Cyclosporin in atopic dermatitis: a multicentre placebo-controlled study

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.

Atopic Dermatitis: Clinical Aspects and Treatments

GENERAL PURPOSE

To review issues related to atopic dermatitis, including its classification, clinical presentation, potential triggers, and treatment options.

TARGET AUDIENCE

This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and registered nurses with an interest in skin and wound care.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES

After participating in this educational activity, the participant will:1. Synthesize a differential diagnosis for atopic dermatitis (AD).2. Explain the classification of AD cases.3. Select triggers or exacerbating factors for AD.4. Explain pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment options for patients with AD.

Risk of Developing Hypertension in Atopic Dermatitis Patients Receiving Long-term and Low-dose Cyclosporine: A Nationwide Population-based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Cyclosporine (CS) is a first-line immunosuppressive agent used to manage moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). To date, the risk of developing hypertension associated with the long-term use of low-dose CS in AD patients is understudied.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cumulative dose-dependent effect of CS on the risk of developing hypertension in patients with AD.

METHODS

A nationwide population-based retrospective cohort with 1,844,009 AD patients was built from the Korean National Health Insurance System database from 2005 to 2009. A Cox proportional-hazard regression analysis was performed according to patients' CS treatment history adjusted for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Current use of CS was associated with an increased risk of developing hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.442; 95% confidence interval, 3.761-5.247). Among the current CS users, a higher cumulative dose of CS (≥39,725 mg) or longer cumulative use of CS (≥182 days), was significantly associated with an increased risk of developing hypertension.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of CS-associated hypertension is very low when using low-dose treatment regimens for AD. However, the current use or a high cumulative dose of CS for treating patients with AD increases the risk of developing hypertension. Precaution is needed when prescribing CS for long-term treatment of AD.

Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis in adults with phototherapy and systemic therapies

BACKGROUND

For people with atopic dermatitis (AD) refractory to topical therapies, treatment with phototherapy and systemic therapies can be considered. Multiple biologic therapies and Janus kinase (JAK)inhibitors have been approved since 2014 to treat AD. These guidelines update the 2014 recommendations for management of AD with phototherapy and systemic therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of phototherapy and systemic therapies for AD in adults.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary workgroup conducted a systematic review and applied the GRADE approach for assessing the certainty of evidence and formulating and grading recommendations.

RESULTS

The workgroup developed 11 recommendations on the management of AD in adults with phototherapy and systemic agents, including biologics, oral JAK inhibitors, and other immunomodulatory medications.

LIMITATIONS

Most randomized controlled trials of phototherapy and systemic therapies for AD are of short duration with subsequent extension studies, limiting comparative long-term efficacy and safety conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

We make strong recommendations for the use of dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib. We make conditional recommendations in favor of using phototherapy, azathioprine, cyclosporine, methotrexate, and mycophenolate, and against the use of systemic corticosteroids.

Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition with multiple systemic treatments and uncertainty regarding their comparative impact on AD outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD systemic treatments.

METHODS

For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and GREAT databases from inception to November 29, 2022, for randomized trials addressing systemic treatments and phototherapy for AD. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/e5sna).

RESULTS

The 149 included trials (28,686 patients with moderate-to-severe AD) evaluated 75 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, high-dose upadacitinib was among the most effective for 5 of 6 patient-important outcomes; high-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib were among the most effective for 2 outcomes. These Janus kinase inhibitors were among the most harmful in increasing adverse events. With high-certainty evidence, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab were of intermediate effectiveness and among the safest, modestly increasing conjunctivitis. Low-dose baricitinib was among the least effective. Efficacy and safety of azathioprine, oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, phototherapy, and many novel agents are less certain.

CONCLUSIONS

Among individuals with moderate-to-severe AD, high-certainty evidence demonstrates that high-dose upadacitinib is among the most effective in addressing multiple patient-important outcomes, but also is among the most harmful. High-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib are effective, but also among the most harmful. Dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab are of intermediate effectiveness and have favorable safety.

