term control of their AD. The aim of this analysis was to assess disease control with ruxolitinib cream in people with AD severe enough to meet the standard criteria indicating a need for systemic treatment. In this group, the majority had clear or almost clear skin after applying ruxolitinib cream twice daily for 8 weeks. After 44 weeks of as-needed application of ruxolitinib cream, most people still had clear or almost clear skin. In this group of people who may have otherwise needed treatment with systemic therapy, ruxolitinib cream twice daily for 8 weeks and then as-needed was generally well tolerated. These results show that as-needed ruxolitinib cream may provide long-term control of AD in people who may otherwise have needed systemic therapy.

Practical Management of the JAK1 Inhibitor Abrocitinib for Atopic Dermatitis in Clinical Practice: Special Safety Considerations.

Abrocitinib, an oral, once-daily, Janus kinase (JAK) 1-selective inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Abrocitinib has shown rapid and sustained efficacy in phase 3 trials and a consistent, manageable safety profile in long-term studies. Rapid itch relief and skin clearance are more likely to be achieved with a 200-mg daily dose of abrocitinib than with dupilumab. All oral JAK inhibitors are associated with adverse events of special interest and laboratory changes, and initial risk assessment and follow-up monitoring are important. Appropriate selection of patients and adequate monitoring are key for the safe use of JAK inhibitors. Here, we review the practical use of abrocitinib and discuss characteristics of patients who are candidates for abrocitinib therapy. In general, abrocitinib may be used in all appropriate patients with moderate-to-severe AD in need of systemic therapy, provided there are no contraindications, e.g., in patients with active serious systemic infections and those with severe hepatic impairment, as well as pregnant or breastfeeding women. For patients aged ≥ 65 years, current long-time or past long-time smokers, and those with risk factors for venous thromboembolism, major adverse cardiovascular events, or malignancies, a meticulous benefit-risk assessment is recommended, and it is advised to start with the 100-mg dose, when abrocitinib is the selected treatment option.

Integrated Safety Update of Abrocitinib in 3802 Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: Data from More than 5200 Patient-Years with Up to 4 Years of Exposure.

BACKGROUND: Abrocitinib, an oral, once-daily, Janus kinase 1-selective inhibitor, is efficacious in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis with a manageable long-term safety profile. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to provide updated integrated long-term safety results for abrocitinib from available data accrued up to a maximum of almost 4 years in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis from the JADE clinical development program. METHODS: Analysis included 3802 patients (exposure: 5213.9 patient-years) from the phase II monotherapy study (NCT02780167) and the phase III studies JADE MONO-1 (NCT03349060), JADE MONO-2 (NCT03575871), JADE TEEN (NCT03796676), JADE COMPARE (NCT03720470), JADE DARE (NCT04345367; 200 mg only), JADE REGIMEN (NCT03627767), and JADE EXTEND (NCT03422822; data cutoff 25 September, 2021). Data from patients receiving one or more doses of abrocitinib 200 mg or 100 mg were pooled in a consistent-dose cohort (patients were allocated to receive the same abrocitinib dose throughout exposure in the qualifying parent study and/or long-term study) or a variable-dose cohort (patients received open-label abrocitinib 200 mg; responders were randomized to abrocitinib 200 mg, 100 mg, or placebo, and could then receive abrocitinib 200 mg plus topical corticosteroids as rescue therapy). Incidence rates of adverse events of special interest were assessed. Cox regression analysis of risk factors for herpes zoster and serious infections was performed. RESULTS: Overall, this safety analysis of long-term data up to a maximum of ~ 4 years of abrocitinib exposure does not indicate any changes from the previously reported risk profile. The most frequent serious infections (per Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities preferred term) with consistent-dose abrocitinib 200 mg and 100 mg were herpes zoster (0.5% and 0.2%), pneumonia (0.2% with either dose), and herpes simplex (0.1% with either dose). Risk factors for herpes zoster were a history of herpes zoster, abrocitinib 200-mg dose, age ≥ 65 years, absolute lymphocyte count < 1 × 103/mm3 before the event, and residing in Asia. For serious infections, > 100 kg body weight was a risk factor. Incidence rate/100 patient-years (95% confidence interval) with the consistent abrocitinib 200-mg and 100-mg dose combined was higher in older (aged ≥ 65 years) patients versus younger (aged 18 to < 65 years) patients for serious adverse events (17.6 [11.7‒25.4] vs 6.7 [5.8‒7.8]), malignancy excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (2.4 [0.6‒6.0] vs 0.1 [0.0‒0.4]), non-melanoma skin cancer (2.4 [0.6‒6.1] vs 0.2 [0.1‒0.4]), lymphopenia (3.5 [1.3‒7.6] vs 0.1 [0.0‒0.3]), and venous thromboembolism (1.7 [0.4‒5.1] vs 0.1 [0.0‒0.3]). Incident rate/100 patient-years (95% confidence interval) of non-melanoma skin cancer with the consistent abrocitinib 200-mg and 100-mg dose combined was higher in current/former smokers (0.9 [0.4‒1.6]) vs never-smokers (0.0 [0.0‒0.1]). CONCLUSIONS: This safety update showed a consistent profile for abrocitinib with no new safety signals and continues to support that abrocitinib has a manageable long-term safety profile in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Risk of specific adverse events was higher in certain patient populations, especially those aged ≥ 65 years. [Video abstract available.] CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02780167; study start date: April, 2016; primary completion date: March, 2017; study completion date: April, 2017. NCT03349060; study start date: 7 December, 2017; study completion date: 26 March, 2019. NCT03575871; study start date: 29 June, 2018; study completion date: 13 August, 2019. NCT03720470; study start date: 29 October, 2018; primary completion date: 27 December, 2019; study completion date: 6 March, 2020. NCT03796676; study start date: 18 February, 2019; study completion date: 8 April, 2020. NCT03627767; study start date: 11 June, 2018; primary completion date: 2 September, 2020; study completion date: 7 October, 2020. NCT04345367; study start date: 11 June, 2020; primary completion date: 16 December, 2020; study completion date: 13 July, 2021. NCT03422822; study start date: 8 March, 2018; study completion date: ongoing (estimated completion date: 31 January, 2026).

