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.

European guideline (EuroGuiDerm) on atopic eczema - part II: non-systemic treatments and treatment recommendations for special AE patient populations.

The evidence- and consensus-based guideline on atopic eczema was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. Four consensus conferences were held between December 2020 and July 2021. Twenty-nine experts (including clinicians and patient representatives) from 12 European countries participated. This second part of the guideline includes recommendations and detailed information on basic therapy with emollients and moisturizers, topical anti-inflammatory treatment, antimicrobial and antipruritic treatment and UV phototherapy. Furthermore, this part of the guideline covers techniques for avoiding provocation factors, as well as dietary interventions, immunotherapy, complementary medicine and educational interventions for patients with atopic eczema and deals with occupational and psychodermatological aspects of the disease. It also contains guidance on treatment for paediatric and adolescent patients and pregnant or breastfeeding women, as well as considerations for patients who want to have a child. A chapter on the patient perspective is also provided. The first part of the guideline, published separately, contains recommendations and guidance on systemic treatment with conventional immunosuppressive drugs, biologics and janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as information on the scope and purpose of the guideline, and a section on guideline methodology.

European guideline (EuroGuiDerm) on atopic eczema: part I - systemic therapy.

The evidence- and consensus-based guideline on atopic eczema was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. Four consensus conferences were held between December 2020 and July 2021. Twenty-nine experts (including clinicians and patient representatives) from 12 European countries participated. This first part of the guideline includes general information on its scope and purpose, the health questions covered, target users and a methods section. It also provides guidance on which patients should be treated with systemic therapies, as well as recommendations and detailed information on each systemic drug. The systemic treatment options discussed in the guideline comprise conventional immunosuppressive drugs (azathioprine, ciclosporin, glucocorticosteroids, methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil), biologics (dupilumab, lebrikizumab, nemolizumab, omalizumab and tralokinumab) and janus kinase inhibitors (abrocitinib, baricitinib and upadacitinib). Part two of the guideline will address avoidance of provocation factors, dietary interventions, immunotherapy, complementary medicine, educational interventions, occupational and psychodermatological aspects, patient perspective and considerations for paediatric, adolescent, pregnant and breastfeeding patients.

Effectiveness and safety of dupilumab in the treatment of atopic dermatitis in children (6-11 years): data from a French multicentre retrospective cohort in daily practice.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is the first biotherapy available for the treatment of moderate-to-severe childhood atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dupilumab in daily practice. METHODS: Patients aged 6-11, who had received a first dose of dupilumab, were included in this multicentre retrospective cohort study. The primary endpoint was change in SCORAD after 3 months of treatment. Secondary endpoints were change in IGA score at 3 months, proportion of patients with SCORAD50 and SCORAD75, description of adverse events and proportion of children in our cohort who would be excluded from pivotal phase 3 clinical trial. RESULTS: Eighty patients were included. After 3 months of treatment, there was a significant decrease in SCORAD (mean: 21.8 ± 13.8 vs 53.9 ± 18.5; P < 0.0001) and IGA (1.3 ± 0.8 vs 3.5 ± 0.7; P < 0.0001). Conjunctivitis was observed in 11.3% (n = 9/80); three patients experienced dupilumab facial redness (DFR); 17.5% (n = 14/80) reported injection site reactions; 6.3% (n = 5/80) discontinued treatment. 61.2% (n = 49/80) children were ineligible in the phase 3 trial. LIMITATIONS: There is no control group. Because it was a real life study based on information from patient medical records in a French multicentre cohort, we cannot rule out the presence of reporting bias generated by the use of patient reported characteristics and missing information. CONCLUSION: These real-life data confirm the efficacy and safety of dupilumab in children with moderate to severe AD extended to dyshidrosis and atopic prurigo, but it also revealed a lower frequency of DFR and conjunctivitis. However, administration in injectable form may be a barrier in this age group.

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).

Consensus-based European guidelines for treatment of atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis) in adults and children: part II.

This guideline was developed as a joint interdisciplinary European project, including physicians from all relevant disciplines as well as patients. It is a consensus-based guideline, taking available evidence from other guidelines, systematic reviews and published studies into account. This second part of the guideline covers antimicrobial therapy, systemic treatment, allergen-specific immunotherapy, complementary medicine, psychosomatic counselling and educational interventions, whereas the first part covers methods, patient perspective, general measures and avoidance strategies, basic emollient treatment and bathing, dietary intervention, topical anti-inflammatory therapy, phototherapy and antipruritic therapy. Management of AE must consider the individual clinical variability of the disease. Systemic immunosuppressive treatment with cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine and mycophenolic acid is established option for severe refractory cases, and widely available. Biologicals targeting the T helper 2 pathway such as dupilumab may be a safe and effective, disease-modifying alternative when available. Oral drugs such as JAK inhibitors and histamine 4 receptor antagonists are in development. Microbial colonization and superinfection may cause disease exacerbation and can require additional antimicrobial treatment. Allergen-specific immunotherapy with aeroallergens may be considered in selected cases. Psychosomatic counselling is recommended especially in stress-induced exacerbations. Therapeutic patient education ('Eczema school') is recommended for children and adult patients. General measures, basic emollient treatment, bathing, dietary intervention, topical anti-inflammatory therapy, phototherapy and antipruritic therapy have been addressed in the first part of the guideline.

