Glycerol 85% efficacy on atopic skin and its microbiome: a randomized controlled trial with clinical and bacteriological evaluation

The UPDATE trial (UVB Phototherapy in Dermatology for ATopic Eczema): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of narrowband UVB with optimal topical therapy versus optimal topical therapy in patients with atopic eczema

BACKGROUND

Narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) phototherapy is commonly prescribed for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema (AE). The efficacy of NB-UVB, however, has not yet properly been established, as current evidence is of low certainty. Our aim is to assess the short-term and long-term (cost-)effectiveness and safety of NB-UVB in adult AE patients by performing a pragmatic, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint (PROBE) trial. This protocol outlines its methodology.

METHODS

A pragmatic, multicenter, PROBE trial will be performed with 1:1 randomization of 316 adult patients with moderate-to-severe AE who have inadequate disease control with topical therapy and who are eligible for optimal topical therapy (OTT) or NB-UVB in combination with OTT as a next step. Participants in the interventional arm will receive a minimum of 3 months of OTT combined with 8 to 16 weeks of NB-UVB. The control group receives 3 months of OTT. Following the interventional phase, follow-up will continue for 9 months. Physician-reported and patient-reported outcomes (according to the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) Core Outcome Set) and adverse events are assessed at 4 weeks, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.

DISCUSSION

The UPDATE trial aims to provide high-quality evidence regarding the (cost-)effectiveness and safety of NB-UVB phototherapy in moderate-to-severe AE patients. Challenges that are addressed in the protocol include the possible bias arising from applying open-label treatment and the necessity of introducing OTT into the study design to prevent a high dropout rate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05704205. Registered on December 8, 2022.

Microbiome modulators for atopic eczema: a systematic review of experimental and investigational therapeutics

INTRODUCTION

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common inflammatory cutaneous disease that arises due to dysregulation of the Th2 immune response, impaired skin barrier integrity, and dysbiosis of the skin and gut microbiota. An abundance of Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in AD lesions increases the Th2 immune response, and gut bacteria release breakdown products such as Short Chain Fatty Acids that regulate the systemic immune response.

AREAS COVERED

We aim to evaluate therapies that modulate the microbiome in humans and discuss the clinical implications of these treatments. We performed a review of the literature in which 2,673 records were screened, and describe the findings of 108 studies that were included after full-text review. All included studies discussed the effects of therapies on the human microbiome and AD severity. Oral probiotics, topical probiotics, biologics, and investigational therapies were included in our analysis.

EXPERT OPINION

Oral probiotics demonstrate mixed efficacy at relieving AD symptoms. Topical probiotics reduce S. aureus abundance in AD lesional skin, yet for moderate-severe disease, these therapies may not reduce AD severity scores to the standard of biologics. Dupilumab and tralokinumab target key inflammatory pathways in AD and modulate the skin microbiome, further improving disease severity.

Managing the Skin Microbiome as a New Bacteriotherapy for Inflammatory Atopic Dermatitis

The microbiome, comprising various bacteria, assumes a significant role in the immune system's maturation and maintaining bodily homeostasis. Alterations in the microbial composition can contribute to the initiation and progression of inflammation. Recent studies reveal that changes in microbial composition and function, known as dysbiosis in the skin and gut, have been associated with altered immunological responses and skin barrier disruption. These changes are implicated in the development of several skin diseases, such as atopic dermatitis (AD). This review examines research demonstrating the potential of microbiome repair as a therapeutic approach to reduce the effect of inflammatory processes in the skin during atopic dermatitis. This way, corticosteroids in atopic dermatitis therapy can be reduced or even replaced with treatments focusing on controlling the skin microbiome. This study used scientific literature from recognized platforms, including PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect, covering publications from 2013 to 2023. The primary aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of skin microbiome management in treating atopic dermatitis. This study concludes that physicians must comprehensively understand the microbiome's involvement in atopic dermatitis, including its pathophysiological implications and its relevance to therapeutic interventions.

Breathable, antifreezing, mechanically skin-like hydrogel textile wound dressings with dual antibacterial mechanisms

Hydrogels are emerging as the most promising dressings due to their excellent biocompatibility, extracellular matrix mimicking structure, and drug loading ability. However, existing hydrogel dressings exhibit limited breathability, poor environmental adaptability, potential drug resistance, and limited drug options, which extremely restrict their therapeutic effect and working scenarios. Here, the current research introduces the first paradigm of hydrogel textile dressings based on novel gelatin glycerin hydrogel (glyhydrogel) fibers fabricated by the Hofmeister effect based wet spinning. Benefiting from the unique knitted structure, the textile dressing features excellent breathability (1800 times that of the commercially available 3 M dressing) and stretchability (535.51 ± 38.66%). Furthermore, the glyhydrogel textile dressing can also withstand the extreme temperature of −80 °C, showing the potential for application in subzero environments. Moreover, the introduction of glycerin endows the textile dressing with remarkable antibacterial property and expands the selection of loaded drugs (e.g., clindamycin). The prepared glyhydrogel textile dressing shows an excellent infected wound healing effect with a complete rat skin closure within 14 days. All these functions have not been achievable by traditional hydrogel dressings and provide a new approach for the development of hydrogel dressings.

•

A brand-new dressing, hydrogel textile, has been fabricated for the first time with unprecedented breathability.

•

An innovative preparation process for hydrogel fiber has been proposed for the first time.

•

More outstanding glyhydrogel textile dressing has been created to show extremely low-temperature resistance.

•

Dual mechanisms of antibiotic-free glycerin and lipophilic antibiotics provide a powerful antibacterial treatment.

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.