Towards a patient-centred definition for atopic dermatitis flare: a qualitative study of adults with atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: The term 'flare' is used across multiple diseases, including atopic dermatitis (AD), to describe increased disease activity. While several definitions of an AD flare have been proposed, no single definition of AD flare is widely accepted and it is unclear what the term 'AD flare' means from the patient perspective. OBJECTIVES: To understand AD flares from the adult patient perspective and to explore how adults with AD define an AD flare. METHODS: Participants were adults with AD recruited from the National Eczema Association Ambassadors programme, a volunteer patient-engagement programme. They participated in online focus groups to discuss how they describe AD flares from their perspective, how they define its start and stop, and how they relate to existing definitions of flare. Using a grounded theory approach, transcripts were analysed and coded using an iterative process to identify concepts to support a patient-centred conceptual framework of 'flare'. RESULTS: Six 90-min focus groups of 3-8 participants each were conducted with 29 US adults (≥ 18 years of age) with AD who had at least one self-reported AD flare in the past year. When participants were presented with examples of previously published definitions of AD flare, participants found them problematic and unrelatable. Specifically, they felt that flare is hard to quantify or put on a numerical scale, definitions cannot solely be about skin symptoms and clinical verbiage does not resonate with patients' lived experiences. Concepts identified by patients as important to a definition of flare were changes from patient's baseline/patient's normal, mental/emotional/social consequences, physical changes in skin, attention needed/all-consuming focus, itch-scratch-burn cycle and control/loss of control/quality of life. Figuring out the trigger that initiated a flare was an underlying concept of the experience of flare but was not considered a contributor to the definition. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the complexity and diversity of AD flare experiences from the adult patient perspective. Previously published definitions of AD flares did not resonate with patients, suggesting a need for a patient-centred flare definition to support care conversations and AD management.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a skin disease that affects 10% of children and 7% of adults living in the USA. People living with AD experience inflamed, itchy skin with periods of worsening called 'flares'. To date, there have been many proposed definitions of flare; however, no definition describes the significant features of a flare as identified by those who have experienced flares first hand. The goal of this study was to create a new patient-informed definition of an AD flare. This patient-centred study was done by an international team of authors from the USA and Canada, including two authors from a patient advocacy organization and a person living with AD. We virtually interviewed groups of US adults with AD to discuss what flares meant to them. Themes that people living with AD felt were important to a flare definition included experiencing a change from a subjective baseline, physical changes of the skin, increased demand/focus on management of the skin, loss of control/quality of life, undergoing psychological/social consequences and the itch­scratch cycle. Flares were also associated with trying to figure out the cause of the flare. People with AD felt existing flare definitions did not reflect their experiences due to difficulty applying a numerical scale to their multidimensional experiences, definitions being exclusively about skin, and wording being too clinical and not relevant to their lived experience. The results of our study reveal important concepts of an AD flare from the patient perspective and highlight the diversity of features that define a flare. This patient-informed definition of flare can assist healthcare professionals in their delivery of care.

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.

Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis in adults with phototherapy and systemic therapies.

BACKGROUND: For people with atopic dermatitis (AD) refractory to topical therapies, treatment with phototherapy and systemic therapies can be considered. Multiple biologic therapies and Janus kinase (JAK)inhibitors have been approved since 2014 to treat AD. These guidelines update the 2014 recommendations for management of AD with phototherapy and systemic therapies. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of phototherapy and systemic therapies for AD in adults. METHODS: A multidisciplinary workgroup conducted a systematic review and applied the GRADE approach for assessing the certainty of evidence and formulating and grading recommendations. RESULTS: The workgroup developed 11 recommendations on the management of AD in adults with phototherapy and systemic agents, including biologics, oral JAK inhibitors, and other immunomodulatory medications. LIMITATIONS: Most randomized controlled trials of phototherapy and systemic therapies for AD are of short duration with subsequent extension studies, limiting comparative long-term efficacy and safety conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: We make strong recommendations for the use of dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib. We make conditional recommendations in favor of using phototherapy, azathioprine, cyclosporine, methotrexate, and mycophenolate, and against the use of systemic corticosteroids.

Executive summary: Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis in adults with phototherapy and systemic therapies.

