Superiority of tacrolimus 0.1% ointment compared with fluticasone 0.005% in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis of the face: results from a randomized, double-blind trial

Topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema: network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Eczema (atopic dermatitis) is the most burdensome skin condition worldwide and cannot currently be prevented or cured. Topical anti-inflammatory treatments are used to control eczema symptoms, but there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and safety of different topical anti-inflammatory treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare and rank the efficacy and safety of topical anti-inflammatory treatments for people with eczema using a network meta-analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries on 29 June 2023, and checked the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included within-participant or between-participant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people of any age with eczema of any severity, but excluded trials in clinically infected eczema, seborrhoeic eczema, contact eczema, or hand eczema. We included topical anti-inflammatory treatments used for at least one week, compared with another anti-inflammatory treatment, no treatment, or vehicle/placebo. Vehicle is a 'carrier system' for an active pharmaceutical substance, which may also be used on its own as an emollient for dry skin. We excluded trials of topical antibiotics used alone, complementary therapies, emollients used alone, phototherapy, wet wraps, and systemic treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were patient-reported eczema symptoms, clinician-reported eczema signs and investigator global assessment. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, long-term control of eczema, withdrawal from treatment/study, and local adverse effects (application-site reactions, pigmentation changes and skin thinning/atrophy were identified as important concerns through patient and public involvement). We used CINeMA to quantify our confidence in the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 291 studies involving 45,846 participants with the full spectrum of eczema severity, mainly conducted in high-income countries in secondary care settings. Most studies included adults, with only 31 studies limited to children aged < 12 years. Studies usually included male and female participants, multiple ethnic groups but predominantly white populations. Most studies were industry-funded (68%) or did not report their funding sources/details. Treatment duration and trial participation were a median of 21 and 28 days (ranging from 7 days to 5 years), respectively. Interventions used were topical corticosteroids (TCS) (172), topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) (134), phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitors (55), janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (30), aryl hydrocarbon receptor activators (10), or other topical agents (21). Comparators included vehicle (170) or other anti-inflammatory treatments. The risk of bias was high in 242 of the 272 (89.0%) trials contributing to data analyses, most commonly due to concerns about selective reporting. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was only possible for short-term outcomes. Patient-reported symptoms NMA of 40 trials (6482 participants) reporting patient-reported symptoms as a binary outcome ranked tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 6.27, 95% CI 1.19 to 32.98), potent TCS (OR 5.99, 95% CI 2.83 to 12.69), and ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 5.64, 95% CI 1.26 to 25.25) as the most effective, all with low confidence. Mild TCS, roflumilast 0.15%, and crisaborole 2% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and was more effective than mild TCI and PDE-4 inhibitors. NMA of 29 trials (3839 participants) reporting patient-reported symptoms as a continuous outcome ranked very potent TCS (SMD -1.99, 95% CI -3.25 to -0.73; low confidence) and tacrolimus 0.03% (SMD -1.57, 95% CI -2.42 to -0.72; moderate confidence) the highest. Direct information for tacrolimus 0.03% was based on one trial of 60 participants at high risk of bias. Roflumilast 0.15%, delgocitinib 0.25% or 0.5%, and tapinarof 1% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors and mild/moderate TCS was less effective than mild TCI. A further 50 trials (9636 participants) reported patient-reported symptoms as a continuous outcome but could not be included in NMA. Clinician-reported signs NMA of 32 trials (4121 participants) reported clinician signs as a binary outcome and ranked potent TCS (OR 8.15, 95% CI 4.99, 13.57), tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 8.06, 95% CI 3.30, 19.67), ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 7.72, 95% CI 4.92, 12.10), and delgocitinib 0.5% (OR 7.61, 95% CI 3.72, 15.58) as most effective, all with moderate confidence. Mild TCS, roflumilast 0.15%, crisaborole 2%, and tapinarof 1% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS more effective than potent TCI, mild TCI, JAK inhibitors, PDE-4 inhibitors; and mild TCS and PDE-4 inhibitors had similar effectiveness. NMA of 49 trials (5261 participants) reported clinician signs as a continuous outcome and ranked tacrolimus 0.03% (SMD -2.69, 95% CI -3.36, -2.02) and very potent TCS (SMD -1.87, 95% CI -2.69, -1.05) as most effective, both with moderate confidence; roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 0.3% and tapinarof 1% were ranked as least effective. Direct information for tacrolimus 0.03% was based on one trial in 60 participants with a high risk of bias. For some sensitivity analyses, potent TCS, tacrolimus 0.1%, ruxolitinib 1.5%, delgocitinib 0.5% and delgocitinib 0.25% became some of the most effective treatments. Class-level analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors, and moderate/mild TCS was more effective than mild TCI. A further 100 trials (22,814 participants) reported clinician signs as a continuous outcome but could not be included in NMA. Investigator Global Assessment NMA of 140 trials (23,383 participants) reported IGA as a binary outcome and ranked ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 9.34, 95% CI 4.8, 18.18), delgocitinib 0.5% (OR 10.08, 95% CI 2.65, 38.37), delgocitinib 0.25% (OR 6.87, 95% CI 1.79, 26.33), very potent TCS (OR 8.34, 95% CI 4.73, 14.67), potent TCS (OR 5.00, 95% CI 3.80, 6.58), and tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 5.06, 95% CI 3.59, 7.13) as most effective, all with moderate confidence. Mild TCS, crisaborole 2%, pimecrolimus 1%, roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 0.3% and 1%, and tacrolimus 0.03% were the least effective. In a sensitivity analysis of low risk of bias information (12 trials, 1639 participants), potent TCS, delgocitinib 0.5% and delgocitinib 0.25% were most effective, and pimecrolimus 1%, roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 1% and difamilast 0.3% least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors and were more effective than PDE-4 inhibitors; mild/moderate TCS were less effective than potent TCI and had similar effectiveness to mild TCI. Longer-term outcomes over 6 to 12 months showed a possible increase in effectiveness for pimecrolimus 1% versus vehicle (4 trials, 2218 participants) in a pairwise meta-analysis, and greater treatment success with mild/moderate TCS than pimecrolimus 1% (based on 1 trial of 2045 participants). Local adverse effects NMA of 83 trials (18,992 participants, 2424 events) reporting application-site reactions ranked tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.53, 3.17; moderate confidence), crisaborole 2% (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.18, 3.81; high confidence), tacrolimus 0.03% (OR 1.51, 95%CI 1.10, 2.09; low confidence), and pimecrolimus 1% (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.01, 2.04; low confidence) as most likely to cause site reactions. Very potent, potent, moderate, and mild TCS were least likely to cause site reactions. NMA of eight trials (1786 participants, 3 events) reporting pigmentation changes found no evidence for increased pigmentation changes with TCS and crisaborole 2%, with low confidence for mild, moderate or potent TCS and moderate confidence for crisaborole 2%. NMA of 25 trials (3691 participants, 36 events) reporting skin thinning found no evidence for increased skin thinning with short-term (median 3 weeks, range 1-16 weeks) use of mild TCS (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.12, 4.31), moderate TCS (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.16, 5.33), potent TCS (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.21, 4.43) or very potent TCS (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.31, 2.49), all with low confidence. Longer-term outcomes over 6 to 60 months showed increased skin thinning with mild to potent TCS versus TCI (3 trials, 4069 participants, 6 events with TCS).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Potent TCS, JAK inhibitors and tacrolimus 0.1% were consistently ranked as amongst the most effective topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema and PDE-4 inhibitors as amongst the least effective. Mild TCS and tapinarof 1% were ranked amongst the least effective treatments in three of five efficacy networks. TCI and crisaborole 2% were ranked most likely to cause local application-site reactions and TCS least likely. We found no evidence for increased skin thinning with short-term TCS but an increase with longer-term TCS.