Healthcare utilization for atopic dermatitis: An analysis of the 2010-2018 health insurance review and assessment service national patient sample data

This cross-sectional, retrospective, observational study aimed to analyze the distribution and healthcare usage patterns of patients with atopic dermatitis using the 2010-2018 Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service data. Patients diagnosed with atopic dermatitis in Korea between January 2010 and December 2018 and registered in the Health Insurance Review and Assessment national database were identified, and 270,008 patients who used healthcare services at least once during this period were evaluated to ascertain the healthcare usage patterns and treatment methods for atopic dermatitis. The number of patients with atopic dermatitis plateaued during the study period, while the number of claims and total expenses increased by a small margin. Atopic dermatitis prevalence was the highest among patients aged <5 years (31.4%), followed by those aged 5-14 years (23.53%) and 15-24 years (15.33%). However, the prevalence in these age groups showed a decreasing trend over time. The most used Western medicine treatments were injections and oral medications involving topical corticosteroids, antihistamine agents, and oral steroids, while it was acupuncture therapy in Korean medicine. The frequency of the most frequently prescribed medication, topical corticosteroid, showed a decreasing trend over time. The findings in this study will inform healthcare policy makers and clinicians across different countries on the usage trends of Western medicine and Korean medicine treatment.

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.

Efficacy of topical and systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis on pruritus: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Pruritus is a major and burdensome symptom in atopic dermatitis (AD). The number of systemic treatments available for AD has increased recently, enabling improved patient relief.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of AD treatments on pruritus.

Methods

A systematic literature review and a meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate and compare the effects of treatment used in AD on pruritus. PubMed and Embase databases were searched to find articles published between January 1990 and December 2021. Topical and systemic treatments were studied in patients aged ≥10 years.

Results

Among the 448 articles identified, 56 studies were retained in the systematic review. A total of 15 studies evaluated topical treatments: topical corticosteroids (TCS; 2), calcineurin inhibitors (6), PDE4 inhibitors (3), and Jak inhibitors (4). A total of five studies were included in the meta- analysis. All treatments had a positive effect on pruritus, with a mean overall reduction of 3.32/10, 95% IC [2.32-4.33]. The greatest reduction was observed with halometasone (mean: 4.75), followed by tofacitinib 2% (mean: 4.38). A total of 41 studies evaluated systemic therapies: cyclosporine (6), phototherapy (5), azathioprine (2), dupilumab (9), anti-IL 13 (5), nemolizumab (3), Jak inhibitors (9), mepolizumab (1), and apremilast (1). A total of 17 studies were included in 2 meta-analyses according to the concomitant use or not of TCS. In the meta-analysis without TCS, the overall decrease was 3.07/10, 95% IC [2.58-3.56]. The molecules with the highest efficacy on pruritus were upadacitinib 30 mg (mean: 4.90) and nemolizumab (mean: 4.81).

Discussion

The therapeutic arsenal for AD has increased rapidly, and many molecules are under development. The primary endpoint of clinical trials is most often a score that assesses the severity of AD; however, the assessment of pruritus is also essential. The majority of molecules have a positive effect on pruritus, but the improvement varies between them. Efficacy on pruritus is not always correlated with efficacy on AD lesions; therefore, these two criteria are crucial to evaluate. The limitations of this study were the heterogeneity in the assessment of pruritus, the moment of the assessment, and the concomitant application of TCS or not for studies evaluating systemics. In the future, it would be useful to use standardized criteria for assessing pruritus.

Clinical phenotypes of adult atopic dermatitis and related therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To report current knowledge on the different clinical phenotypes of adult atopic dermatitis. Possible therapeutic intervention in relation to phenotype is also evaluated.

RECENT FINDINGS

Atopic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting up to 10% of adults. It can manifest with different clinical phenotypes, causing diagnostic difficulties. Long-term is often required and systemic drugs are needed for moderate-to-severe forms. However, few drugs are registered for atopic dermatitis in many countries. Furthermore, limited data exist regarding the treatment in relation to individual clinical phenotypes.

SUMMARY

Currently, the most relevant data are those for cyclosporine, alitretinoin, and dupilumab. Cyclosporine and dupilumab showed to be effective in the treatment of atopic dermatitis, although in trials and real-life experiences the different phenotypes treated are usually not reported. However, cyclosporine appears to be effective in prurigo nodularis. Alitretinoin is reported to be particularly efficacious for atopic dermatitis of the hands, while it is ineffective for other locations of the disease. Dupilumab demonstrated its efficacy in prurigo nodularis and nummular eczema phenotypes of atopic dermatitis; moreover, especially in elderly patients, its effectiveness seems to be faster if the folds of the limbs are involved.

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.