BACKGROUND: The summarized guidelines update the 2014 recommendations for the management of AD with phototherapy and systemic therapies. METHODS: A multidisciplinary workgroup conducted a systematic review and applied the GRADE approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading recommendations. RESULTS: The workgroup developed 11 recommendations on the management of AD in adults with phototherapy and systemic therapies, including biologics, oral Janus Kinase inhibitors, and other immunomodulatory medications. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supported strong recommendations for the use of dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib and conditional recommendations in favor of using phototherapy, azathioprine, cyclosporine, methotrexate, and mycophenolate, and against the use of systemic corticosteroids.

Topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema: network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Eczema (atopic dermatitis) is the most burdensome skin condition worldwide and cannot currently be prevented or cured. Topical anti-inflammatory treatments are used to control eczema symptoms, but there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and safety of different topical anti-inflammatory treatments. OBJECTIVES: To compare and rank the efficacy and safety of topical anti-inflammatory treatments for people with eczema using a network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries on 29 June 2023, and checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included within-participant or between-participant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people of any age with eczema of any severity, but excluded trials in clinically infected eczema, seborrhoeic eczema, contact eczema, or hand eczema. We included topical anti-inflammatory treatments used for at least one week, compared with another anti-inflammatory treatment, no treatment, or vehicle/placebo. Vehicle is a 'carrier system' for an active pharmaceutical substance, which may also be used on its own as an emollient for dry skin. We excluded trials of topical antibiotics used alone, complementary therapies, emollients used alone, phototherapy, wet wraps, and systemic treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were patient-reported eczema symptoms, clinician-reported eczema signs and investigator global assessment. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, long-term control of eczema, withdrawal from treatment/study, and local adverse effects (application-site reactions, pigmentation changes and skin thinning/atrophy were identified as important concerns through patient and public involvement). We used CINeMA to quantify our confidence in the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 291 studies involving 45,846 participants with the full spectrum of eczema severity, mainly conducted in high-income countries in secondary care settings. Most studies included adults, with only 31 studies limited to children aged < 12 years. Studies usually included male and female participants, multiple ethnic groups but predominantly white populations. Most studies were industry-funded (68%) or did not report their funding sources/details. Treatment duration and trial participation were a median of 21 and 28 days (ranging from 7 days to 5 years), respectively. Interventions used were topical corticosteroids (TCS) (172), topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) (134), phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitors (55), janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (30), aryl hydrocarbon receptor activators (10), or other topical agents (21). Comparators included vehicle (170) or other anti-inflammatory treatments. The risk of bias was high in 242 of the 272 (89.0%) trials contributing to data analyses, most commonly due to concerns about selective reporting. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was only possible for short-term outcomes. Patient-reported symptoms NMA of 40 trials (6482 participants) reporting patient-reported symptoms as a binary outcome ranked tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 6.27, 95% CI 1.19 to 32.98), potent TCS (OR 5.99, 95% CI 2.83 to 12.69), and ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 5.64, 95% CI 1.26 to 25.25) as the most effective, all with low confidence. Mild TCS, roflumilast 0.15%, and crisaborole 2% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and was more effective than mild TCI and PDE-4 inhibitors. NMA of 29 trials (3839 participants) reporting patient-reported symptoms as a continuous outcome ranked very potent TCS (SMD -1.99, 95% CI -3.25 to -0.73; low confidence) and tacrolimus 0.03% (SMD -1.57, 95% CI -2.42 to -0.72; moderate confidence) the highest. Direct information for tacrolimus 0.03% was based on one trial of 60 participants at high risk of bias. Roflumilast 0.15%, delgocitinib 0.25% or 0.5%, and tapinarof 1% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors and mild/moderate TCS was less effective than mild TCI. A further 50 trials (9636 participants) reported patient-reported symptoms as a continuous outcome