A randomized controlled trial comparing tacrolimus versus hydrocortisone for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in children: new perspectives on interferon gamma-induced protein and growth-related oncogene-α

Introduction

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a type of chronic inflammatory disorder that affects children.

Aim

To investigate whether hydrocortisone or tacrolimus could be more effective for treating AD in children.

Patients and methods

This clinical randomized investigation included 100 children with AD who met the eligibility criteria. AD patients were recruited from Tanta University's Dermatology Department and divided into two groups (n = 50)., For four months, group 1 (the hydrocortisone group) received topical hydrocortisone cream. Group 2 received topical tacrolimus for four months. A dermatologist evaluated the patients at the start and four months after the treatment had been initiated to measure serum concentrations of neutrophil chemoattractant growth-related oncogene-α (GRO-α), interferon gamma induced protein 10 (IP-10), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), vascular adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1), intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1). All patients were examined using the modified Eczema Area and Severity Index (mEASI) score.

Results

Tacrolimus group showed a significant reduction in serum levels of all measured biomarkers (p < 0.05) when compared to its baseline and when compared to the hydrocortisone group. Both groups displayed a significant decline in mEASI score in comparison with their baseline values (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

In children with AD, tacrolimus reduces inflammatory biomarkers better than hydrocortisone, suggesting its potential as a more effective treatment option.

Clinical trial registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT05607901.

Topical Treatments in Atopic Dermatitis: An Expansive Review

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common inflammatory skin condition found worldwide. It impacts patient quality of life (QoL) and is thought to arise as an inflammatory response to epidermal barrier dysfunction and hypersensitivity. AD can lead to large out-of-pocket costs and increased healthcare expenses over a lifetime. An analysis of all randomized control trials conducted since 1990 on topical therapies for AD were reviewed, including 207 trials in the final analysis. It was found that an average of 226 patients were enrolled over 2.43 arms. Common topical treatments included corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and phosphodiesterase inhibitors. The most utilized tools to identify treatment efficacy were the EASI, IGA, SCORAD, and PGA. There was a paucity of data on trials that evaluated efficacy, QoL, and cost of treatment simultaneously. This review highlights the need for comprehensive trials that evaluate multiple aspects of treatment, including financial cost and QoL impact, to ensure each patient has the best treatment modality for the management of their AD.

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

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD prescription topical 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, CINAHL, LILACS, ICTRP, and GREAT databases to September 5, 2022, for randomized trials addressing AD topical treatments. 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. We classified topical corticosteroids (TCS) using 7 groups-group 1 being most potent. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q5m6s).

RESULTS

The 219 included trials (43,123 patients) evaluated 68 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, pimecrolimus improved 6 of 7 outcomes-among the best for 2; high-dose tacrolimus (0.1%) improved 5-among the best for 2; low-dose tacrolimus (0.03%) improved 5-among the best for 1. With moderate- to high-certainty evidence, group 5 TCS improved 6-among the best for 3; group 4 TCS and delgocitinib improved 4-among the best for 2; ruxolitinib improved 4-among the best for 1; group 1 TCS improved 3-among the best for 2. These interventions did not increase harm. Crisaborole and difamilast were intermediately effective, but with uncertain harm. Topical antibiotics alone or in combination may be among the least effective. To maintain AD control, group 5 TCS were among the most effective, followed by tacrolimus and pimecrolimus.

CONCLUSIONS

For individuals with AD, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and moderate-potency TCS are among the most effective in improving and maintaining multiple AD outcomes. Topical antibiotics may be among the least effective.

Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis in adults with topical therapies

BACKGROUND

New evidence has emerged since the 2014 guidelines that further informs the management of atopic dermatitis (AD) with topical therapies. These guidelines update the 2014 recommendations for management of AD with topical therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations related to management of AD in adults using topical treatments.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary workgroup conducted a systematic review and applied the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach for assessing the certainty of evidence and formulating and grading recommendations.

