Methotrexate and azathioprine for severe atopic dermatitis: a 5-year follow-up study of a randomized controlled trial

The wide variety of methotrexate dosing regimens for the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a systematic review

Background:Methotrexate is an off-label therapy for atopic dermatitis. A lack of consensus on dosing regimens poses a risk of underdosing and ineffective treatment or overdosing and increased risk of side effects. This systematic review summarizes the available evidence on dosing regimens.Materials and methods:A literature search was conducted, screening all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and guidelines published up to 6 July 2023, in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases.Results:Five RCTs and 21 guidelines were included. RCTs compared methotrexate with other treatments rather than different methotrexate dosing regimens. The start and maintenance doses in RCTs varied between 7.5-15 mg/week and 14.5-25 mg/week, respectively. Despite varied dosing, all RCTs demonstrated efficacy in improving atopic dermatitis signs and symptoms. Guidelines exhibited substantial heterogeneity but predominantly proposed starting doses of 5-15 mg/week for adults and 10-15 mg/m2/week for children. Maintenance doses suggested were 7.5-25 mg/week for adults and 0.2-0.7 mg/kg/week for children. One guideline suggested a test dose and nearly half advised folic acid supplementation.Conclusion:This systematic review highlights the lack of methotrexate dosing guidelines for atopic dermatitis. It identifies commonly recommended and utilized dosing regimens, serving as a valuable resource for clinicians prescribing methotrexate off-label and providing input for an upcoming consensus study.

Treatment of atopic dermatitis with upadacitinib: adcare single center experience

Introduction

The role of upadacitinib in the management of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis seems promising, but more data on its efficacy and safety are needed. This study endeavors to assess the practical impact and safety of upadacitinib in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. The study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, focusing on analyzing patient responses to the treatment.

Methods

In this study, adult patients diagnosed with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis received upadacitinib at daily doses of 15 mg or 30 mg, as prescribed by their attending physicians. The therapeutic efficacy of upadacitinib was meticulously assessed using established clinical metrics. Simultaneously, a comprehensive safety assessment was conducted through monthly monitoring, including the evaluation of potential effects of upadacitinib intake on hepatic function, lipid profile, and hematopoiesis using the pertinent laboratory tests.

Results

Sixteen participants were enrolled in the study. At 1month follow-up, there was a significant reduction in the mean Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score to 18.8 points, which further increased to 24 points at the 4-month mark. Additionally, 9 participants (56%) demonstrated an EASI-50 response after 1 month of treatment, with this response increasing to 9 participants (90%) after 4 months. Furthermore, enhanced therapeutic responses were observed at 4 months, with 6 patients (38%) achieving an EASI-75 response at 1month and 8 patients (80%) achieving this milestone at the 4-month follow-up. This study highlights the potential of upadacitinib as an effective treatment option for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. While it demonstrates improved symptom management, close monitoring for potential adverse events, particularly infections and the known risks of Janus kinase inhibitors, is essential. Further research is essential to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of upadacitinib.

Distinct T cell signatures are associated with Staphylococcus aureus skin infection in pediatric atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition with a childhood prevalence of up to 25%. Microbial dysbiosis is characteristic of AD, with Staphylococcus aureus the most frequent pathogen associated with disease flares and increasingly implicated in disease pathogenesis. Therapeutics to mitigate the effects of S. aureus have had limited efficacy and S. aureus-associated temporal disease flares are synonymous with AD. An alternative approach is an anti-S. aureus vaccine, tailored to AD. Experimental vaccines have highlighted the importance of T cells in conferring protective anti-S. aureus responses; however, correlates of T cell immunity against S. aureus in AD have not been identified. We identify a systemic and cutaneous immunological signature associated with S. aureus skin infection (ADS.aureus) in a pediatric AD cohort, using a combined Bayesian multinomial analysis. ADS.aureus was most highly associated with elevated cutaneous chemokines IP10 and TARC, which preferentially direct Th1 and Th2 cells to skin. Systemic CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, except for Th2 cells, were suppressed in ADS.aureus, particularly circulating Th1, memory IL-10+ T cells, and skin-homing memory Th17 cells. Systemic γδ T cell expansion in ADS.aureus was also observed. This study suggests that augmentation of protective T cell subsets is a potential therapeutic strategy in the management of S. aureus in AD.

Methotrexate therapy for adult and paediatric moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis of data from daily practice

Of the 15 eligible studies identified via electronic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL in November 2022 for methotrexate therapy of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, 12 were non-randomized controlled trial (non-RCT) studies with data from 437 patients (235 adults and 202 children). The response rates for short-term therapy were 77% [95% CI 55-99] (four studies; adults) - comparable to 81% [54-100] of RCTs (two studies; adults) (p = 0.63) - and 61% [43-79] (two studies; children), and for medium/long-term therapy were 88.9% [74.3-100.0] (four studies; adults) and 77.7% [61.5-94.0] (three studies; children). Children had a markedly lower rate of treatment discontinuation due to side effects [2.0% (five studies; children) vs. 14.9% (six studies; adults)], but were more likely to experience gastrointestinal disorders {relative risk (RR) 2.0 [1.44-2.71]}, fatigue (RR 2.3 [1.35-3.72]), headache (RR 2.8 [1.23-5.61]), and infections (RR 2.9 [2.18-3.58]). Other adverse events (children vs. adults) included hepatic disorders (32/176 vs. 35/305) and blood and lymphatic system/bone marrow disorders (25/148 vs. 19/184). Four serious adverse events were reported (children). Evidence from daily practice was limited by bias in the selection of participants in the study.

