Confirmation of multiple endotypes in atopic dermatitis based on serum biomarkers.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a highly heterogeneous disease, both clinically and biologically, whereas patients are still being treated according to a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Stratification of patients into biomarker-based endotypes is important for future development of personalized therapies. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to confirm previously defined serum biomarker-based patient clusters in a new cohort of patients with AD. METHODS: A panel of 143 biomarkers was measured by using Luminex technology in serum samples from 146 patients with severe AD (median Eczema Area and Severity Index = 28.3; interquartile range = 25.2-35.3). Principal components analysis followed by unsupervised k-means cluster analysis of the biomarker data was used to identify patient clusters. A prediction model was built on the basis of a previous cohort to predict the 1 of the 4 previously identified clusters to which the patients of our new cohort would belong. RESULTS: Cluster analysis identified 4 serum biomarker-based clusters, 3 of which (clusters B, C, and D) were comparable to the previously identified clusters. Cluster A (33.6%) could be distinguished from the other clusters as being a "skin-homing chemokines/IL-1R1-dominant" cluster, whereas cluster B (18.5%) was a "TH1/TH2/TH17-dominant" cluster, cluster C (18.5%) was a "TH2/TH22/PARC-dominant" cluster, and cluster D (29.5%) was a "TH2/eosinophil-inferior" cluster. Additionally, by using a prediction model based on our previous cohort we accurately assigned the new cohort to the 4 previously identified clusters by including only 10 selected serum biomarkers. CONCLUSION: We confirmed that AD is heterogeneous at the immunopathologic level and identified 4 distinct biomarker-based clusters, 3 of which were comparable with previously identified clusters. Cluster membership could be predicted with a model including 10 serum biomarkers.

Dupilumab shows long-term effectiveness in a large cohort of treatment-refractory atopic dermatitis patients in daily practice: 52-Week results from the Dutch BioDay registry.

BACKGROUND: Real-life data on long-term effectiveness and safety of dupilumab in atopic dermatitis patients are limited. OBJECTIVE: To study 52-week effectiveness and safety of dupilumab in a prospective multicenter cohort of adult patients with treatment-refractory atopic dermatitis. METHODS: Patients treated with dupilumab and participating in the Dutch BioDay registry were included. Clinical effectiveness and safety were evaluated. RESULTS: Two hundred ten atopic dermatitis patients were included. Mean percentage change in Eczema Area and Severity Index score after 16 weeks was -70.0% (standard deviation 33.2%) and further decreased to -76.6% (standard deviation 30.6%) by week 52. A greater than or equal to 75% improvement in the score was achieved by 59.9% of individuals by week 16 and by 70.3% by week 52. The most reported adverse effect was conjunctivitis (34%). Limited patients (17; 8.1%) discontinued dupilumab treatment. LIMITATIONS: Because of the lack of a control group and observational design, factors of bias may have been induced. CONCLUSION: Treatment with dupilumab resulted in a rapid improvement in clinical outcome measures, and effectiveness further improved during the 52-week follow-up period.

Rapid and Sustained Effect of Dupilumab on Work Productivity in Patients with Difficult-to-treat Atopic Dermatitis: Results from the Dutch BioDay Registry.

Dupilumab treatment improves signs, symptoms, and quality of life in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. This study evaluated the impact of dupilumab treatment on absenteeism, presenteeism, and related costs in a large multi-centre cohort of adult patients with difficult-to-treat atopic dermatitis in daily practice. Patients treated with dupilumab participating in the Dutch BioDay Registry reporting employment were included. Absenteeism, presenteeism, and related costs at baseline and during follow-up were calculated using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire. A total of 218 adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis were included. Total work impairment reduced significantly from baseline (35.5%) to week 52 (11.5%), p < 0.001. Median weekly productivity losses reduced significantly from baseline (€379.8 (140.7-780.8)) to week 52 (€0.0 (0.0-211.0), p < 0.001). In this study, dupilumab treatment demonstrated a significant improvement in work productivity and reduction in associated costs in a large cohort of patients with difficult-to-treat atopic dermatitis in daily practice.