Effects of systemic therapies on pruritus in adults with atopic dermatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Pruritus is a hallmark of atopic dermatitis (AD), affecting disease severity and patients' quality of life. In AD uncontrolled with first-line topical therapies or in moderate-to-severe AD, systemic therapies are used, however, there are paucity of head-to-head trials comparing their effectiveness. The aim was to compare the effectiveness between the systemic therapies on relieving pruritus in moderate-to-severe AD in adults through meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and CINAHL databases were searched from inception up to 31 May 2020 for placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of systemic therapies on pruritus with moderate-to-severe AD in adults aged ≥ 16. 26 studies were identified (n = 5,190 participants). There was a large reduction in pruritus compared to placebo (standard mean difference [95% confidence interval]) with dupilumab every 2 weeks (q2w) (-0.88 [-1.13, -0.63]), q2w + topical corticosteroids (-0.77 [-0.91, -0.62]); dupilumab once weekly (qw) (-0.99 [-1.29, -0.68]), qw + topical corticosteroids (-0.70 [-0.81, -0.59]); a large reduction with ciclosporin (-1.30 [-2.34, -0.26]); a small reduction with mepolizumab (-0.27 [-0.89, 0.35]), interferon gamma (-0.31 [-0.75, 0.12]); a large reduction with azathioprine (-0.85 [-2.07, 0.35]). Amongst investigational drugs, nemolizumab 2.0mg/kg was the most effective (-8.13 [-9.31, -6.94]). The majority of systemic therapies were superior to placebo in reducing pruritus. In particular, dupilumab studies consistently showed large improvements in pruritus and nemolizumab showed the strongest anti-pruritic effects, however future head-to-head trials are required for conclusive evidence.

Association between Atopic Dermatitis and Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies found conflicting results about the association of atopic dermatitis (AD) with hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

Determine whether AD and AD severity are associated with hypertension.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed of published studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and GREAT databases. At least 2 reviewers conducted title/abstract, full-text review, and data extraction. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies met inclusion criteria; 19 had sufficient data for meta-analysis. AD was associated with higher odds of hypertension compared to healthy controls (increased in 9 of 16 studies; pooled prevalence: 16.4% vs 13.8%; random-effects regression, pooled unadjusted odds ratio [OR][95% confidence interval <CI95>]: 1.16 [1.04-1.30]), but lower odds of hypertension compared to psoriasis (decreased in 5 of 8 studies; 15.4% vs 24.8%; 0.53 [0.37-0.76]). In particular, moderate-severe AD were associated with hypertension compared to healthy controls (increased in 4 of 6 studies; 24.9% vs 14.7%; 2.33 [1.10-4.94]). Hypertension was commonly reported as an adverse-event secondary to AD treatments, particularly systemic cyclosporine A. Limitations include lack of longitudinal studies or individual-level data and potential confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

AD, particularly moderate-to-severe disease, was associated with increased hypertension compared to healthy controls, but lower odds than psoriasis.

Current and Future Monoclonal Antibodies in the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis is a common immunologic skin disease. Mild atopic dermatitis can be managed with emollients and topical therapies such as low potency topical steroids, which have a favorable safety profile. Severe atopic dermatitis, in contrast, is a challenging disease to treat. Topical therapies are typically inadequate for control of severe atopic dermatitis. When topical therapies fail, the mainstay of therapy for severe atopic dermatitis has traditionally been phototherapy or off-label use of systemic immunosuppressant treatment, yet systemic immunosuppressants all have significant potential toxicities, drug interactions, and contraindications, requiring close monitoring. Targeted biologics are therefore attractive treatment options for topical therapy-refractory cases of atopic dermatitis, with the potential to offer effective, safer treatment of uncontrolled atopic dermatitis. Dupilumab, as the only biologic therapy currently FDA-approved for atopic dermatitis, is effective for many patients, but there is need for continuing study of additional biologic therapies to address the needs of diverse patients with uncontrolled atopic dermatitis.

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.

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.

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.

