Phototherapy for atopic dermatitis: A survey of European practice.

BACKGROUND: Phototherapy is used to treat atopic dermatitis (AD). Evidence for its efficacy, impact on quality of life, cost-effectiveness and short- and long-term safety with real-life usage is weak. OBJECTIVES: We established a taskforce to examine how phototherapy is currently being used as a treatment for AD across the United Kingdom and Europe to inform our understanding and guide future research into management of patients with AD using UV-based phototherapies. METHODS: An anonymous electronic multiple-response survey exploring phototherapy prescribing practices and experience of phototherapy modalities was developed by the study authors and sent to members of phototherapy networks from the United Kingdom and Europe. Responses were received between February and July 2021. RESULTS: About 144 respondents from 27 European countries completed the survey. NBUVB was the most widely used [n = 138 (96%)]. Home-based NBUVB was available in 8/27 countries (25/144 respondents, 17%). Oral psoralen-UVA (PUVA) was more widely available than bath PUVA (n = 106, 74% vs. n = 60, 42%) and used mainly in adult patients. 49/144 (34%) of respondents had access to UVA1. Phototherapy would be considered instead of systemic treatment in 96% of adults and 82% of children for NBUVB, versus 40% of adults and 3% of children for PUVA. Starting doses, standard dosing increments, length of treatment courses, lifetime limits for treatments and thresholds for performing annual skin assessments varied between responders. CONCLUSIONS: NBUVB was the most widely used phototherapy for AD in adult and paediatric patients, while PUVA and UVA1 were less used. Prescribing practices varied considerably, highlighting the lack of consensus practice in many different aspects of phototherapy for the treatment of AD in children and adults. This indicates that further studies are required to determine optimal phototherapeutic regimens for AD and informs our understanding of parameters that should be included in future high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCT) of phototherapy.

Paternal and maternal use of dupilumab in patients with atopic dermatitis: a case series.

Dupilumab is a relatively new treatment option for patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. There is a lack of knowledge about the effects of treatment with dupilumab during conception for both men and women, as well as during pregnancy and lactation in women. We report four patients (two men, two women) who expressed a wish to conceive during treatment with dupilumab in daily practice. Both men conceived during dupilumab treatment, while the two women discontinued dupilumab because of anticipated pregnancy. Apart from disease flares in both of the patients who discontinued treatment, no complications were reported concerning the ability to conceive, the course of the pregnancy or the fetal outcome. We present an overview of the current available literature on dupilumab during conception, pregnancy and lactation, which can guide considerations for patients on dupilumab wishing to conceive a child. Until more data are available, preference should be given to treatment with topical corticosteroids, phototherapy, systemic corticosteroids and ciclosporin.

The European TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce survey: prescribing practices in Europe for phototherapy and systemic therapy in adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema.

BACKGROUND: For many years dermatologists have had access to few therapies for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema (AE). New promising therapies are entering the market but conventional phototherapies and systemic therapies have more well-known safety profiles, lower costs and wider availability. OBJECTIVES: To provide insight into current prescribing practices of conventional phototherapy and systemic immunomodulatory therapies for adults with chronic AE, and the factors influencing these prescribing practices, before biologics and other novel therapeutics become routine clinical practice. METHODS: In this exploratory study dermatologists were invited to participate in an online survey via a mailing list of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology and national societies. Data were collected on participant characteristics (including clinical practice data), the use of phototherapies and systemic therapies, and factors influencing their use. RESULTS: From 30 European countries, 238 out of 361 dermatologists willing to participate (65·9%) completed the survey, with 229 meeting the inclusion criteria. For phototherapy (prescribed by 84·7%), most preferred narrowband ultraviolet B as first line (80·9%) and psoralen plus ultraviolet A as second (21·6%). For systemic therapy (prescribed by 95·2%) ciclosporin (54·1%), oral corticosteroids (32·6%) and methotrexate (30·7%) were used first line. Dermatologists relied mostly on personal experience for prescribing phototherapy and systemic therapy. Azathioprine and mycophenolic acid were prescribed by only 135 (59·0%) and 85 (37·1%) participants in total, mostly due to a lack of personal experience. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into prescribing practices for conventional phototherapy and systemic therapy in Europe and shows that off-label therapies are also preferred as first-line choice of systemic therapy.

TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce: consensus on how and when to measure the core dataset for atopic eczema treatment research registries.

