Phototherapy for atopic dermatitis: A survey of European practice.

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.

Real-world reported adverse events related to systemic immunomodulating therapy in patients with atopic dermatitis: Results from the TREAT NL (TREatment of ATopic eczema, the Netherlands) registry.

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.

Classifying atopic dermatitis: a systematic review of phenotypes and associated characteristics.

Atopic dermatitis is a heterogeneous disease, accompanied by a wide variation in disease presentation and the potential to identify many phenotypes that may be relevant for prognosis and treatment. We aimed to systematically review previously reported phenotypes of atopic dermatitis and any characteristics associated with them. Ovid EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science were searched from inception till 12 February 2021 for studies attempting to classify atopic dermatitis. Primary outcomes are atopic dermatitis phenotypes and characteristics associated with them in subsequent analyses. A secondary outcome is the methodological approach used to derive them. In total, 8511 records were found. By focussing only on certain clinical phenotypes, 186 studies were eligible for inclusion. The majority of studies were hospital-based (59%, 109/186) and cross-sectional (76%, 141/186). The number of included patients ranged from seven to 526 808. Data-driven approaches to identify phenotypes were only used in a minority of studies (7%, 13/186). Ninety-one studies (49%) investigated a phenotype based on disease severity. A phenotype based on disease trajectory, morphology and eczema herpeticum was investigated in 56 (30%), 22 (12%) and 11 (6%) studies respectively. Thirty-six studies (19%) investigated morphological characteristics in other phenotypes. Investigated associated characteristics differed between studies. In conclusion, we present an overview of phenotype definitions used in literature for severity, trajectory, morphology and eczema herpeticum, including associated characteristics. There is a lack of uniform and consistent use of atopic dermatitis phenotypes across studies.

Development of a condition-specific patient-reported outcome measure for measuring symptoms and appearance in vascular malformations: the OVAMA questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The symptoms and appearance of vascular malformations can severely harm a patient's quality of life. The aim of treatment of vascular malformations generally is to improve condition-specific symptoms and/or appearance. Therefore, it is highly important to start testing treatment effects in clinical studies from the patient's perspective. OBJECTIVES: To develop a patient-reported outcome measure for measuring symptoms and appearance in patients with vascular malformations. METHODS: A first draft of the patient-reported outcome measure was based on the previously internationally developed core outcome set. The qualitative part of this study involved interviews with 14 patients, which led to a second draft. The second draft was field tested cross-sectionally, after which groups of items were evaluated for adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > 0·7) to form composite scores. Construct validity was evaluated by testing 13 predefined hypotheses on known-group differences. RESULTS: The patient interviews ensured adequate content validity and resulted in a general symptom scale with six items, a head and neck symptom scale with eight items, and an appearance scale with nine items. Cronbach's alpha was adequate for two composite scores: a general symptom score (0·88) and an appearance score (0·85). Ten out of 13 hypotheses on known-group differences were confirmed, confirming adequate construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: With the development of the OVAMA questionnaire, outcomes of patients with vascular malformations can now be evaluated from the patient's perspective. This may help improve the development of evidence-based treatments and the overall care for patients with vascular malformations.

Domains and outcomes of the core outcome set of congenital melanocytic naevi for clinical practice and research (the OCOMEN project): part 2.

BACKGROUND: Congenital melanocytic naevi (CMN) can have a great impact on patients' lives owing to perceived stigmatization, and the risk of melanoma development and neurological complications. Development of a core outcome set (COS) for care and research in CMN will allow standard reporting of outcomes. This will enable comparison of outcomes, allowing professionals to offer advice about the best management options. In previous research, stakeholders (patients, parents and professionals) reached consensus on the core domains of the COS. To select the appropriate measurement instruments, the domains should be specified by outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To reach consensus on the specific core outcomes describing the core domains pertaining to clinical care and research in CMN. METHODS: A list of provisional outcomes (obtained earlier) was critically reviewed by the Outcomes for COngenital MElanocytic Naevi (OCOMEN) research team and by relevant stakeholders through an online questionnaire, to refine this list and provide clear definitions for every outcome. When needed, discussion with individual participants was undertaken over the telephone or by email. During an online consensus meeting, stakeholders discussed the inclusion of potential outcomes. After the meeting, participants voted in two rounds for the inclusion of outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-four stakeholders from 19 countries participated. Nine core outcomes were included in the COS relative to clinical care and 10 core outcomes for research. CONCLUSIONS: These core outcomes will enable standard reporting in future care and research of CMN. This study facilitates the next step of COS development: selecting the appropriate measurement instruments for every outcome.