Consensus on the therapeutic management of atopic dermatitis ‒ Brazilian Society of Dermatology: an update on phototherapy and systemic therapy using e-Delphi technique

This publication is an update of the "Consensus on the therapeutic management of atopic dermatitis - Brazilian Society of Dermatology" published in 2019, considering the novel, targeted-oriented systemic therapies for atopic dermatitis. The initial recommendations of the current consensus for systemic treatment of patients with atopic dermatitis were based on a recent review of scientific published data and a consensus was reached after voting. The Brazilian Society of Dermatology invited 31 experts from all regions of Brazil and 2 international experts on atopic dermatitis who fully contributed to the process. The methods included an e-Delphi study to avoid bias, a literature search and a final consensus meeting. The authors added novel approved drugs in Brazil and the indication for phototherapy and systemic therapy for AD. The therapeutical response to systemic treatment is hereby reported in a suitable form for clinical practice and is also part of this updated manuscript.

Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Cyclosporine Relative to Immunomodulatory Drugs Used in Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cyclosporine A (CsA) is effective in treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the effectiveness and safety of low-dose (<4 mg/kg) versus high-dose (≥4 mg/kg) CsA and other systemic immunomodulatory agents in patients with AD. Five randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis included 159 patients with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomized to receive low-dose CsA, and 165 patients randomized to receive high-dose CsA and other systemic immunomodulatory agents. We found that low-dose CsA was not inferior to high-dose CsA and other systemic immunomodulatory agents in reducing AD symptoms [standard mean difference (SMD) -1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.47; 3.23]. High-dose CsA and other systemic immunomodulatory agents showed a significantly lower incidence of adverse events [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.56; 0.93], however, after sensitivity analysis, there was no difference between the two groups except for one study (IRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54; 1.07). Regarding serious adverse events requiring discontinuation of treatment, we observed no significant differences between low-dose CsA and other systemic immunomodulatory agents (IRR 1.83, 95% CI 0.62; 5.41). Our study may justify the use of low-dose CsA rather than high-dose CsA and other systemic immunomodulatory agents in moderate-to-severe AD.

Cannabinoid Compounds as a Pharmacotherapeutic Option for the Treatment of Non-Cancer Skin Diseases

The endocannabinoid system has been shown to be involved in various skin functions, such as melanogenesis and the maintenance of redox balance in skin cells exposed to UV radiation, as well as barrier functions, sebaceous gland activity, wound healing and the skin's immune response. In addition to the potential use of cannabinoids in the treatment and prevention of skin cancer, cannabinoid compounds and derivatives are of interest as potential systemic and topical applications for the treatment of various inflammatory, fibrotic and pruritic skin conditions. In this context, cannabinoid compounds have been successfully tested as a therapeutic option for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia, atopic and seborrhoeic dermatitis, dermatomyositis, asteatotic and atopic eczema, uraemic pruritis, scalp psoriasis, systemic sclerosis and venous leg ulcers. This review provides an insight into the current literature on cannabinoid compounds as potential medicines for the treatment of skin diseases.

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.

A Retrospective Database Cohort Study Evaluating the Association Between Immune Suppressive Therapy and the Development of Cancer in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis Within UK Primary Care

Introduction: First-line regular systemic treatment for atopic dermatitis (AD) in the UK consists of methotrexate, azathioprine, ciclosporin, or mycophenolate (immune-suppressive therapies [IST]). ISTs have been associated with malignancy, hence the need for evaluation for the relationship to the risk of developing cancer. Method: This retrospective cohort study utilising the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) followed two cohorts with moderate or severe AD: one prescribed ISTs and one without. A total of 222,978 patients were included. The index date was the date of first IST prescription within primary care for the IST cohort, and the date of first potent topical steroid prescription from January 2001 to May 2021. Cohorts were propensity matched 1:1, resulting in 17,556 patients per cohort. Cox proportional hazard models were used to model the hazard of a cancer diagnosis. A secondary analysis was carried out on a restricted population, excluding patients with other comorbidities where ISTs were commonly prescribed. A further analysis explored the relation between the dose and the association with the risk of cancer. Results: Both the primary (hazard ratio: 1.01; 95% confidence interval: 0.94–1.08) and secondary (hazard ratio: 1.03; 95% confidence interval: 0.93–1.14) analyses did not show a significant difference in the hazard of a cancer code in the IST and non-IST cohorts. The exploratory dose–response analysis showed a higher risk of cancer associated with more prescriptions of IST per year. Conclusion: This study shows that amongst patients with moderate or severe AD, overall IST prescription in primary care is not associated with the onset of a cancer code. However, there is a trend with a higher risk of cancer coding with more prescriptions of IST.