Consensus-based European guidelines for treatment of atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis) in adults and children: part I.

This guideline was developed as a joint interdisciplinary European project, including physicians from all relevant disciplines as well as patients. It is a consensus-based guideline, taking available evidence from other guidelines, systematic reviews and published studies into account. This first part of the guideline covers methods, patient perspective, general measures and avoidance strategies, basic emollient treatment and bathing, dietary intervention, topical anti-inflammatory therapy, phototherapy and antipruritic therapy, whereas the second part covers antimicrobial therapy, systemic treatment, allergen-specific immunotherapy, complementary medicine, psychosomatic counselling and educational interventions. Management of AE must consider the individual clinical variability of the disease; highly standardized treatment rules are not recommended. Basic therapy is focused on treatment of disturbed barrier function by hydrating and lubricating topical treatment, besides further avoidance of specific and unspecific provocation factors. Topical anti-inflammatory treatment based on glucocorticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors is used for flare management and for proactive therapy for long-term control. Topical corticosteroids remain the mainstay of therapy, whereas tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are preferred in sensitive skin areas and for long-term use. Topical phosphodiesterase inhibitors may be a treatment alternative when available. Adjuvant therapy includes UV irradiation, preferably with UVB 311 nm or UVA1. Pruritus is targeted with the majority of the recommended therapies, but some patients may need additional antipruritic therapy. Antimicrobial therapy, systemic anti-inflammatory treatment, immunotherapy, complementary medicine and educational intervention will be addressed in part II of the guideline.

Factors associated with the choice of the first biologic in psoriasis: real-life analysis from the Psobioteq cohort.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making is a complex process. The aim of our study was to assess factors associated with the choice of the first biological treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. METHODS: Data on all patients included in the French prospective, observational, cohort, Psobioteq and initiating a first biologic prescription between July 2012 and July 2016 were analysed. Demographic information and clinical features were collected during routine clinical assessments by the dermatology team at the recruiting centres using a standardized case report form. The primary outcome was the nature of the first biologic treatment. Four groups were identified as follows: adalimumab, etanercept, ustekinumab and infliximab groups. Factors associated with the choice of the first biological agent were determined by a multinomial logistic regression model adjusted on year of inclusion. RESULTS: The study population included the 830 biological-naïve patients who initiated a first biological agent. The mean age was 46.6 years (±SD 13.9), and 318 patients (38.3%) were female. The most commonly prescribed biologic was adalimumab: 355 (42.8%) patients, then etanercept (n = 247, 29.8%), ustekinumab (n = 194, 23.4%) and infliximab (n = 34, 4.0%). In the multinomial logistic regression analysis, patients were significantly more likely to receive adalimumab if they had a severe psoriasis as defined by baseline PASI or if they had psoriatic arthritis compared to etanercept (aOR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.16-1.07) and ustekinumab (aOR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.04-0.52). Patients were significantly more likely to receive ustekinumab (aOR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.04-5.50) if they had a positive screening for latent tuberculosis compared to adalimumab. Younger patients were also more likely to receive ustekinumab. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were more likely to be prescribed ustekinumab or etanercept compared to adalimumab. There was a trend in favour of etanercept prescription in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, metabolic syndrome and in patients with a history of cancer. CONCLUSION: We identified patient- and disease-related factors that have important influence on the choice of the first biological agent in clinical practice. Clinicians appear to have a holistic approach to patient characteristics when choosing a biological agent in psoriasis.

What is the evidence base for atopic eczema treatments? A summary of published randomized controlled trials.