Abrocitinib is an approved treatment for people with moderate or severe atopic dermatitis, also known as AD or atopic eczema. Abrocitinib is a tablet that is taken by mouth once a day. This safety analysis looked at the side effects of treatment in a large group of adults and adolescents with moderate or severe AD who took abrocitinib up to a maximum of almost 4 years. This analysis also looked at which people were more likely to have certain side effects after taking abrocitinib. The results from this analysis were similar to those of previous safety analyses with abrocitinib, with no new side effects. Infections such as shingles, pneumonia, or herpes simplex can occur during treatment with abrocitinib. Shingles was more likely to occur in people who previously had shingles before taking abrocitinib, or who took the higher dose of abrocitinib (200 mg), or were 65 years of age or older, or had certain blood test results, or lived in Asia. People who are 65 years of age or older and took abrocitinib were more likely to develop some types of cancer, have certain abnormal blood test results, or develop blood clots in the veins than people with AD who were younger and took abrocitinib. Current or former smokers with AD who took abrocitinib were more likely to develop skin cancer (but not melanoma) than people with AD who took abrocitinib but have never smoked. This analysis further shows that abrocitinib had manageable safety in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. Video abstract: Integrated safety update of abrocitinib in 3802 patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: data from more than 5200 patient-years with up to 4 years of exposure (MP4 63720 KB).

Treatment satisfaction in adults with atopic dermatitis: a cross-sectional, population-based study examining patient and physician perspectives in the US.

Studies examining the real-world treatment satisfaction in adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) and the physicians who treat adults with AD are scarce. We sought to characterize treatment satisfaction of adults with AD and physicians' perceived patient satisfaction with AD treatment. We performed a cross-sectional study of adults > = 18 years of age (modified AD UK Working Party Criteria, age onset < = 18 [N = 767]) with AD and a parallel-physician survey among allergists/immunologists [N = 148], dermatologists [N = 149] and primary care medicine [N = 104]. Logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with patient treatment satisfaction (PTS) or physician-perceived patient treatment satisfaction (pPTS). Factors associated with increased PTS included female, older age, and receiving a written eczema action plan (EAP). Severe AD, itch, pain, and insomnia, greater impact on partner relationships, feeling not adequately informed about AD causes, and being separated, never married, or living with a partner was associated with less PTS. From the physician's perspective, mild AD and development of EAP was associated with increase pPTS, whereas being in practice longer was associated with less pPTS. Limitations include the potential for misclassification of AD and the inability to match AD patients to individual physicians. Recognizing which factors are associated with treatment satisfaction can help inform counseling and decision-making strategies, including the use of an eczema action plan, and support patient-physician outcomes alignment.