RESULTS

The workgroup developed 12 recommendations on the management of AD in adults with topical therapies, including nonprescription agents and prescription topical corticosteroids (TCS), calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors (PDE-4), antimicrobials, and antihistamines.

LIMITATIONS

The pragmatic decision to limit the literature review to English-language randomized trials may have excluded data published in other languages and relevant long-term follow-up data.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations are made for the use of moisturizers, TCIs, TCS, and topical PDE-4 and JAK inhibitors. Conditional recommendations are made for the use of bathing and wet wrap therapy and against the use of topical antimicrobials, antiseptics, and antihistamines.

Cancer risk with topical calcineurin inhibitors, pimecrolimus and tacrolimus, for atopic dermatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis is a prevalent condition in children and can be effectively managed with medications such as topical calcineurin inhibitors (pimecrolimus or tacrolimus). A key unresolved safety concern is whether use of topical calcineurin inhibitors is associated with cancer. We systematically reviewed the risk of cancer in patients with atopic dermatitis exposed to topical calcineurin inhibitors.

METHODS

As part of the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters atopic dermatitis guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database, the Índice Bibliográfico Espanhol de Ciências da Saúde database, the Global Resource of Eczema Trials database, WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the US Food and Drug Administration database, the European Medicines Agency database, company registers, and relevant citations from inception to June 6, 2022. We included randomised controlled trials and comparative and non-comparative non-randomised studies in any language addressing cancer risk in patients with atopic dermatitis using topical calcineurin inhibitors. We excluded split-body studies and studies with less than 3 weeks of follow-up. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We used Bayesian models to estimate the probability for cancer due to topical calcineurin inhibitor exposure and the GRADE approach to determine the certainty of the evidence. Patients, advocacy groups, and care providers set a priori thresholds of important effects. This study is registered with Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/v4bfc.

FINDINGS

We identified and analysed 110 unique studies (52 randomised controlled trials and 69 non-randomised studies [11 were non-randomised study extensions of randomised controlled trials]) including 3·4 million patients followed up for a mean of 11 months (range 0·7-120). The absolute risk of any cancer with topical calcineurin inhibitor exposure was not different from controls (absolute risk 4·70 per 1000 with topical calcineurin inhibitors vs 4·56 per 1000 without; odds ratio 1·03 [95% credible interval 0·94-1·11]; moderate certainty). For all age groups and using data from observational studies and randomised controlled trials, the use of pimecrolimus (OR 1·05 [95% credible interval 0·94-1·15]) or tacrolimus (0·99 [0·89-1·09]) is likely to have had little to no association with cancer compared with no topical calcineurin inhibitor exposure. For pimecrolimus versus tacrolimus, the finding was similar (0·95 [95% credible interval 0·83-1·07]). Findings were similar in infants, children, and adults, and robust to trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses.

INTERPRETATION

Among individuals with atopic dermatitis, moderate-certainty evidence shows that topical calcineurin inhibitors do not increase the risk of cancer. These findings support the safe use of topical calcineurin inhibitors in the optimal treatment of patients with atopic dermatitis.

FUNDING

American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology via the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters.

Safety of topical corticosteroids in atopic eczema: an umbrella review

OBJECTIVE

An umbrella review summarising all safety data from systematic reviews of topical corticosteroids (TCS) in adults and children with atopic eczema.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology map of eczema systematic reviews were searched until 7 November 2018 and Epistemonikos until 2 March 2021. Reviews were included if they assessed the safety of TCS in atopic eczema and searched >1 database using a reproducible search strategy. Review quality was assessed using version 2 of 'A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews' (AMSTAR 2 tool).

RESULTS

38 systematic reviews included, 34 low/critically low quality. Treatment and follow-up were usually short (2-4 weeks).