but could not be included in NMA. Clinician-reported signs NMA of 32 trials (4121 participants) reported clinician signs as a binary outcome and ranked potent TCS (OR 8.15, 95% CI 4.99, 13.57), tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 8.06, 95% CI 3.30, 19.67), ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 7.72, 95% CI 4.92, 12.10), and delgocitinib 0.5% (OR 7.61, 95% CI 3.72, 15.58) as most effective, all with moderate confidence. Mild TCS, roflumilast 0.15%, crisaborole 2%, and tapinarof 1% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS more effective than potent TCI, mild TCI, JAK inhibitors, PDE-4 inhibitors; and mild TCS and PDE-4 inhibitors had similar effectiveness. NMA of 49 trials (5261 participants) reported clinician signs as a continuous outcome and ranked tacrolimus 0.03% (SMD -2.69, 95% CI -3.36, -2.02) and very potent TCS (SMD -1.87, 95% CI -2.69, -1.05) as most effective, both with moderate confidence; roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 0.3% and tapinarof 1% were ranked as least effective. Direct information for tacrolimus 0.03% was based on one trial in 60 participants with a high risk of bias. For some sensitivity analyses, potent TCS, tacrolimus 0.1%, ruxolitinib 1.5%, delgocitinib 0.5% and delgocitinib 0.25% became some of the most effective treatments. Class-level analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors, and moderate/mild TCS was more effective than mild TCI. A further 100 trials (22,814 participants) reported clinician signs as a continuous outcome but could not be included in NMA. Investigator Global Assessment NMA of 140 trials (23,383 participants) reported IGA as a binary outcome and ranked ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 9.34, 95% CI 4.8, 18.18), delgocitinib 0.5% (OR 10.08, 95% CI 2.65, 38.37), delgocitinib 0.25% (OR 6.87, 95% CI 1.79, 26.33), very potent TCS (OR 8.34, 95% CI 4.73, 14.67), potent TCS (OR 5.00, 95% CI 3.80, 6.58), and tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 5.06, 95% CI 3.59, 7.13) as most effective, all with moderate confidence. Mild TCS, crisaborole 2%, pimecrolimus 1%, roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 0.3% and 1%, and tacrolimus 0.03% were the least effective. In a sensitivity analysis of low risk of bias information (12 trials, 1639 participants), potent TCS, delgocitinib 0.5% and delgocitinib 0.25% were most effective, and pimecrolimus 1%, roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 1% and difamilast 0.3% least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors and were more effective than PDE-4 inhibitors; mild/moderate TCS were less effective than potent TCI and had similar effectiveness to mild TCI. Longer-term outcomes over 6 to 12 months showed a possible increase in effectiveness for pimecrolimus 1% versus vehicle (4 trials, 2218 participants) in a pairwise meta-analysis, and greater treatment success with mild/moderate TCS than pimecrolimus 1% (based on 1 trial of 2045 participants). Local adverse effects NMA of 83 trials (18,992 participants, 2424 events) reporting application-site reactions ranked tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.53, 3.17; moderate confidence), crisaborole 2% (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.18, 3.81; high confidence), tacrolimus 0.03% (OR 1.51, 95%CI 1.10, 2.09; low confidence), and pimecrolimus 1% (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.01, 2.04; low confidence) as most likely to cause site reactions. Very potent, potent, moderate, and mild TCS were least likely to cause site reactions. NMA of eight trials (1786 participants, 3 events) reporting pigmentation changes found no evidence for increased pigmentation changes with TCS and crisaborole 2%, with low confidence for mild, moderate or potent TCS and moderate confidence for crisaborole 2%. NMA of 25 trials (3691 participants, 36 events) reporting skin thinning found no evidence for increased skin thinning with short-term (median 3 weeks, range 1-16 weeks) use of mild TCS (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.12, 4.31), moderate TCS (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.16, 5.33), potent TCS (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.21, 4.43) or very potent TCS (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.31, 2.49), all with low confidence. Longer-term outcomes over 6 to 60 months showed increased skin thinning with mild to potent TCS versus TCI (3 trials, 4069 participants, 6 events with TCS). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Potent TCS, JAK inhibitors and tacrolimus 0.1% were consistently ranked as amongst the most effective topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema and PDE-4 inhibitors as amongst the least effective. Mild TCS and tapinarof 1% were ranked amongst the least effective treatments in three of five efficacy networks. TCI and crisaborole 2% were ranked most likely to cause local application-site reactions and TCS least likely. We found no evidence for increased skin thinning with short-term TCS but an increase with longer-term TCS.

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.

