Clinical and humoral response after SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection in patients receiving immunosuppressant therapy.

BACKGROUND: Despite impaired humoral response in patients treated with immunosuppressants (ISPs), recent studies found similar severity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) breakthrough infection compared to controls. One potential explanation is the rapid generation of humoral response on infection, but evidence is lacking. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the longitudinal dynamics of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody repertoire after SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron breakthrough infection in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) receiving ISP therapy and controls. METHODS: As a prospective substudy of the national Target-to-B! (T2B!) consortium, we included IMID patients receiving ISPs therapy and controls who reported SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection between July 1, 2021, and April 1, 2022. To get an impression of the dynamics of the antibody repertoire, 3 antibody titers of wild-type RBD, wild-type S, and omicron RBD were measured at 4 time points after SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection. RESULTS: We included 302 IMID patients receiving ISPs and 178 controls. Antibody titers increased up to 28 days after breakthrough infection in both groups. However, in IMID patients receiving therapy with anti-CD20 and sphingosine-1 phosphate receptor modulators, antibody titers were considerably lower compared to controls. In the anti-TNF group, we observed slightly lower antibody titers in the early stages and a faster decline of antibodies after infection compared to controls. Breakthrough infections were mostly mild, and hospitalization was required in less than 1% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Most ISPs do not influence the dynamics of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody repertoire and exhibit a rapid recall response with cross-reactive antibody clones toward new virus variants. However, in patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy or sphingosine-1 phosphate receptor modulators, the dynamics were greatly impaired, and to a lesser extent in those who received anti-TNF. Nevertheless, only a few severe breakthrough cases were reported.

Suppressed IgG4 class switching in dupilumab- and TNF inhibitor-treated patients after mRNA vaccination.

BACKGROUND: The noninflammatory immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4) is linked to tolerance and is unique to humans. Although poorly understood, prolonged antigenic stimulation and IL-4-signaling along the T helper 2-axis may be instrumental in IgG4 class switching. Recently, repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination has been linked to IgG4 skewing. Although widely used immunosuppressive drugs have been shown to only moderately affect humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination, the effect on IgG4 switching has not been investigated. METHODS: Here we study the impact of such immunosuppressive drugs, including the IL-4 receptor-blocking antibody dupilumab, on IgG4 skewing upon repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. Receptor-binding domain (RBD) specific antibody responses were longitudinally measured in 600 individuals, including patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases treated with a TNF inhibitor (TNFi) and/or methotrexate (MTX), dupilumab, and healthy/untreated controls, after repeated mRNA vaccination. RESULTS: We observed a substantial increase in the proportion of RBD-specific IgG4 antibodies (median 21%) in healthy/untreated controls after third vaccination. This IgG4 skewing was profoundly reduced in dupilumab-treated patients (<1%). Unexpectedly, an equally strong suppression of IgG4 skewing was observed in TNFi-treated patients (<1%), whereas MTX caused a modest reduction (7%). RBD-specific total IgG levels were hardly affected by these immunosuppressive drugs. Minimal skewing was observed, when primary vaccination was adenoviral vector-based. CONCLUSIONS: Our results imply a critical role for IL-4/IL-13 as well as TNF in vivo IgG4 class switching. These novel findings advance our understanding of IgG4 class switch dynamics, and may benefit humoral tolerance induction strategies, treatment of IgG4 pathologies and mRNA vaccine optimization.