KEY FINDINGS

TCS versus emollient/vehicle: No meta-analyses identified for skin-thinning. Two 2-week randomised controlled trials (RCTs) found no significant increased risk with very potent TCS (0/196 TCS vs 0/33 vehicle in children and 6/109 TCS vs 2/50 vehicle, age unknown). Biochemical adrenal suppression (cortisol) was 3.8% (95% CI 2.4% to 5.8%) in a meta-analysis of 11 uncontrolled observational studies (any potency TCS, 522 children). Effects reversed when treatment ceased.TCS versus topical calcineurin inhibitors: Meta-analysis showed higher relative risk of skin thinning with TCS (4.86, 95% CI 1.06 to 22.28, n=4128, four RCTs, including one 5-year RCT). Eight cases in 2068 participants, 7 using potent TCS. No evidence of growth suppression.Once daily versus more frequent TCS: No meta-analyses identified. No skin-thinning in one RCT (3 weeks potent TCS, n=94) or biochemical adrenal suppression in two RCTs (up to 2 weeks very potent/moderate TCS, n=129).TCS twice/week to prevent flares ('weekend therapy') versus vehicle: No meta-analyses identified. No evidence of skin thinning in five RCTs. One RCT found biochemical adrenal suppression (2/44 children, potent TCS).

CONCLUSIONS

W e found no evidence of harm when TCS were used intermittently 'as required' to treat flares or 'weekend therapy' to prevent flares. However, long-term safety data were limited.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018079409.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Atopic Dermatitis and Chronic Hand Eczema in Adults

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide an important complement to physician-assessed clinical outcome measures in dermatologic diseases such as atopic dermatitis (AD) and chronic hand eczema (CHE). AD and CHE are chronic and relapsing inflammatory skin conditions that often co-occur. While both diseases result in various signs and symptoms that are burdensome and can negatively affect patients’ lives, there may be distinct differences in the signs, symptoms, burden, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) impact of these diseases. The objective of this study was to identify and evaluate PROMs used in studies of AD and CHE. The aim was to explore the assessment of key symptoms and impacts, and identify any gaps in the measures in use. A structured review of the PubMed database was conducted to identify PROMs used or developed for use in AD or CHE. The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), the Pruritus/Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), and the Quality of Life in Hand Eczema Questionnaire (QOLHEQ) were identified and reviewed in detail. With these measures, the AD and CHE symptoms and impacts most commonly evaluated in the literature include dermatology-related HRQOL in the domains of symptoms and feelings, daily activities, leisure, work and school, personal relationships, and adverse effects; pruritus; sleep disturbance; AD-specific symptoms (dryness, itching, flaking, cracking, bleeding, and weeping/oozing); and CHE-specific symptoms (pain, itch, fissuring, redness, bleeding, and dryness). A review of regulatory labels of drugs approved for AD by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) found that, among the four measures reviewed, the Pruritus NRS was included in the FDA and EMA labels for dupilumab, the DLQI was included in the EMA labels for dupilumab and tacrolimus, and the POEM was included in the EMA label for dupilumab. Key symptoms of AD (e.g. itching, flaking, cracking) and CHE (e.g. pain, itching, fissuring) are increasingly being assessed with PROMs; however, primary endpoints in clinical trials are often based on clinician-reported outcome measures. As therapeutic strategies in dermatology are targeted at specific dermatologic symptoms and diseases affecting specific sites (e.g. CHE), future research should explore patients’ experiences with these symptoms and sites and the changes with treatment that are most meaningful to them.

Efficacy and safety of topical calcineurin inhibitors for the treatment of atopic dermatitis: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Introduction

Calcineurin inhibitors, novel topical immunomodulators, may constitute a superior alternative for glucocorticosteroids in atopic dermatitis (AD) topical treatment.

Aim

Determination of efficacy and safety of each topical calcineurin inhibitor (TCI) formulation, 0.3% or 0.1% tacrolimus and 1% pimecrolimus, for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in comparison with glucocorticosteroids.

Material and methods

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, GREAT database, trials registers and reference lists were searched up to February 2018. Randomised controlled trials of TCI, compared to corticosteroids (TCS), reporting efficacy or safety outcomes were selected. Quality of trials and evidence of each outcome were evaluated according to Cochrane Collaboration recommendations and tools. The primary outcomes were physician’s global assessment of improvement and occurrence of adverse events (AEs).

