Effectiveness of antibacterial therapeutic clothing vs. nonantibacterial therapeutic clothing in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a randomized controlled observer-blind pragmatic trial (ABC trial).

BACKGROUND: Increased Staphylococcus aureus (SA) colonization is considered an important factor in the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis (AD). Antibacterial therapeutic clothing aims to reduce SA colonization and AD inflammation; however, its role in the management of AD remains poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of antibacterial therapeutic clothing + standard topical treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe AD vs. standard therapeutic clothing + standard topical treatment; and, if effectiveness was demonstrated, to demonstrate its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A pragmatic double-blinded multicentre randomized controlled trial (NCT04297215) was conducted in patients of all ages with moderate-to-severe AD. Patients were centrally randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to receive standard therapeutic clothing or antibacterial clothing based on chitosan or silver. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) measured over 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (PROs), topical corticosteroid (TCS) use, SA colonization, safety and cost-effectiveness. Outcomes were assessed by means of (generalized) linear mixed-model analyses. RESULTS: Between 16 March 2020 and 20 December 2021, 171 patients were enrolled. In total, 159 patients were included (54 in the standard therapeutic clothing group, 50 in the chitosan group and 55 in the silver group). Adherence was high [median 7 nights a week wear (interquartile range 3-7)]. Median EASI scores at baseline and at 4, 12, 26 and 52 weeks were 11.8, 4.3, 4.6, 4.2 and 3.6, respectively, in the standard therapeutic clothing group vs. 11.3, 5.0, 3.0, 3.0 and 4.4, respectively, in the chitosan group, and 11.6, 5.0, 5.4, 4.6 and 5.8, respectively, in the silver group. No differences in EASI over 52 weeks between the standard therapeutic clothing group, the chitosan group [-0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.3 to 0.2; P = 0.53] or the silver group (-0.1, 95% CI -0.3 to 0.2; P = 0.58) were found. However, a small significant group × time interaction effect between the standard and silver groups was found (P = 0.03), in which the silver group performed worse after 26 weeks. No differences between groups were found in PROs, TCS use, SA skin colonization and healthcare utilization. No severe adverse events or silver absorption were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest no additional benefits of antibacterial agents in therapeutic clothing in patients with moderate-to-severe AD.

Comparing binary efficacy outcomes for systemic immunomodulatory treatments for atopic dermatitis in a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) are evaluated primarily in placebo-controlled trials with binary efficacy outcomes. In a living systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), we previously analysed continuous efficacy measures. OBJECTIVES: To compare binary efficacy outcomes of systemic treatments for AD. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information (LILACS) database, Global Resource for Eczema Trials (GREAT) database and trial registries up to 1 March 2023. We included randomized trials examining ≥ 8 weeks of treatment with systemic immunomodulatory medications for moderate-to-severe AD. We screened titles, abstracts and full texts and abstracted data independently, in duplicate. Outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving at least 50%, 75% and 90% improvements in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 50, EASI 75 and EASI 90, respectively) and Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) success. We performed random-effects Bayesian NMAs to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) between each intervention for each outcome. RESULTS: Eighty-three trials with 22 122 participants were included in the systematic review. In analyses limited to trials of 8-16 weeks' duration with predominantly adult populations, abrocitinib 200 mg daily (OR 1.5, 95% CrI 1.1-2.2) and upadacitinib 15 mg daily (OR 1.7, 95% CrI 0.9-3.3) and 30 mg daily (OR 2.5, 95% CrI 1.3-5.0) were associated with higher odds of achieving EASI 50 vs. dupilumab. Abrocitinib 100 mg daily (OR 0.7, 95% CrI 0.5-1.0), baricitinib 2 mg daily (OR 0.4, 95% CrI 0.3-0.5) and 4 mg daily (OR 0.5, 95% CrI 0.3-0.7), and tralokinumab (OR 0.4, 95% CrI 0.3-0.6) were associated with lower odds of achieving EASI 50 vs. dupilumab. Results were similar for EASI 75, EASI 90 and IGA success. CONCLUSIONS: Supporting results for continuous outcome measures, upadacitinib 30 mg daily and abrocitinib 200 mg daily are the most efficacious with regard to binary efficacy endpoints up to 16 weeks in adults with moderate-to-severe AD, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg daily, dupilumab and abrocitinib 100 mg daily. Dupilumab and both doses of upadacitinib and abrocitinib are more efficacious than baricitinib 4 and 2 mg daily and tralokinumab.