Responsiveness of the condition-specific OVAMA questionnaire to measure symptoms and appearance in patients with vascular malformations.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of vascular malformations are not readily available, possibly due to the diversity in methods used to evaluate treatment efficacy in clinical research, complicating the aggregation and comparison of study results. The OVAMA (Outcome Measures for VAscular Malformations) questionnaire was developed to uniformly measure symptoms and appearance, i.e., condition-specific core outcome domains, in patients with vascular malformations. However, the OVAMA questionnaire needs to be responsive to changes in these constructs in order to assess whether the disease status has altered since treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the responsiveness of the OVAMA questionnaire in patients with vascular malformations. METHODS: In a prospective longitudinal study, patients completed the OVAMA questionnaire at baseline and eight weeks follow-up since treatment or watchful waiting policy. Additionally, patients completed the Global rating of change (GRC) scales at follow-up. Responsiveness was evaluated following the criterion approach of testing predefined hypotheses about expected relationships between the OVAMA questionnaire and GRC scales, measuring the same constructs. The OVAMA questionnaire was considered responsive if ≥ 75% of the hypotheses were confirmed. RESULTS: Between July 2020 and September 2022, 89 patients were recruited in a vascular anomaly centre in the Netherlands, of which 63 patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and follow-up. In total, fifteen constructs of the OVAMA questionnaire were assessed for five hypotheses. Of these 75 hypotheses, 63 (84%) hypotheses were confirmed and thereby providing evidence that the OVAMA questionnaire is responsive to change. CONCLUSION: Our study found convincing evidence that the OVAMA questionnaire is responsive to changes in symptoms and appearance in patients with vascular malformations. In addition to determining a baseline of symptoms and appearance, the OVAMA questionnaire can now be used to evaluate the effect of treatment from the patient's perspective. The responsive OVAMA questionnaire allows for uniform evaluation and comparison of the effects of treatment on the condition-specific core outcome domains, tackling heterogeneity in outcome measurement and improving the clinical research of vascular malformations.

How to use the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema Core Outcome Set for atopic dermatitis trials: a users' guide.

BACKGROUND: The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has agreed upon the Core Outcome Set (COS) for use in atopic dermatitis (AD) clinical trials, but additional guidance is needed to maximize its uptake. OBJECTIVES: To provide answers to some of the commonly asked questions about using the HOME COS; to provide data to help with the interpretation of trial results; and to support sample size calculations for future trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: We provide practical guidance on the use of the HOME COS for investigators planning clinical trials in patients with AD. It answers some of the common questions about using the HOME COS, how to access the outcome measurement instruments, what training/resources are needed to use them appropriately and clarifies when the COS is applicable. We also provide exemplar data to inform sample size calculations for eczema trials and encourage standardized data collection and reporting of the COS. CONCLUSIONS: By encouraging adoption of the COS and facilitating consistent reporting of outcome data, it is hoped that the results of eczema trials will be more comprehensive and readily combined in meta-analyses and that patient care will subsequently be improved.

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.

Disease activity in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases after SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations.

For patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), concerns exist about increased disease activity after vaccination. We aimed to assess changes in disease activity after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with IMIDs, and determine risk factors for increased disease activity. In this substudy of a prospective observational cohort study (Target-to-B!), we included patients with IMIDs who received a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Patients reported changes in disease activity on a five-point Likert scale every 60 days for up to twelve months after first vaccination. In case of self-reported increased activity, hospital records were screened whether the treating physician reported increased activity, and for potential intensification of immunosuppressive (ISP) treatment. Mixed models were used to study determinants for self-reported increased disease activity. In total, 2111 patients were included for analysis after primary immunization (mean age 49.7 years [SD 13.7], 1329/2111 (63.0%) female), from which 1266 patients for analysis after first additional vaccination. Increased disease activity at 60 days after start of primary immunization was reported by 223/2111 (10.6%). In 96/223 (43.0%) the increase was confirmed by the treating physician and in 36/223 (16.1%) ISP treatment was intensified. Increased disease activity at seven to 60 days after additional vaccination, was reported by 139/1266 (11.0%). Vaccinations were not temporally associated with self-reported increased disease activity. Conversely, increased disease activity before first vaccination, neuromuscular disease, and multiple sclerosis were associated. Altogether, self-reported increased disease activity after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was recorded in a minority of patients and was generally mild. Moreover, multivariate analyses suggest that disease related factors, but not vaccinations are the major determinants for self-reported increased disease activity.

The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) implementation roadmap.

