The Treat-to-Target Project in Atopic Dermatitis: One Year On.

Atopic dermatitis is a chronic skin condition for which a range of systemic treatments have recently been approved. A treat-to-target strategy has been developed previously alongside an algorithm to guide the management of patients with atopic dermatitis. Here, we review the strategy and algorithm in the context of the evolving therapeutic landscape, and identify areas for further refinement and development.

Use of Systemic Therapies for Treatment of Psoriasis in Patients with a History of Treated Solid Tumours: Inference-Based Guidance from a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel.

BACKGROUND: Patients with treated solid tumours (TSTs) are a highly heterogeneous population at an increased risk for malignancy compared with the general population. When treating psoriasis in patients with a history of TSTs, clinicians are concerned about the immunosuppressive nature of psoriasis therapies, the possibility of augmenting cancer recurrence/progression, and infectious complications. No direct, high-level evidence exists to address these concerns. OBJECTIVES: We aim to provide a structured framework supporting healthcare professional and patient discussions on the risks and benefits of systemic psoriasis therapy in patients with previously TSTs. Our goal was to address the clinically important question, "In patients with TSTs, does therapy with systemic agents used for psoriasis increase the risk of malignancy or malignancy recurrence?" METHODS: We implemented an inference-based approach relying on indirect evidence when direct clinical trial and real-world data were absent. We reviewed indirect evidence supporting inferences on the status of immune function in patients with TSTs. Recommendations on systemic psoriasis therapies in patients with TSTs were derived using an inferential heuristic. RESULTS: We identified five indirect indicators of iatrogenic immunosuppression informed by largely independent bodies of evidence: (1) overall survival, (2) rate of malignancies with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (3) rate of infections with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (4) common disease biochemical pathways for solid tumours and systemic psoriasis therapies, and (5) solid organ transplant outcomes. On the basis of review of the totality of this data, we provided inference-based conclusions and ascribed level of support for each statement. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to considering new therapies for psoriasis, an understanding of cancer prognosis should be addressed. Patients with TSTs and a good cancer prognosis will have similar outcomes to non-TST patients when treated with systemic psoriasis therapies. For patients with TSTs and a poor cancer prognosis, the quality-of-life benefits of treating psoriasis may outweigh the theoretical risks.

Patients with previously treated cancer have a higher chance of cancer recurrence compared with the general population. With cancer incidence rising worldwide, doctors across medical specialities will need to treat other medical conditions, including inflammatory diseases such as psoriasis, in these patients. Effective systemic therapies for psoriasis reduce immune cell activity. Accordingly, there are concerns that treatments for psoriasis could worsen cancer recurrence/progression and infectious complications. There is not enough quality evidence to make broad recommendations for treating other inflammatory conditions in patients with a history of cancer. To guide patient and doctor discussions, we asked: what are effective and safe treatments when patients with treated solid tumours need systemic therapy (pills or injections) for their psoriasis? We focused on patients with solid tumours and excluded blood and skin cancers. Our panel of experts, including 12 dermatologists and 3 medical oncologists, reviewed direct and indirect evidence to answer this question. Considering the totality of evidence reviewed, the expert panel drafted and rated their level of support for opinion statements on important considerations in treating patients with psoriasis who have a history of solid tumours. By making inferences on systemic psoriasis therapies in this heterogeneous population, we take the onus off individual physicians to review the indirect data. This process may help answer questions in other disease populations where direct evidence is scarce or absent. To support treatment decisions, doctors should have a guided conversation with the patient and their family on a case-by-case basis about the risks and benefits of treatment.

Clinical Implications of Targeting the JAK-STAT Pathway in Psoriatic Disease: Emphasis on the TYK2 Pathway.

