Suppressed IgG4 class switching in dupilumab- and TNF inhibitor-treated patients after mRNA vaccination.

BACKGROUND: The noninflammatory immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4) is linked to tolerance and is unique to humans. Although poorly understood, prolonged antigenic stimulation and IL-4-signaling along the T helper 2-axis may be instrumental in IgG4 class switching. Recently, repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination has been linked to IgG4 skewing. Although widely used immunosuppressive drugs have been shown to only moderately affect humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination, the effect on IgG4 switching has not been investigated. METHODS: Here we study the impact of such immunosuppressive drugs, including the IL-4 receptor-blocking antibody dupilumab, on IgG4 skewing upon repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. Receptor-binding domain (RBD) specific antibody responses were longitudinally measured in 600 individuals, including patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases treated with a TNF inhibitor (TNFi) and/or methotrexate (MTX), dupilumab, and healthy/untreated controls, after repeated mRNA vaccination. RESULTS: We observed a substantial increase in the proportion of RBD-specific IgG4 antibodies (median 21%) in healthy/untreated controls after third vaccination. This IgG4 skewing was profoundly reduced in dupilumab-treated patients (<1%). Unexpectedly, an equally strong suppression of IgG4 skewing was observed in TNFi-treated patients (<1%), whereas MTX caused a modest reduction (7%). RBD-specific total IgG levels were hardly affected by these immunosuppressive drugs. Minimal skewing was observed, when primary vaccination was adenoviral vector-based. CONCLUSIONS: Our results imply a critical role for IL-4/IL-13 as well as TNF in vivo IgG4 class switching. These novel findings advance our understanding of IgG4 class switch dynamics, and may benefit humoral tolerance induction strategies, treatment of IgG4 pathologies and mRNA vaccine optimization.

Quantifying the Effect of Methotrexate on Adalimumab Response in Psoriasis by Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Modeling.

Previously, we showed that the combination of methotrexate and adalimumab treatment leads to less antidrug antibody development. In this study, we quantify the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) of adalimumab and evaluate the influence of methotrexate cotreatment. A population PK-PD model was developed using prospective data from 59 patients with psoriasis (baseline PASI = 12.6) receiving adalimumab over 49 weeks. Typical PK and PD parameters and their corresponding interpatient variability were estimated. We performed a covariate analysis to assess whether interpatient variability could be explained by addition of methotrexate and other covariates. In total, 330 PASIs, 252 adalimumab serum concentrations, and 247 antidrug antibody titers were available. Presence of antidrug antibodies (adalimumab group = 46.7%, adalimumab + methotrexate group = 38.7%; P = .031) was correlated with increased adalimumab apparent clearance (P < .001). In the PD model, the use of concomitant methotrexate was borderline to significantly correlated with a decreased half-maximal inhibitory concentration (adalimumab concentration for which clinical response score is reduced by half; P < .10). On the basis of our PK-PD model, concomitant use of methotrexate indirectly increases adalimumab concentration, partially through less antidrug antibodies formation, which may result in better efficacy.

Primary SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: long-term humoral immune responses and effects on disease activity.

BACKGROUND: Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) on immunosuppressants (ISPs) may have impaired long-term humoral immune responses and increased disease activity after SARS-CoV-2 infection. We aimed to investigate long-term humoral immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 and increased disease activity after a primary SARS-CoV-2 infection in unvaccinated IMID patients on ISPs. METHODS: IMID patients on active treatment with ISPs and controls (i.e. IMID patients not on ISP and healthy controls) with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection before first vaccination were included from an ongoing prospective cohort study (T2B! study). Clinical data on infections and increased disease activity were registered using electronic surveys and health records. A serum sample was collected before first vaccination to measure SARS-CoV-2 anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibodies. RESULTS: In total, 193 IMID patients on ISP and 113 controls were included. Serum samples from 185 participants were available, with a median time of 173 days between infection and sample collection. The rate of seropositive IMID patients on ISPs was 78% compared to 100% in controls (p < 0.001). Seropositivity rates were lowest in patients on anti-CD20 (40.0%) and anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents (60.5%), as compared to other ISPs (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Increased disease activity after infection was reported by 68 of 260 patients (26.2%; 95% CI 21.2-31.8%), leading to ISP intensification in 6 out of these 68 patients (8.8%). CONCLUSION: IMID patients using ISPs showed reduced long-term humoral immune responses after primary SARS-CoV-2 infection, which was mainly attributed to treatment with anti-CD20 and anti-TNF agents. Increased disease activity after SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported commonly, but was mostly mild. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NL74974.018.20, Trial ID: NL8900. Registered on 9 September 2020.