Development of an international core domain set for medium, large and giant congenital melanocytic naevi as a first step towards a core outcome set for clinical practice and research.

BACKGROUND: Medium, large and giant congenital melanocytic naevi (CMN) can impose a psychosocial burden on patients and families, and are associated with increased risk of developing melanoma or neurological symptoms. Lack of consensus on what outcomes to measure makes it difficult to advise patients and families about treatment and to set up best practice for CMN. OBJECTIVES: Fostering consensus among patient representatives and professionals, we aim to develop a core outcome set, defined as the minimum set of outcomes to measure and report in care and all clinical trials of a specific health condition. We focused on the 'what to measure' aspect, the so-called core domain set (CDS), following the COMET and CS-COUSIN guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify outcomes reported in the literature. Focus groups with patient representatives identified patient-reported outcomes. All these outcomes were classified into domains. Through e-Delphi surveys, 144 stakeholders from 27 countries iteratively rated the importance of domains and outcomes. An online consensus meeting attended by seven patient representatives and seven professionals finalized the CDS. RESULTS: We reached consensus on six domains, four of which were applied to both care and research: 'quality of life', 'neoplasms', 'nervous system' and 'anatomy of skin'. 'Adverse events' was specific to care and 'pathology' to research. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a CDS for medium-to-giant CMN. Its application in reporting care and research of CMN will facilitate treatment comparisons. The next step will be to reach consensus on the specific outcomes for each of the domains and what instruments should be used to measure these domains and outcomes.

Recommended core outcome instruments for health-related quality of life, long-term control and itch intensity in atopic eczema trials: results of the HOME VII consensus meeting.

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.

Risk-mitigating behaviours in people with inflammatory skin and joint disease during the COVID-19 pandemic differ by treatment type: a cross-sectional patient survey.

BACKGROUND: Registry data suggest that people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) receiving targeted systemic therapies have fewer adverse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes compared with patients receiving no systemic treatments. OBJECTIVES: We used international patient survey data to explore the hypothesis that greater risk-mitigating behaviour in those receiving targeted therapies may account, at least in part, for this observation. METHODS: Online surveys were completed by individuals with psoriasis (globally) or rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) (UK only) between 4 May and 7 September 2020. We used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between treatment type and risk-mitigating behaviour, adjusting for clinical and demographic characteristics. We characterized international variation in a mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Of 3720 participants (2869 psoriasis, 851 RMDs) from 74 countries, 2262 (60·8%) reported the most stringent risk-mitigating behaviour (classified here under the umbrella term 'shielding'). A greater proportion of those receiving targeted therapies (biologics and Janus Kinase inhibitors) reported shielding compared with those receiving no systemic therapy [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1·63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·35-1·97]. The association between targeted therapy and shielding was preserved when standard systemic therapy was used as the reference group (OR 1·39, 95% CI 1·23-1·56). Shielding was associated with established risk factors for severe COVID-19 [male sex (OR 1·14, 95% CI 1·05-1·24), obesity (OR 1·37, 95% CI 1·23-1·54), comorbidity burden (OR 1·43, 95% CI 1·15-1·78)], a primary indication of RMDs (OR 1·37, 95% CI 1·27-1·48) and a positive anxiety or depression screen (OR 1·57, 95% CI 1·36-1·80). Modest differences in the proportion shielding were observed across nations. CONCLUSIONS: Greater risk-mitigating behaviour among people with IMIDs receiving targeted therapies may contribute to the reported lower risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes. The behaviour variation across treatment groups, IMIDs and nations reinforces the need for clear evidence-based patient communication on risk-mitigation strategies and may help inform updated public health guidelines as the pandemic continues.

Paternal and maternal use of dupilumab in patients with atopic dermatitis: a case series.