Cytokines in the interleukin (IL)-23/IL-17 axis are central to psoriasis pathogenesis. Janus kinase (JAK) signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) regulates intracellular signalling of several cytokines (including IL-12, 23, 22, 6, 17, and interferon (IFN)-γ) in the IL-23/IL-17 axis, and, as a result, has become a therapeutic target for psoriasis treatment. Although several JAK1-3 inhibitors, with varying degrees of selectivity, have been developed for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, use in psoriasis is limited by a low therapeutic index as anticipated by signals from other disease indications. More selective inhibition of the JAK family is an area of interest. Specifically, selective tyrosine kinase (TYK)2 inhibition suppresses IL-23/IL-17 axis signalling, and at therapeutic doses, has a favorable safety profile compared to therapeutic doses of JAK1-3 inhibitors. Phase III efficacy and safety data for the selective allosteric TYK2-inhibitor, deucravacitinib, in adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis is promising. Furthermore, phase II clinical trials for ropsacitinib (PF-06826647), a selective TYK2 inhibitor, and brepocitinib (PF-06700841), a JAK1/TYK2 inhibitor, have also demonstrated efficacy and an acceptable safety profile in adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Other novel TYK2 allosteric inhibitors, NDI-034858 and ESK-001, are currently being investigated in adult patients with plaque psoriasis. This article reviews the details of the JAK-STAT pathway in psoriasis pathophysiology, the rationale for selective targeting of JAKs in the treatment of psoriasis, and provides clinical perspective on clinical trial data for JAK and TYK2 inhibitors.

Follow-up of Patients With Keratinocyte Carcinoma: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Importance: Patients treated for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC), collectively called keratinocyte carcinoma (KC), are at risk for recurrence, metastasis, and additional primary cutaneous malignant neoplasms. It is unclear how often patients should be seen for follow-up skin examination after initial treatment of KC. Objective: To summarize the recommendations and evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines for dermatologic follow-up of patients with BCC and invasive SCC. Evidence Review: PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched for relevant articles published from January 2010 to March 2022. Search terms included guideline, squamous cell carcinoma, and basal cell carcinoma. National or international guidelines containing recommendations for follow-up frequency after a diagnosis of localized cutaneous KC were included. Quality was assessed using the 6 domains of the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool: (1) scope and purpose; (2) stakeholder development; (3) rigor of development; (4) clarity of presentation; (5) applicability; and (6) editorial independence. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) was used to guide study reporting. Findings: Among the 14 guidelines meeting eligibility criteria, there was little consensus on the appropriate follow-up frequency after initial KC treatment. Overall duration of follow-up ranged from a single posttreatment visit to lifelong surveillance. Most guidelines stratified their recommendations by recurrence risk. For low-risk BCC and guidelines that did not stratify by risk, follow-up recommendations ranged from every 6 to 12 months. For high-risk BCC, 1 guideline suggested follow-up every 3 months, while 4 recommended every 6 months. For low-risk SCC, 5 guidelines recommended annual follow-up; 3 guidelines, every 6 months; and 1 guideline, every 3 months. For high-risk SCC, recommendations included a range of follow-up frequencies, spanning every 3 months (n = 5 guidelines), 4 months (n = 1), 6 months (n = 6), or annually (n = 4). One guideline did not use risk stratification and recommended annual screening. The highest scoring AGREE II domain was "scope and purpose," which assessed the guideline's overall objectives, and the lowest scoring was "applicability," which assessed barriers and facilitators to implementation. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this systemic review highlight variations in follow-up recommendations for patients after initial treatment for KC. Randomized clinical trials are needed to define an optimal follow-up regimen.

Management of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis with biologics: A treat-to-target position paper.

Treat-to-target (T2T) recommendations for the use of systemic therapies (including biologics) in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis have been published by a few groups of experts worldwide. However, there remains considerable variability in the choice of target severity measure and timing of milestones. To develop consensus recommendations for implementing T2T strategies for the management of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis using biologics. An expert group of Canadian dermatologists (the Committee) convened to develop a T2T consensus statement. They held a virtual meeting during which a preliminary set of criteria was created. These criteria were then reviewed, modified, and recirculated until unanimous agreement was achieved. The Committee agreed that defining treatment target is multidimensional and should reflect objective severity measures, as well as clinician and patient-reported outcomes. The Committee unanimously proposes a criterion-based system for determining the achievement of treatment target. The proposed T2T approach presented here provides a clinical framework for defining treatment success, measuring progress toward treatment success, recognizing when treatment modifications are warranted, and recommending treatment optimization strategies.