BACKGROUND: Comparative, real-life and long-term evidence on the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in moderate-to-severe atopic eczema (AE) is limited. Such data must come from well-designed prospective patient registries. Standardization of data collection is needed for direct comparisons and data pooling. OBJECTIVES: To reach a consensus on how and when to measure the previously defined domain items of the TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce core dataset for research registries for paediatric and adult patients with AE. METHODS: Proposals for the measurement instruments were based on recommendations of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative, the existing AE database of TREATgermany, systematic reviews of the literature and expert opinions. The proposals were discussed at three face-to-face consensus meetings, one teleconference and via e-mail. The frequency of follow-up visits was determined by an expert survey. RESULTS: A total of 16 experts from seven countries participated in the 'how to measure' consensus process and 12 external experts were consulted. A consensus was reached for all domain items on how they should be measured by assigning measurement instruments. A minimum follow-up frequency of initially 4 weeks after commencing treatment, then every 3 months while on treatment and every 6 months while off treatment was defined. CONCLUSIONS: This core dataset for national AE research registries will aid in the comparability and pooling of data across centres and country borders, and enables international collaboration to assess the long-term effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy used in patients with AE. What's already known about this topic? Comparable, real-life and long-term data on the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in patients with atopic eczema (AE) are needed. There is a high diversity of outcomes and instruments used in AE research, which require harmonization to enhance comparability and allow data pooling. What does this study add? Our taskforce has reached international consensus on how and when to measure core domain items for national AE research registries. This core dataset is now available for use by researchers worldwide and will aid in the collection of unified data. What are the clinical implications of this work? The data collected through this core dataset will help to gain better insights into the long-term effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in AE and will provide important information for clinical practice. Standardization of such data collection at the national level will also allow direct data comparisons and pooling across country borders (e.g. in the analysis of treatment-related adverse events that require large patient numbers).

Use of systemic corticosteroids for atopic dermatitis: International Eczema Council consensus statement.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines discourage the use of systemic corticosteroids for atopic dermatitis (AD), but their use remains widespread. OBJECTIVES: To reach consensus among an international group of AD experts on the use of systemic corticosteroids for AD. METHODS: A survey consisting of statements accompanied by visual analogue scales ranging from 'strongly disagree' to 'neutral' to 'strongly agree' was distributed to the International Eczema Council (IEC). Consensus was reached in agreement on a statement if < 30% of respondents marked to the left of 'neutral' towards 'strongly disagree'. RESULTS: Sixty of 77 (78%) IEC members participated. Consensus was reached on 12 statements, including that systemic corticosteroids should generally be avoided but can be used rarely for severe AD under certain circumstances, including a lack of other treatment options, as a bridge to other systemic therapies or phototherapy, during acute flares in need of immediate relief, in anticipation of a major life event or in the most severe cases. If used, treatment should be limited to the short term. Most respondents agreed that systemic corticosteroids should never be used in children, but consensus was not reached on that statement. The conclusions of our expert group are limited by a dearth of high-quality published evidence. If more stringent consensus criteria were applied (e.g. requiring < 20% of respondents marking towards 'strongly disagree'), consensus would have been reached on fewer statements. CONCLUSIONS: Based on expert opinion from the IEC, routine use of systemic corticosteroids for AD is generally discouraged and should be reserved for special circumstances.

Biologics combined with conventional systemic agents or phototherapy for the treatment of psoriasis: real-life data from PSONET registries.

BACKGROUND: Biologics have greatly improved psoriasis management. However, primary and secondary non-response to treatment requires innovative strategies to optimize outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of combined treatment of biologics with conventional systemic agents or phototherapy in daily clinical practice. METHODS: We collected data on frequency of use, demographics, treatment characteristics and drug survival of biologics combined with conventional systemic agents or phototherapy in five PSONET registries. RESULTS: Of 9922 biologic treatment cycles, 982 (9.9%) were identified as combination treatment. 72.9% of treatment cycles concerned concomitant use of methotrexate, 25.3% concerned concomitant UVB therapy, acitretin or cyclosporin and 1.8% concerned combined treatment with PUVA, fumaric acids or a second biologic. Substantial variation was detected in type and frequency of combination treatments prescribed across registries. Patients initiated on combined treatment had generally severe disease and were affected with psoriasis for many years. The extent to which patients had been priory treated with biologic monotherapy and the proportion of patients affected with psoriatic arthritis differed between registries. Survival rates for etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab and ustekinumab with methotrexate ranged between 43 and 92%, 28 and 83%, 65 and 87% and 53 and 77%, respectively, across registries after one year with no consistent superior survival for a particular biologic. Longest survival on a biologic combined with methotrexate, acitretin or cyclosporin was 103, 78 and 34 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Methotrexate was the most commonly used concomitant treatment for patients on a biologic. Wide geographical variations in treatment selection and persistence of combination treatment exist. Data derived from ongoing studies may help to determine whether combined treatment is superior to biologic monotherapy.