Dupilumab is a relatively new treatment option for patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. There is a lack of knowledge about the effects of treatment with dupilumab during conception for both men and women, as well as during pregnancy and lactation in women. We report four patients (two men, two women) who expressed a wish to conceive during treatment with dupilumab in daily practice. Both men conceived during dupilumab treatment, while the two women discontinued dupilumab because of anticipated pregnancy. Apart from disease flares in both of the patients who discontinued treatment, no complications were reported concerning the ability to conceive, the course of the pregnancy or the fetal outcome. We present an overview of the current available literature on dupilumab during conception, pregnancy and lactation, which can guide considerations for patients on dupilumab wishing to conceive a child. Until more data are available, preference should be given to treatment with topical corticosteroids, phototherapy, systemic corticosteroids and ciclosporin.

Immunogenicity of biologic therapies in psoriasis: Myths, facts and a suggested approach.

With biologic drugs dominating the therapeutic space for severe immune-mediated inflammatory disease, it is critical for clinicians to be familiar with the concept of drug immunogenicity, with the potential for our patients to develop antidrug antibodies (ADA) of clinical relevance. Whilst there are clear differences between different therapeutic biologics in terms of reported ADA rates, there is no accepted dermatology guideline or grouping of drugs by risk of clinically relevant ADA, nor a consensus on approach to ADA management. This is partly because making valid comparisons of immunogenicity across drugs is fundamentally flawed: the differing types of ADA assay, trial design and included patient population - as well as the molecular structure of the biologic molecules themselves - are all highly influential on reported ADA prevalence and impact on clinical response. Therefore, the first part of this article aims to give an overview of ADA that also clarifies common misconceptions on the subject, whilst the second part of this article outlines Phase III immunogenicity data on commonly used biologics for psoriasis, the most common dermatological indication. Based on this, and acknowledging current limitations in available evidence, we propose a working categorization of biologics together with a broad approach to management: Group 1 - biologics with higher risk of clinically relevant ADA; Group 2 - biologics with lower risk of clinically relevant ADA; and Group 3 - biologics with no established risk of clinically relevant ADA. However, these groupings represent a working concept only; more research is required, using comparable ADA assays and consistent reporting of related outcomes. Finally, there is an urgent need for better characterization of individuals at particular risk of developing ADA to inform future clinical decision-making.

Outcome assessment in dermatology clinical trials and cochrane reviews: call for a dermatology-specific outcome taxonomy.

BACKGROUND: Standardized outcome reporting is crucial for trial evidence synthesis and translation of findings into clinical decision-making. The OMERACT 2.0 Filter and COMET outcome domain taxonomy propose frameworks for consistent reporting of outcomes. There is an absence of a uniform dermatology-specific reporting strategy that uses precise and consistent outcome definitions. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to map efficacy/effectiveness outcomes assessed in dermatological trials to the OMERACT 2.0 Filter as a starting point for developing an outcome taxonomy in dermatology. METHODS: We critically appraised 10 Cochrane Skin Reviews randomly selected from all 69 Cochrane Skin Reviews published until 01/2015 and the 220 trials included covering a broad spectrum of dermatological conditions and interventions. Efficacy/effectiveness outcomes were mapped to core areas and domains according to the OMERACT 2.0 Filter. The extracted trial outcomes were used for critical appraisal of outcome reporting in dermatology trials and for the preliminary development of a dermatology-specific outcome taxonomy. RESULTS: The allocation of 1086 extracted efficacy/effectiveness outcomes to the OMERACT 2.0 Filter resulted in a hierarchically structured dermatology-specific outcome classification. In 506 outcomes (47%), the outcome concept to be measured was insufficiently described, hindering meaningful evidence synthesis. Although the core areas assessed in different dermatology trials of the same condition overlap considerably, quantitative evidence synthesis usually failed due to imprecise outcome definitions, non-comparable outcome measurement instruments, metrics and reporting. CONCLUSIONS: We present an efficacy/effectiveness outcome classification as a starting point for a dermatology-specific taxonomy to provide trialists and reviewers with the opportunity to better synthesize and compare evidence.