Dupilumab Provides Acceptable Safety and Sustained Efficacy for up to 4 Years in an Open-Label Study of Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis

Background

Moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis (AD) often requires long-term management with systemic therapies.

Objective

Our objective was to report the safety and efficacy of dupilumab treatment up to 4 years in adults with moderate-to-severe AD and efficacy in a subgroup of patients who transitioned from dupilumab once-weekly (qw) to administration every other week (q2w).

Methods

This interim analysis of the open-label extension study (NCT01949311) evaluated dupilumab 300 mg qw or q2w in adults previously enrolled in dupilumab trials for moderate-to-severe AD. Patients switched from qw to q2w following protocol amendment. The primary outcome was safety; efficacy was also assessed.

Results

Of 2677 patients enrolled and treated, 352 (13.1%) completed week 204 (end of efficacy assessments) and 202 (7.5%) completed safety follow-up through week 244. Self-reported compliance was 98.1%. Dupilumab’s safety profile was consistent with previous reports. Common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥5%) included nasopharyngitis, AD, upper respiratory tract infection, oral herpes, conjunctivitis, injection-site reaction, and headache. At week 204, mean ± standard deviation (SD) Eczema Area and Severity Index was 2.46 ± 3.98, and mean percent change from parent study baseline (PSBL) was −91.07%; mean ± SD Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score was 2.10 ± 1.83, and mean percent change from PSBL was −68.74%. Efficacy was maintained in patients (n = 226) who transitioned from qw to q2w dosing. Limitations of this study included its open-label design, the lack of control arm, and smaller subsets of patients at later timepoints and receiving the approved q2w regimen.

Conclusion

These results support dupilumab as continuous long-term treatment for adults with moderate-to-severe AD; efficacy was sustained following transition from qw to q2w dosing.

Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov

NCT01949311.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40257-022-00685-0.

Atopic dermatitis is a chronic skin disease associated with inflamed skin and intense itching. People with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis often need long-term treatment, but many available treatments do not have demonstrated long-term safety data. In multiple clinical trials, dupilumab treatment resulted in significant improvements in signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis. This study examined the safety and efficacy of up to 4 years of dupilumab treatment in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, and whether dupilumab continued to be effective in patients who switched from receiving treatment each week to treatment every other week. To address these questions, we collected data from adults who received 300 milligrams of dupilumab every week or every other week. In this study, safety findings were consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile. Patients' signs and symptoms were evaluated before and during treatment with evaluation tools including the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), which indicates the extent and severity of disease, and the Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), which indicates the intensity of itching. Reductions of 91% in EASI scores and 69% in Pruritus NRS scores showed that the improvement in signs and symptoms persisted for 204 weeks (almost 4 years) of treatment, and these effects were sustained following the switch from weekly treatment to the approved every other week treatment with dupilumab. The safety and efficacy data presented here support the use of dupilumab as a continuous, long-term treatment for up to 4 years for adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.

Drug survival of systemic immunosuppressive treatments for atopic dermatitis in a long-term pediatric cohort

Background

: Systemic immunosuppressive treatments are central in the treatment of severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Yet, comparative data are sparse on the performance of such immunosuppressive treatments in pediatric cohorts with severe AD.

Objective

: This study aimed to examine the drug survival of systemic immunosuppressive treatments in a cohort of children with severe AD.

Methods

: A retrospective pediatric cohort was identified using diagnosis and treatment codes registered in medical charts. In total, 135 cases were identified; of these, 36 were excluded. All information was obtained through examination of clinical records. Drug survival was analyzed with Kaplan–Meier plots, and a log-rank test was used to test for differences in drug survival.

Results

: First-line treatment was primarily methotrexate (MTX; n = 63) and azathioprine (AZA; n = 32). For MTX, the drug survival rates were 69%, 50%, and 18% after 1, 2, and 4 years, respectively, with a median drug survival time of 1.58 years. For AZA, these rates were 63%, 53%, and 21%, respectively, with a median drug survival time of 1.14 years. There was no significant difference in drug survival between the treatments. The main reason for discontinuation was adverse effects (MTX: 25%; AZA: 41%). Despite this, a majority of patients experienced a good effect at the moment of discontinuation or data-lock (MTX: 60%; AZA: 53%), and treatment effect assessed as improvement in sleep quality was highly significant (p = .001). Second-line treatments included MTX (n = 12), AZA (n = 7), and cyclosporine (n = 5). These showed a median drug survival time of 1.8, 0.2, and 0.885 years, respectively.

Conclusion

: MTX and AZA were the dominant first-line treatments prescribed and were safe and equally valuable treatment options for severe childhood AD with similar drug survival outcomes. MTX was the most used second-line treatment.

Consensus Update for Systemic Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis

Background

In 2015, the Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association (KADA) working group published consensus guidelines for treating atopic dermatitis (AD).

Objective

We aimed to provide updated consensus recommendations for systemic treatment of AD in South Korea based on recent evidence and experience.