Results

Fourteen trials involving 7376 children and adults with AD were included. Calcineurin inhibitors were significantly more effective than various potency TCS, neither least potent to lower mid-strength nor mid-strength to potent TCS (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.06–1.44). The major AEs were skin burning and pruritus, their incidence was higher in TCI treatment (RR = 3.32, 95% CI: 2.90–3.80; RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.34–1.80).

Conclusions

Calcineurin inhibitors seem to be more effective and contrarily they elicit more AEs than TCS.

Evidence Review of Topical Calcineurin Inhibitors for the Treatment of Adult Atopic Dermatitis

Topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) were approved in the early 2000s for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD), and despite the recent introduction of newer topical and systemic therapies for AD, TCIs such as tacrolimus ointment (0.03% and 0.1%) and pimecrolimus cream (1%), remain recommended treatment options in contemporary management guidelines. The goal of this article is to review the evidence supporting the approved indications for TCIs in adults with AD, including short-term treatment of active disease and as intermittent or maintenance treatment for the prevention of flares. Other evidence reviewed in this article includes the treatment of specific body areas (such as the face and eyelids), combination or sequential use of TCIs with topical corticosteroids, and the comparative efficacy of the 2 commercially available TCIs. This review of the evidence confirms that TCIs remain an effective treatment option for the management of adult AD.

Tolerability of Topical Treatments for Atopic Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common inflammatory skin disease that is accompanied by increased sensitivity to itch-provoking and pain-provoking stimuli. Patients with AD experience skin pain before initiation of therapy and have also reported painful application site reactions in clinical trials of emollients and prescription topical therapies, including topical corticosteroids (TCSs), topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), and a topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor. To compare the sensory tolerability of prescription topical therapies for AD, a comprehensive literature search and analysis of published clinical trials was conducted. Sensory tolerability issues such as application site pain, burning, stinging, and pruritus were often among the most common adverse events or treatment-related adverse events in clinical trials for prescription topical therapies. Tolerability issues occurred at highest rates in trials of TCIs, followed by trials of the PDE4 inhibitor crisaborole and TCSs, although direct comparisons are not possible because of differences in study design. Tolerability issues in these clinical trials were generally mild to moderate and transient. This article also reviews published strategies for managing sensory tolerability issues in AD patients during treatment with topical therapies.Funding: Pfizer Inc., New York, NY.

Atopic dermatitis: a review of topical nonsteroid therapy

Background

Atopic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects up to 20% of children and 3% of adults globally. Although topical corticosteroids are considered to be the first-line agents, they can be associated with cutaneous and systemic adverse effects. Since the early 2000s, two new classes of nonsteroid topical therapies, topical calcineurin inhibitors and phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors, have been introduced and provide a safe treatment alternative.

Method

We performed a search and review of clinical trials that examined the safety and efficacy of topical calcineurin inhibitors and PDE4 inhibitors. The search was conducted using the PubMed database as well as preselected keywords and filters. This review focuses on the safety and efficacy of each therapy.

Results

Sixty-nine clinical trials identified in this study have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of topical calcineurin and a single novel PDE4 inhibitor in the treatment of atopic dermatitis. Topical calcineurin inhibitors have been shown to be effective in both achieving lesion clearance as well as reducing relapse when used long-term and proactively. Similarly, in clinical trials the PDE4 inhibitor showed success in lesion clearance and symptom management. All three therapies (pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, crisaborole) are associated with low systemic absorption. No clinical trials to date have shown an increased risk of systemic adverse events or malignancy such as lymphoma. The most commonly reported treatment-related adverse event across all three therapies was application-site discomfort, pain or pruritus. It is important to note that long-term studies are not yet available for the novel PDE4 inhibitor.