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COS) are consensus-driven sets of minimum outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials. COS aim to reduce heterogeneity in outcome measurement and reporting, and selective outcome reporting. Implementing COS into clinical trials is challenging. Guidance to improve COS uptake in dermatology is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To develop a structured practical guide to COS implementation. METHODS: Members of the Harmonising Outcome Measurement for Eczema (HOME) executive committee developed an expert opinion-based roadmap founded on a combination of a review of the COS implementation literature, the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative resources, input from HOME members and experience in COS development and clinical trials. RESULTS: The data review and input from HOME members was synthesized into themes, which guided roadmap development: (a) barriers and facilitators to COS uptake based on stakeholder awareness/engagement and COS features; and (b) key implementation science principles (assessment-driven, data-centred, priority-based and context-sensitive). The HOME implementation roadmap follows three stages. Firstly, the COS uptake scope and goals need to be defined. Secondly, during COS development, preparation for future implementation is supported by establishing the COS as a credible evidence-informed consensus by applying robust COS development methodology, engaging multiple stakeholders, fostering sustained and global engagement, emphasizing COS ease of use and universal applicability, and providing recommendations on COS use. Thirdly, incorporating completed COS into primary (trials) and secondary (reviews) research is an iterative process starting with mapping COS uptake and stakeholders' attitudes, followed by designing and carrying out targeted implementation projects. Main themes for implementation projects identified at HOME are stakeholder awareness/engagement; universal applicability for different populations; and improving ease-of-use by reducing administrative and study burden. Formal implementation frameworks can be used to identify implementation barriers/facilitators and to design implementation strategies. The effect of these strategies on uptake should be evaluated and implementation plans adjusted accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: COS can improve the quality and applicability of research and, so, clinical practice but can only succeed if used and reported consistently. The HOME implementation roadmap is an extension of the original HOME roadmap for COS development and provides a pragmatic framework to develop COS implementation strategies.

Primary SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: long-term humoral immune responses and effects on disease activity.

BACKGROUND: Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) on immunosuppressants (ISPs) may have impaired long-term humoral immune responses and increased disease activity after SARS-CoV-2 infection. We aimed to investigate long-term humoral immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 and increased disease activity after a primary SARS-CoV-2 infection in unvaccinated IMID patients on ISPs. METHODS: IMID patients on active treatment with ISPs and controls (i.e. IMID patients not on ISP and healthy controls) with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before first vaccination were included from an ongoing prospective cohort study (T2B! study). Clinical data on infections and increased disease activity were registered using electronic surveys and health records. A serum sample was collected before first vaccination to measure SARS-CoV-2 anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibodies. RESULTS: In total, 193 IMID patients on ISP and 113 controls were included. Serum samples from 185 participants were available, with a median time of 173 days between infection and sample collection. The rate of seropositive IMID patients on ISPs was 78% compared to 100% in controls (p < 0.001). Seropositivity rates were lowest in patients on anti-CD20 (40.0%) and anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents (60.5%), as compared to other ISPs (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Increased disease activity after infection was reported by 68 of 260 patients (26.2%; 95% CI 21.2-31.8%), leading to ISP intensification in 6 out of these 68 patients (8.8%). CONCLUSION: IMID patients using ISPs showed reduced long-term humoral immune responses after primary SARS-CoV-2 infection, which was mainly attributed to treatment with anti-CD20 and anti-TNF agents. Increased disease activity after SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported commonly, but was mostly mild. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NL74974.018.20, Trial ID: NL8900. Registered on 9 September 2020.

Adalimumab combined with methotrexate versus adalimumab monotherapy in psoriasis: Three-year follow-up data of a single-blind randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Anti-drug antibodies (ADA) are formed in patients treated with adalimumab (ADL). This might increase clearance of ADL, potentially causing a (secondary) non-response. Combination therapy of ADL and methotrexate (MTX) reduces ADA levels and has a clinical benefit in rheumatologic diseases. In psoriasis however, the long-term effectiveness and safety have not been studied. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the three-year follow-up data of ADL combined with MTX compared to ADL monotherapy in ADL-naive patients with moderate to severe plaque type psoriasis. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre RCT in the Netherlands and Belgium. Randomization was performed by a centralized online randomization service. Patients were seen every 12 weeks until week 145. Outcome assessors were blinded. We collected data on drug survival, effectiveness, safety, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity of patients that started ADL combined with MTX compared to ADL monotherapy. We present descriptive analysis and patients were analysed according to the group initially randomized to. Patients becoming non-adherent to the biologic were excluded from analyses. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were included and 37 patients (ADL group n = 17, ADL + MTX group n = 20) continued in the follow-up study after 1 year. After 109 weeks and 145 weeks, there was a trend towards longer drug survival in the ADL + MTX group compared to the ADL group (week 109: 54.8% vs. 41.4%; p = 0.326, week 145: 51.6% vs. 41.4%; p = 0.464). At week 145, 7/13 patients were treated with MTX. In the ADL group, 4/12 patients that completed the study developed ADA, and 3/13 in the ADL + MTX group. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study, there was no significant difference in ADL overall drug survival when it was initially combined with MTX, compared to ADL alone. Discontinuation due to adverse events was common in the combination group. To secure accessible healthcare, combination treatment of ADL and MTX can be considered in individual patients.