Methods

We compiled a database of references from relevant systematic reviews and guidelines on the systemic management of AD. Evidence for each statement was graded and classified based on thestrength of the recommendation. Forty-two council members from the KADA participated in three rounds of voting to establish a consensus on expert recommendations.

Results

We do not recommend long-term treatment with systemic steroids forpatients with moderate-to-severe AD due to the risk of adverse effects. We recommend treatment with cyclosporine or dupilumab and selective treatment with methotrexate or azathioprine for patients with moderate-to-severe AD. We suggest treatment with antihistamines as an option for alleviating clinical symptoms of AD. We recommend selective treatment with narrowband ultraviolet B for patients with chronic moderate-to-severe AD. We do not recommend treatment with oral antibiotics for patients with moderate-to-severe AD but who have no signs of infection. We did not reach a consensus on recommendations for treatment with allergen-specific immunotherapy, probiotics, evening primrose oil, orvitamin D for patients with moderate-to-severe AD. We also recommend educational interventions and counselling for patients with AD and caregivers to improve the treatment success rate.

Conclusion

We look forward to implementing a new and updated consensus of systemic therapy in controlling patients with moderate-to-severe AD.

On which evidence can we rely when prescribing off-label methotrexate in dermatological practice? - a systematic review with GRADE approach

If an authorized drug is prescribed for a use that is not described in the Summary of Product Characteristics, this is defined as 'off-label use.' Methotrexate is often used off-label for dermatological indications. Off-label use is permitted if physicians can justify the treatment based on scientific evidence available to them. Our objective here was therefore to summarize the evidence for the effectiveness, efficacy, and safety of the dermatological off-label use of methotrexate in a systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for studies for evidence on the effectiveness, efficacy, and safety of the off-label use of methotrexate in dermatological indications up to November 2019. We used the GRADE system to rate the quality of the evidence. The search retrieved 34,583 hits of which 3566 were selected after the title and abstract screening. After the full-text screening, 143 studies were included, which involved 3688 patients in total. We found low-quality evidence for the effectiveness, efficacy, and safety of the off-label use of methotrexate in 31 dermatological diseases. To optimize the quality of evidence to support off-label use, we need high-quality studies in which well-characterized patients are treated with standardized treatments regimens using well-validated outcomes relevant to patients and physicians.

Update on the Pathogenesis and Therapy of Atopic Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common inflammatory skin disorder characterized by recurrent eczematous lesions and intense itch. Although it most often starts in infancy and affects children, it is also highly prevalent in adults. In this article, the main aspects of AD have been updated, with a focus on the pathogenetic and therapeutic aspects. The pathogenesis of AD is complex, and it is evident that a strong genetic predisposition, epidermal dysfunction, skin microbiome abnormalities, immune dysregulation, and the neuroimmune system are critical in AD development. Mutations in the genes associated with disrupted epidermal barrier, exaggerated pathological inflammation and inadequate antimicrobial peptides can promote enhanced Th2 inflammation and mediate pruritus. Current understanding of etiology highlights gut microbial diversity, NK cell deficiency, and different immunological phenotype with age and race. For topical anti-inflammatory treatment for mild-to-severe AD, phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors (PDE-4), JAK inhibitors, and microbiome transplantation with Roseomonas mucosa provided more management selections. The treatment of moderate-to-severe AD has been limited to merely symptomatic and relatively nonspecific immunosuppressive approaches. In-depth understanding of the pathogenesis of AD has led to the development of innovative and targeted therapies, such as biologic agents targeting interleukin (IL)-4, IL-13 and JAK/STAT inhibitors. Other potential therapeutic agents for AD include agents targeting the T helper (Th) 22 and Th17/IL23 pathway. Antipruritic therapy and complementary probiotics therapy have also been reviewed.

Current Perspectives on the Systemic Management of Atopic Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common disease of childhood, and some patients experience a prolonged clinical course into adolescence and adulthood. Systemic management is required when AD is not adequately controlled with topical medications. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive review of commonly used systemic immunomodulating agents in childhood and adult AD, including cyclosporine A (CsA), azathioprine (AZA), methotrexate (MTX) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), which are prescribed off-label in the United States, as well as dupilumab, an FDA-approved biologic. We will also provide a brief overview of emerging systemic therapies currently under investigation.

Can we safely use systemic treatment in atopic dermatitis during the COVID-19 pandemic? Overview of selected conventional and biologic systemic therapies

Introduction: Since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the medical community has faced major challenges that affect disease management in all areas. Dermatologists and immunologists have to choose appropriate treatment strategy taking into consideration the risk of infection and possible exacerbation of the course of the disease in patients with confirmed infection. Management of atopic dermatitis (AD) in moderate to severe cases is based on systemic therapy such as cyclosporine, azathioprine, methotrexate and dupilumab.Areas covered: A literature search in PubMed database was performed until 6 March 2021. In this review, the authors discuss non-biologic and biologic systemic medications for AD and provide an overview of therapeutic recommendations during COVID-19 pandemic.Expert opinion: In case of an active COVID-19 infection, conventional systemic treatment and biological treatment needs to be stopped until clinical recovery. Noninfected patients with systemic treatment of AD should continue their therapy via self-application. The authors can conclude that understanding of dupilumab therapy is better recognized in context AD treatment during COVID-19 pandemic in comparison to cyclosporine, azathioprine and methotrexate. However, this systemic immunosuppressants still require further investigation and literature complementation.