International consensus on methotrexate dosing for patients with atopic dermatitis: An eDelphi study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread off-label use of methotrexate (MTX) for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD), there is limited high-quality evidence on dosing regimens and existing guidelines do not provide clear recommendations regarding dosing strategies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to achieve international consensus among AD experts to standardize the dosing regimen for MTX treatment in adults and children with AD. METHODS: An electronic Delphi (eDelphi) study was conducted from October 2021 to September 2022. Recruitment was conducted through dermatology societies and AD interest groups. Participation was open to dermatologists and dermatology residents experienced in treating AD patients with MTX. The study consisted of three online rounds. The first round was informed by a systematic review of relevant literature, and subsequent rounds were adjusted based on the results of the previous round. Participants voted on 19 proposals using a 9-point scale (1-3 disagree, 4-6 neither agree nor disagree, 7-9 agree). Consensus was achieved when at least 70% of participants agreed, and less than 15% disagreed. Proposals that did not reach consensus in the first three rounds were discussed in a consensus meeting, where consensus was defined as less than 30% disagreement. RESULTS: In total, 152 participants completed Round 1, 104 (68%) completed all survey rounds, and 43 (28%) joined the consensus meeting. Consensus was achieved on 7 proposals in Round 1, 4 in Round 2 and 6 in Round 3. The final 2 proposals reached consensus during the consensus meeting. Consensus topics include test dose, start dose, maximum dose, administration route, dosing schedule, management of stopping treatment, treatment duration and folic acid supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: This eDelphi study achieved consensus on 19 proposals related to MTX dosing for adults and children with AD. These results aim to guide prescribing decisions and encourage a standardized global approach to MTX use in AD.

Oral Antibiotics and Risk of Serious Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions.

Importance: Serious cutaneous adverse drug reactions (cADRs) are potentially life-threatening drug hypersensitivity reactions involving the skin and internal organs. Antibiotics are a recognized cause of these reactions, but no studies have compared relative risks across antibiotic classes. Objectives: To explore the risk of serious cADRs associated with commonly prescribed oral antibiotics, and to characterize outcomes of patients hospitalized for them. Design, Setting, and Participants: Nested case-control study using population-based linked administrative datasets among adults aged 66 years or older who received at least 1 oral antibiotic between 2002 and 2022 in Ontario, Canada. Cases were those who had an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization for serious cADRs within 60 days of the prescription, and each case was matched with up to 4 controls who did not. Exposure: Various classes of oral antibiotics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Conditional logistic regression estimate of the association between different classes of oral antibiotics and serious cADRs, using macrolides as the reference group. Results: During the 20-year study period, we identified 21 758 older adults (median age, 75 years; 64.1% female) who had an ED visit or hospitalization for serious cADRs following antibiotic therapy and 87 025 matched controls who did not. In the primary analysis, sulfonamide antibiotics (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.9; 95% CI, 2.7-3.1) and cephalosporins (aOR, 2.6; 95% CI, 2.5-2.8) were most strongly associated with serious cADRs relative to macrolides. Additional associations were evident with nitrofurantoin (aOR, 2.2; 95% CI, 2.1-2.4), penicillins (aOR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.5), and fluoroquinolones (aOR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.4). The crude rate of ED visits or hospitalization for cADRs was highest for cephalosporins (4.92 per 1000 prescriptions; 95% CI, 4.86-4.99) and sulfonamide antibiotics (3.22 per 1000 prescriptions; 95% CI, 3.15-3.28). Among the 2852 case patients hospitalized for cADRs, the median length of stay was 6 days (IQR, 3-13 days), 9.6% required transfer to a critical care unit, and 5.3% died in the hospital. Conclusion and Relevance: Commonly prescribed oral antibiotics are associated with an increased risk of serious cADRs compared with macrolides, with sulfonamides and cephalosporins carrying the highest risk. Prescribers should preferentially use lower-risk antibiotics when clinically appropriate.

Incidence, Mortality, and Survival of Merkel Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review of Population Based-Studies.