Mapping exercise and status update of eight established registries within the TREatment of ATopic eczema Registry Taskforce.

BACKGROUND: The TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce is a collaborative international network of registries collecting data of atopic eczema (AE) patients receiving systemic and phototherapy with the common goal to provide long-term real-world data on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of therapies. A core dataset, consisting of domains and domain items with corresponding measurement instruments, has been developed to harmonize data collection. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to give an overview of the status and characteristics of the eight established TREAT registries, and to perform a mapping exercise to examine the degree of overlap and pooling ability between the national registry datasets. This will allow us to determine which research questions can be answered in the future by pooling data. METHODS: All eight registries were asked to share their dataset and information on the current status and characteristics. The overlap between the core dataset and each registry dataset was identified (according to the domains, domain items and measurement instruments of the TREAT core dataset). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: A total of 4702 participants have been recruited in the eight registries as of 1st of May 2022. Of the 69 core dataset domain items, data pooling was possible for 69 domain item outcomes in TREAT NL (the Netherlands), 61 items in A-STAR (UK and Ireland), 38 items in TREATgermany (Germany), 36 items in FIRST (France), 33 items in AtopyReg (Italy), 29 items in Biobadatop (Spain), 28 items in SCRATCH (Denmark) and 20 items in SwedAD (Sweden). Pooled analyses across all registries can be performed on multiple important domain items, covering the main aims of analysing data on the (cost-)effectiveness and safety of AE therapies. These results will facilitate future comparative or joint analyses.

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.

The HOME Core outcome set for clinical trials of atopic dermatitis.

Core outcome sets are critically important outcomes that should be measured in clinical trials. Their absence in atopic dermatitis is a form of research waste and impedes combining evidence to inform patient care. Here, we articulate the rationale for core outcome sets in atopic dermatitis and review the work of the international Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema group from its inception in Munich, 2010. We describe core domain determination (what should be measured), to instrument selection (how domains should be measured), culminating in the complete core outcome measurement set in Tokyo, 2019. Using a "road map," Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema includes diverse research methods including Delphi and nominal group techniques informed by systematic reviews of properties of candidate instruments. The 4 domains and recommended instruments for including in all clinical trials of atopic dermatitis are patient symptoms, measured by Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure and peak Numerical Rating Scale 11 for itch intensity over 24 hours, clinical signs measured using the Eczema Area and Severity Index, quality of life measured by the Dermatology Life Quality Index series for adults, children, and infants, and long-term control measured by either Recap of atopic eczema or Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool.

