Atopic dermatitis: A global health perspective.

The International Society of AD (ISAD) organized a roundtable on global aspects of AD at the WCD 2023 in Singapore. According to the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) consortium, at least 171 million individuals were affected with AD in 2019, corresponding to 2.23% of the world population, with age-standardized prevalence and incidence rates that were relatively stable from 1990 to 2019. Based on the panel experience, most AD cases are mild-to-moderate. Without parallel data on disease prevalence and severity, the GBD data are difficult to interpret in many regions. This gap is particularly important in countries with limited medical infrastructure, but indirect evidence suggests a significant burden of AD in low-and-medium resource settings, especially urban areas. The Singapore roundtable was an opportunity to compare experiences in World Bank category 1 (Madagascar and Mali), 3 (Brazil, China) and 4 (Australia, Germany, Qatar, USA, Singapore, Japan) countries. The panel concluded that current AD guidelines are not adapted for low resource settings and a more pragmatic approach, as developed by WHO for skin NTDs, would be advisable for minimal access to moisturizers and topical corticosteroids. The panel also recommended prioritizing prevention studies, regardless of the level of existing resources. For disease long-term control in World Bank category 3 and most category 4 countries, the main problem is not access to drugs for most mild-to-moderate cases, but rather poor compliance due to insufficient time at visits. Collaboration with WHO, patient advocacy groups and industry may promote global change, improve capacity training and fight current inequalities. Finally, optimizing management of AD and its comorbidities needs more action at the primary care level, because reaching specialist care is merely aspirational in most settings. Primary care empowerment with store and forward telemedicine and algorithms based on augmented intelligence is a future goal.

Emollients for preventing atopic eczema: Cost-effectiveness analysis of the BEEP trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent discoveries have led to the suggestion that enhancing skin barrier from birth might prevent eczema and food allergy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of daily all-over-body application of emollient during the first year of life for preventing atopic eczema in high-risk children at 2 years from a health service perspective. We also considered a 5-year time horizon as a sensitivity analysis. METHODS: A within-trial economic evaluation using data on health resource use and quality of life captured as part of the BEEP trial alongside the trial data. Parents/carers of 1394 infants born to families at high risk of atopic disease were randomised 1:1 to the emollient group, which were advised to apply emollient (Doublebase Gel or Diprobase Cream) to their child at least once daily to the whole body during the first year of life or usual care. Both groups received advice on general skin care. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema in the primary cost-effectiveness analysis. Secondary analysis, undertaken as a cost-utility analysis, reports incremental cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) where child utility was elicited using the proxy CHU-9D at 2 years. RESULTS: At 2 years, the adjusted incremental cost was £87.45 (95% CI -54.31, 229.27) per participant, whilst the adjusted proportion without eczema was 0.0164 (95% CI -0.0329, 0.0656). The ICER was £5337 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. Adjusted incremental QALYs were very slightly improved in the emollient group, 0.0010 (95% CI -0.0069, 0.0089). At 5 years, adjusted incremental costs were lower for the emollient group, -£106.89 (95% CI -354.66, 140.88) and the proportion without eczema was -0.0329 (95% CI -0.0659, 0.0002). The 5-year ICER was £3201 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. However, when inpatient costs due to wheezing were excluded, incremental costs were lower and incremental effects greater in the usual care group. CONCLUSIONS: In line with effectiveness endpoints, advice given in the BEEP trial to apply daily emollient during infancy for eczema prevention in high-risk children does not appear cost-effective.