BACKGROUND: Merkel Cell Carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, aggressive skin cancer that most commonly occurs in UV-exposed body sites. Its epidemiology in different geographies and populations is not well characterised. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review is to summarize evidence on the incidence, mortality, and survival rates of MCC from population-based studies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to June 6th, 2023. No geographic, age or date exclusions were applied. We included population-based studies of MCC that reported the incidence, survival, or mortality rate, and considered systematic reviews. A data-charting form was created and validated to identify variables to extract. Two reviewers then independently charted the data for each included study with patient characteristics, and estimates of incidence rate, mortality rate, and survival rate and assessed the quality of included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Prevalence studies, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews. We abstracted age-, sex-, stage- and race-stratified outcomes, and synthesized comparisons between strata narratively and using vote counting. We assessed the certainty of evidence for those comparisons using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Developments and Evaluations framework. RESULTS: We identified 11,472 citations, of which 52 studies from 24 countries met our inclusion criteria. Stage 1 and the head and neck were the most frequently reported stage and location at diagnosis. The incidence of MCC is increasing over time (high certainty), with the highest reported incidences reported in Southern hemisphere countries (Australia [2.5 per 100,000], New Zealand [0.96 per 100,000]) (high certainty). Male patients generally had higher incidence rates compared to female patients (high certainty), although there were some variations over time periods. Survival rates varied, with lower survival and/or higher mortality associated with male sex (moderate certainty), higher stage at diagnosis (moderate-to-high certainty), older age (moderate certainty), and immunosuppression (low-to-moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: MCC is increasing in incidence and may increase further given the ageing population of many countries. The prognosis of MCC is poor, particularly for males, those who are immunosuppressed, and patients diagnosed at higher stages or at an older age.

A comparison of family physician and dermatologist topical corticosteroid prescriptions: A population-based cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Topical corticosteroids (TCS) are commonly prescribed to treat inflammatory skin diseases, and appropriate prescription is necessary for treatment success. OBJECTIVE: To quantify differences between TCS prescribed by dermatologists at consultation and family physicians for patients treated for any skin condition. METHODS: Using administrative health data in Ontario, we included all Ontario Drug Benefit recipients who filled at least one TCS prescription from a dermatologist at consultation and a family physician in the year prior between January 2014 and December 2019. We estimated mean differences and 95% confidence intervals in amount (in grams) and potency between the index dermatologist prescription and the highest and most recent family physician prescription amounts and potencies in the preceding year using linear mixed-effect models. RESULTS: A total of 69,335 persons were included. The mean dermatologist amount was 34% larger than the highest amount and 54% larger than the most recent amount prescribed by family physicians. There were small but statistically significant differences in potency using established 7-category and 4-category potency classification systems. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to family physicians, dermatologists prescribed substantially larger amounts and similarly potent TCS at consultation. Further research is needed to determine the effect of these differences on clinical outcomes.

Executive summary: American Academy of Dermatology guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis in adults with topical therapies.

These guidelines update the 2014 recommendations for management of atopic dermatitis in adults with topical therapies. A multidisciplinary workgroup employed best practices for guideline development, including a systematic review of the evidence and application of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading recommendations. The evidence on atopic dermatitis treatment supported strong recommendations for the use of nonprescription moisturizers, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical corticosteroids, and topical PDE-4 and JAK inhibitors. Conditional recommendations are made for the use of bathing and wet wrap therapy and against the use of topical antimicrobials, antiseptics, and antihistamines.

Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis in adults with topical therapies.

BACKGROUND: New evidence has emerged since the 2014 guidelines that further informs the management of atopic dermatitis (AD) with topical therapies. These guidelines update the 2014 recommendations for management of AD with topical therapies. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based recommendations related to management of AD in adults using topical treatments. METHODS: A multidisciplinary workgroup conducted a systematic review and applied the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach for assessing the certainty of evidence and formulating and grading recommendations. RESULTS: The workgroup developed 12 recommendations on the management of AD in adults with topical therapies, including nonprescription agents and prescription topical corticosteroids (TCS), calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors (PDE-4), antimicrobials, and antihistamines. LIMITATIONS: The pragmatic decision to limit the literature review to English-language randomized trials may have excluded data published in other languages and relevant long-term follow-up data. CONCLUSIONS: Strong recommendations are made for the use of moisturizers, TCIs, TCS, and topical PDE-4 and JAK inhibitors. Conditional recommendations are made for the use of bathing and wet wrap therapy and against the use of topical antimicrobials, antiseptics, and antihistamines.