Dermatologist attitudes toward ciclosporin use in atopic dermatitis

Ciclosporin (CsA) is a systemic immunosuppressive agent indicated for use in the treatment of patients with recalcitrant atopic dermatitis (AD). Studies demonstrate reasonable evidence of benefit compared with placebo. However as biologic agents are under development for use in AD, an assessment of the use, attitude to and safety of CsA is essential in understanding unmet needs in severe AD. We present the results of a survey asking questions relating to initial dose, duration of prescription, precautions and monitoring undertaken during treatment, adverse events seen, and hierarchy of use for systemic agents. This survey was distributed at the annual meeting of the Australasian College of Dermatologists. Twenty-two percent of respondents never prescribe CsA, and 50% prescribe it only 1-2 times per month. When prescribed, the most frequently recommended duration was 6-12 months (24%). Of prescribers, 56% start with a low dose of <3.5 mg/kg daily, and when stratified according to years of experience, a higher proportion of more junior dermatologists commenced with lower doses (p=.028). Regarding side effects, 95% of respondents expressed concern about nephrotoxicity, 37% about hypertension, and 17% infection. The results suggest that although most dermatologists consider CsA to be effective, there are concerns regarding the safety profile.

Monitoring trough levels in cyclosporine for atopic dermatitis: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cyclosporine is a useful immunosuppressive agent for achieving disease control in moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in children and adults. However, it carries the potential for nephrotoxicity. Monitoring of drug levels is performed in other patient groups, such as transplant recipients, but is not commonplace in the management of atopic dermatitis.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate levels of nephrotoxicity associated with cyclosporine use in atopic dermatitis and assess potential correlation with trough levels of cyclosporine.

METHODS

An electronic search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies assessing the safety profile of cyclosporine compared to placebo or other atopic dermatitis treatments, in adult and pediatric atopic dermatitis patients from 1966 to May 2019. Studies that did not assess renal toxicity were excluded from analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight trials were included for analysis, excluding 11 that did not assess renal toxicity. Descriptive statistical analysis only was performed, due to the high heterogeneity between study methodologies. Significant renal toxicity was seen in 0%-9% of pediatric participants. Monitoring of trough cyclosporine levels was performed in only 10 of the studies, and their correlation to toxicity or disease activity was not explored.

CONCLUSION

There is limited evidence in atopic dermatitis regarding trough level monitoring of cyclosporine. Currently, the practice is not commonplace, particularly in pediatrics, and this is reflected in trial methodology. Monitoring may be useful in specific pediatric groups, such as those on multiple concurrent medications, patients with hepatic or renal dysfunction and non-responders to therapy.

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.

Treatment of Eczema: Corticosteroids and Beyond

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that requires a manifold approach to therapy. The goal of therapy is to restore the function of the epidermal barrier and to reduce skin inflammation. This can be achieved with skin moisturization and topical anti-inflammatory agents, such as topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors. Furthermore, proactive therapy with twice weekly use of both topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors in previously affected areas has been found to reduce the time to the next eczematous flare. Adjunctive treatment options include wet wrap therapy, anti-histamines, and vitamin D supplementation. Bacterial colonization, in particular Staphylococcus aureus, can contribute to eczematous flares and overt infection. Use of systemic antibiotics in infected lesions is warranted; however, empiric antibiotics use in uninfected lesions is controversial. Local antiseptic measures (i.e., bleach baths) and topical antimicrobial therapies can be considered in patients with high bacterial colonization. Difficult-to-treat AD is a complex clinical problem that may require re-evaluation of the initial diagnosis of AD, especially if the onset of disease occurs in adulthood. It may also necessitate evaluation for contact, food, and inhaled allergens that may exacerbate the underlying AD. There are a host of systemic therapies that have been successful in patients with difficult-to-treat AD, however, these agents are limited by their side effect profiles. Lastly, with further insight into the pathophysiology of AD, new biological agents have been investigated with promising results.

Review of Systemic Treatment Options for Adult Atopic Dermatitis

Background:

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, pruritic inflammatory skin disease resulting from defects in skin barrier and aberrant immune responses. AD significantly affects the quality of life. Not all patients respond to topical therapies, and often systemic therapy is required to control the disease.

Objective:

To review the treatment options for adult AD patients including those options for patients who do not respond adequately or have contraindications to oral systemic therapy.

Methods:

A working group of clinicians with experience managing AD was convened to review the current literature on treatment options for adult AD patients. This review is based on the best available evidence from a published systematic review and an additional literature search.

Results:

Current treatments for AD are reviewed, including options for adult AD patients who do not respond or have contraindications to current systemic therapies. A new approach with targeted therapies is reviewed based on best available evidence.

Conclusion:

Many AD patients respond satisfactorily to topical or systemic treatments, but for those patients who do not respond or have contraindications, new biologic agents appear to be promising therapies.