Risk factors associated with short-term adverse events after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested incremental short-term adverse events (AE) after repeated vaccination. In this report, we assessed occurrence and risk factors for short-term AEs following repeated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). METHODS: Self-reported daily questionnaires on AEs during the first 7 days after vaccination were obtained of 2259 individuals (2081 patients and 178 controls) participating in an ongoing prospective multicenter cohort study on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with various IMIDs in the Netherlands (T2B-COVID). Relative risks were calculated for potential risk factors associated with clinically relevant AE (rAE), defined as AE lasting longer than 2 days or impacting daily life. RESULTS: In total, 5454 vaccinations were recorded (1737 first, 1992 second and 1478 third vaccinations). Multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis were the largest disease groups. rAEs were reported by 57.3% (95% CI 54.8-59.8) of patients after the first vaccination, 61.5% (95% CI 59.2-63.7) after the second vaccination and 58% (95% CI 55.3-60.6) after the third vaccination. At day 7 after the first, second and third vaccination, respectively, 7.6% (95% CI 6.3-9.1), 7.4% (95% CI 6.2-8.7) and 6.8% (95% CI 5.4-8.3) of patients still reported AEs impacting daily life. Hospital admissions and allergic reactions were uncommon (<0.7%). Female sex (aRR 1.43, 95% CI 1.32-1.56), age below 50 (aRR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.23), a preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection (aRR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.29) and having an IMID (aRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.01-1.34) were associated with increased risk of rAEs following a vaccination. Compared to the second vaccination, the first vaccination was associated with a lower risk of rAEs (aRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84-0.99) while a third vaccination was not associated with increased risk on rAEs (aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84-1.02). BNT162b2 vaccines were associated with lower risk on rAEs compared to CX-024414 (aRR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: A third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was not associated with increased risk of rAEs in IMID patients compared to the second vaccination. Patients with an IMID have a modestly increased risk of rAEs after vaccination when compared to controls. Most AEs are resolved within 7 days; hospital admissions and allergic reactions were uncommon. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NL74974.018.20 , Trial ID: NL8900. Registered on 9 September 2020.

Breakthrough infections with the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the cumulative incidence and disease severity of reported SARS-CoV-2 omicron breakthrough infections between patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) on immunosuppressants and controls, and to investigate determinants for breakthrough infections. METHODS: Data were used from an ongoing national prospective multicentre cohort study on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination responses in patients with IMID in the Netherlands (Target-to-B! (T2B!) study). Patients wih IMID on immunosuppressants and controls (patients with IMID not on immunosuppressants and healthy controls) who completed primary immunisation were included. The observation period was between 1 January 2022 and 1 April 2022, during which the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (BA.1 and BA.2 subvariant) was dominant. A SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection was defined as a reported positive PCR and/or antigen test at least 14 days after primary immunisation. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to investigate determinants. RESULTS: 1593 patients with IMID on immunosuppressants and 579 controls were included. The cumulative incidence of breakthrough infections was 472/1593 (29.6%; 95% CI 27% to 32%) in patients with IMID on immunosuppressants and 181/579 (31.3%; 95% CI 28% to 35%) in controls (p=0.42). Three (0.5%) participants had severe disease. Seroconversion after primary immunisation (relative risk, RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96), additional vaccinations (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.76) and a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75) were associated with decreased risk of breakthrough infection. CONCLUSIONS: The cumulative incidence of reported SARS-CoV-2 omicron breakthrough infections was high, but similar between patients with IMID on immunosuppressants and controls, and disease severity was mostly mild. Additional vaccinations and prior SARS-CoV-2 infections may reduce the incidence of breakthrough infections.

Clinical characteristics associated with pain in patients with peripheral vascular malformations.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular malformations (VM) can negatively impact the patient's quality of life (QoL). Pain is a common problem in these patients. The aim of this study was to investigate risk factors associated with pain and to assess how pain affects QoL. METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary vascular anomaly expertise center. Between June and December 2020, all patients from our local database (334 adults and 189 children) with peripheral VMs were invited to complete the Outcome Measures for VAscular MAlformations questionnaire to evaluate the presence, frequency, and intensity of pain. Additionally, patients were asked to complete several Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System scales to evaluate their QoL. Risk factors associated with pain were identified in bivariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression. QoL domains were compared between patients who experienced pain and patients who did not. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients completed the questionnaire about pain and 133 patients completed all QoL questionnaires. Approximately one-half of the patients (52%) reported pain in the past four weeks and 57% of these patients reported pain daily or several times a week. Female sex (P = .009), lesions located in the upper extremity (P < .001) or lower extremity (P < .001), and intramuscular/intraosseous lesions (P = .004) were independently associated with the presence of pain. The following QoL domains were diminished in patients who experienced pain in comparison with patients who did not: pain interference (P < .001), physical functioning (P < .001), and social participation (P < .001) in adults, and pain interference (P = .001), mobility (P = .001), and anxiety (P = .024) in children. CONCLUSIONS: Pain is a frequently reported complaint in patients with VMs and is present in approximately one-half of the patients. Patients with lesions located in the upper or lower extremity, intramuscular/intraosseous lesions, and female patients are more likely to experience pain. The presence of pain negatively impacted patients' QoL. Although VM are a benign condition and expectative management is frequently applied, our study shows that pain is a serious concern and needs to be actively assessed. Pain is a sign of various etiologies and should be examined to properly treat the pain.