Dupilumab is very effective in a large cohort of difficult-to-treat adult atopic dermatitis patients: First clinical and biomarker results from the BioDay registry.

INTRODUCTION: Dupilumab has recently been approved for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults. Daily practice data on dupilumab treatment are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of 16-week treatment with dupilumab on clinical response and serum biomarkers in adult patients with moderate-severe AD in daily practice. METHODS: Data were extracted from the BioDay registry, a prospective multicenter registry. Sixteen-week clinical effectiveness of dupilumab was expressed as number of patients achieving EASI-50 (Eczema Area and Severity Index) or EASI-75, as well as patient-reported outcomes measures (Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure, Dermatology Life Quality Index, Numeric Rating Scale pruritus). Twenty-one biomarkers were measured in patients treated with dupilumab without concomitant use of oral immunosuppressive drugs at five different time points (baseline, 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks). RESULTS: In total, 138 patients treated with dupilumab in daily practice were included. This cohort consisted of patients with very difficult-to-treat AD, including 84 (61%) patients who failed treatment on ≥2 immunosuppressive drugs. At week 16, the mean percent change in EASI score was 73%. The EASI-50 and EASI-75 were achieved by 114 (86%) and 82 (62%) patients after 16 weeks of treatment. The most reported side effect was conjunctivitis, occurring in 47 (34%) patients. During dupilumab treatment, disease severity-related serum biomarkers (TARC, PARC, periostin, and IL-22), eotaxin-1, and eotaxin-3 significantly decreased. CONCLUSION: Treatment with dupilumab significantly improved disease severity and decreased severity-related serum biomarkers in patients with very difficult-to-treat AD in a daily practice setting.

Economic Burden of Adult Patients with Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis Indicated for Systemic Treatment.

Given the introduction of new therapies targeting specific immune pathways for atopic dermatitis (AD), information on the economic burden of AD patients is needed. Direct costs (medication use and healthcare resource utilization) and costs of productivity loss were studied in 90 adult patients with AD indicated for systemic treatment. Costs were calculated for patients with controlled (Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) 0-2) and uncontrolled (IGA 3-5) disease at inclusion. Mean (95% confidence interval (95% CI)) total direct costs were €5,191 (€4,382-6,019) per patient per year (PPY), €4,401 (€3,695-5,215) for patients with controlled AD vs. €6,993 (€5,552-8,406), mean difference €2,593 (€820-4,282) (p=0.014) for patients with uncontrolled AD. Costs of productivity loss were €10,040 (€6,260-14,012) PPY for the total group, €6,886 (€4,188-10,129) PPY for patients with controlled AD vs. €13,702 (€6,124-22,996) for patients with uncontrolled AD, mean difference €6,816 (-€1,638-16,677; p=0.148). Total costs (direct costs+costs of productivity loss) were €15,231 (€11,487-19,455) PPY for the total group, €11,287 (€7,974-15,436) for patients with controlled AD vs. €20,695 (€14,068-34,564), mean difference €9,408 (-€119-19,964) (p=0.077) for patients with uncontrolled AD. Patients with AD using systemic immunosuppressive treatment incur considerable direct costs and costs of productivity loss.

When does atopic dermatitis warrant systemic therapy? Recommendations from an expert panel of the International Eczema Council.

BACKGROUND: Although most patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) are effectively managed with topical medication, a significant minority require systemic therapy. Guidelines for decision making about advancement to systemic therapy are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To guide those considering use of systemic therapy in AD and provide a framework for evaluation before making this therapeutic decision with the patient. METHODS: A subgroup of the International Eczema Council determined aspects to consider before prescribing systemic therapy. Topics were assigned to expert reviewers who performed a topic-specific literature review, referred to guidelines when available, and provided interpretation and expert opinion. RESULTS: We recommend a systematic and holistic approach to assess patients with severe signs and symptoms of AD and impact on quality of life before systemic therapy. Steps taken before commencing systemic therapy include considering alternate or concomitant diagnoses, avoiding trigger factors, optimizing topical therapy, ensuring adequate patient/caregiver education, treating coexistent infection, assessing the impact on quality of life, and considering phototherapy. LIMITATIONS: Our work is a consensus statement, not a systematic review. CONCLUSION: The decision to start systemic medication should include assessment of severity and quality of life while considering the individual's general health status, psychologic needs, and personal attitudes toward systemic therapies.