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.

Top Ten Research Priorities for Psoriasis, Atopic Dermatitis and Hidradenitis Suppurativa: The SkIN Canada Priority Setting Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The Skin Investigation Network of Canada (SkIN Canada) is a new national skin research network. To shape the research landscape and ensure its value to patient care, research priorities that are important to patients, caregivers, and health care providers must be identified. OBJECTIVES: To identify the Top Ten research priorities for 9 key skin conditions. METHODS: We first surveyed health care providers and researchers to select the top skin conditions for future research within the categories of inflammatory skin disease, skin cancers (other than melanoma), and wound healing. For those selected skin conditions, we conducted scoping reviews to identify previous priority setting exercises. We combined the results of those scoping reviews with a survey of patients, health care providers, and researchers to generate lists of knowledge gaps for each condition. We then surveyed patients and health care providers to create preliminary rankings to prioritize those knowledge gaps. Finally, we conducted workshops of patients and health care providers to create the final Top Ten lists of research priorities for each condition. RESULTS: Overall, 538 patients, health care providers, and researchers participated in at least one survey or workshop. Psoriasis, atopic dermatitis and hidradenitis suppurativa (inflammatory skin disease); chronic wounds, burns and scars (wound healing); and basal cell, squamous cell and Merkel cell carcinoma (skin cancer) were selected as priority skin conditions. Top Ten lists of knowledge gaps for inflammatory skin conditions encompassed a range of issues relevant to patient care, including questions on pathogenesis, prevention, non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic management. CONCLUSIONS: Research priorities derived from patients and health care providers should be used to guide multidisciplinary research networks, funders, and policymakers in Canada and internationally.

American Academy of Dermatology Guidelines: Awareness of comorbidities associated with atopic dermatitis in adults.

BACKGROUND: Studies found associations between atopic dermatitis (AD) and various comorbidities. OBJECTIVE: To appraise evidence of the association between AD and comorbidities among adults. METHODS: Our multidisciplinary work group conducted a systematic review of the association between AD and selected comorbidities. We applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation for prognosis approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence, providing statements of association based on the available evidence. RESULTS: Analysis of the evidence resulted in 32 statements. Clear evidence of the association of AD in adults and select allergic, atopic, immune-mediated mental health and bone health conditions and skin infections was identified. There is some evidence supporting an association between AD and substance use, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and elements of metabolic syndrome. Evidence suggests a small association with various cardiovascular conditions. The association between AD in adults and autism spectrum disorders, myocardial infarction, stroke, and metabolic syndrome is inconclusive. LIMITATIONS: This analysis is based on the best available evidence at the time it was conducted. This guideline does not make recommendations for screening or management of comorbidities in adults with AD. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should be aware of comorbidities associated with AD. Further research is needed to determine whether screening or management of comorbidities is beneficial for adults with AD.

Development of a core outcome set for basal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: There is variation in the outcomes reported in clinical studies of basal cell carcinoma. This can prevent effective meta-analyses from answering important clinical questions. OBJECTIVE: To identify a recommended minimum set of core outcomes for basal cell carcinoma clinical trials. METHODS: Patient and professional Delphi process to cull a long list, culminating in a consensus meeting. To be provisionally accepted, outcomes needed to be deemed important (score, 7-9, with 9 being the maximum) by 70% of each stakeholder group. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-five candidate outcomes identified via a systematic literature review and survey of key stakeholders were reduced to 74 that were rated by 100 health care professionals and patients in 2 Delphi rounds. Twenty-seven outcomes were provisionally accepted. The final core set of 5 agreed-upon outcomes after the consensus meeting included complete response; persistent or serious adverse events; recurrence-free survival; quality of life; and patient satisfaction, including cosmetic outcome. LIMITATIONS: English-speaking patients and professionals rated outcomes extracted from English language studies. CONCLUSION: A core outcome set for basal cell carcinoma has been developed. The use of relevant measures may improve the utility of clinical research and the quality of therapeutic guidance available to clinicians.

COX-2 inhibitors show no preventive effect in the development of skin cancer.