Atopic eczema (AE) is a common chronic inflammatory skin condition. While many AE treatment options are available, the evidence to support their efficacy varies in depth and quality. In 2000, a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment systematic review identified and evaluated existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AE treatments. To ensure continuing utility, the NIHR commissioned an update to the review. Here, we present an overview of the updated report and its key findings. Systematic reviews and RCTs of AE treatments that included participants with AE (criteria based or diagnosed) were identified using Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register [searched to 31 August 2013 (RCTs) and 31 December 2015 (systematic reviews)]. Outcome measures included symptoms, AE severity, quality of life and adverse effects. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Of the 287 new RCTs identified, only 22 (8%) were judged to have a low risk of bias. When combined with RCTs from the previous review (n = 254), we found 'reasonable evidence of benefit' for corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, Atopiclair® , ciclosporin, azathioprine, ultraviolet radiation and education programmes. Interventions with reasonable evidence of 'no benefit' included some dietary interventions, ion exchange water softeners, multiple daily applications of topical corticosteroids and antibiotic-containing corticosteroids for noninfected AE. Many common treatments lack evidence of efficacy and warrant further evaluation. The evidence base for AE is still hampered by poor trial design and reporting. The trials included in this review were used to establish the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT) database.

Influence of meteorological data on sun tolerance in patients with erythropoietic protoporphyria in France.

BACKGROUND: Erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP) is a rare metabolic disorder, characterized by photosensitivity, caused by errors of the haem biosynthetic pathway. Avoidance of sun exposure is recommended; however, some patients suggested a paradoxical improvement of symptoms when they move to sunny areas. OBJECTIVES: In a national French study, we sought to investigate the influence of sun exposure on EPP symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a national transversal observational study by questionnaire. Patients were selected from the national record of the Centre Français des Porphyries (French Porphyrias referral centre). Sun exposure level by geographic area was assessed using climate data provided by the French national meteorological service (Météo France). RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were included. We notably observed that 40% of patients declared an improvement in their tolerance of sun exposure after repeated sun exposures. In the more sunny areas, the intensity of the pain was lower (r = -0·26) and the duration of the sun exposure responsible for flares was longer (r = 0·39) than in the areas that were less sunny (P < 0·05). CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes a benefit of natural progressive sun exposure for patients with EPP.

What's new in atopic eczema? An analysis of systematic reviews published in 2012 and 2013. Part 2. Treatment and prevention.

This review provides a summary of key findings from 22 systematic reviews on atopic eczema (AE) published over the 2-year period from January 2012 to 31 December 2013, focusing on prevention and treatment of AE. For an update of systematic reviews on the epidemiology, mechanisms of disease and methodological issues, see Part 1 of this update. Based on current systematic review evidence, the most promising intervention for the prevention of AE is the use of probiotics (and possibly prebiotics) during the late stages of pregnancy and early life. Exposure to household pets, especially dogs, may also be protective, but exclusive breastfeeding for up to 7 months does not confer benefit. The role of vitamin D in preventing AE is currently unclear. Very few of the systematic reviews provided additional evidence for the use of specific treatments for AE. Further research is required to establish the role of desensitization, Chinese herbal medicines, homeopathy and specialist clothing. Nevertheless, there is now clear evidence that evening primrose oil and borage oil are not effective for the treatment of AE. There have been no randomized controlled trials on the use of H1 anti-histamines as monotherapy for the treatment of AE.

Short- and medium-term efficacy of specific hydrotherapy in inherited ichthyosis.

BACKGROUND: Management of inherited ichthyoses is symptomatic. Despite treatment, skin symptoms have a major impact on patients' quality of life (QoL). OBJECTIVES: To assess the short- and medium-term efficacy of hydrotherapy on QoL and clinical symptoms of patients with inherited ichthyosis. METHODS: In this 9-month prospective, open-label, multicentre study, 20 children and 24 adults with ichthyosis were enrolled in several French reference and competence centres, 2 months before undergoing a 3-week treatment with specific hydrotherapeutic management at Avène Hydrotherapy Centre. At baseline (2 months before hydrotherapy), beginning (D0) and end of hydrotherapy (D18), and 3 and 6 months later at the reference and competence centres, patients self-assessed QoL using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) or its paediatric version (Children's DLQI), and investigators evaluated ichthyosis severity using a specific clinical ichthyosis score. RESULTS: The DLQI scores were significantly improved not only at the end of the hydrotherapy treatment (-56% vs. baseline; mean ± SD 3·59 ± 4·30 at D18 vs. 8·35 ± 5·71 at D0; P < 0·0001), but also at 3 months (-28% vs. baseline; P = 0·01) and 6 months after hydrotherapy (-26% vs. baseline; mean ± SD 5·21 ± 5·11 vs. 6·89 ± 5·38; P = 0·03) (primary criterion). Clinical symptoms were also significantly improved at all post-treatment visits, with a decrease of the mean clinical ichthyosis score by -38% between D0 and D18, by -30% at 3 months and by -31% at 6 months vs. baseline. CONCLUSIONS: A 3-week treatment at Avène Hydrotherapy Centre provided significant and persisting improvement of QoL and clinical symptoms in patients with inherited ichthyoses.