Discussion

Topical calcineurin inhibitors provide a safe and effective alternative to topical corticosteroid use in the treatment of atopic dermatitis. Although the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) black box warning for topical calcineurin inhibitors remains, studies have not shown an increased risk of malignancy. These warnings have caused a decline in use in favor of topical steroids. A novel PDE4 inhibitor has shown efficacy and safety in studies up to one year. Further long-term safety data is needed.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing topical calcineurin inhibitors with topical corticosteroids for atopic dermatitis: A 15-year experience

BACKGROUND

Calcineurin inhibitors are alternatives to corticosteroid for treatment of atopic dermatitis.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to compare the beneficial effects and adverse events associated with these therapies in treating patients with atopic dermatitis.

METHODS

Four databases were searched for randomized clinical trials comparing topical calcineurin inhibitors versus corticosteroids in children and adults. Methodological quality was evaluated to assess bias risk. Clinical outcome and costs were compared.

RESULTS

Twelve independent randomized clinical trials comparing calcineurin inhibitors (n = 3492) versus corticosteroids (n = 3462) were identified. Calcineurin inhibitors and corticosteroids had similar rates of improvement of dermatitis (81% vs 71%; risk ratio [RR] 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.34; P = .01) and treatment success (72% vs 68%; RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.00-1.31; P = .04). Calcineurin inhibitors were associated with higher costs and had more adverse events (74% vs 64%; RR 1.28; 95% CI 1.05-1.58; P = .02) including a higher rate of skin burning (30% vs 9%; RR 3.27; 95% CI 2.48-4.31; P < .00001) and pruritus (12% vs 8%; RR 1.49; 95% CI 1.24-1.79; P < .00001). There were no differences in atrophy, skin infections, or adverse events that were serious or required discontinuation of therapy.

LIMITATIONS

Only a small number of trials reported costs.

CONCLUSION

Calcineurin inhibitors and corticosteroids have similar efficacy. Calcineurin inhibitors are associated with higher costs and have more adverse events, such as skin burning and pruritus. These results provide level-1a support for the use of corticosteroids as the therapy of choice for atopic dermatitis.

Scoping systematic review of treatments for eczema

Background

Eczema is a very common chronic inflammatory skin condition.

Objectives

To update the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema, published in 2000, and to inform health-care professionals, commissioners and patients about key treatment developments and research gaps.

Data sources

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from the end of 2000 to 31 August 2013. Retrieved articles were used to identify further randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Review methods

Studies were filtered according to inclusion criteria and agreed by consensus in cases of uncertainty. Abstracts were excluded and non-English-language papers were screened by international colleagues and data were extracted. Only RCTs of treatments for eczema were included, as other forms of evidence are associated with higher risks of bias. Inclusion criteria for studies included availability of data relevant to the therapeutic management of eczema; mention of randomisation; comparison of two or more treatments; and prospective data collection. Participants of all ages were included. Eczema diagnosis was determined by a clinician or according to published diagnostic criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. We used a standardised approach to summarising the data and the assessment of risk of bias and we made a clear distinction between what the studies found and our own interpretation of study findings.

Results

Of 7198 references screened, 287 new trials were identified spanning 92 treatments. Trial reporting was generally poor (randomisation method: 2% high, 36% low, 62% unclear risk of bias; allocation concealment: 3% high, 15% low, 82% unclear risk of bias; blinding of the intervention: 15% high, 28% low, 57% unclear risk of bias). Only 22 (8%) trials were considered to be at low risk of bias for all three criteria. There was reasonable evidence of benefit for the topical medications tacrolimus, pimecrolimus and various corticosteroids (with tacrolimus superior to pimecrolimus and corticosteroids) for both treatment and flare prevention; oral ciclosporin; oral azathioprine; narrow band ultraviolet B (UVB) light; Atopiclair™ and education. There was reasonable evidence to suggest no clinically useful benefit for twice-daily compared with once-daily topical corticosteroids; corticosteroids containing antibiotics for non-infected eczema; probiotics; evening primrose and borage oil; ion-exchange water softeners; protease inhibitor SRD441 (Serentis Ltd); furfuryl palmitate in emollient; cipamfylline cream; andMycobacterium vaccaevaccine. Additional research evidence is needed for emollients, bath additives, antibacterials, specialist clothing and complementary and alternative therapies. There was no RCT evidence for topical corticosteroid dilution, impregnated bandages, soap avoidance, bathing frequency or allergy testing.