An increased risk of non-melanoma skin cancer during TNF-inhibitor treatment in psoriasis patients compared to rheumatoid arthritis patients probably relates to disease-related factors.

BACKGROUND: Concerns exist about a risk of non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) in psoriasis patients and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with TNF-inhibitors. However, current data also show that in some psoriasis patients, NMSC is diagnosed relatively short after the start of TNF-inhibitors, which suggests that these NMSC can be explained by previous therapies instead of by TNF-inhibitor therapy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there was a difference in time until first NMSC and the rate of NMSC between psoriasis and RA patients on TNF-inhibitors. METHODS: Time until first NMSC and the rate of NMSC were compared between psoriasis and RA patients from the same region treated with TNF-inhibitors and followed up for at least one year in prospective cohort studies, by using Cox regression and Poisson regression. Both analyses were corrected for confounders (age, gender, disease duration, prior NMSC, duration of anti-TNF and other systemic therapies). RESULTS: The NMSC risk was significantly higher in the psoriasis group [fully adjusted HR 6.0 (1.6-22.4 95%CI)] with a shorter time until first NMSC in psoriasis compared to RA. By Poisson regression, psoriasis patients had a 5.5 (2.2-13.4 95%CI) higher rate of NMSC. CONCLUSION: The time until first NMSC was significantly shorter and the rate of NMSC was significantly higher in psoriasis compared with RA. This indicates that disease-related factors like phototherapy may be important contributing factors to NMSC diagnosed in psoriasis patients treated with TNF-inhibitors.

Laser and intense pulsed light therapy for the treatment of hypertrophic scars: a systematic review.

Hypertrophic scars are difficult to improve and remain a therapeutic challenge. Several lasers and light sources have been evaluated in the past decades and have been shown to improve hypertrophic scars. However, a systematic review is not available. To assess current evidence of efficacy of all laser and intense pulsed light therapies used in the treatment of hypertrophic scars, we performed a systematic review searching electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL. The quality of the controlled clinical trials was evaluated according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. Thirteen articles involving seven different lasers met the inclusion criteria. Most evidence was found for the pulsed dye laser (PDL) 585 nm (eight studies), followed by the PDL 595 nm (two studies), whereas limited evidence (one trial per laser) was available for the fractional nonablative laser 1540 nm, CO2 laser 10,600 nm, low-level laser therapy, Nd:YAG laser 532 nm and Erbium:YAG laser 2940 nm. Treatment recommendations should be formulated with caution as current evidence is insufficient for comparing the efficacy of different laser therapies. The PDL 585 nm showed a low efficacy for the treatment of hypertrophic scars. With moderate efficacy, the PDL 595 nm is promising, although more research is necessary. Little evidence was found for the efficacy of other lasers. Future research, with a low risk of bias, well-defined scar characteristics, validated outcome measures, standardized measurement methods, follow-up periods of at least 6 months and well-defined laser settings, is needed.

Excimer laser vs. clobetasol propionate 0·05% ointment in prurigo form of atopic dermatitis: a randomized controlled trial, a pilot.

BACKGROUND: Recent findings have established the 308-nm xenon chloride excimer laser (EL) as a new option in the area of ultraviolet (UV) B phototherapy. As this laser enables high radiant exposure of narrowband UVB and precise targeting of affected skin, it appears to be a promising treatment for the prurigo form of atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of the EL compared with clobetasol propionate (CP) in the prurigo form of AD. METHODS: In a prospective randomized within-patient controlled study, 13 patients with a prurigo form of AD were randomized to receive EL on one side and topical CP on the other side. Laser treatment was performed twice a week for 10 weeks. Clinical responses were evaluated using Physician Assessment of Individual Signs, Physician Global Assessment, Patient Global Assessment and photographic documentation. Histopathological changes were evaluated and duration of remission was monitored during a 6-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Both treatments resulted in a significant improvement of all outcome measures after 10 weeks of treatment. During follow up, the EL showed more improvement compared with CP. Histopathology demonstrated marked decrease of epidermal thickness and inflammatory infiltrate at the EL-treated sites. No significant side-effects occurred. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the EL can safely and effectively be used in the treatment of the prurigo form of AD. For the long term, the EL might be a good alternative to topical corticosteroids and an option in case of therapy-resistant patients.

European S3-guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris.