Identifying mental health needs of children and youth with skin disease: A systematic review of screening and assessment tools.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) which have been used to screen and assess mental health symptoms in studies of youth with skin disease. (2) To critically appraise their evidence base in this population. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted within PubMed and PsycINFO combining search terms for pediatric populations, dermatology, screening and assessment tools, and psychological and psychiatric conditions, to identify PROMs which screened or assessed for mental health symptoms in youth with skin disease. PROMs which had undergone validation within this population were assessed for quality and evidence base using the COSMIN risk of bias tool. RESULTS: One hundred eleven PROMs which assess mental health symptoms in studies of youth with skin disease were identified. These included generic mental health scales which are extensively validated in different populations. Only one PROM, the "Skin Picking Scale-Revised" has undergone specific validation in youth with skin disease. This showed poor quality of evidence for content validity and therefore cannot be recommended. CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need to identify mental health problems early and treat proactively to improve outcomes in youth with skin disease. This review highlights the current lack of consensus around the best way to assess our patients. It is likely that existing generic mental health methods and PROMS will be appropriate for our needs. More work is required to examine the utility, feasibility, and acceptability of existing generic, validated mental health screening tools in youth with skin disease.

Patterns and trends in eczema management in UK primary care (2009-2018): A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high disease burden of eczema, a contemporary overview of the patterns and trends in primary care healthcare utilization and treatment is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To quantify primary care consultations, specialist referrals, prescribing, and treatment escalation, in children and adults with eczema in England. METHODS: A large primary care research database was used to examine healthcare and treatment utilization in people with active eczema (n = 411,931). Management trends and variations by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity were described from 2009 to 2018 inclusive. RESULTS: Primary care consultation rates increased from 87.8 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 87.3-88.3) to 112.0 (95% CI 111.5-112.6) per 100 person-years over 2009 to 2018. Specialist referral rates also increased from 3.8 (95% CI 3.7-3.9) to 5.0 (95% CI 4.9-5.1) per 100 person-years over the same period. Consultation rates were highest in infants. Specialist referrals were greatest in the over 50s and lowest in people of lower socioeconomic status, despite a higher rate of primary care consultations. There were small changes in prescribing over time; emollients increased (prescribed to 48.5% of people with active eczema in 2009 compared to 51.4% in 2018) and topical corticosteroids decreased (57.3%-52.0%). Prescribing disparities were observed, including less prescribing of potent and very potent topical corticosteroids in non-white ethnicities and people of lower socioeconomic status. Treatment escalation was more common with increasing age and in children of non-white ethnicity. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The management of eczema varies by sociodemographic status in England, with lower rates of specialist referral in people from more-deprived backgrounds. There are different patterns of healthcare utilization, treatment, and treatment escalation in people of non-white ethnicity and of more-deprived backgrounds.

Epidemiology and management of atopic dermatitis in England: an observational cohort study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is one of the most common inflammatory skin conditions in both children and adults. Despite this, contemporary descriptions of the incidence, prevalence and current management of the condition in the UK are lacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a series of retrospective studies using a large population-based cohort derived from the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) network database to explore two key research themes: AD epidemiology and AD management.In the epidemiology theme, we will describe the incidence and prevalence of AD in children and adults in England from 2009 to 2018 inclusive. We will stratify findings by age, national Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), ethnicity, urban-rural environment and geographic location; and explore independent associations of these features with AD in multivariable models.In the management theme, we will explore healthcare utilisation and treatment in people with AD. Regarding healthcare utilisation, we will evaluate rates of AD-associated primary care visits and specialist dermatology referrals in people with AD. Rates will be stratified by age, gender, socioeconomic IMD quintile and ethnicity. We will describe contemporary treatment by estimating prescribing rates across medication classes used in AD (emollients, topical corticosteroids by potency, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical antimicrobials, antihistamines, oral corticosteroids and systemic immunomodulatory therapies) overall, and by age and sociodemographic groupings. We will also examine trends in prescribing over the study period. In people first diagnosed with AD during the study period, we will describe differences in treatment escalation by sociodemographic factors using time-to-event analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Health Research Authority decision tool classed this a study of 'usual practice', ethics approval was not required. Study approval was granted by the RCGP RSC Study Approval Committee. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03823794.