Measuring Signs of Atopic Dermatitis in Clinical Practice: A HOME-CP Consensus Statement.

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.

Tapinarof cream 1% once daily: Significant efficacy in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adults and children down to 2 years of age in the pivotal phase 3 ADORING trials.

BACKGROUND: Tapinarof cream 1% once daily (QD), a topical aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, downregulates pro-inflammatory Th2 cytokines, upregulates skin-barrier components, and reduces oxidative stress. OBJECTIVE: To assess tapinarof efficacy and safety in adults and children down to 2 years of age with atopic dermatitis (AD). METHODS: Eight hundred and thirteen patients were randomized to tapinarof or vehicle QD in two 8-week phase 3 trials. RESULTS: The primary efficacy endpoint, Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of 0 or 1 and ≥2-grade improvement from baseline at Week 8, was met with statistical significance in both trials: 45.4% versus 13.9% and 46.4% versus 18.0% (tapinarof vs vehicle; both P < .0001). Significantly superior Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 (EASI75) responses were also observed with tapinarof versus vehicle at Week 8: 55.8% versus 22.9% and 59.1% versus 21.2% (both P < .0001). Rapid improvements in patient-reported pruritus were also significant with tapinarof versus vehicle. Common adverse events (≥5%) of folliculitis, headache, and nasopharyngitis were mostly mild or moderate, with lower discontinuations due to adverse events in the tapinarof groups than with vehicle. LIMITATIONS: Long-term efficacy was not assessed. CONCLUSION: Tapinarof demonstrated highly significant efficacy and favorable safety and tolerability in a diverse population of patients with AD down to 2 years of age.

Efficacy, Safety, and Long-Term Disease Control of Ruxolitinib Cream Among Adolescents with Atopic Dermatitis: Pooled Results from Two Randomized Phase 3 Studies.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD), a highly pruritic, inflammatory skin disease, affects approximately 7% of adolescents globally. A topical formulation of ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1/JAK2 inhibitor, demonstrated safety and efficacy among adolescents/adults in two phase 3 studies (TRuE-AD1/TRuE-AD2). OBJECTIVE: To describe safety and efficacy of 1.5% ruxolitinib cream versus vehicle and long-term disease control of ruxolitinib cream among adolescents aged 12-17 years from pooled phase 3 study data. METHODS: Patients [≥ 12 years old with AD for ≥ 2 years, Investigator's Global Assessment score (IGA) 2/3, and 3-20% affected body surface area (BSA) at baseline] were randomized 2:2:1 to ruxolitinib cream (0.75%/1.5%) or vehicle for 8 weeks of continuous use followed by a long-term safety (LTS) period up to 52 weeks with as-needed use. Patients originally applying vehicle were rerandomized 1:1 to 0.75%/1.5% ruxolitinib cream. Efficacy measures at week 8 included IGA treatment success (IGA-TS; i.e., score of 0/1 with ≥ 2 grade improvement from baseline), ≥ 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75), and ≥ 4-point improvement in itch numerical rating scale (NRS4). Measures of disease control during the LTS period included IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) and percentage affected BSA. Safety was assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: Of 1249 randomized patients, 245 (19.6%) were aged 12-17 years. Of these, 45 patients were randomized to vehicle and 92 patients to 1.5% ruxolitinib cream. A total of 104/137 (75.9%) patients continued on 1.5% ruxolitinib cream in the LTS period [82/92 (89.1%) continued on 1.5% ruxolitinib cream; 22/45 (48.9%) patients on vehicle were reassigned to 1.5% ruxolitinib cream], and 83/104 (79.8%) of these patients completed the LTS period. At week 8, substantially more patients who applied 1.5% ruxolitinib cream versus vehicle achieved IGA-TS (50.6% versus 14.0%), EASI-75 (60.9% versus 34.9%), and NRS4 (52.1% versus 17.4%; P = 0.009). The mean (SD) reduction in itch NRS scores was significantly greater in patients applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream versus vehicle from day 2 [- 0.9 (1.9) versus -0.2 (1.4); P = 0.03]. During the LTS period, mean (SD) trough steady-state ruxolitinib plasma concentrations at weeks 12/52 were 27.2 (55.7)/15.5 (31.5) nM. The percentage of patients achieving IGA score of 0 or 1 was sustained or further increased with 1.5% ruxolitinib cream; mean affected BSA was generally low (< 3%; i.e., mild disease). Through 52 weeks, application site reactions occurred in 1.8% of adolescent patients applying 1.5% ruxolitinib cream at any time; no patients had serious adverse events. There were no serious infections, malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, or thromboembolic events. CONCLUSIONS: Meaningful anti-inflammatory and antipruritic effects were demonstrated with 1.5% ruxolitinib cream in the subset of adolescent patients with AD, comparable with those observed in the overall study population; long-term, as-needed use maintained disease control and was well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT03745638 (registered 19 November 2018) and NCT03745651 (registered 19 November 2018).