Risk of Non-melanoma Skin Cancer in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis Treated with Oral Immunosuppressive Drugs.

There is uncertainty about the risk of developing non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), including basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated with oral immunosuppressive drugs. A total of 557 patients with AD treated with these drugs in the University Medical Center Utrecht and Groningen, the Netherlands, were analysed. NMSC after oral immunosuppressive treatment was reported in 18 patients (3.2%). The standardized incidence ratio for developing SCC was 13.1 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 6.5-19.7). Patients developing NMSC were older at the start of therapy (p<0.001) and data lock (p<0.001) compared with patients without NMSC. No significant differences were found in sex, cumulative days of oral immunosuppressive drugs and follow-up between these groups (p=0.42, p=0.88, and p=0.34, respectively). In interpreting these results it is important to include other factors, such as lack of association between treatment duration and tumour development and the long interval between treatment discontinuation and tumour development in some patients.

Is There an Additional Value of Inpatient Treatment for Patients with Atopic Dermatitis?

An inpatient treatment and education programme has been developed for patients with difficult to control atopic dermatitis (AD), with the aim of achieving adequate self-management and long-term disease control. This observational study included adult patients diagnosed with difficult to control AD, admitted for a structured inpatient treatment and education programme. The primary outcome was the Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis (SASSAD) score. In total, 79 patients (mean ± SD age 38.8 ± 17.1 years) were included. The median duration of hospitalization was 11 days (interquartile range 8-14). The mean percentage decrease in SASSAD score between admission and discharge was 60.7%, of which 64 (81.0%) patients achieved SASSAD50. The mean percentage decrease in SASSAD score was 69.0% during follow-up, of which 63 (79.7%) patients still had a SASSAD50. In the majority of these patients with difficult to control AD the admission resulted in sustained disease control. This could be achieved by optimization of treatment with topical corticosteroids.

Serum creatinine levels during and after long-term treatment with cyclosporine A in patients with severe atopic dermatitis.

Safety data with respect to kidney function during long-term treatment with cyclosporine A (CsA) in patients with atopic dermatitis is limited. Data on serum creatinine levels before, during and after CsA treatment were collected in a retrospective cohort of adult patients with atopic dermatitis. The median duration of treatment of 150 patients was 280 days (interquartile range 203-528 days). There was a significant, but not clinically relevant, increase in serum creatinine compared with the baseline level after 3 weeks of treatment with CsA and stabilization during the maintenance phase at the group level. Twenty-two (14.7%) patients had a greater than 30% increase in serum creatinine (cut-off point for clinically relevant change) compared with baseline. These patients were significantly older than the patients without a 30% increase (mean ± standard deviation age 41.4 ± 15.6 vs. 33.8 ± 11.7 years (p = 0.01)). During follow-up, all patients had a less than 30% increase in serum creatinine levels compared with baseline levels. At the group level serum creatinine levels during follow-up were not significantly different from baseline.

Towards personalized treatment in atopic dermatitis.

INTRODUCTION: For many years, oral immunosuppressive drugs such as cyclosporine A, azathioprine, mycophenolic acid, and methotrexate were the only treatment options, in addition to topical treatment, in patients with severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-4 receptor alpha, is the first antibody-based treatment commercially available for the treatment of AD. In the near future, more antibody-based treatments and small molecules will become available in the treatment of severe AD. AREAS COVERED: This review gives an overview of current and future therapies for severe AD, outlines options to optimize treatment with oral immunosuppressive drugs and gives an insight into the future of personalized treatment in AD. EXPERT OPINION: Due to the heterogeneous character of AD, it is unlikely that all patients will respond equally to these newly tested drugs. We believe that biomarkers will lead to better identification of patients that will benefit from these highly specific, but expensive new treatments. In addition to a role for biomarkers in new treatments, the use of pharmacogenomic biomarkers can improve the efficacy of currently used oral immunosuppressive drugs in AD, which will still be needed for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in the coming years.