Predictors of nonresponse to dupilumab in patients with atopic dermatitis: A machine learning analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) have a suboptimal response to systemic therapy. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed predictors of nonresponse to dupilumab in patients with AD. METHODS: Data (April 2017 through June 2019) for patients aged 12 years and above with AD (International Classification of Diseases-9/10-Clinical Modification: 691.8/L20.x) who initiated dupilumab on or after April 1, 2017 (index date) were collected from an electronic health record and insurance claims database. Nonresponse indicators (dupilumab discontinuation, addition of another systemic therapy or phototherapy, addition of a high-potency topical corticosteroid, AD-related hospital visit, AD-related emergency department visit, incident skin infection) were predicted from available demographic and clinical variables using machine learning. RESULTS: Among 419 patients (mean age: 45 years), 145 (35%) experienced at least 1 indicator of nonresponse in the 6-month postindex period. In patients with at least 1 indicator, the most common was dupilumab discontinuation (47% [68/145]). Of note, this analysis could not capture nonmedical reasons for dupilumab discontinuation (eg, cost, access). The most common predictors of nonresponse were a claim for ibuprofen (in 69% of patients with a nonresponse indicator) and a Quan-Charlson Comorbidity Index value of 3 to 4 (59%). CONCLUSION: Systemic dupilumab therapy for AD can be associated with a relatively high prevalence of nonresponse indicators. Factors associated with these indicators-that is, predictors of nonresponse-may be used to optimize disease management.

Use of Systemic Therapies for Treatment of Psoriasis in People Living with Controlled HIV: Inference-Based Guidance from a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel.

BACKGROUND: People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) have a similar prevalence of psoriasis as the general population, though incidence and severity correlate with HIV viral load. Adequately treating HIV early renders the infection a chronic medical condition and allows PLHIV with a suppressed viral load (PLHIV-s) to live normal lives. Despite this, safety concerns and a lack of high-level data have hindered the use of systemic psoriasis therapies in PLHIV-s. OBJECTIVES: We aim to provide a structured framework that supports healthcare professionals and patients discussing the risks and benefits of systemic psoriasis therapy in PLHIV-s. Our goal was to address the primary question, are responses to systemic therapies for the treatment of psoriasis in PLHIV-s similar to those in the non-HIV population? METHODS: We implemented an inference-based approach relying on indirect evidence when direct clinical trial data were absent. In this instance, we reviewed indirect evidence supporting inferences on the status of immune function in PLHIV. Recommendations on systemic treatment for psoriasis in PLHIV were derived using an inferential heuristic. RESULTS: We identified seven indirect indicators of immune function informed by largely independent bodies of evidence: (1) functional assays, (2) vaccine response, (3) life expectancy, (4) psoriasis manifestations, (5) rate of infections, (6) rate of malignancies, and (7) organ transplant outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Drug-related benefits and risks when treating a patient with systemic psoriasis therapies are similar for non-HIV patients and PLHIV with a suppressed viral load and normalized CD4 counts. Prior to initiating psoriasis treatment in PLHIV, HIV replication should be addressed by an HIV specialist. Exercise additional caution for patients with a suppressed viral load and discordant CD4 responses on antiretroviral therapy.

People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) develop psoriasis as often as everyone else. We asked: what are effective and safe treatments when PLHIV need systemic therapy (pills or injections) for their psoriasis?HIV infection attacks the immune system. When HIV is not treated, the immune system declines. A less effective immune system makes it harder for the body to fight infections and certain cancers. Psoriasis is a skin condition caused by overactive immune cells. Effective psoriasis treatments reduce immune-cell activity. There are some concerns that treatments for psoriasis may not work and could worsen infections or cancers.To answer the question, we gathered 11 dermatologists and 4 HIV specialists. We reviewed the international scientific literature on PLHIV and psoriasis. The absence of direct evidence and volume of information to review made the process challenging. The end results were worthwhile.We concluded that people who are diagnosed early and take antiretroviral therapy to control their HIV infection (PLHIV-c) can live long, healthy lives. Accordingly, we determined that PLHIV-c can likely expect the same safety and efficacy for systemic psoriasis treatments as the general population. Treatment decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis through consultation with the patient and treating physician(s).Pillars of modern medicine are evidence-based care and collaborative decision-making. Too often, neither care provider nor patient are adequately informed. We have tried to fill one information gap for PLHIV and psoriasis. This process may help answer questions in other disease populations where direct evidence is scarce or absent.