Amorphous cyclosporin A nanoparticles for enhanced dermal bioavailability

Cylosporin A (CyA) was formulated as amorphous nanoparticle suspension to increase dermal penetration, e.g. applicable in psoriasis. The suspension consisted of 5% CyA in water, stabilized with vitamin E polyethylene glycol succinate (TPGS, Kolliphor TPGS) and was produced by bead milling. The diameter of the bulk population was about 350 nm, laser diffraction diameter 99% was 690 nm. The suspension was physically stable over one year of storage at room temperature, and most important the amorphous state also remained stable. Despite the high dispersitivity and related large surface area in contact with water, the drug content reduced only by 5% over 1 year of storage. i.e. the formulation is feasible as commercial product with expiry date. The CyA nanoparticles and μm-sized CyA particles were incorporated into hydroxypropylcellulose (HPC) gels and the penetration studied into fresh pig ear skin applying the tape stripping method. At tape number 30, the penetrated cumulative amount of CyA from nanoparticles was 6.3 fold higher compared to the μm-sized raw drug powder (450.1 μg/cm(2) vs. 71.3 μg/cm(2)). A theoretical mechanism is presented to explain the observed superiority in penetration. Based on amorphous CyA nanoparticles, dermal formulations for improved dermal CyA delivery seem to be feasible.

Cyclosporine and Extracorporeal Photopheresis are Equipotent in Treating Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Randomized Cross-Over Study Comparing Two Efficient Treatment Modalities

Background: Severe atopic dermatitis (AD) is a recurrent and debilitating disease often requiring systemic immunosuppressive treatment. The efficacy of cyclosporine A (CsA) is well proven but potential side effects are concerning. Several reports point at extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) as an alternative treatment modality with few and mild side effects. However, no direct comparison between CsA and ECP in the treatment of AD has been performed so far.

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of CsA (3 mg/kg/day) and ECP (administered two consecutive days twice a month) in a cohort of patients with severe AD.

Methods: A randomized cross-over study involving twenty patients with severe AD (SCORAD index 41-89) refractory to other treatments. The patients were allocated to a 4-month course of either of the two treatment modalities. Individual relapse periods (2–8 weeks) were interspersed before cross-over to the other treatment modality. Treatment efficacy was evaluated by SCORAD, PRURITUS (VAS-index 0–10), “overall global assessment” and serological biomarkers; sIL-2Rα, sE-selectin, eosinophilocytes, basophilocytes, and sIgE.

Results: 15 patients completed treatment. Both treatments lead to a marked and significant decrease in SCORAD and pruritus index. The average reduction of the SCORAD and pruritus index, respectively was a little higher for ECP treatment compared to CsA treatment; however, the differences did not reach statistical significance. The “overall global assessment” was significantly better in patients who underwent ECP therapy as compared to CsA treatment. None of the biomarkers showed significant changes after either treatment when compared to the initial values.

Conclusion: ECP administered on two consecutive days twice a month to patients with severe AD has similar potency as CsA administered daily in a moderate dose. ECP is a treatment alternative in patients with severe AD that do not tolerate or are refractory to conventional immunosuppressants.

Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 3. Management and treatment with phototherapy and systemic agents

Atopic dermatitis is a chronic, pruritic inflammatory dermatosis that affects up to 25% of children and 2% to 3% of adults. This guideline addresses important clinical questions that arise in atopic dermatitis management and care, providing recommendations based on the available evidence. In this third of 4 sections, treatment of atopic dermatitis with phototherapy and systemic immunomodulators, antimicrobials, and antihistamines is reviewed, including indications for use and the risk-benefit profile of each treatment option.

Systemic therapy for atopic dermatitis

Systemic therapy for atopic dermatitis (AD) is indicated in patients with severe disease refractory to adequate topical treatment. Currently available drugs aim to decrease inflammation by suppressing and/or modulating immune responses and thus may indirectly improve skin barrier function, resulting in a decrease in clinical signs and symptoms in particular pruritus. Before considering systemic treatment, patient adherence to topical treatment including skin care has to be ensured. The selection of the drug depends on the disease severity, localization, complications, concomitant diseases, and age of the patient, but also on their availability and costs as well as the doctor's experience. Bearing in mind the potential risk of resistance, systemic therapy with antibiotics should be exclusively considered in clinically manifest infections such as in children. Here, we review recently published clinical trials and case reports on systemic therapy of pediatric and adult patients with AD to draw conclusions for clinical practice. Although AD is a common disease, controlled clinical studies investigating the efficacy of systemic drugs are scarce, except for cyclosporine, which has been approved for the therapy of severe AD.