Disease activity in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases after SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations.

For patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), concerns exist about increased disease activity after vaccination. We aimed to assess changes in disease activity after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with IMIDs, and determine risk factors for increased disease activity. In this substudy of a prospective observational cohort study (Target-to-B!), we included patients with IMIDs who received a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Patients reported changes in disease activity on a five-point Likert scale every 60 days for up to twelve months after first vaccination. In case of self-reported increased activity, hospital records were screened whether the treating physician reported increased activity, and for potential intensification of immunosuppressive (ISP) treatment. Mixed models were used to study determinants for self-reported increased disease activity. In total, 2111 patients were included for analysis after primary immunization (mean age 49.7 years [SD 13.7], 1329/2111 (63.0%) female), from which 1266 patients for analysis after first additional vaccination. Increased disease activity at 60 days after start of primary immunization was reported by 223/2111 (10.6%). In 96/223 (43.0%) the increase was confirmed by the treating physician and in 36/223 (16.1%) ISP treatment was intensified. Increased disease activity at seven to 60 days after additional vaccination, was reported by 139/1266 (11.0%). Vaccinations were not temporally associated with self-reported increased disease activity. Conversely, increased disease activity before first vaccination, neuromuscular disease, and multiple sclerosis were associated. Altogether, self-reported increased disease activity after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was recorded in a minority of patients and was generally mild. Moreover, multivariate analyses suggest that disease related factors, but not vaccinations are the major determinants for self-reported increased disease activity.

Mapping exercise and status update of eight established registries within the TREatment of ATopic eczema Registry Taskforce.

BACKGROUND: The TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce is a collaborative international network of registries collecting data of atopic eczema (AE) patients receiving systemic and phototherapy with the common goal to provide long-term real-world data on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of therapies. A core dataset, consisting of domains and domain items with corresponding measurement instruments, has been developed to harmonize data collection. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to give an overview of the status and characteristics of the eight established TREAT registries, and to perform a mapping exercise to examine the degree of overlap and pooling ability between the national registry datasets. This will allow us to determine which research questions can be answered in the future by pooling data. METHODS: All eight registries were asked to share their dataset and information on the current status and characteristics. The overlap between the core dataset and each registry dataset was identified (according to the domains, domain items and measurement instruments of the TREAT core dataset). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: A total of 4702 participants have been recruited in the eight registries as of 1st of May 2022. Of the 69 core dataset domain items, data pooling was possible for 69 domain item outcomes in TREAT NL (the Netherlands), 61 items in A-STAR (UK and Ireland), 38 items in TREATgermany (Germany), 36 items in FIRST (France), 33 items in AtopyReg (Italy), 29 items in Biobadatop (Spain), 28 items in SCRATCH (Denmark) and 20 items in SwedAD (Sweden). Pooled analyses across all registries can be performed on multiple important domain items, covering the main aims of analysing data on the (cost-)effectiveness and safety of AE therapies. These results will facilitate future comparative or joint analyses.

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.

Breakthrough infections with the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the cumulative incidence and disease severity of reported SARS-CoV-2 omicron breakthrough infections between patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) on immunosuppressants and controls, and to investigate determinants for breakthrough infections. METHODS: Data were used from an ongoing national prospective multicentre cohort study on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination responses in patients with IMID in the Netherlands (Target-to-B! (T2B!) study). Patients wih IMID on immunosuppressants and controls (patients with IMID not on immunosuppressants and healthy controls) who completed primary immunisation were included. The observation period was between 1 January 2022 and 1 April 2022, during which the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (BA.1 and BA.2 subvariant) was dominant. A SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection was defined as a reported positive PCR and/or antigen test at least 14 days after primary immunisation. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to investigate determinants. RESULTS: 1593 patients with IMID on immunosuppressants and 579 controls were included. The cumulative incidence of breakthrough infections was 472/1593 (29.6%; 95% CI 27% to 32%) in patients with IMID on immunosuppressants and 181/579 (31.3%; 95% CI 28% to 35%) in controls (p=0.42). Three (0.5%) participants had severe disease. Seroconversion after primary immunisation (relative risk, RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96), additional vaccinations (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.76) and a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75) were associated with decreased risk of breakthrough infection. CONCLUSIONS: The cumulative incidence of reported SARS-CoV-2 omicron breakthrough infections was high, but similar between patients with IMID on immunosuppressants and controls, and disease severity was mostly mild. Additional vaccinations and prior SARS-CoV-2 infections may reduce the incidence of breakthrough infections.

Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections with the delta (B.1.617.2) variant in vaccinated patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases using immunosuppressants: a substudy of two prospective cohort studies.

Background: Concerns have been raised regarding the risks of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in vaccinated patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases treated with immunosuppressants, but clinical data on breakthrough infections are still scarce. The primary objective of this study was to compare the incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections between patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases using immunosuppressants, and controls (patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases not taking immunosuppressants and healthy controls) who had received full COVID-19 vaccinations. The secondary objective was to explore determinants of breakthrough infections of the delta (B.1.617.2) variant of SARS-CoV-2, including humoral immune responses after vaccination. Methods: In this substudy, we pooled data collected in two large ongoing prospective multicentre cohort studies conducted in the Netherlands (Target to-B! [T2B!] study and Amsterdam Rheumatology Center COVID [ARC-COVID] study). Both studies recruited adult patients (age ≥18 years) with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and healthy controls. We sourced clinical data from standardised electronic case record forms, digital questionnaires, and medical files. We only included individuals who were vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. For T2B!, participants were recruited between Feb 2 and Aug 1, 2021, and for ARC-COVID, participants were recruited between April 26, 2020, and March 1, 2021. In this study we assessed data on breakthrough infections collected between July 1 and Dec 15, 2021, a period in which the delta SARS-CoV-2 variant was the dominant variant in the Netherlands. We defined a SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection as a PCR-confirmed or antigen test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection that occurred at least 14 days after vaccination. All breakthrough infections during this period were assumed to be due to the delta variant due to its dominance during the study period. We analysed post-vaccination serum samples for anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies to assess the humoral vaccination response (T2B! study only) and anti-nucleocapsid antibodies to identify asymptomatic breakthrough infections (ARC-COVID study only). We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to explore potential clinical and humoral determinants associated with the odds of breakthrough infections. The T2B! study is registered with the Dutch Trial Register, Trial ID NL8900, and the ARC-COVID study is registered with Dutch Trial Register, trial ID NL8513. Findings: We included 3207 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who receive immunosuppressants, and 1807 controls (985 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 822 healthy controls). Among patients receiving immunosuppressants, mean age was 53 years (SD 14), 2042 (64%) of 3207 were female and 1165 (36%) were male; among patients not receiving immunosuppressants, mean age was 54 years (SD 14), 598 (61%) of 985 were female and 387 (39%) were male; and among healthy controls, mean age was 57 years (SD 13), 549 (67%) of 822 were female and 273 (33%) were male. The cumulative incidence of PCR-test or antigen-test confirmed SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections was similar in patients on immunosuppressants (148 of 3207; 4·6% [95% CI 3·9-5·4]), patients not on immunosuppressants (52 of 985; 5·3% [95% CI 4·0-6·9]), and healthy controls (33 of 822; 4·0% [95% CI 2·8-5·6]). There was no difference in the odds of breakthrough infection for patients with immune-mediate inflammatory disease on immunosuppressants versus combined controls (ie, patients not on immunosuppressants and healthy controls; adjusted odds ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·66-1·18]). Seroconversion after vaccination (odds ratio 0·58 [95% CI 0·34-0·98]; T2B! cohort only) and SARS-CoV-2 infection before vaccination (0·34 [0·18-0·56]) were associated with a lower odds of breakthrough infections. Interpretation: The incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on immunosuppressants was similar to that in controls. However, caution might still be warranted for those on anti-CD20 therapy and those with traditional risk factors. Funding: ZonMw (the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development) and Reade foundation.

Humoral responses after second and third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders on immunosuppressants: a cohort study.