Of the 131 studies on monotherapy or combination therapy assessed, 56 studies on the different forms of phototherapy fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the guidelines. Approximately three-quarters of all patients treated with phototherapy attained at least a PASI 75 response after 4 to 6 weeks, and clearance was frequently achieved (levels of evidence 2 and 3). Phototherapy represents a safe and very effective treatment option for moderate to severe forms of psoriasis vulgaris. The onset of clinical effects occurs within 2 weeks. Of the unwanted side effects, UV erythema from overexposure is by far the most common and is observed frequently. With repeated or long-term use, the consequences of high, cumulative UV doses (such as premature aging of the skin) must be taken into consideration. In addition, carcinogenic risk is associated with oral PUVA and is probable for local PUVA and UVB. The practicability of the therapy is limited by spatial, financial, human, and time constraints on the part of the physician, as well as by the amount of time required by the patient. From the perspective of the cost-bearing institution, phototherapy has a good cost-benefit ratio. However, the potentially significant costs for, and time required of, the patient must be considered.

National registries of systemic treatment for psoriasis and the European 'Psonet' initiative.

About 11 million people suffer from psoriasis in Europe. This chronic condition may have a dramatic impact on quality of life. About 20% of patients may need systemic treatment to effectively control their disease activity. The introduction of biological agents greatly increased the options of systemic therapies for psoriasis. However, clinical experience with newer systemic therapies is relatively limited, and available data are mostly derived from short-term phase III trials. Except for PUVA and ciclosporin, long-term safety data from formal postmarketing studies are also largely lacking conventional treatment options. Registries provide one mechanism to monitor the long-term safety and effectiveness of treatment in the 'natural environment'. Several European countries have established registries to collect data on systemic psoriasis treatment. Even though different in some aspects of study design and monitoring, the registries share a number of common features: they include all the biological drugs and sometimes all the licensed systemic agents for psoriasis, and they observe the patients for a defined period of time irrespective of the drug given. Combining the results from these registries would increase their power and impact. We are developing an international collaboration called 'Psonet' that will perform a joint analysis of data from 9 individual national psoriasis registries.

Retrospective study of the efficacy of narrowband UVB and acitretin.

BACKGROUND: In this retrospective analysis the effect of narrowband ultraviolet B treatment in combination with acitretin is reviewed in 40 patients with plaque psoriasis. Narrowband UVB is highly effective for plaque psoriasis, but requires multiple phototherapy treatments, making patient compliance problematic. Oral acitretin is moderately effective as monotherapy, but when combined with ultraviolet B or PUVA, its use has reduced the number of treatments required for clearing, and has resulted in clearing of patients otherwise refractory to these phototherapeutic modalities. There is only sparse data on the combination of acitretin with narrowband UVB. We therefore analyzed data on 40 patients treated with this combination. RESULTS: The majority of patients treated had psoriasis that was refractory to treatment with broadband ultraviolet B, monotherapy with narrowband UVB, monotherapy with acitretin, or the combination of acitretin and broadband UVB. In this difficult-to-treat group of patients, the combination of low dose acitretin (25 mg po daily) and narrowband UVB three times per week resulted in greater than 75% improvement in 29 (72.5%) patients. Only 5 (12.5%) patients had less than 50% improvement. The combination was well tolerated and associated with typical retinoid and narrowband UVB side effects including elevation of serum lipids, burn and cheilitis. CONCLUSION: The combination of acitretin with narrowband UVB results in faster improvement even in more difficult-to-treat patients. In combination the treatments appear to have synergistic effects.

A systematic review of five systemic treatments for severe psoriasis.

We systematically reviewed the evidence concerning the ability of five systemic treatments to induce remission in patients with severe psoriasis: ultraviolet B (UVB), photochemotherapy (PUVA), methotrexate (MTX), retinoids (RET) and cyclosporin A (CYA). An elaborate literature search was performed, the validity of studies was assessed, and data were analysed. In total, 89, 193, 101, 155 and 127 studies (n = 665) concerning UVB, PUVA, MTX, RET and CYA were found. The exclusion rate was high, mainly because of concomitant antipsoriatic therapy, outdated dosages or inadequate documentation. No study on MTX could be included. A total of 129 patient series was included in the analysis, reporting on 13,677 patients. Study size-weighted averages of the proportions of patients with clearance and good, moderate and poor response (defined, respectively, as 95-100%, 75-100%, 50-75% and < 50% reduction in the outcome measurements as compared with baseline) were calculated. PUVA therapy was associated with the highest average proportion of patients with clearance (70%), and the highest proportion of patients with good response (83%), followed by UVB (68%) and CYA (64%). Incidence of side-effects per week was highest in the RET group and lowest in the phototherapy groups. This review may provide a basis for the development of guidelines for the treatment of psoriasis. Trials comparing oral modalities applied according to currently accepted standards should also be carried out.