Dupilumab after the 2017 approval for the treatment of atopic dermatitis: what's new and what's next?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The IL-4/13 antagonist dupilumab was approved in 2017 as the first biologic for atopic dermatitis. Here, we comprehensively review compelling new data regarding dupilumab published following the approval. RECENT FINDINGS: Daily clinical practice reports of dupilumab in atopic dermatitis are favorable and in line with the registration trials. Dupilumab does not appear to negatively affect pharmacokinetics of CYP450-metabolized drugs nor vaccination responses. Type 2 inflammation biomarkers in skin and serum are reduced following dupilumab treatment. Dupilumab increases the risk for conjunctivitis, especially with higher baseline atopic dermatitis severity and a history of conjunctivitis, but the underlying mechanisms are unknown. Favorable effects of dupilumab have been reported in treatment-recalcitrant hand eczema and prurigo nodularis cases; for allergic contact dermatitis and alopecia areata, there are conflicting responses to dupilumab, possible stemming from pathophysiological heterogeneity. SUMMARY: Daily practice data support the continued use of dupilumab for atopic dermatitis. The only safety signal is an increased risk for conjunctivitis; mechanistic studies into dupilumab-associated conjunctivitis should lead to risk mitigation strategies. Prospective, controlled evaluations are needed for dupilumab in hand eczema and prurigo nodularis. A precision medicine-driven drug-development approach is essential to assess dupilumab for diseases with heterogeneous pathophysiologies, such as alopecia areata and allergic contact dermatitis.

Dupilumab in atopic dermatitis: rationale, latest evidence and place in therapy.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is one of the most common chronic inflammatory skin diseases. The prevalence of AD is increasing and is currently estimated at 10-20% in adults worldwide. In the majority of patients, AD can be adequately controlled with topical treatment or ultraviolet light therapy, but there is a high unmet need for effective and safe therapeutics in patients with more severe or difficult to treat AD. During the past decade, new advances in the understanding of the underlying immune pathogenesis of AD have led to the development of new, more targeted therapies. Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor α, thereby blocking the IL-4 and IL-13 pathway, is one of the first biologics that has been developed for AD. Dupilumab has shown promising results in phase III trials and has recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Commission for the treatment of moderate to severe AD. With the approval of dupilumab, we are entering a new era of biological therapeutics in AD management. The place of dupilumab should be established in the current treatment standards. Based on current treatment guidelines and experts' opinions in the management of AD, we have built a proposal for a treatment algorithm for systemic treatment of AD in European countries.

Lymphopenia in atopic dermatitis patients treated with oral immunosuppressive drugs.

INTRODUCTION: Oral immunosuppressive drugs are commonly used in the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD). In patients with autoimmune- and rheumatic diseases, these drugs have been associated with lymphopenia. Lymphopenia is related to an increased risk of opportunistic infections. The incidence of lymphopenia in patients with AD treated with oral immunosuppressive drugs is yet unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the occurrence of recurrent lymphopenia in patients with AD treated with oral immunosuppressive drugs and to make recommendations for screening in daily practice. METHODS: Patients with recurrent lymphopenia (i.e. >5 times lymphocyte counts below 0.8 × 109/L) during treatment with oral immunosuppressive drugs were included from our immunosuppressive drugs database and further analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 360 AD patients, treated with oral immunosuppressive drugs, were screened. A recurrent lymphopenia during treatment was found in 11 patients. In 8/11 patients, recurrent lymphopenia was observed during concomitant treatment with prednisone. No serious infections were observed. CONCLUSION: Lymphopenia is occasionally seen in AD patients treat with oral immunosuppressive drugs. Concomitant treatment with prednisone seems to be a risk factor. We suggest to include monitoring of lymphocyte counts in the standard follow-up for all AD patients treated with oral immunosuppressive drugs.