Development of a core outcome domain set for clinical research on capillary malformations (the COSCAM project).

BACKGROUND: Due to a large variety in treatment outcomes reported in therapeutic trials and lacking patient-relevant outcomes, it is hard to adequately compare and improve current therapies for patients with capillary malformations (CMs). The Core Outcome Set for Capillary Malformations (COSCAM) project aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in future CM trials, in which we will first develop a core outcome (sub)domain set (CDS). Here, we describe the methods for the development of a CDS and present the results of the first development stage. METHODS: The COSCAM project is carried out according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Skin Core OUtcomes Set INitiative (CS-COUSIN) and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. During the first stage, we identified all potentially relevant outcome subdomains based on a systematic review, two focus group sessions and input from patient representatives of Dutch patient organizations and the COSCAM-founding group. In stage two, we will present the subdomains in a three-round e-Delphi study and online consensus meeting, in which CM patients, parents/caregivers and CM experts worldwide rate the importance of the proposed subdomains, hereby finalizing the core outcome (sub)domains of the CDS. RESULTS: A total of 67 potential outcome subdomains were included; sixteen were previously used in the literature, 20 were proposed by Dutch patients and their parents/caregivers (n = 13) in focus group sessions and 38 were suggested by the experts of the COSCAM-founding group. Seven were excluded because of overlap. CONCLUSION: The final CDS may serve as a minimum standard in future CM trials, thereby facilitating adequate comparison of treatment outcomes. After this CDS development, we will select appropriate outcome measurement instruments to measure the core outcome subdomains.

EuroGuiDerm Guideline on the systemic treatment of Psoriasis vulgaris - Part 2: specific clinical and comorbid situations.

This evidence- and consensus-based guideline on the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris was developed following the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. The second part of the guideline provides guidance for specific clinical and comorbid situations such as treating psoriasis vulgaris patient with concomitant psoriatic arthritis, concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, a history of malignancies or a history of depression or suicidal ideation. It further holds recommendations for concomitant diabetes, viral hepatitis, disease affecting the heart or the kidneys as well as concomitant neurological disease. Advice on how to screen for tuberculosis and recommendations on how to manage patients with a positive tuberculosis test result are given. It further covers treatment for pregnant women or patients with a wish for a child in the near future. Information on vaccination, immunogenicity and systemic treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic is also provided.

The European TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce survey: prescribing practices in Europe for phototherapy and systemic therapy in adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema.

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.

Responsiveness of quality-of-life measures in patients with peripheral vascular malformations: the OVAMA project.

BACKGROUND: The OVAMA (Outcome Measures for Vascular Malformations) project determined quality of life (QoL) as a core outcome domain for patients with vascular malformations. In order to measure how current therapeutic strategies alter QoL in these patients, a patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) responsive to changes in QoL is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the responsiveness of two widely used generic QoL PROMs, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) and Skindex-29, in adult patients with vascular malformations. METHODS: In an international multicentre prospective study, treated and untreated patients completed the SF-36 and Skindex-29 at baseline and after a follow-up period of 6-8 weeks. Global rating of change (GRC) scales assessing various QoL-related outcome domains were additionally completed. Per subscale, responsiveness was assessed using two methods: by testing hypotheses on expected correlation strength between change scores of the questionnaires and the GRC scales, and by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). The questionnaires were considered responsive if ≥ 75% of the hypotheses were confirmed or if the AUC was ≥ 0·7. RESULTS: Eighty-nine participants were recruited in three centres in the Netherlands and the U.S.A., of whom 67 completed all baseline and follow-up questionnaires. For all subscales of the SF-36 and Skindex-29, < 75% of the hypotheses were confirmed and the AUC was < 0·7. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the SF-36 and Skindex-29 seemed unresponsive to change in QoL. This suggests that alternative PROMs are needed to measure - and ultimately improve - QoL in patients with vascular malformations. What's already known about this topic? Quality of life is often impaired in patients with vascular malformations. Quality of life is considered a core outcome domain for evaluating treatment of vascular malformations. To measure the effect of treatment on quality of life, a patient-reported outcome measure is required that is responsive to changes in quality of life. What does this study add? This is the first study assessing the responsiveness of quality-of-life measures in patients with vascular malformations. The results seem to indicate that the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) and Skindex-29 are not responsive to changes in quality of life in patients with vascular malformations. What are the clinical implications of this work? Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) and Skindex-29 are not ideal to assess the effect on quality of life over time, of treatment strategies for peripheral vascular malformations.