International eDelphi Study to Reach Consensus on the Methotrexate Dosing Regimen in Patients With Psoriasis.

Importance: A clear dosing regimen for methotrexate in psoriasis is lacking, and this might lead to a suboptimal treatment. Because methotrexate is affordable and globally available, a uniform dosing regimen could potentially optimize the treatment of patients with psoriasis worldwide. Objective: To reach international consensus among psoriasis experts on a uniform dosing regimen for treatment with methotrexate in adult and pediatric patients with psoriasis and identify potential future research topics. Design, Setting, and Participants: Between September 2020 and March 2021, a survey study with a modified eDelphi procedure that was developed and distributed by the Amsterdam University Medical Center and completed by 180 participants worldwide (55 [30.6%] resided in non-Western countries) was conducted in 3 rounds. The proposals on which no consensus was reached were discussed in a conference meeting (June 2021). Participants voted on 21 proposals with a 9-point scale (1-3 disagree, 4-6 neither agree nor disagree, 7-9 agree) and were recruited through the Skin Inflammation and Psoriasis International Network and European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology in June 2020. Apart from being a dermatologist/dermatology resident, there were no specific criteria for participation in the survey. The participants worked mainly at a university hospital (97 [53.9%]) and were experienced in treating patients with psoriasis with methotrexate (163 [91.6%] had more than 10 years of experience). Main Outcomes and Measures: In a survey with eDelphi procedure, we tried to reach consensus on 21 proposals. Consensus was defined as less than 15% voting disagree (1-3). For the consensus meeting, consensus was defined as less than 30% voting disagree. Results: Of 251 participants, 180 (71.7%) completed all 3 survey rounds, and 58 participants (23.1%) joined the conference meeting. Consensus was achieved on 11 proposals in round 1, 3 proposals in round 2, and 2 proposals in round 3. In the consensus meeting, consensus was achieved on 4 proposals. More research is needed, especially for the proposals on folic acid and the dosing of methotrexate for treating subpopulations such as children and vulnerable patients. Conclusions and Relevance: In this eDelphi consensus study, consensus was reached on 20 of 21 proposals involving methotrexate dosing in patients with psoriasis. This consensus may potentially be used to harmonize the treatment with methotrexate in patients with psoriasis.

Efficacy, tolerability, patient usability, and satisfaction with a 2 mL pre-filled syringe containing secukinumab 300 mg in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: results from the phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled ALLURE study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence shows good tolerability in patients for subcutaneous injection volumes up to 3 mL. OBJECTIVES: We investigated efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and tolerability of secukinumab 300 mg/2 mL pre-filled syringe (PFS) in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: ALLURE was a 52-week, multicenter, randomized (1:1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Co-primary endpoints were secukinumab Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 75 and Investigator's Global Assessment modified 2011 0/1 (IGA mod 2011 0 or 1) responses at week 12 versus placebo. Other endpoints included the Self-Injection Assessment Questionnaire (SIAQ), and the ability to follow the instructions for use (IFU). RESULTS: Overall, 214 patients were randomized. The secukinumab 300 mg/2 mL PFS showed superiority over placebo for both PASI 75 (88.9% versus 1.7%; p<.0001) and IGA mod 2011 0 or 1 (76.4% versus 1.4%; p<.0001) responses at week 12. All secondary efficacy endpoints were met. The SIAQ scores were similar across groups and improved similarly over 12 weeks. All patients completed critical steps in the IFU at week 1. CONCLUSIONS: The secukinumab 300 mg/2 mL PFS groups showed superiority versus placebo, and it was a safe, effective, and convenient option for patients with psoriasis. NCT02748863.

Practical and Relevant Guidelines for the Management of Psoriasis: An Inference-Based Methodology.

