ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Effective treatment options for patients with chronic hand eczema (CHE) are scarce. Dupilumab is licensed for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis and has shown promising results for the treatment of hand eczema in other studies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dupilumab in adult patients with severe CHE (subtypes recurrent vesicular hand eczema or chronic fissured hand eczema) who have an inadequate response/intolerance to alitretinoin, or when alitretinoin is medically inadvisable. METHODS: In this 16-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proof-of-concept phase IIb trial, patients with severe CHE were randomized 2 : 1 to dupilumab 300â mg or placebo subcutaneously every 2 weeks. Patients visited the outpatient clinic at the initiation of the study drug, and every 4 weeks until 16 weeks of treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving at least a 75% improvement on the Hand Eczema Severity Index score (HECSI-75) at week 16. Adverse events were monitored during each visit. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04512339). RESULTS: In total, 30 patients were randomized, and 29 patients received the assigned study drug (dupilumab n = 20, placebo n = 9). At week 16, more patients achieved HECSI-75 in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group {95% [95% confidence interval (CI) 73.1-99.7] vs. 33% [95% CI 9.0-69.1]}. Dupilumab also showed greater least square mean percentage change from baseline to week 16 in peak pruritus Numerical Rating Scale compared with placebo [-66.5 ± 10.7 (95% CI -88.6 to -44.5) vs. -25.3 ± 17.0 (95% CI -60.1-9.4)]. Adverse events were similar for the dupilumab and placebo groups and were mostly mild. There were no serious adverse events, nor did any of the adverse events lead to discontinuation of the study drug. CONCLUSIONS: Dupilumab was efficacious and well tolerated. Larger studies of longer duration are needed to provide more evidence on the -efficacy of dupilumab in CHE. Moreover, larger studies could also enable comparisons between clinical subtypes or aetiological -diagnoses.
Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Atopic , Eczema , Adult , Humans , Alitretinoin/adverse effects , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Eczema/drug therapy , Eczema/chemically induced , Dermatitis, Atopic/drug therapy , Treatment Outcome , Double-Blind Method , Severity of Illness IndexSubject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatologic Agents , Eczema , Hand Dermatoses , Administration, Oral , Alitretinoin/adverse effects , Azathioprine/adverse effects , Chronic Disease , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/drug therapy , Dermatologic Agents/adverse effects , Eczema/drug therapy , Hand Dermatoses/drug therapy , Humans , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Acrylates constitute an important cause of occupational contact dermatitis. Isobornyl acrylate sensitization has been reported in only 2 cases. We encountered an industrial process operator with occupational contact dermatitis caused by isobornyl acrylate. OBJECTIVES: (i) To investigate whether it is relevant to add isobornyl acrylate to the (meth)acrylate test series. (ii) To report patients with (meth)acrylate contact allergy at an occupational dermatology clinic. PATIENTS/MATERIALS/METHODS: Our patch test database was screened for positive reactions to (meth)acrylates between 1993 and 2012. A selected group of 14 patients was tested with an isobornyl acrylate dilution series: 0.3%, 0.1%, 0.033%, and 0.01%. Readings were performed on D2, D3, and D7. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-one patients were tested with our (meth)acrylate series; 24 had positive reactions. Most positive reactions were to 2-hydroxypropyl acrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, and diethyleneglycol diacrylate. Hypothetical screening with 2-hydroxypropyl acrylate, ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, ethoxylated bisphenol A glycol dimethacrylate and trimethylolpropane triacrylate identified 91.7% of the 24 patients. No positive reactions were observed in 14 acrylate-positive patients tested with the isobornyl acrylate dilution series. The 0.3% isobornyl acrylate concentration induced irritant reactions in 3 patients. CONCLUSIONS: We report a rare case of allergic contact dermatitis caused by isobornyl acrylate. However, this study provides insufficient support for isobornyl acrylate to be added to a (meth)acrylate series.