[Recommendations when switching therapy from immunosuppressive drugs to dupilumab in patients with atopic dermatitis]

Basierend auf neuen Erkenntnissen zur molekularen Pathogenese der atopischen Dermatitis, wurde neben Glukokortikoiden und Ciclosporin mit Dupilumab nun auch eine zielgerichtete antientzündliche Systemtherapie zugelassen. Wegen ihrer Pharmakologie sind weder Glukokortikoide und Ciclosporin noch die außerhalb der Zulassung angewendeten Substanzen Methotrexat, Azathioprin und Mycophenolsäurederivate für eine Langzeittherapie geeignet. Bei der Umstellung der Therapie von den genannten niedermolekularen Substanzen auf Dupilumab sollten verschiedene Faktoren berücksichtigt werden. Hierbei sind sowohl der konkrete Anlass der Umstellung (Unwirksamkeit, unerwünschte Wirkungen oder sich einstellende Kontraindikationen) als auch die pharmakologischen Gegebenheiten zu berücksichtigen. Da es hierzu bisher keine konkreten klinischen Untersuchungen gibt, haben die Autoren auf der Grundlage einer Literaturrecherche Handlungsempfehlungen für den praktischen Alltag erarbeitet.

Systemic treatments in the management of atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As an evidence resource for the currently planned European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) clinical practice guideline "systemic treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD)," we critically appraised evidence on systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe AD.

METHODS

We systematically identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the safety and efficacy of systemic treatments for AD up to February 2020. Primary efficacy outcomes were clinical signs, AD symptoms and health-related quality of life. Primary safety outcomes included cumulative incidence rates for (serious) adverse events. Trial quality was assessed applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Meta-analyses were conducted where appropriate.

RESULTS

50 RCTs totalling 6681 patients were included. Trial evidence was identified for apremilast, azathioprine (AZA), baricitinib, ciclosporin A (CSA), corticosteroids, dupilumab, interferon-gamma, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), mepolizumab, methotrexate (MTX), omalizumab, upadacitinib and ustekinumab. Meta-analyses were indicated for the efficacy of baricitinib [EASI75 RD 0.16, 95% CI (0.10;0.23)] and dupilumab [EASI75, RD 0.37, 95% CI (0.32;0.42)] indicating short-term (ie 16-week treatment) superiority over placebo. Furthermore, efficacy analyses of AZA and CSA indicated short-term superiority over placebo; however, nonvalidated scores were used and can therefore not be compared to EASI.

CONCLUSION

The most robust, replicated high-quality trial evidence is present for the efficacy and safety of dupilumab for up to 1 year in adults. Robust trial evidence was further revealed for AZA, baricitinib and CSA. Methodological restrictions led to limited evidence-based conclusions for all other systemic treatments. Head-to-head trials with novel systemic treatments are required to clarify the future role of conventional therapies.

Update "Systemic treatment of atopic dermatitis" of the S2k-guideline on atopic dermatitis

This guideline is an update from August 2020 the S2k-guideline "Atopic dermatitis" published in 2015. The reason for updating this chapter of the guideline were the current developments in the field of systemic therapy of atopic dermatitis. The agreed recommendations for systemic treatment in atopic dermatitis of the present guideline are based on current scientific data. Due to the approval of dupilumab for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, which cannot be treated sufficiently with topical drugs alone, this part of the guideline has now been adapted and newly consented. The indication for systemic therapy and the therapeutic response to topical and systemic treatment should be recorded and documented in a suitable form in clinic and practice. A standardized documentation of the indication for system therapy in atopic dermatitis can be recommended and is also part of the updated chapter of this guideline.

Treatment of adult atopic dermatitis patients according to disease characteristics and demographics

Little is currently known about possible associations between disease specific characteristics of atopic dermatitis (AD) and use of medical treatments. We explored the use of AD treatments within the past 12 months in Danish adults according to distinct patient characteristics. Patients who had received a diagnosis of AD in a hospital in- or outpatient setting as adults were surveyed and data cross-linked to a national prescription registry. AD severity was measured by the Patient-Oriented SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (PO-SCORAD). A total of 3834 patients participated. Use of topical medication in the past 12 months increased with increasing AD severity, whereas no difference was observed for systemic medication use. Positive associations between AD in the face and neck, and use of mild and moderately potent topical corticosteroids were observed, while involvement of palms and chest was associated with use of more potent topical corticosteroids. The mean DLQI, skin pain, and itch severity scores were lower in patients managed only with topical corticosteroids (5.5, 3.2, and 4.3, respectively) compared to patients treated with both oral and topical medication (7.1, 3.8, and 5.0, respectively). Patients with frequent topical corticosteroid use tended to be older (50.7 vs 48.6 years), males (50.0% vs 33.6%), current daily smokers (17.3% vs 13.7%), and having asthma (59.1% vs 43.8%) compared with infrequent users of topical corticosteroids. We found a disconnect between the severity of AD signs and symptoms, and use of AD therapies. In particular, a very modest use of systemic immunosuppressants was seen even among patients with severe AD symptoms. However, the underlying clinical decisions and reasons behind this disconnect is not clear based on the current data.