INTRODUCTION: Psoriasis (Pso) is a common, immune-mediated, chronic-relapsing, inflammatory skin disease. While a great deal is known about Pso and its treatment, there remain several treatment scenarios unaddressed by clinical studies. To be effective, treatment for Pso must alter the activity of one or more immunological pathways important in the pathogenesis of the disease. While the benefit of blocking these pathways may be apparent, there remain uncertainties regarding safety, such as infections, malignancies, and the potential for off-target effects. Existing guidelines and treatment recommendations rely primarily on clinical trial or observational data, none of which adequately address specific clinical challenges. This document describes a methodological framework for generating practical and clinically relevant guidance for situations where direct evidence is rare or absent. Guidelines implementing this framework are currently ongoing. METHODS: We develop a knowledge synthesis approach to guideline development, utilizing clinical trial data where available, and a formalized inferential decision-making process that considers indirect data coupled with structured expert opinion and analysis. This approach is best suited for situations where direct, high-level evidence is lacking. Support for each resultant recommendation is expressed as a quantified assessment of confidence. RESULTS: The topics to be addressed by this set of guidelines are ranked by clinicians and patients as areas of concern, with an emphasis on topics where high-level evidence may have limited availability. CONCLUSION: Through this novel approach, we will derive practical, informative recommendations using the best evidence available in combination with structured expert opinion to guide best practices in complex, real-world settings. Supplementary file2 (MP4 98653 kb).

Clinical guidelines aim to assist doctors in managing their patients' medical conditions. A limitation of current guidelines is that they are frequently based on randomized clinical research trials­often considered the gold standard in medical research. Clinical trials are designed to estimate the safety and effectiveness of treatment. Outside of clinical trials, doctors encounter a range of patient cases excluded from clinical trials. Our group aims to create guidelines for those clinical scenarios not adequately addressed by clinical trials. Examples include patients excluded from clinical trials, the elderly, patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and pregnant or breastfeeding women. When clinical trial data is limited, doctors must make decisions nonetheless. In certain clinical situations they are left to their own resources to consult with experts, review the data, and make inferences based on the limited data available. Instead of concluding that there is no data, the topic of interest can be broken down into components that are answerable by different types of research studies. This inference-based approach uses expert opinion and indirect evidence to support an inference-based position on topics where direct clinical data is sparse or insufficient to answer the question. This approach can be used as a complement to clinical trial data informing disease management guidelines.

Efficacy of Dupilumab in Atopic Dermatitis: The Patient's Perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis (AD), a predominantly type 2 inflammatory skin disease, affects approximately 2-5% of adults, with a high burden of disease. In moderate-to-severe AD, lesions can be extensive and pruritus intense with patients experiencing skin pain, sleep and mental health disturbances, and diminished quality of life (QoL). METHODS: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of dupilumab for the treatment of AD from the patients' perspective using patient-reported outcome data from four clinical trials (CHRONOS, SOLO 1&2, and CAFÉ) in patients (N = 1553) receiving either the approved 300 mg q2w dupilumab with/without topical corticosteroids (TCS) dose or control (placebo or placebo + TCS). Patient Global Assessment of Disease Status (PGADS) was used to measure patients' well-being and Patient Global Assessment of Treatment Effect (PGATE) was used to measure treatment efficacy. Patients were asked "Considering all the ways in which your eczema affects you, indicate how well you are doing" to assess their perception of well-being and "How would you rate the way your eczema responded to the study medication?" to assess their perception of treatment effect. Possible responses for both metrics included poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent. RESULTS: In all four studies, a significantly higher proportion of dupilumab-treated patients reported "Good"/"Very Good"/"Excellent" disease status from week 2 through study end versus control (CHRONOS, 52 weeks: 69.8% vs. 25.1%; SOLO 1&2, 16 weeks: 59.5% vs. 24.6%; CAFÉ, 16 weeks: 84.1% vs. 45.4%; all P < 0.0001), and significantly more dupilumab-treated patients reported "Good"/"Very Good"/"Excellent" treatment efficacy versus control (CHRONOS: 72.6% vs. 24.8%; SOLO 1&2: 65.0% vs. 21.1%; CAFÉ, 16 weeks: 85.0% vs. 36.1%; all P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Adult patients with AD perceived that dupilumab with/without concomitant TCS was highly efficacious and improved overall disease status and well-being as early as week 2 and throughout treatment periods up to 1 year. Video Abstract (MP4 90521 kb).

Practical Management of Patients with Atopic Dermatitis on Dupilumab.