BACKGROUND: Some clinical trials found that cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor use lowered the risk of skin cancer in high-risk groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To determine whether COX-2 inhibitor use is associated with lower risk of basal cell carcinoma (BCC), cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), and melanoma, we analyzed COX-2 inhibitor use and risk of skin cancer based on three prospective cohort studies, the Nurses' Health Study (NHS), NHS II, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, including 153,882 participants. Multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of COX-2 inhibitor use with risk of BCC, cSCC, and melanoma were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. We pooled the results using a fixed effects model. RESULTS: 16,142 BCC, 1,973 cSCC, and 631 melanoma cases were documented. Ever vs. never use of COX-2 inhibitor was associated with a modestly increased risk of BCC (multivariable HR 1.09, 95 % CI 1.05-1.14). The hazard ratio was similar for cSCC (multivariable HR 1.12, 95 % CI 1.00-1.27) and melanoma (multivariable HR 1.10, 95 % CI 0.89-1.38), but was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Ever use of COX-2 inhibitor was not associated with a decreased skin cancer risk but was instead associated with a modest, increased risk of BCC.

Association between antihypertensive medications and risk of skin cancer in people older than 65 years: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The risk of skin cancer associated with antihypertensive medication use is unclear, although thiazides have been implicated in regulatory safety warnings. We aimed to assess whether use of thiazides and other antihypertensives is associated with increased rates of keratinocyte carcinoma and melanoma. METHODS: We conducted a population-based inception cohort study using linked administrative health data from Ontario, 1998-2017. We matched adults aged ≥ 66 years with a first prescription for an antihypertensive medication (thiazides, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, ß-blockers) by age and sex to 2 unexposed adults who were prescribed a non-antihypertensive medication within 30 days of the index date. We evaluated each antihypertensive class in a separate cohort study. Our primary exposure was the cumulative dose within each class, standardized according to the World Health Organization's Defined Daily Dose. Outcomes were time to first keratinocyte carcinoma, advanced keratinocyte carcinoma and melanoma. RESULTS: The inception cohorts included a total of 302 634 adults prescribed an antihypertensive medication and 605 268 unexposed adults. Increasing thiazide exposure was associated with an increased rate of incident keratinocyte carcinoma (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs] per 1 Defined Annual Dose unit 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.14), advanced keratinocyte carcinoma (adjusted HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.93-1.23) and melanoma (adjusted HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.01-1.78). We found no consistent evidence of association between other antihypertensive classes and keratinocyte carcinoma or melanoma. INTERPRETATION: Higher cumulative exposure to thiazides was associated with increased rates of incident skin cancer in people aged 66 years and older. Consideration of other antihypertensive treatments in patients at high risk of skin cancer may be warranted.

Facial and neck erythema associated with dupilumab treatment: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Neither dupilumab-associated facial erythema nor neck erythema was reported in phase 3 clinical trials for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, but there have been a number of reports of patients developing this adverse event in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To outline all cases of reported dupilumab-associated facial or neck erythema to better characterize this adverse event, and identify potential etiologies and management strategies. METHODS: A search was conducted on EMBASE and PubMed databases. Two independent reviewers identified relevant studies for inclusion and performed data extraction. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients from 16 studies were reported to have dupilumab-associated facial or neck erythema. A total of 52 of 101 patients (52%) had baseline atopic dermatitis facial or neck involvement and 45 of 101 (45%) reported different cutaneous symptoms from preexisting atopic dermatitis, possibly suggesting a different etiology. Suggested etiologies included rosacea, allergic contact dermatitis, and head and neck dermatitis. Most commonly used treatments included topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, and antifungal agents. In the 57 patients with data on the course of the adverse events, improvement was observed in 29, clearance in 4, no response in 16, and worsening in 8. A total of 11 of 101 patients (11%) discontinued dupilumab owing to this adverse event. LIMITATIONS: Limited diagnostic testing, nonstandardized data collection and reporting across studies, and reliance on retrospective case reports and case series. CONCLUSION: Some patients receiving dupilumab develop facial or neck erythema that differs from their usual atopic dermatitis symptoms. Prompt identification and empiric treatment may minimize distress and potential discontinuation of dupilumab owing to this adverse event.

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.