Defining disease severity in atopic dermatitis and psoriasis for the application to biomarker research: an interdisciplinary perspective.

More severe atopic dermatitis and psoriasis are associated with a higher cumulative impact on quality of life, multimorbidity and healthcare costs. Proactive, early intervention in those most at risk of severe disease may reduce this cumulative burden and modify the disease trajectory to limit progression. The lack of reliable biomarkers for this at-risk group represents a barrier to such a paradigm shift in practice. To expedite discovery and validation, the BIOMarkers in Atopic Dermatitis and Psoriasis (BIOMAP) consortium (a large-scale European, interdisciplinary research initiative) has curated clinical and molecular data across diverse study designs and sources including cross-sectional and cohort studies (small-scale studies through to large multicentre registries), clinical trials, electronic health records and large-scale population-based biobanks. We map all dataset disease severity instruments and measures to three key domains (symptoms, inflammatory activity and disease course), and describe important codependencies and relationships across variables and domains. We prioritize definitions for more severe disease with reference to international consensus, reference standards and/or expert opinion. Key factors to consider when analysing datasets across these diverse study types include explicit early consideration of biomarker purpose and clinical context, candidate biomarkers associated with disease severity at a particular point in time and over time and how they are related, taking the stage of biomarker development into account when selecting disease severity measures for analyses, and validating biomarker associations with disease severity outcomes using both physician- and patient-reported measures and across domains. The outputs from this exercise will ensure coherence and focus across the BIOMAP consortium so that mechanistic insights and biomarkers are clinically relevant, patient-centric and more generalizable to current and future research efforts.

Atopic dermatitis (AD), and psoriasis are long-term skin conditions that can significantly affect people's lives, especially when symptoms are severe. Approximately 10% of adults and 20% of children are affected by AD, while psoriasis affects around 5% of people in the UK. Both conditions are associated with debilitating physical symptoms (such as itch) and have been linked to depression and anxiety. Biomarkers are naturally occurring chemicals in the human body and have potential to enhance the longer-term management of AD and psoriasis. Currently, there are no routinely used biomarkers that can identify people who experience or will go on to develop severe AD and psoriasis. For this reason, research is under way to understand which biomarkers are linked to severity. In this study, a multidisciplinary team of skin researchers from across Europe, along with patient groups, discussed the complexities of studying severity-related biomarkers. We identified a number of severity measurement approaches and there were recommendations for future biomarker research, including (i) considering multiple measures as no single measure can encompass all aspects of severity, (ii) exploring severity measures recorded by both healthcare professionals and patients, as each may capture different aspects, and (iii) accounting for influencing factors, such as different treatment approaches, that may impact AD and psoriasis severity, which make it challenging to compare findings across studies. Overall, we anticipate that the insights gained from these discussions will increase the likelihood of biomarkers being effectively applied in real-world settings, to ultimately improve outcomes for people with AD and psoriasis.

Is Telemedicine Suitable for Patients with Chronic Inflammatory Skin Conditions? A Systematic Review.

Telemedicine, the provision of remote healthcare, has gained prominence, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. It has the potential to replace routine in-person follow-up visits for patients with chronic inflammatory skin conditions. However, it remains unclear whether telemedicine can effectively substitute in-person consultations for this patient group. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and safety of telemedicine compared with traditional in-person care for chronic inflammatory skin diseases. A comprehensive search in various databases identified 11 articles, including 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 clinical controlled trial (CCT). These studies evaluated telemedicine's impact on patients with psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, with varying methods like video consultations and digital platforms. The findings tentatively suggest that telemedicine does not seem to be inferior compared with in-person care, particularly in terms of condition severity and quality of life for patients with chronic inflammatory skin diseases. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the inherent uncertainties in the evidence. There are indications that telemedicine can offer benefits such as cost-effectiveness, time savings, and reduced travel distances, but it is important to recognize these findings as preliminary, necessitating further validation through more extensive research.

Treat-to-target in dermatology: A scoping review and International Eczema Council survey on the approach in atopic dermatitis.