Effectiveness of dupilumab treatment in 95 patients with atopic dermatitis: daily practice data.

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.

Development and initial testing of a new instrument to measure the experience of eczema control in adults and children: Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP).

BACKGROUND: Eczema control has been identified as an important outcome by key stakeholders in eczema research (including patients, carers, healthcare professionals and researchers) but no validated instruments for the domain have been identified. OBJECTIVES: To develop a measurement instrument to capture a patient's perspective of eczema control that is suitable for use in eczema clinical trials. METHODS: Best practice for the development of a patient-reported outcome was followed. A mixed-methods approach was used to develop and refine a conceptual framework, generate, refine and select items and to test the distribution and construct validity of the final scale. The mixed-methods approach involved expert panel meetings (including patient representatives, healthcare professionals and methodologists), and data collection using a focus group, cognitive interviews and an online survey with people with eczema and caregivers. Multivariable linear regression was used in the item selection process. RESULTS: Fourteen expert panel members co-produced the instrument, with input from people with eczema and caregivers via a focus group (n = 6), cognitive interviews (n = 13) and an online survey (n = 330). The resulting instrument, Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP), is a seven-item questionnaire that captures eczema control via self or caregiver report. The development process aimed to ensure good content validity and feasibility. Initial testing suggested no floor or ceiling effects and good construct validity. Hypothesized correlation with the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure was confirmed [r(258) = 0·83, P < 0·001]. CONCLUSIONS: RECAP has the potential to improve reporting of eczema control in research and clinical practice. Further exploration of measurement properties is required. Linked Comment: Pattinson and Bundy. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:418-419. What's already known about this topic? Eczema control has been identified as an important outcome by key stakeholders in eczema research (including patients, carers, healthcare professionals and researchers). Qualitative studies suggest eczema control is a multifaceted and individual experience and no instrument has been identified that captures eczema control in this way. What does this study add? We have developed Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP), a seven-item questionnaire to capture the experience of eczema control in all ages and eczema severities; there are two versions: a self-reported version for adults and older children with eczema, and a caregiver-reported version for younger children with eczema. Designed with input from people with eczema, caregivers and healthcare professionals to ensure good content validity. Initial testing of score distributions and construct validity suggests good measurement properties. What are the clinical implications of the work? The RECAP instrument is appropriate and feasible for measuring eczema control in clinical trials and may also be useful in routine practice.

The role of bacterial skin infections in atopic dermatitis: expert statement and review from the International Eczema Council Skin Infection Group.

Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) have an increased risk of bacterial skin infections, which cause significant morbidity and, if untreated, may become systemic. Staphylococcus aureus colonizes the skin of most patients with AD and is the most common organism to cause infections. Overt bacterial infection is easily recognized by the appearance of weeping lesions, honey-coloured crusts and pustules. However, the wide variability in clinical presentation of bacterial infection in AD and the inherent features of AD - cutaneous erythema and warmth, oozing associated with oedema, and regional lymphadenopathy - overlap with those of infection, making clinical diagnosis challenging. Furthermore, some features may be masked because of anatomical site- and skin-type-specific features, and the high frequency of S. aureus colonization in AD makes positive skin swab culture of suspected infection unreliable as a diagnostic tool. The host mechanisms and microbial virulence factors that underlie S. aureus colonization and infection in AD are incompletely understood. The aim of this article is to present the latest evidence from animal and human studies, including recent microbiome research, to define the clinical features of bacterial infections in AD, and to summarize our current understanding of the host and bacterial factors that influence microbial colonization and virulence.

Recommended core outcome instruments for health-related quality of life, long-term control and itch intensity in atopic eczema trials: results of the HOME VII consensus meeting.

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 (8th to 10th 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.

TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce: protocol for a European safety study of dupilumab and other systemic therapies in patients with atopic eczema.

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.