Systemic treatments for eczema: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Eczema is a common and chronic, relapsing, inflammatory skin disorder. It seriously impacts quality of life and economic outcomes, especially for those with moderate to severe eczema. Various treatments allow sustained control of the disease; however, their relative benefit remains unclear due to the limited number of trials directly comparing treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of different types of systemic immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe eczema using NMA and to generate rankings of available systemic immunosuppressive treatments for eczema according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to August 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic immunosuppressive agents for moderate to severe atopic eczema when compared against placebo or any other eligible eczema treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We synthesised data using pair-wise analysis and NMA to compare treatments and rank them according to their effectiveness. Effectiveness was assessed primarily by determining the proportion of participants who achieved at least 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) and improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Safety was evaluated primarily by considering the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) and infection. We deemed short-term follow-up as ≤ 16 weeks and long-term follow-up as > 16 weeks. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for these primary outcomes using six domains of CiNEMA grading.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 74 studies, with 8177 randomised participants. Approximately 55% of participants were male, with average age of 32 years (range 2 to 84 years), although age and gender were unreported for 419 and 902 participants, respectively. Most of the included trials were placebo controlled (65%), 34% were head-to-head studies (15% assessed the effects of different doses of the same drug), and 1% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. All trials included participants with moderate to severe eczema, but 62% of studies did not separate data by severity; 38% of studies assessed only severe eczema. The total duration of included trials ranged from 2 weeks to 60 months, whereas treatment duration varied from a single dose (CIM331, KPL-716) to 60 months (methotrexate (MTX)). Seventy studies were available for quantitative synthesis; this review assessed 29 immunosuppressive agents from three classes of interventions. These included (1) conventional treatments, with ciclosporin assessed most commonly; (2) small molecule treatments, including phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors; and (3) biological treatments, including anti-CD31 receptors, anti-interleukin (IL)-22, anti-IL-31, anti-IL-13, anti-IL-12/23p40, anti-OX40, anti-TSLP, anti-CRTH2, and anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibodies, but most commonly dupilumab. Most trials (73) assessed outcomes at a short-term duration ranging from 2 to 16 weeks, whereas 33 trials assessed long-term outcomes, with duration ranging from 5 to 60 months. All participants were from a hospital setting. Fifty-two studies declared a source of funding, and of these, pharmaceutical companies funded 88%. We rated 37 studies as high risk; 21, unclear risk, and 16, low risk of bias, with studies most commonly at high risk of attrition bias. Network meta-analysis suggests that dupilumab ranks first for effectiveness when compared with other biological treatments. Dupilumab is more effective than placebo in achieving EASI75 (risk ratio (RR) 3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.51 to 3.69) and improvement in POEM score (mean difference 7.30, 95% CI 6.61 to 8.00) at short-term follow-up (high-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain of the effects of dupilumab when compared with placebo, in terms of the proportion of participants who achieve EASI75 (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.60) at longer-term follow-up. Low-certainty evidence indicates that tralokinumab may be more effective than placebo in achieving short-term EASI75 (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.34), but there was no evidence for tralokinumab to allow us to assess short-term follow-up of POEM or long-term follow-up of EASI75. We are uncertain of the effect of ustekinumab compared with placebo in achieving EASI75 (long-term follow-up: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.45; short-term follow-up: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.97; both very low certainty). We found no evidence on ustekinumab for the POEM outcome. We are uncertain whether other immunosuppressive agents that targeted our key outcomes influence the achievement of short-term EASI75 compared with placebo due to low- or very low-certainty evidence. Dupilumab and ustekinumab were the only immunosuppressive agents evaluated for longer-term EASI75. Dupilumab was the only agent evaluated for improvement in POEM during short-term follow-up. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence indicates a lower proportion of participants with SAEs after treatment with QAW039 and dupilumab compared to placebo during short-term follow-up, but low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in SAEs during short-term follow-up of other immunosuppressive agents compared to placebo. Evidence for effects of immunosuppressive agents on risk of any infection during short-term follow-up and SAEs during long-term follow-up compared with placebo was of low or very low certainty but did not indicate a difference. We did not identify differences in other adverse events (AEs), but dupilumab is associated with specific AEs, including eye inflammation and eosinophilia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that dupilumab is the most effective biological treatment for eczema. Compared to placebo, dupilumab reduces eczema signs and symptoms in the short term for people with moderate to severe atopic eczema. Short-term safety outcomes from clinical trials did not reveal new safety concerns with dupilumab. Overall, evidence for the efficacy of most other immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe atopic eczema is of low or very low certainty. Given the lack of data comparing conventional with newer biological treatments for the primary outcomes, there remains high uncertainty for ranking the efficacy and safety of conventional treatments such as ciclosporin and biological treatments such as dupilumab. Most studies were placebo-controlled and assessed only short-term efficacy of immunosuppressive agents. Further adequately powered head-to-head RCTs should evaluate comparative long-term efficacy and safety of available treatments for moderate to severe eczema.