Treat-to-target (T2T) is a pragmatic therapeutic strategy being gradually introduced into dermatology after adoption in several other clinical areas. Atopic dermatitis (AD), one of the most common inflammatory skin diseases, may also benefit from this structured and practical therapeutic approach. We aimed to evaluate existing data regarding the T2T approach in dermatology, with a specific focus on AD, as well as the views of International Eczema Council (IEC) members on the potential application of a T2T approach to AD management. To do so, we systematically searched for peer-reviewed publications on the T2T approach for any skin disease in the PubMed and Scopus databases up to February 2022 and conducted a survey among IEC members regarding various components to potentially include in a T2T approach in AD. We identified 21 relevant T2T-related reports in dermatology, of which 14 were related to psoriasis, five to AD, one for juvenile dermatomyositis and one for urticaria. In the IEC member survey, respondents proposed treatable traits (with itch, disease severity and sleep problems getting the highest scores), relevant comorbidities (with asthma being selected most commonly, followed by anxiety and depression in adults), recommended specialists that should define the approach in AD (dermatologists, allergists and primary care physicians were most commonly selected in adults), and applicable assessment tools (both physician- and patient-reported), in both adult and paediatric patients, for potential future utilization of the T2T approach in AD. In conclusion, while the T2T approach may become a useful tool to simplify therapeutic goals and AD management, its foundation in AD is only starting to build. A multidisciplinary approach, including a wide range of stakeholders, including patients, is needed to further define the essential components needed to utilize T2T in AD.

Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP)-A systematic review of the methodological quality of contact dermatitis clinical practice guidelines.

The Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP) assesses the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for high-burden skin diseases. This review focuses on contact dermatitis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO and Academic Search Premier for CPGs published between 1 November 2018 and 1 November 2023. Prespecified guideline resources were hand searched. Two authors independently undertook screening, data extraction and quality assessments. Instruments used were the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Reporting Checklist, the U.S. Institute of Medicine's (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) Instrument and Lenzer's Red Flags. Twenty five CPGs were included, exhibiting heterogeneity in both the topics they addressed and their methodological quality. Whereas the CPGs on management of hand eczema from Denmark, Europe and the Netherlands scored best, most CPGs fell short of being clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence-based. Disclosure of conflicts of interest scored well, and areas needing improvement include 'strength and wording of recommendations', 'applicability', 'updating' and 'external review'. Adhering to AGREE II and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) enhances methodological quality.

Biomarkers associated with the development of comorbidities in patients with atopic dermatitis: A systematic review.

Biomarkers associated with the development of comorbidities in atopic dermatitis (AD) patients have been reported, but have not yet been systematically reviewed. Seven electronic databases were searched, from database inception to September 2021. English language randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort, and case-control studies that investigated the association between a biomarker and the development of comorbidities in AD patients were included. Two authors independently screened the records for eligibility, one extracted all data, and critically appraised the quality of studies and risk of bias. Fifty six articles met the inclusion criteria, evaluating 146 candidate biomarkers. The most frequently reported biomarkers were filaggrin mutations and allergen specific-IgE. Promising biomarkers include specific-IgE and/or skin prick tests predicting the development of asthma, and genetic polymorphisms predicting the occurrence of eczema herpeticum. The identified studies and biomarkers were highly heterogeneous, and associated with predominately moderate-to-high risk of bias across multiple domains. Overall, findings were inconsistent. High-quality studies assessing biomarkers associated with the development of comorbidities in people with AD are lacking. Harmonized datasets and independent validation studies are urgently needed.

The effects of systemic immunomodulatory treatments on COVID-19 outcomes in patients with atopic dermatitis: Results from the global SECURE-AD registry.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on the effects of systemic immunomodulatory treatments on COVID-19 outcomes in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVE: To investigate COVID-19 outcomes in patients with AD treated with or without systemic immunomodulatory treatments, using a global registry platform. METHODS: Clinicians were encouraged to report cases of COVID-19 in their patients with AD in the Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Atopic Dermatitis (SECURE-AD) registry. Data entered from 1 April 2020 to 31 October 2021 were analysed using multivariable logistic regression. The primary outcome was hospitalization from COVID-19, according to AD treatment groups. RESULTS: 442 AD patients (mean age 35.9 years, 51.8% male) from 27 countries with strongly suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were included in analyses. 428 (96.8%) patients were treated with a single systemic therapy (n = 297 [67.2%]) or topical therapy only (n = 131 [29.6%]). Most patients treated with systemic therapies received dupilumab (n = 216). Fourteen patients (3.2%) received a combination of systemic therapies. Twenty-six patients (5.9%) were hospitalized. No deaths were reported. Patients treated with topical treatments had significantly higher odds of hospitalization, compared with those treated with dupilumab monotherapy (odds ratio (OR) 4.65 [95%CI 1.71-14.78]), including after adjustment for confounding variables (adjusted OR (aOR) 4.99 [95%CI 1.4-20.84]). Combination systemic therapy which did not include systemic corticosteroids was associated with increased odds of hospitalization, compared with single agent non-steroidal immunosuppressive systemic treatment (OR 8.09 [95%CI 0.4-59.96], aOR 37.57 [95%CI 1.05-871.11]). Hospitalization was most likely in patients treated with combination systemic therapy which included systemic corticosteroids (OR 40.43 [95%CI 8.16-207.49], aOR 45.75 [95%CI 4.54-616.22]). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the risk of COVID-19 complications appears low in patients with AD, even when treated with systemic immunomodulatory agents. Dupilumab monotherapy was associated with lower hospitalization than other therapies. Combination systemic treatment, particularly combinations including systemic corticosteroids, was associated with the highest risk of severe COVID-19.