A core outcome domain set for clinical research on capillary malformations (the COSCAM project): an e-Delphi process and consensus meeting.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on the best available treatment options for capillary malformations (CMs), mainly due to the absence of uniform outcome measures in trials on therapies. A core outcome set (COS) enables standard reporting of trial outcomes, which facilitates comparison of treatment results. OBJECTIVES: To develop a core outcome domain set (CDS), as part of a core outcome set (COS), for clinical research on CMs. METHODS: Sixty-seven potentially relevant outcome subdomains were recognized based on the literature, focus group sessions, and input from the COSCAM working group. These outcome subdomains were presented in an online Delphi study to CM experts (medical specialists and authors of relevant literature) and (parents of) patients with CM (international patient associations). During three e-Delphi study rounds, the participants repeatedly scored the importance of these outcome subdomains on a seven-point Likert scale. Participants could also propose other relevant outcome subdomains. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% agreement as to the importance of an outcome subdomain among both stakeholder groups. The CDS was finalized during an online consensus meeting. RESULTS: In total 269 participants from 45 countries participated in the first e-Delphi study round. Of these, 106 were CM experts from 32 countries, made up predominantly of dermatologists (59%) and plastic surgeons (18%). Moreover, 163 (parents of) patients with CM from 28 countries participated, of whom 58% had Sturge-Weber syndrome. During the two subsequent e-Delphi study rounds, 189 and 148 participants participated, respectively. After the entire consensus process, consensus was reached on 11 outcome subdomains: colour/redness, thickness, noticeability, distortion of anatomical structures, glaucoma, overall health-related quality of life, emotional functioning, social functioning, tolerability of intervention, patient satisfaction with treatment results, and recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the CDS to be used as a minimum reporting standard in all future trials of CM therapy. Our next step will be to select suitable outcome measurement instruments to score the core outcome subdomains. What is already known about this topic? Besides physical and functional sequelae, capillary malformations (CMs) often cause emotional and social burden. The lack of uniform outcome measures obstructs proper evaluation and comparison of treatment strategies. As a result, there is limited evidence on the best available treatment options. The development of a core outcome set (COS) may improve standardized reporting of trial outcomes. What does this study add? A core outcome domain set (CDS), as part of a COS, was developed for clinical research on CMs. International consensus was reached on the recommended core outcome subdomains to be measured in CM trials: colour/redness, thickness, noticeability, distortion of anatomical structures, glaucoma, overall health-related quality of life, emotional functioning, social functioning, tolerability of intervention, patient satisfaction with treatment results, and recurrence. This CDS enables the next step in the development of a COS, namely to reach consensus on the core outcome measurement instruments to score the core outcome subdomains. What are the clinical implications of this work? The obtained CDS will facilitate standardized reporting of treatment outcomes, thereby enabling proper comparison of treatment results. This comparison is likely to provide more reliable information for patients about the best available treatment options.

Phototherapy for atopic eczema.