Daily emollient during infancy for prevention of eczema: the BEEP randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Skin barrier dysfunction precedes eczema development. We tested whether daily use of emollient in the first year could prevent eczema in high-risk children. METHODS: We did a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in 12 hospitals and four primary care sites across the UK. Families were approached via antenatal or postnatal services for recruitment of term infants (at least 37 weeks' gestation) at high risk of developing eczema (ie, at least one first-degree relative with parent-reported eczema, allergic rhinitis, or asthma, diagnosed by a doctor). Term newborns with a family history of atopic disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to application of emollient daily (either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel) for the first year plus standard skin-care advice (emollient group) or standard skin-care advice only (control group). The randomisation schedule was created using computer-generated code (stratified by recruiting centre and number of first-degree relatives with atopic disease) and participants were assigned to groups using an internet-based randomisation system. The primary outcome was eczema at age 2 years (defined by UK working party criteria) with analysis as randomised regardless of adherence to allocation for participants with outcome data collected, and adjusting for stratification variables. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN21528841. Data collection for long-term follow-up is ongoing, but the trial is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: 1394 newborns were randomly assigned to study groups between Nov 19, 2014, and Nov 18, 2016; 693 were assigned to the emollient group and 701 to the control group. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466 of 532) at 3 months, 82% (427 of 519) at 6 months, and 74% (375 of 506) at 12 months in those with complete questionnaire data. At age 2 years, eczema was present in 139 (23%) of 598 infants with outcome data collected in the emollient group and 150 (25%) of 612 infants in the control group (adjusted relative risk 0·95 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·16], p=0·61; adjusted risk difference -1·2% [-5·9 to 3·6]). Other eczema definitions supported the results of the primary analysis. Mean number of skin infections per child in year 1 was 0·23 (SD 0·68) in the emollient group versus 0·15 (0·46) in the control group; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1·55 (95% CI 1·15 to 2·09). INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence that daily emollient during the first year of life prevents eczema in high-risk children and some evidence to suggest an increased risk of skin infections. Our study shows that families with eczema, asthma, or allergic rhinitis should not use daily emollients to try and prevent eczema in their newborn. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Global Skin Disease Morbidity and Mortality: An Update From the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013.

Importance: Disability secondary to skin conditions is substantial worldwide. The Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 includes estimates of global morbidity and mortality due to skin diseases. Objective: To measure the burden of skin diseases worldwide. Data Sources: For nonfatal estimates, data were found by literature search using PubMed and Google Scholar in English and Spanish for years 1980 through 2013 and by accessing administrative data on hospital inpatient and outpatient episodes. Data for fatal estimates were based on vital registration and verbal autopsy data. Study Selection: Skin disease data were extracted from more than 4000 sources including systematic reviews, surveys, population-based disease registries, hospital inpatient data, outpatient data, cohort studies, and autopsy data. Data metrics included incidence, prevalence, remission, duration, severity, deaths, and mortality risk. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted by age, time period, case definitions, and other study characteristics. Data points were modeled with Bayesian meta-regression to generate estimates of morbidity and mortality metrics for skin diseases. All estimates were made with 95% uncertainty intervals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), years lived with disability, and years of life lost from 15 skin conditions in 188 countries. Results: Skin conditions contributed 1.79% to the global burden of disease measured in DALYs from 306 diseases and injuries in 2013. Individual skin diseases varied in size from 0.38% of total burden for dermatitis (atopic, contact, and seborrheic dermatitis), 0.29% for acne vulgaris, 0.19% for psoriasis, 0.19% for urticaria, 0.16% for viral skin diseases, 0.15% for fungal skin diseases, 0.07% for scabies, 0.06% for malignant skin melanoma, 0.05% for pyoderma, 0.04% for cellulitis, 0.03% for keratinocyte carcinoma, 0.03% for decubitus ulcer, and 0.01% for alopecia areata. All other skin and subcutaneous diseases composed 0.12% of total DALYs. Conclusions and Relevance: Skin and subcutaneous diseases were the 18th leading cause of global DALYs in Global Burden of Disease 2013. Excluding mortality, skin diseases were the fourth leading cause of disability worldwide.