Patient engagement with the BJD: encouraging the patient voice and readership.

This editorial for the British Journal of Dermatology provides an update from a patient editor point of view.

Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP), a systematic review of atopic dermatitis clinical practice guidelines: are they clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence based (CUTE)?

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential in delivering optimum healthcare, such as for atopic dermatitis (AD), a highly prevalent skin disease. Although many CPGs are available for AD, their quality has not been critically appraised. OBJECTIVES: To identify CPGs on AD worldwide and to assess with validated instruments whether those CPGs are clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence based (CUTE). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO and Academic Search Premier for CPGs on AD published between 1 April 2016 and 1 April 2021. Additionally we hand searched prespecified guideline resources. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment of eligible guidelines were independently carried out by two authors. Instruments used for quality assessment were the AGREE II Reporting Checklist, the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness and Lenzer's Red Flags. RESULTS: Forty CPGs were included, mostly from countries with a high sociodemographic index. The reporting quality varied enormously. Three CPGs scored 'excellent' on all AGREE II domains and three scored 'poor' on all domains. We found no association between AGREE II scores and a country's gross domestic product. One CPG fully met all nine IOM criteria and two fully met eight. Three CPGs had no red flags. 'Applicability' and 'rigour of development' were the lowest scoring AGREE II domains; 'external review', 'updating procedures' and 'rating strength of recommendations' were the IOM criteria least met; and most red flags were for 'limited or no involvement of methodological expertise' and 'no external review'. Management of conflicts of interest (COIs) appeared challenging. When constructs of the instruments overlapped, they showed high concordance, strengthening our conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, many CPGs are not sufficiently clear, unbiased, trustworthy or evidence based (CUTE) and lack applicability. Therefore improvement is warranted, for which using the AGREE II instrument is recommended. Some improvements can be easily accomplished through robust reporting. Others, such as transparency, applicability, evidence foundation and managing COIs, might require more effort.

Lifestyle factors and hand eczema: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Evidence regarding the association between lifestyle factors and hand eczema is limited.To extensively investigate the association between lifestyle factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, stress, physical activity, body mass index, diet, and sleep) and the prevalence, incidence, subtype, severity, and prognosis of hand eczema, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology consensus statement. MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched up to October 2021. The (modified) Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to judge risk of bias. Quality of the evidence was rated using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Eligibility and quality were blindly assessed by two independent investigators; disagreements were resolved by a third investigator. Data were pooled using a random-effects model, and when insufficient for a meta-analysis, evidence was narratively summarized. Fifty-five studies were included. The meta-analysis (17 studies) found very low quality evidence that smoking is associated with a higher prevalence of hand eczema (odds ratio 1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.26). No convincing evidence of associations for the other lifestyle factors with hand eczema were found, mostly due to heterogeneity, conflicting results, and/or the limited number of studies per outcome.

Patients' perspectives on quality of care for chronic hand eczema: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Hand eczema (HE) has a significant impact on patients' quality of life and work-related activities. However, little is known about the patients' perspectives on quality of care for HE. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the patient perspective of the HE care process in a tertiary referral center. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured focus groups were carried out, recorded, transcribed, and analysed using an inductive-deductive thematic approach. RESULTS: Fifteen patients participated in four focus groups. Time and attention, together with being listened to and understood by the health care professional, were the most important aspects of care for HE mentioned by participants. Other aspects of care that were regarded as important were that diagnoses, causes and follow-up of HE were not always clear to the participant; more psychosocial support was needed, and that participants experienced frequent changes in doctors. Information provided by nurses was valuable, but more individualized advice was needed. CONCLUSIONS: To better meet the needs of patients, more explanation should be given about the causes of HE and the final diagnosis. Besides focusing on the treatment, it is also important to focus on its impact on the patient and options for psychosocial and peer support should be discussed. Furthermore, the beneficial role of the specialized nurse as part of integrated care was emphasized.