Background: Disease-specific studies have reported impaired humoral responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders treated with specific immunosuppressants. Disease-overarching studies, and data on recall responses and third vaccinations are scarce. Our primary objective was to investigate the effects of immunosuppressive monotherapies on the humoral immune response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with prevalent immune-mediated inflammatory disorders. Methods: We did a cohort study in participants treated in outpatient clinics in seven university hospitals and one rheumatology treatment centre in the Netherlands as well as participants included in two national cohort studies on COVID-19-related disease severity. We included patients aged older than 18 years, diagnosed with any of the prespecified immune-mediated inflammatory disorders, who were able to understand and complete questionnaires in Dutch. Participants with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders who were not on systemic immunosuppressants and healthy participants were included as controls. Anti-receptor binding domain IgG responses and neutralisation capacity were monitored following standard vaccination regimens and a three-vaccination regimen in subgroups. Hybrid immune responses-ie, vaccination after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection-were studied as a proxy for recall responses. Findings: Between Feb 2 and Aug 1, 2021, we included 3222 participants in our cohort. Sera from 2339 participants, 1869 without and 470 participants with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were analysed (mean age 49·9 years [SD 13·7]; 1470 [62·8%] females and 869 [37·2%] males). Humoral responses did not differ between disorders. Anti-CD20 therapy, sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor (S1P) modulators, and mycophenolate mofetil combined with corticosteroids were associated with lower relative risks for reaching seroconversion following standard vaccination (0·32 [95% CI 0·19-0·49] for anti-CD20 therapy, 0·35 [0·21-0·55] for S1P modulators, and 0·61 [0·40-0·90] for mycophenolate mofetil combined with corticosteroids). A third vaccination increased seroconversion for mycophenolate mofetil combination treatments (from 52·6% after the second vaccination to 89·5% after the third) but not significantly for anti-CD20 therapies (from 36·8% to 45·6%) and S1P modulators (from 35·5% to 48·4%). Most other immunosuppressant groups showed moderately reduced antibody titres after standard vaccination that did not increase after a third vaccination, although seroconversion rates and neutralisation capacity were unaffected. In participants with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were boosted after vaccination, regardless of immunosuppressive treatment. Interpretation: Humoral responses following vaccination are impaired by specific immunosuppressants. After standard vaccination regimens, patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders taking most immunosuppressants show similar seroconversion to controls, although antibody titres might be moderately reduced. As neutralisation capacity and recall responses are also preserved in these patients, this is not likely to translate to loss of (short-term) protection. In patients on immunosuppressants showing poor humoral responses after standard vaccination regimens, a third vaccination resulted in additional seroconversion in patients taking mycophenolate mofetil combination treatments, whereas the effect of a third vaccination in patients on anti-CD20 therapy and S1P modulators was limited. Funding: ZonMw (The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development).

Adalimumab with Methotrexate vs. Adalimumab Monotherapy in Psoriasis: First-Year Results of a Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Adalimumab is normally prescribed with methotrexate (MTX) in rheumatoid arthritis given the enhanced treatment effect and reduced antidrug antibody formation compared with adalimumab monotherapy (ADL). In psoriasis, the long-term treatment effects and pharmacokinetic profile have not been investigated extensively. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of adalimumab combined with MTX 10 mg per week (ADL-MTX group) compared with that of ADL (ADL group) in chronic plaque psoriasis. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients in the ADL-MTX group and 30 in the ADL group were analyzed. After 1 year, a (nonsignificant) better drug survival was found in the ADL-MTX group (74.2 vs. 58.6%, P = 0.15). The PASI 75 response in week 49 was 58.1 versus 36.7% (P = 0.13), and the median (interquartile range) serum-trough concentrations were 6.8 (5.5‒9.2) versus 5.9 (3.5‒8.8) mg/l (P = 0.26) in the ADL-MTX group and ADL group, respectively. Fewer patients showed antidrug antibodies in the ADL-MTX group (22.6 vs. 60.0%, P < 0.01). No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy of adalimumab and MTX results in fewer patients showing antidrug antibodies, with a trend toward a better PASI 75 response, drug survival, and higher serum-trough concentrations than ADL. Patient-reported outcomes and adverse events were comparable between the groups.