The European TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce survey: prescribing practices in Europe for phototherapy and systemic therapy in adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema

Background

For many years dermatologists have had access to few therapies for patients with moderate‐to‐severe atopic eczema (AE). New promising therapies are entering the market but conventional phototherapies and systemic therapies have more well‐known safety profiles, lower costs and wider availability.

Objectives

To provide insight into current prescribing practices of conventional phototherapy and systemic immunomodulatory therapies for adults with chronic AE, and the factors influencing these prescribing practices, before biologics and other novel therapeutics become routine clinical practice.

Methods

In this exploratory study dermatologists were invited to participate in an online survey via a mailing list of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology and national societies. Data were collected on participant characteristics (including clinical practice data), the use of phototherapies and systemic therapies, and factors influencing their use.

Results

From 30 European countries, 238 out of 361 dermatologists willing to participate (65·9%) completed the survey, with 229 meeting the inclusion criteria. For phototherapy (prescribed by 84·7%), most preferred narrowband ultraviolet B as first line (80·9%) and psoralen plus ultraviolet A as second (21·6%). For systemic therapy (prescribed by 95·2%) ciclosporin (54·1%), oral corticosteroids (32·6%) and methotrexate (30·7%) were used first line. Dermatologists relied mostly on personal experience for prescribing phototherapy and systemic therapy. Azathioprine and mycophenolic acid were prescribed by only 135 (59·0%) and 85 (37·1%) participants in total, mostly due to a lack of personal experience.

Conclusions

This study provides insight into prescribing practices for conventional phototherapy and systemic therapy in Europe and shows that off‐label therapies are also preferred as first‐line choice of systemic therapy.

What is already known about this topic?

Varying prescribing practices were found for adult (in the UK) and paediatric (in Northern America and Europe) patients with moderate‐to-severe atopic eczema (AE).

Not much is known about the prescription of phototherapy and (off‐label) systemic therapy for adult patients in Europe.

Although therapies like dupilumab are promising new treatment modalities, better‐known safety profiles, lower costs and better availability are reasons to improve the evidence profile of conventional systemic therapies like ciclosporin.

What does this study add?

Prescribing practices of European dermatologists treating adult patients with moderate‐to-severe AE show diversity.

Most dermatologists prefer narrowband ultraviolet B as first‐line phototherapy, followed by psoralen plus ultraviolet A as second line.

Next to ciclosporin, which is most commonly prescribed, (off‐label) methotrexate and oral corticosteroids are also frequently used as first‐line systemic agents in chronic AE.

Lack of personal experience with azathioprine and mycophenolic acid was the most important reason against their prescription.

What are the clinical implications of the work?

The results from this study might help to improve the experience with, and prescribing of, all available conventional phototherapies and (off‐label) systemic therapies.

Guidelines developers might use these results to develop and implement treatment algorithms.

Linked Comment:Bruin‐Weller. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:987–988.

Plain language summary available online

Long-term effect of methotrexate for childhood atopic dermatitis

AIM

To evaluate methotrexate (MTX) for paediatric atopic dermatitis (AD) while on and post-treatment.

METHODS

Medical records of children prescribed MTX for AD between 2011 and 2016 at Starship Children's Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand, were reviewed for demographics, dose and duration of MTX and hospitalisations for AD. In the follow-up by telephone in 2017, parents of the patients reported response on MTX, AD relapses and use of additional systemic treatment and completed a patient-oriented eczema measure (POEM).

RESULTS

Forty-three patients aged 2-16 years were included. Four (9%) had previous systemic treatment, and 14 (33%) were hospitalised (28 admissions). MTX was given at median dose of 0.33 mg/kg (interquartile range (IQR) 0.26-0.40) for a median of 17 months (IQR 7.5-20). After initiating MTX, only six (14%) were hospitalised (nine admissions). Thirty (70%) parents of patients were followed up for a median of 29 months (IQR 14-45) after discontinuing MTX. Five (17%) reported 'no change', 2 (7%) 'slightly better' and 23 (77%) 'a lot better' AD on MTX. Of the 25 who responded to MTX, AD relapsed in 10 (40%) at a median of 24 months post-MTX; only four (16%) restarted MTX. Median POEM at follow-up was 6 (IQR 1-17). Eleven (37%) were clear (POEM 0-2), 11 (37%) had mild to moderate AD (POEM 3-16), and 8 (27%) had severe AD (POEM ≥17).

CONCLUSIONS

Although a natural resolution cannot be excluded, MTX for severe AD was effective and well tolerated. Improvement was reported by 83%, and AD hospitalisation reduced by half. At a median of 2 years after discontinuing MTX, one third were clear, and one third had mild to moderate AD, suggesting persistence of benefit post-MTX.