Guidelines for diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of hand eczema.

BACKGROUND: Hand eczema is a common inflammatory skin disorder. Health care providers need continuously updated information about the management of hand eczema to ensure best treatment for their patients. OBJECTIVES: To update the European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline on the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment on of hand eczema. METHOD: The Guideline Development Group (GDG) was established on behalf of the ESCD. A call for interest was launched via the ESCD website and via the ESCD members' mailing list. Appraisal of the evidence for therapeutic and preventive interventions was applied and a structured method of developing consensus was used and moderated by an external methodologist. The final guideline was approved by the ESCD executive committee and was in external review on the ESCD webpage for 1 month. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved for several statements and management strategies. CONCLUSION: The updated guideline should improve management of hand eczema.

Out-of-pocket Costs for Individuals with Atopic Eczema: A Cross-sectional Study in Nine European Countries.

Atopic eczema (AE) is one of the most common non-communicable inflammatory skin diseases, and has a huge socioeconomic impact. Studies on the everyday economic impact of AE on patients, however, are limited. To estimate the annual extra out-of-pocket spending due to AE among patients in Europe, a cross-sectional study using computer-assisted phone interviewing of patients with AE was performed in 9 European countries. A total of 1,189 patients (56% women) with AE, who were either eligible for, or on, systemic treatment, participated in the study between October 2017 and March 2018. Mean extra spending on everyday necessities was €927 per patient per year for healthcare expenses, and this figure was slightly, but not statistically significantly, influenced by the severity of AE. Emollients and moisturizers accounted for the highest monthly costs, followed by medication that was not reimbursed, doctors' and hospital costs. AE-related out-of-pocket costs pose a substantial burden for affected individuals, are higher than in other chronic diseases, and should always be included in economic assessments of the impact of this disease.

Emollients and moisturisers for eczema.