INTRODUCTION: Dupilumab is approved to treat moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in several countries in patients as young as 6 years of age. Since its approval, practical issues related to the use of dupilumab for AD have arisen, with particular interest in transitioning from current therapies and managing medication overlap, considerations for special populations of patients with AD, and management of potential adverse events. METHODS: This article aims to review the literature addressing several practical management issues related to dupilumab use for AD and to provide a framework for clinical decision-making in these circumstances and sub-populations. Each statement was reviewed, revised and voted on by authors to provide their level of agreement and degree of uncertainty for each statement. RESULTS: An agreement level > 80% was achieved for all of the statements. CONCLUSION: The expert panel provides statements considering the practical management of patients with AD taking dupilumab to inform clinical decision-making in specific but frequently encountered clinical situations.

Dupilumab in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis and Prior Use of Systemic Non-Steroidal Immunosuppressants: Analysis of Four Phase 3 Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Dupilumab is approved as first-line systemic treatment for adults/adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in Europe and elsewhere owing to its favourable benefit-risk profile. However, systemic non-steroidal immunosuppressants (NSISS) are often used as first-line therapy in clinical practice. Impact of prior therapy with NSISS on dupilumab's treatment effect vs. control has not been described previously. This study assessed dupilumab's efficacy vs. control in patients with moderate-to-severe AD, comparing treatment effect in patients with/without prior systemic NSISS therapy, in four phase 3 trials. METHODS: This post hoc analysis included 1553 patients randomized to placebo or dupilumab (300 mg q2w) as monotherapy for 16 weeks, or with concomitant topical corticosteroids (TCS) for 16/52 weeks, from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials. Patients were stratified by prior use of systemic NSISS and dupilumab-treated patients were analysed against control groups (treated with placebo or placebo + TCS). RESULTS: Dupilumab-treated patients, regardless of prior treatment with NSISS, achieved a significantly higher percentage reduction from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD), Dermatology life Quality Index (DLQI), and Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) vs. control; significantly more achieved EASI score ≤ 7, Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale ≤ 4, POEM ≤ 7, and DLQI ≤ 5 by week 4. These rapid, significant improvements were seen with or without concomitant TCS and sustained through end-of-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Dupilumab treatment (monotherapy or + TCS) provides rapid, significant, sustained improvements in signs, symptoms, and quality of life in patients with moderate-to-severe AD compared with control, regardless of prior systemic NSISS use. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: LIBERTY AD SOLO 1: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02277743, EudraCT 2014-001198-15. LIBERTY AD SOLO 2: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02277769, EudraCT 2014-002619-40. LIBERTY AD CHRONOS: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02260986, EudraCT 2013-003254-24. LIBERTY AD CAFÉ: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02755649, EudraCT 2015-002653-35.

Atopic dermatitis (AD), also known as eczema, is characterized by red, oozy, and dry skin that can become cracked and infected. Dupilumab is a drug that blocks key molecules that cause allergic conditions, such as AD. It has been shown to be effective in treating moderate-to-severe AD. Other drugs commonly used to treat AD include certain anti-inflammatory drugs, known as non-steroidal immunosuppressants (NSISS), such as cyclosporin. It is not known if patients treated in the past with NSISS get the same results from AD treatment with dupilumab. This analysis used data from four large studies that included patients with moderate-to-severe AD. The objective was to see if prior NSISS use impacted how dupilumab worked to control AD. The researchers looked at a range of measurements­including ones that were assessed by a patient's doctor such as measurements of AD skin lesions. Itching and how patients felt about their overall life quality were also analysed (which included items such as sleep, pain, ability to work or do normal leisure activities, etc.). The researchers found that if a patient had taken an NSISS for AD before taking dupilumab, it had no impact on the efficacy of dupilumab. All of the measurements evaluated improved significantly more in patients treated with dupilumab than in patients taking a placebo (dummy) medication. The benefits of treatment occurred within a few weeks of starting dupilumab treatment and remained until the end of the longest study included in this analysis, 1 year.

Psoriasis Prevalence and Severity by Expert Elicitation.