Dupilumab Safety and Efficacy up to 1 Year in Children Aged 6 Months to 5 Years with Atopic Dermatitis: Results from a Phase 3 Open-Label Extension Study.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) often experience a high disease burden and have a high risk of persistent disease. Standard-of-care immunosuppressive systemic treatments have been used off-label for AD in pediatric patients despite concerns for suboptimal safety with continuous use and risk of relapse upon discontinuation. The biologic agent dupilumab is the first systemic treatment approved for moderate-to-severe AD in children as young as 6 months. Long-term safety and efficacy data in this patient population are needed to inform continuous AD management. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this work was to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of dupilumab treatment up to 1 year in an open-label extension (OLE) study [LIBERTY AD PED-OLE (NCT02612454)] in children aged 6 months to 5 years with moderate-to-severe AD who previously participated in the 16-week, double-blind, phase 3 LIBERTY AD PRESCHOOL trial (NCT03346434 part B; parent study) and were subsequently enrolled in PED-OLE. METHODS: In PED-OLE, patients received dupilumab every 4 weeks according to a weight-tiered regimen (body weight ≥ 5 kg to < 15 kg: 200 mg; ≥ 15 kg to < 30 kg: 300 mg). RESULTS: Data for 142 patients were analyzed, 60 of whom had completed the 52-week visit at time of database lock. Mean age at baseline was 4.1 y [SD, 1.13; range, 1.0-5.9 years]. A majority (78.2%) of patients reported ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), most of which were mild or moderate and transient. The most frequently reported TEAEs were nasopharyngitis (19.7%), cough (15.5%), and pyrexia (14.1%). One TEAE led to treatment discontinuation (severe urticaria, which resolved in 1 day). By week 52, 36.2% of patients had achieved an Investigator's Global Assessment score of 0/1 (clear/almost clear skin), and 96.6%, 79.3%, and 58.6% had at least 50%, 75%, or 90% improvement, respectively, in Eczema Area and Severity Index scores. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with results seen in adults, adolescents, and older children (aged 6-11 years), treatment with dupilumab for up to 1 year in children aged 6 months to 5 years with inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe AD demonstrated an acceptable long-term safety profile and sustained efficacy. These results support the long-term continuous use of dupilumab in this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02612454 and NCT03346434 (part B).

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that often results in a high disease burden in young children and their families. Patients often need long-term treatment to control their disease symptoms, including itch and rash. Dupilumab treatment for 16 weeks has shown benefits in children aged 6 months to 5 years with moderate-to-severe AD, with an acceptable safety profile. As AD is likely to continue from childhood into adolescence and adulthood, there is a need for data supporting long-term use of dupilumab in young children. In this study, children who completed the 16-week study continued dupilumab treatment for up to 1 year, receiving 200 mg or 300 mg of dupilumab (depending on the child's bodyweight) every 4 weeks. Through the year of treatment, 78.2% of patients reported at least one side effect, most of which were mild or moderate. Only one patient interrupted treatment because of severe skin rash (hives), which was resolved in 1 day. At the end of the year, 36.2% of patients had clear or almost clear skin, and almost all (96.6%) achieved at least 50% improvement in their extent and severity of disease. Additionally, 79.3%, and 58.6% had at least 75% or 90% improvement in their extent and severity of disease. In summary, consistent with results seen in adults, adolescents, and older children, this study showed that 1-year dupilumab treatment provides continued benefits with an acceptable safety profile. These results support long-term continuous use of dupilumab in children aged 6 months to 5 years with moderate-to-severe AD. What is the long-term safety and efficacy profile in young children with moderate-to-severeatopic dermatitis treated with dupilumab?