BACKGROUND: Eczema is a chronic skin disease characterised by dry skin, intense itching, inflammatory skin lesions, and a considerable impact on quality of life. Moisturisation is an integral part of treatment, but it is unclear if moisturisers are effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of moisturisers for eczema. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases to December 2015: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the GREAT database. We searched five trials registers and checked references of included and excluded studies for further relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in people with eczema. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included 77 studies (6603 participants, mean age: 18.6 years, mean duration: 6.7 weeks). We assessed 36 studies as at a high risk of bias, 34 at unclear risk, and seven at low risk. Twenty-four studies assessed our primary outcome 'participant-assessed disease severity', 13 assessed 'satisfaction', and 41 assessed 'adverse events'. Secondary outcomes included investigator-assessed disease severity (addressed in 65 studies), skin barrier function (29), flare prevention (16), quality of life (10), and corticosteroid use (eight). Adverse events reporting was limited (smarting, stinging, pruritus, erythema, folliculitis).Six studies evaluated moisturiser versus no moisturiser. 'Participant-assessed disease severity' and 'satisfaction' were not assessed. Moisturiser use yielded lower SCORAD than no moisturiser (three studies, 276 participants, mean difference (MD) -2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.55 to -0.28), but the minimal important difference (MID) (8.7) was unmet. There were fewer flares with moisturisers (two studies, 87 participants, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.70), time to flare was prolonged (median: 180 versus 30 days), and less topical corticosteroids were needed (two studies, 222 participants, MD -9.30 g, 95% CI -15.3 to -3.27). There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events (one study, 173 participants, risk ratio (RR) 15.34, 95% CI 0.90 to 261.64). Evidence for these outcomes was low quality.With Atopiclair (three studies), 174/232 participants experienced improvement in participant-assessed disease severity versus 27/158 allocated to vehicle (RR 4.51, 95% CI 2.19 to 9.29). Atopiclair decreased itching (four studies, 396 participants, MD -2.65, 95% CI -4.21 to -1.09) and achieved more frequent satisfaction (two studies, 248 participants, RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.89), fewer flares (three studies, 397 participants, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.31), and lower EASI (four studies, 426 participants, MD -4.0, 95% CI -5.42 to -2.57), but MID (6.6) was unmet. The number of participants reporting adverse events was not statistically different (four studies, 430 participants, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.33). Evidence for these outcomes was moderate quality.Participants reported skin improvement more frequently with urea-containing cream than placebo (one study, 129 participants, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.53; low-quality evidence), with equal satisfaction between the two groups (one study, 38 participants, low-quality evidence). Urea-containing cream improved dryness (investigator-assessed) more frequently (one study, 128 participants, RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.71; moderate-quality evidence) with fewer flares (one study, 44 participants, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92; low-quality evidence), but more participants in this group reported adverse events (one study, 129 participants, RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.34; moderate-quality evidence).Three studies assessed glycerol-containing moisturiser versus vehicle or placebo. More participants in the glycerol group noticed skin improvement (one study, 134 participants, RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; moderate-quality evidence), and this group saw improved investigator-assessed SCORAD (one study, 249 participants, MD -2.20, 95% CI -3.44 to -0.96; high-quality evidence), but MID was unmet. Participant satisfaction was not addressed. The number of participants reporting adverse events was not statistically significant (two studies, 385 participants, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.19; moderate-quality evidence).Four studies investigated oat-containing moisturisers versus no treatment or vehicle. No significant differences between groups were reported for participant-assessed disease severity (one study, 50 participants, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.46; low-quality evidence), satisfaction (one study, 50 participants, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.52; very low-quality evidence), and investigator-assessed disease severity (three studies, 272 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.21; low-quality evidence). In the oat group, there were fewer flares (one study, 43 participants, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.7; low-quality evidence) and less topical corticosteroids needed (two studies, 222 participants, MD -9.30g, 95% CI 15.3 to -3.27; low-quality evidence), but more adverse events were reported (one study, 173 participants; Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.26, 95% CI 1.76 to 29.92; low-quality evidence).All moisturisers above were compared to placebo, vehicle, or no moisturiser. Participants considered moisturisers more effective in reducing eczema (five studies, 572 participants, RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.23; low-quality evidence) and itch (seven studies, 749 participants, SMD -1.10, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.38) than control. Participants in both treatment arms reported comparable satisfaction (three studies, 296 participants, RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.26; low-quality evidence). Moisturisers led to lower investigator-assessed disease severity (12 studies, 1281 participants, SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.51; high-quality evidence) and fewer flares (six studies, 607 participants, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.62; moderate-quality evidence), but there was no difference in adverse events (10 studies, 1275 participants, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; moderate-quality evidence).Topical active treatment combined with moisturiser was more effective than active treatment alone in reducing investigator-assessed disease severity (three studies, 192 participants, SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.57; moderate-quality evidence) and flares (one study, 105 participants, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.93), and was preferred by participants (both low-quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in number of adverse events (one study, 125 participants, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.19; very low-quality evidence). Participant-assessed disease severity was not addressed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most moisturisers showed some beneficial effects, producing better results when used with active treatment, prolonging time to flare, and reducing the number of flares and amount of topical corticosteroids needed to achieve similar reductions in eczema severity. We did not find reliable evidence that one moisturiser is better than another.

Barriers and Facilitators to eHealth Use in Daily Practice: Perspectives of Patients and Professionals in Dermatology.

BACKGROUND: The number of eHealth interventions in the management of chronic diseases such as atopic dermatitis (AD) is growing. Despite promising results, the implementation and use of these interventions is limited. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess opinions of the most important stakeholders influencing the implementation and use of eHealth services in daily dermatology practice. METHODS: The perspectives of health care professionals and patients towards the implementation and use of eHealth services in daily practice were assessed by using a mixed method design. A cross-sectional survey based on the eHealth implementation toolkit (eHit) was conducted to explore factors influencing the adoption of eHealth interventions offering the possibility of e-consultations, Web-based monitoring, and Web-based self-management training among dermatologists and dermatology nurses. The perspectives of patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) regarding the use of eHealth services were discussed in an online focus group. RESULTS: Health care professionals (n=99) and patients (n=9) acknowledged the value of eHealth services and were willing to use these digital tools in daily dermatology practice. Key identified barriers (statements with <50% of the participants scoring totally agree or agree) in the implementation and adoption of eHealth interventions included concerns about the availability (12/99, 12%) and allocation (14/99, 14%) of resources, financial aspects (26/99, 26%), reliability, security, and confidentially of the intervention itself (29/99, 29%), and the lack of education and training (6/99, 6%). CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals and patients acknowledge the benefits arising from the implementation and use of eHealth services in daily dermatology practice. However, some important barriers were identified that might be useful in addressing the implementation strategy in order to enhance the implementation success of eHealth interventions in dermatology.