INTRODUCTION: An estimated 2-4% of Western populations are thought to have psoriasis, with a regional incidence ranging from 0.09% to 11.43%. Variance in estimates is a result of differences in study populations, methodology, regional differences, and definitions of disease. Reliable prevalence estimates of plaque psoriasis are challenging to establish. Further, the distribution of psoriasis severity in the population is unknown. This study aims to establish the utility of expert elicitation (EE) as a method for estimating unknown parameters in dermatology by (1) estimating the prevalence of psoriasis in the adult population, and (2) estimating previously unknown disease severity distribution. METHODS: An expert panel of 11 Canadian dermatologists with demonstrated expertise in psoriasis was formed. A proof-of-concept EE exercise estimated psoriasis prevalence in the general population in Canada, followed by estimation of psoriasis disease severity distribution by body surface area (BSA). Expert estimates were consolidated using Bayesian methods to statistically model the data and represent uncertainty. RESULTS: The median prevalence of psoriasis in the adult population using the Bayesian estimate was 3.0% (95% credibility interval, 2.7-3.3%), compared with the estimated mean prevalence of 3.4% (95% confidence interval, 2.2-4.9%). By EE, the estimated cumulative distribution of disease severity assessed by BSA suggests that approximately 50% of patients have a BSA of < 3% and 78% of patients have a BSA of < 10%, with only 2% having a BSA of > 50%. CONCLUSION: The EE approach resulted in prevalence estimates that had a narrow distribution and were consistent with published literature, supporting its value in dermatology as a complementary method to help guide decision-making in areas where evidence is scarce or uncertain.

Psoriasis is a common skin disease that affects 2­4% of the population. Prevalence estimates vary depending on factors such as study type and population studied. The distribution of disease severity (what proportion of patients have mild, moderate, or severe psoriasis) is not known. In this study, 11 dermatologists with expertise in psoriasis used an approach called expert elicitation to make educated guesses about prevalence and disease severity distribution in the real world. Using a statistical approach called Bayesian estimation, experts can represent the level of certainty in what they know and do not know and make inferences or assumptions about a population. Bayesian estimates are not based on the amount of data; rather, each datum contributes to a statistically meaningful result. The median prevalence of psoriasis in the adult population using the Bayesian estimate was 3.0%, which is in the expected range based on prior literature and supports the use of this expert elicitation method. This study provides the first expert estimate of disease severity distribution in the population assessed by body surface area affected by psoriasis. Approximately 50% of psoriasis patients have mild disease (< 3% body surface area involved) and 78% of patients have mild or moderate disease (< 10% body surface area involved). Only 2% of patients have more than 50% body surface area involved. This expert elicitation approach can be used to help guide decision-making in areas of dermatology where evidence is lacking or uncertain.

89% Vichy mineralizing water with hyaluronic acid is a well-tolerated adjunct treatment that helps restore skin barrier function in dry skin-related inflammatory dermatoses and post-procedure skin care: A Canadian study.

INTRODUCTION: Minéral 89 (M89), comprised of 89% Vichy mineralizing water and hyaluronic acid, has been formulated to help strengthen and restore skin barrier. AIM: Assess tolerance and efficacy of M89 in post-esthetic procedures and dry skin-related facial dermatoses. METHOD: Adults post-esthetic procedure or presenting with inflammatory dermatoses (47 subjects; mean age 40.9 ± 13.2 years; any Fitzpatrick or skin phototype), applied M89 for 4 weeks, once or twice daily, as an adjuvant treatment. Information on clinical signs and subject-reported symptoms, skin characteristics, tolerance, and subject and investigator satisfaction were collected. RESULTS: Following 4 weeks of M89 use, significant decreases with complete resolution of erythema (27.6%), desquamation (29.8%), irritation (32%), and skin dehydration (35.8%), as compared to baseline signs and symptoms, were observed. Overall grading improvements for erythema (84.8%; p < 0.001), desquamation (91.7%; %; p < 0.003), irritation (91.7%; %; p < 0.015), and skin hydration (46.2%; p < 0.015) were noted. There was no significant improvement in papules and pustules. Evaluation of subjective signs demonstrated significant decreases in skin sensations such as burning (-73%; p < 0.0001), itching (-71%; p < 0.0001), stinging-tingling (-66.7%; p < 0.0001), as well as in skin dryness (-60%; p < 0.0001). M89 texture was rated very pleasant by 90% of patients. Investigators assessed M89 tolerance to be either good or very good (93%), and satisfactory or highly satisfactory impact on patient's skin (91.5%). CONCLUSION: M89 is a highly tolerable adjuvant treatment that significantly improved clinical signs and symptoms related to a compromised skin barrier in various facial dermatoses and post-aesthetic procedures.