BACKGROUND: Atopic eczema (AE), also known as atopic dermatitis, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes significant burden. Phototherapy is sometimes used to treat AE when topical treatments, such as corticosteroids, are insufficient or poorly tolerated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of phototherapy for treating AE. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to January 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in adults or children with any subtype or severity of clinically diagnosed AE. Eligible comparisons were any type of phototherapy versus other forms of phototherapy or any other treatment, including placebo or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. For key findings, we used RoB 2.0 to assess bias, and GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. Primary outcomes were physician-assessed signs and patient-reported symptoms. Secondary outcomes were Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), safety (measured as withdrawals due to adverse events), and long-term control. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 trials with 1219 randomised participants, aged 5 to 83 years (mean: 28 years), with an equal number of males and females. Participants were recruited mainly from secondary care dermatology clinics, and study duration was, on average, 13 weeks (range: 10 days to one year). We assessed risk of bias for all key outcomes as having some concerns or high risk, due to missing data, inappropriate analysis, or insufficient information to assess selective reporting. Assessed interventions included: narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB; 13 trials), ultraviolet A1 (UVA1; 6 trials), broadband ultraviolet B (BB-UVB; 5 trials), ultraviolet AB (UVAB; 2 trials), psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA; 2 trials), ultraviolet A (UVA; 1 trial), unspecified ultraviolet B (UVB; 1 trial), full spectrum light (1 trial), Saalmann selective ultraviolet phototherapy (SUP) cabin (1 trial), saltwater bath plus UVB (balneophototherapy; 1 trial), and excimer laser (1 trial). Comparators included placebo, no treatment, another phototherapy, topical treatment, or alternative doses of the same treatment. Results for key comparisons are summarised (for scales, lower scores are better): NB-UVB versus placebo/no treatment There may be a larger reduction in physician-assessed signs with NB-UVB compared to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (mean difference (MD) -9.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.62 to -15.18; 1 trial, 41 participants; scale: 0 to 90). Two trials reported little difference between NB-UVB and no treatment (37 participants, four to six weeks of treatment); another reported improved signs with NB-UVB versus no treatment (11 participants, nine weeks of treatment). NB-UVB may increase the number of people reporting reduced itch after 12 weeks of treatment compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.72, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.69; 1 trial, 40 participants). Another trial reported very little difference in itch severity with NB-UVB (25 participants, four weeks of treatment). The number of participants with moderate to greater global improvement may be higher with NB-UVB than placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.17; 1 trial, 41 participants). NB-UVB may not affect rates of withdrawal due to adverse events. No withdrawals were reported in one trial of NB-UVB versus placebo (18 participants, nine weeks of treatment). In two trials of NB-UVB versus no treatment, each reported one withdrawal per group (71 participants, 8 to 12 weeks of treatment). We judged that all reported outcomes were supported with low-certainty evidence, due to risk of bias and imprecision. No trials reported HRQoL. NB-UVB versus UVA1 We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to UVA1 to be very low certainty for all outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (MD -2.00, 95% CI -8.41 to 4.41; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 108), or patient-reported itch after six weeks (MD 0.3, 95% CI -1.07 to 1.67; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 10). Two split-body trials (20 participants, 40 sides) also measured these outcomes, using different scales at seven to eight weeks; they reported lower scores with NB-UVB. One trial reported HRQoL at six weeks (MD 2.9, 95% CI -9.57 to 15.37; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 30 to 150). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events over 12 weeks (13 participants). No trials reported IGA. NB-UVB versus PUVA We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to PUVA (8-methoxypsoralen in bath plus UVA) to be very low certainty for all reported outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (64.1% reduction with NB-UVB versus 65.7% reduction with PUVA; 1 trial, 10 participants, 20 sides). There was no evidence of a difference in marked improvement or complete remission after six weeks (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.89; 1 trial, 9/10 participants with both treatments). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events in 10 participants over six weeks. The trials did not report patient-reported symptoms or HRQoL. UVA1 versus PUVA There was very low-certainty evidence, due to serious risk of bias and imprecision, that PUVA (oral 5-methoxypsoralen plus UVA) reduced physician-assessed signs more than UVA1 after three weeks (MD 11.3, 95% CI -0.21 to 22.81; 1 trial, 40 participants; scale: 0 to 103). The trial did not report patient-reported symptoms, IGA, HRQoL, or withdrawals due to adverse events. There were no eligible trials for the key comparisons of UVA1 or PUVA compared with no treatment. Adverse events Reported adverse events included low rates of phototoxic reaction, severe irritation, UV burn, bacterial superinfection, disease exacerbation, and eczema herpeticum. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo or no treatment, NB-UVB may improve physician-rated signs, patient-reported symptoms, and IGA after 12 weeks, without a difference in withdrawal due to adverse events. Evidence for UVA1 compared to NB-UVB or PUVA, and NB-UVB compared to PUVA was very low certainty. More information is needed on the safety and effectiveness of all aspects of phototherapy for treating AE.