Risk factors associated with short-term adverse events after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested incremental short-term adverse events (AE) after repeated vaccination. In this report, we assessed occurrence and risk factors for short-term AEs following repeated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). METHODS: Self-reported daily questionnaires on AEs during the first 7 days after vaccination were obtained of 2259 individuals (2081 patients and 178 controls) participating in an ongoing prospective multicenter cohort study on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with various IMIDs in the Netherlands (T2B-COVID). Relative risks were calculated for potential risk factors associated with clinically relevant AE (rAE), defined as AE lasting longer than 2 days or impacting daily life. RESULTS: In total, 5454 vaccinations were recorded (1737 first, 1992 second and 1478 third vaccinations). Multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis were the largest disease groups. rAEs were reported by 57.3% (95% CI 54.8-59.8) of patients after the first vaccination, 61.5% (95% CI 59.2-63.7) after the second vaccination and 58% (95% CI 55.3-60.6) after the third vaccination. At day 7 after the first, second and third vaccination, respectively, 7.6% (95% CI 6.3-9.1), 7.4% (95% CI 6.2-8.7) and 6.8% (95% CI 5.4-8.3) of patients still reported AEs impacting daily life. Hospital admissions and allergic reactions were uncommon (<0.7%). Female sex (aRR 1.43, 95% CI 1.32-1.56), age below 50 (aRR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.23), a preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection (aRR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.29) and having an IMID (aRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.01-1.34) were associated with increased risk of rAEs following a vaccination. Compared to the second vaccination, the first vaccination was associated with a lower risk of rAEs (aRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84-0.99) while a third vaccination was not associated with increased risk on rAEs (aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84-1.02). BNT162b2 vaccines were associated with lower risk on rAEs compared to CX-024414 (aRR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: A third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was not associated with increased risk of rAEs in IMID patients compared to the second vaccination. Patients with an IMID have a modestly increased risk of rAEs after vaccination when compared to controls. Most AEs are resolved within 7 days; hospital admissions and allergic reactions were uncommon. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NL74974.018.20 , Trial ID: NL8900. Registered on 9 September 2020.

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.

Learning from disease registries during a pandemic: Moving toward an international federation of patient registries.

High-quality dermatology patient registries often require considerable time to develop and produce meaningful data. Development time is influenced by registry complexity and regulatory hurdles that vary significantly nationally and institutionally. The rapid emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has challenged health services in an unprecedented manner. Mobilization of the dermatology community in response has included rapid development and deployment of multiple, partially harmonized, international patient registries, reinventing established patient registry timelines. Partnership with patient organizations has demonstrated the critical nature of inclusive patient involvement. This global effort has demonstrated the value, capacity, and necessity for the dermatology community to adopt a more cohesive approach to patient registry development and data sharing that can lead to myriad benefits. These include improved utilization of limited resources, increased data interoperability, improved ability to rapidly collect meaningful data, and shortened response times to generate real-world evidence. We call on the global dermatology community to support the development of an international federation of patient registries to consolidate and operationalize the lessons learned during this pandemic. This will provide an enduring means of applying this knowledge to the maintenance and development of sustainable, coherent, and impactful patient registries of benefit now and in the future.

Amputations for extremity soft tissue sarcoma in an era of limb salvage treatment: Local control and survival.

BACKGROUND: Despite multimodality limb salvage treatment (LST) for locally advanced extremity soft tissue sarcoma (ESTS), some patients still need an amputation. Indications for amputation and oncological outcome for these patients are described. METHODS: Between 1996 and 2016, all patients who underwent an amputation for ESTS were included. Patients who underwent an amputation as primary or as non-primary treatment formed Group I and II, respectively. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were included, 16 in Group I (41%) and 23 in Group II (59%). Tumor size or local recurrence which could not be treated with LST were the two main reasons for amputation. Local recurrence free survival (LRFS) (P = 0.396), distant metastases free survival (DMFS) (P = 0.965), disease-specific survival (DSS) (P = 0.745), and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.718) were comparable for both groups. Ten-year LRFS was 90.0% versus 83.7%; DMFS was 31.0% versus 42.2%; DSS was 52.2% versus 44.1%; and OS was 44.2% versus 41.6%, for group I and II respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Oncological outcome seems to be comparable between patients who underwent a primary or a non-primary amputation for ESTS. With the on-going possibilities concerning prosthesis and rehabilitation programs, it remains important to decide in a multidisciplinary sarcoma team meeting which treatment suits best for each individual patient.