Atopic dermatitis: a practice parameter update 2012

This parameter was developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "Atopic dermatitis: a practice parameter update 2012." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the Joint Task Force, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion. Published practice parameters of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters for Allergy & Immunology are available online at http://www.jcaai.org.

Difficult to control atopic dermatitis

Difficult to control atopic dermatitis (AD) presents a therapeutic challenge and often requires combinations of topical and systemic treatment. Anti-inflammatory treatment of severe AD most commonly includes topical glucocorticosteroids and topical calcineurin antagonists used for exacerbation management and more recently for proactive therapy in selected cases. Topical corticosteroids remain the mainstay of therapy, the topical calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are preferred in certain locations. Systemic anti-inflammatory treatment is an option for severe refractory cases. Microbial colonization and superinfection contribute to disease exacerbation and thus justify additional antimicrobial / antiseptic treatment. Systemic antihistamines (H1) may relieve pruritus but do not have sufficient effect on eczema. Adjuvant therapy includes UV irradiation preferably of UVA1 wavelength. “Eczema school” educational programs have been proven to be helpful.

Eczema

Atopic dermatitis, commonly known as eczema, is a common chronic, relapsing skin disease characterized by pruritus, disrupted epidermal barrier function, and immunoglobulin E-mediated sensitization to food and environmental allergens. Atopic dermatitis is a complex disease that arises from interactions between genes and the environment. Loci on several chromosomes have been identified, including a family of epithelium-related genes called the epidermal differentiation complex on chromosome 1q21. Mutations in filaggrin, a key protein in epidermal differentiation, have also been identified in early-onset and severe atopic dermatitis. There are 3 classical stages of eczema: infantile, childhood, and adulthood. The spectrum of eczema presentation varies widely from a variant that only affect the hand to major forms where a patient presents with erythroderma. The acute and subacute lesions of atopic dermatitis are often characterized by intensely pruritic, erythematous papules and vesicles with excoriations and a serous exudate. Chronic atopic dermatitis is exemplified by lichenified plaques and papules with excoriations. Atopic dermatitis patients are also at higher risk for skin infections, including bacterial and viral superinfections. Conventional therapy includes avoidance of irritants and potential allergens, as well as continued hydration of the skin with thick emollients. Topical corticosteroids and topical immunomodulators are often used primarily. Other therapies including phototherapy, antimicrobials, antihistamines, and systemic immunosuppressives are also options in certain situations.

Cyclosporin A--a review on fermentative production, downstream processing and pharmacological applications

In present times, the immunosuppressants have gained considerable importance in the world market. Cyclosporin A (CyA) is a cyclic undecapeptide with a variety of biological activities including immunosuppressive, anti-inflammatory, antifungal and antiparasitic properties. CyA is produced by various types of fermentation techniques using Tolypocladium inflatum. In the present review, we discuss the biosynthetic pathway, fermentative production, downstream processing and pharmacological activities of CyA.

Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium versus cyclosporin A as long-term treatment in adult patients with severe atopic dermatitis: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Cyclosporin A (CsA) is frequently used in the treatment of severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) may be an alternative with equal efficacy and fewer side effects.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this observer-blinded randomized controlled trial was to compare EC-MPS with CsA as long-term treatment in adult patients with severe AD.

METHODS

Fifty five patients with AD were treated with CsA (5 mg/kg) in a 6-week run-in period. Thereafter, patients either received CsA (3 mg/kg; n = 26) or EC-MPS (1440 mg; n = 24) during a maintenance phase of 30 weeks and there was a 12-week follow-up period. Disease activity was measured using the objective SCORAD and serum thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC) levels and side effects were registered.

RESULTS

During the first 10 weeks the objective SCORAD and serum TARC levels in the EC-MPS study arm were higher in comparison with the CsA study arm. In addition, 7 of the 24 patients treated with EC-MPS required short oral corticosteroid courses. During maintenance phase disease activity was comparable in both study arms. Side effects in both study arms were mild and transient. After study medication withdrawal, disease activity of the patients in the CsA study arm significantly increased compared with the EC-MPS study arm.

LIMITATION

The nonblinding of patients and prescriber of rescue medication are limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that EC-MPS is as effective as CsA as maintenance therapy in patients with AD. However, clinical improvement with EC-MPS is delayed in comparison with CsA. Clinical remission after stopping EC-MPS lasts longer compared with CsA.