Long-term effectiveness and safety of treatment with dupilumab in patients with atopic dermatitis: Results of the TREAT NL (TREatment of ATopic eczema, the Netherlands) registry.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on long-term dupilumab treatment for atopic dermatitis in daily practice is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To investigate patient characteristics, treatment aspects, effectiveness, and safety of up to 84 weeks of dupilumab treatment. METHODS: An observational prospective cohort study was conducted of patients with atopic dermatitis starting dupilumab in routine clinical care. RESULTS: Of the 221 included patients, 103 used systemic therapy at baseline. At 84 weeks, we found a change of -15.2 (SE, 1.7) for the Eczema Area and Severity Index, -16.9 (SE, 1.4) for the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure, and -17.2 (SE, 1.6) for the Dermatology Life Quality Index. We found a trend for improvement over time for the Investigator Global Assessment and Numerical Rating Scale for pruritus. Severe (n = 79) including serious (n = 11) adverse events were observed in 69 patients. Eye complaints were most frequently reported (n = 46). Twenty-one patients adjusted the regular dosing schedule, and 14 patients discontinued treatment, mainly due to ineffectiveness (n = 7). LIMITATIONS: Only adverse events of severe and serious nature were registered for feasibility reasons. CONCLUSION: Daily practice dupilumab treatment of up to 84 weeks is generally well-tolerated, apart from the reporting of eye complaints. It can be considered a long-term effective treatment for atopic dermatitis in combination with topical and initial concomitant systemic treatment, showing a sustained improvement of signs, symptoms, and quality of life.

Measuring atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice: The first consensus statement from the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema in clinical practice initiative.

BACKGROUND: Measuring patient-centered outcomes in clinical practice is valuable for monitoring patients and advancing real-world research. A new initiative from the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) group aims to recommend what might be recorded for atopic eczema patients in routine clinical care. OBJECTIVES: Prioritize outcome domains to measure atopic eczema in clinical practice and select valid and practical outcome measurement instruments for the highest-priority domain. METHODS: An online survey of HOME members identified and ranked 21 possible health domains. Suitable instruments were then selected for the top-prioritized domain at the HOME VI meeting, using established consensus processes informed by systematic reviews of instrument quality. RESULTS: Patient-reported symptoms was the top-prioritized domain. In accordance with psychometric properties and feasibility, there was consensus that the recommended instruments to measure atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice are the POEM, the PO-SCORAD index, or both. The numeric rating scale for itch received support pending definition and validation in atopic eczema. CONCLUSION: Following the first step of the HOME Clinical Practice initiative, we endorse using the POEM, the PO-SCORAD index, or both for measuring atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice. Additional high-priority domains for clinical practice will be assessed at subsequent HOME meetings.

Outcome measurement instruments for peripheral vascular malformations and an assessment of the measurement properties: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The Outcome measures for vascular malformation (OVAMA) group reached consensus on the core outcome domains for the core outcome set (COS) for peripheral vascular malformations (venous, lymphatic and arteriovenous malformations). However, it is unclear which instruments should be used to measure these domains. Therefore, our aims were to identify all outcome measurement instruments available for vascular malformations, and to evaluate their measurement properties. METHODS: With the first literature search, we identified outcomes and instruments previously used in prospective studies on vascular malformations. A second search yielded studies on measurement properties of patient- and physician-reported instruments that were either developed for vascular malformations, or used in prospective studies. If the latter instruments were not specifically validated for vascular malformations, we performed a third search for studies on measurement properties in clinically similar diseases (vascular or lymphatic diseases and benign tumors). We assessed the methodological quality of these studies following the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments methodology, and evaluated the quality of the measurement properties. RESULTS: The first search yielded 27 studies, none using disease-specific instruments. The second and third search included 22 development and/or validation studies, concerning six instruments. Only the Lymphatic Malformation Function Instrument was developed specifically for vascular malformations. Other instruments were generic QoL instruments developed and/or partly validated for clinically similar diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Additional research on measurement properties is needed to assess which instruments may be included in the COS. This review informs the instrument selection and/or the development of new instruments. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, 42017056242.