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)

A systematic review investigating the proportion of clinical images shared in prospective randomized controlled trials involving patients with atopic dermatitis and systemic pharmacotherapy

For individuals with atopic dermatitis (AD), interpreting scientific papers that present clinical outcomes including the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and Investigators Global Assessment may be difficult. When compared to tabulated data and graphs, images from before and after treatment are often far more meaningful to these patients that ultimately will be candidates for the treatment. This systematic review focused on determining the frequency of clinical image sharing in AD research.

Conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, the review concentrated on randomized controlled trials that investigated predefined and available systemic treatments for AD. The search was performed in the MEDLINE database for studies published from the inception until 21 December 2023.

The review included 60 studies, encompassing 17,799 randomized patients. Across these studies, 16 images representing 6 patients were shared in the manuscripts, leading to a sharing rate of 0.3‰.

The almost missing inclusion of patient images in clinical trial publications hinders patient understanding. Adding images to scientific manuscripts could significantly improve patients' comprehension of potential treatment outcomes. This review highlights the need for authors, the pharmaceutical industry, study sponsors, and publishers to enhance and promote patient information through increased use of visual data.

Efficacy and safety of ciclosporin versus methotrexate in the treatment of severe atopic dermatitis in children and young people (TREAT): a multicentre parallel group assessor-blinded clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Conventional systemic drugs are used to treat children and young people (CYP) with severe atopic dermatitis (AD) worldwide, but no robust randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence exists regarding their efficacy and safety in this population. While novel therapies have expanded therapeutic options, their high cost means traditional agents remain important, especially in lower-resource settings.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of ciclosporin (CyA) with methotrexate (MTX) in CYP with severe AD in the TREatment of severe Atopic Eczema Trial (TREAT) trial.

METHODS

We conducted a parallel group assessor-blinded RCT in 13 UK and Irish centres. Eligible participants aged 2-16 years and unresponsive to potent topical treatment were randomized to either oral CyA (4 mg kg-1 daily) or MTX (0.4 mg kg-1 weekly) for 36 weeks and followed-up for 24 weeks. Co-primary outcomes were change from baseline to 12 weeks in Objective Severity Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (o-SCORAD) and time to first significant flare (relapse) after treatment cessation. Secondary outcomes included change in quality of life (QoL) from baseline to 60 weeks; number of participant-reported flares following treatment cessation; proportion of participants achieving ≥ 50% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 50) and ≥ 75% improvement in EASI (EASI 75); and stratification of outcomes by filaggrin status.

RESULTS

In total, 103 participants were randomized (May 2016-February 2019): 52 to CyA and 51 to MTX. CyA showed greater improvement in disease severity by 12 weeks [mean difference in o-SCORAD -5.69, 97.5% confidence interval (CI) -10.81 to -0.57 (P = 0.01)]. More participants achieved ≥ 50% improvement in o-SCORAD (o-SCORAD 50) at 12 weeks in the CyA arm vs. the MTX arm [odds ratio (OR) 2.60, 95% CI 1.23-5.49; P = 0.01]. By 60 weeks MTX was superior (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.85; P = 0.02), a trend also seen for ≥ 75% improvement in o-SCORAD (o-SCORAD 75), EASI 50 and EASI 75. Participant-reported flares post-treatment were higher in the CyA arm (OR 3.22, 95% CI 0.42-6.01; P = 0.02). QoL improved with both treatments and was sustained after treatment cessation. Filaggrin status did not affect outcomes. The frequency of adverse events (AEs) was comparable between both treatments. Five (10%) participants on CyA and seven (14%) on MTX experienced a serious AE.

CONCLUSIONS

Both CyA and MTX proved effective in CYP with severe AD over 36 weeks. Participants who received CyA showed a more rapid response to treatment, while MTX induced more sustained disease control after discontinuation.

Narrative review on the management of moderate-severe atopic dermatitis in pediatric age of the Italian Society of Pediatric Allergology and Immunology (SIAIP), of the Italian Society of Pediatric Dermatology (SIDerP) and of the Italian Society of Pediatrics (SIP)

Currently, there are a few detailed guidelines on the overall management of children and adolescents with moderate-severe atopic dermatitis. AD ​​is a complex disease presenting with different clinical phenotypes, which require an individualized and multidisciplinary approach. Therefore, appropriate interaction between primary care pediatricians, pediatric allergists, and pediatric dermatologists is crucial to finding the best management strategy. In this manuscript, members of the Italian Society of Pediatric Allergology and Immunology (SIAIP), the Italian Society of Pediatric Dermatology (SIDerP), and the Italian Society of Pediatrics (SIP) with expertise in the management of moderate-severe atopic dermatitis have reviewed the latest scientific evidence in the field. This narrative review aims to define a pathway to appropriately managing children and adolescents with moderate-severe atopic dermatitis.

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.

Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Methotrexate in Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Retrospective Study of Korean Patients at Tertiary Referral Hospital

Background

Methotrexate (MTX) has been prescribed to suppress atopic dermatitis (AD) symptoms and flares in moderate-to-severe cases.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of MTX as well as the suppressive activity of MTX to reduce flares in moderate-to-severe AD patients.

Methods

Patients with moderate-to-severe AD who were treated with MTX at the Chonnam National University Hospital were retrospectively studied.

Results

Total 102 patients (79 males, 23 females) with a median age of 22.0±10.3 years were studied. The median initial dose of MTX was 10.3±2.6 mg/week, and the MTX-weekly dose was increased by 2.5 to 5 mg at an interval of 2 to 4 weeks to a maximum dose of 17.5±2.7 mg/week. The median maintenance dose was 11.7±2.1 mg/week; the median duration of treatment with MTX was 34.0±38.8 weeks. The initial response was noted after 5.8±3.7 weeks. Of the 102 patients, 60.8% (62/102) showed successful treatment response and 39.2% (40/102) showed mild or no improvement. MTX therapy effectively suppressed the frequency of AD flares by more than 50% in 71.1% (32/45) of the patients who responded among the MTX responders group. The most common adverse events were transient liver abnormality (5.9%, 6/102) and gastrointestinal discomfort (3.9%, 4/102), but no serious adverse events occurred.

Conclusion

Our results reveal that MTX is a relatively safe drug to control moderate-to-severe AD with satisfactory therapeutic efficacy and inhibitory activity against AD flares.

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.

Systemic Treatment for Severe Atopic Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory, relapsing disease of the skin, characterized by intense pruritus, maculopapular or vesicular erythematous lesions and scaling, sometimes accompanied by oozing, crusts and/or lichenification that has a negative impact on patients' quality of life. Prevalence is higher in children, around 15%, and approximately 5% in adults. Before introducing systemic therapy, it is mandatory to review patients' adherence to the correct use of topical treatments (corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors or cresoborole) and/or phototherapy. Ensure that environmental measures are being taken care of, irritant or proven allergic substances are not in use and even if the diagnostic is correct. If all is being done and topical treatment with corticosteroid, emollients and phototherapy have not been sufficient to achieve a good control in AD of adults or children patients, it is time to consider systemic agents. Up to now, most of systemic treatments were based on immunosuppressive therapies, being cyclosporine A, the usually first choice for moderate-to-severe AD. Recently, biologic drugs have been developed and approved for AD, as dupilumab, and a whole new group of drugs is giving much hope for patients to have a better control of the disease with less side effects.