[New aspects in systemic treatment of atopic dermatitis]

In severe cases of atopic dermatitis (AD) systemic treatment is indicated. So far, cyclosporine and systemic glucocorticosteroids represented the only systemic treatment options approved for the indications of AD in Germany; however, from clinical practice there is increasing evidence for beneficial therapeutic effects in AD by other immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory substances, such as mycophenolate, methotrexate, alitretinoin and ustekinumab. Beyond this, ongoing research activities focus on a better understanding of genetic and immunological aspects of this chronic inflammatory skin disease. Regarding treatment with mycophenolate, genetic polymorphisms in AD patients could be identified that might predict responsiveness to this medication. Moreover, several new substances specifically targeting inflammation in AD are currently being studied and the first promising treatment effects on skin condition and pruritic symptoms of AD could be observed. As an exceptional result of this development in September 2017 in Europe and therefore in Germany the first biologic as first-line treatment was approved for the indication of moderate to severe AD in adults. Dupilumab is a human monoclonal IgG4 antibody that blocks a subunit of the interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13 receptors, thus inhibiting the proinflammatory effects of these cytokines. Furthermore, the cytokine IL-13 itself, the IL-31 receptor, which is of particular relevance for pruritus in AD, the histamine-4-receptor and Janus kinases represent further promising targets currently being investigated in clinical trials for the treatment of AD.

Novel systemic therapies in atopic dermatitis: what do we need to fulfil the promise of a treatment revolution?

Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) who do not adequately respond to topical therapy and phototherapy often need systemic immunomodulatory treatment to control their symptoms. Conventional systemic agents, such as ciclosporin, azathioprine, and methotrexate, have been used for decades, but there are concerns about their safety profile. There are now many novel systemic agents emerging through clinical trials, which may have great potential in the treatment of AD. Despite this, there are very few data comparing the performance of these drugs against each other. The purpose of this article is to review the current systemic therapies in AD and present an indirect comparison of systemic AD treatments using effectiveness and safety data from published randomised controlled trials, highlighting important remaining gaps in knowledge. Although the latest developments in systemic AD treatments are exciting and dearly needed, further work is required before the promise of a therapeutic revolution becomes reality.

Approach to the Assessment and Management of Adult Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: A Consensus Document. Section IV: Treatment Options for the Management of Atopic Dermatitis

The objectives of therapy for atopic dermatitis (AD) are to reduce skin inflammation and pruritus, restore skin barrier function, and improve quality of life (QoL). Treatments can be classified as moisturizing and basic care, topical therapy, phototherapy, and systemic therapy. In this review, we summarize the treatments for AD and recommendations for their use.

A randomized controlled trial protocol assessing the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of methotrexate vs. ciclosporin in the treatment of severe atopic eczema in children: the TREatment of severe Atopic eczema Trial (TREAT)

BACKGROUND

Oral systemic immunomodulatory medication is regularly used off-licence in children with severe atopic eczema. However, there is no firm evidence regarding the effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life from an adequately powered randomized controlled trial (RCT) using systemic medication in children.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether there is a difference in the speed of onset, effectiveness, side-effect profile and reduction in flares post-treatment between ciclosporin (CyA) and methotrexate (MTX), and also the cost-effectiveness of the drugs. Treatment impact on quality of life will also be examined in addition to whether FLG genotype influences treatment response. In addition, the trial studies the immune-metabolic effects of CyA and MTX.

METHODS

Multicentre, parallel group, assessor-blind, pragmatic RCT of 36 weeks' duration with a 24-week follow-up period. In total, 102 children aged 2-16 years with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema, unresponsive to topical treatment will be randomized (1 : 1) to receive MTX (0·4 mg kg^-1 per week) or CyA (4 mg kg^-1 per day).

RESULTS

The trial has two primary outcomes: change from baseline to 12 weeks in Objective Severity Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (o-SCORAD) and time to first significant flare following treatment cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial addresses important therapeutic questions, highlighted in systematic reviews and treatment guidelines for atopic eczema. The trial design is pragmatic to reflect current clinical practice.

Relative efficacy of systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Systemic medications are often required for severe atopic dermatitis (AD) refractory to topical therapies. Biologic medications are a recent advancement in the field and a comparison with standard systemic approaches would be beneficial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacies of systemic therapies for the treatment of AD.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using Medline, Ovid, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials looking at the efficacy of systemic treatments for AD in adults and children were included.

RESULTS

A total of 41 studies met criteria and were included in our final analysis. Consistent improvements in Eczema Area and Severity Index and Scoring Atopic Dermatitis were reported with dupilumab and cyclosporine. Phase 2 clinical trials for lebrikizumab and tralokinumab were effective and would benefit from phase 3 trials. No study reported efficacy of biologic medications in pediatric patients; however, cyclosporine improved clinical severity by the greatest amount in this group.

LIMITATIONS

A lack of well controlled comparison studies make direct comparisons between the treatments difficult.

CONCLUSION

For treatment of severe AD, the strongest evidence currently exists for dupilumab and cyclosporine at improving clinical disease severity. Further research is required to determine long-term safety and efficacy of biologic medications.