Limitations

The large scope of the review coupled with the heterogeneity of outcomes precluded formal meta-analyses. Our conclusions are still limited by a profusion of small, poorly reported studies.

Conclusions

Although the evidence base of RCTs has increased considerably since the last NIHR HTA systematic review, the field is still severely hampered by poor design and reporting problems including failure to register trials and declare primary outcomes, small sample size, short follow-up duration and poor reporting of risk of bias. Key areas for further research identified by the review include the optimum use of emollients, bathing frequency, wash products, allergy testing and antiseptic treatments. Perhaps the greatest benefit identified is the use of twice weekly anti-inflammatory treatment to maintain disease remission. More studies need to be conducted in a primary care setting where most people with eczema are seen in the UK. Future studies need to use the same core set of outcomes that capture patient symptoms, clinical signs, quality of life and the chronic nature of the disease.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Systematic review on the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of topical calcineurin inhibitors in atopic dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) are widely used as an alternative to topical corticosteroids (TCSs) in treating of atopic dermatitis, but their risk versus benefit compared with TCSs remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review of the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of TCI compared with TCS and emollients.

METHODS

Published meta-analysis, systematic reviews, and individual studies from January 2005 to January 2015 on the comparative efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of TCI against emollients and TCS were included.

RESULTS

Tacrolimus is comparable to TCS in efficacy, safety profile, and cost-effectiveness. Pimecrolimus has a similar safety profile compared with TCS, emollients, and tacrolimus. It is superior to emollients but inferior to TCS and tacrolimus in efficacy and cost-effectiveness. The association of tacrolimus with malignancy remains uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

Tacrolimus is an efficacious and cost-effective alternative to TCS, but its benefits need to be weighed against its still uncertain risk for malignancy. Pimecrolimus is appropriate for mild atopic dermatitis when TCS or tacrolimus is unsuitable.

Topical tacrolimus for atopic dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) (or atopic eczema) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects children and adults and has an important impact on quality of life. Topical corticosteroids (TCS) are the first-line therapy for this condition; however, they can be associated with significant adverse effects when used chronically. Tacrolimus ointment (in its 2 manufactured strengths of 0.1% and 0.03%) might be an alternative treatment. Tacrolimus, together with pimecrolimus, are drugs called topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of topical tacrolimus for moderate and severe atopic dermatitis compared with other active treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 3 June 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 5, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), and the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT database). We searched six trials registers and checked the bibliographies of included studies for further references to relevant trials. We contacted specialists in the field for unpublished data.A separate search for adverse effects of topical tacrolimus was undertaken in MEDLINE and EMBASE on 30 July 2013. We also scrutinised the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites for adverse effects information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of participants with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (both children and adults) using topical tacrolimus at any dose, course duration, and follow-up time compared with other active treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened and examined the full text of selected studies for compliance with eligibility criteria, risk of bias, and data extraction. Our three prespecified primary outcomes were physician's assessment, participant's self-assessment of improvement, and adverse effects. Our secondary outcomes included assessment of improvement of the disease by validated or objective measures, such as SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis), the EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index), and BSA (Body Surface Area) scores.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies, with 5885 participants. The variability of drug doses, outcomes, and follow-up periods made it difficult to carry out meta-analyses.A single trial showed that tacrolimus 0.1% was better than low-potency TCS by the physician's assessment (risk ratio (RR) 3.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.14 to 4.45, 1 study, n = 371, moderate-quality evidence). It was also marginally better than low-potency TCS on face and neck areas and moderate-potency TCS on the trunk and extremities by the physician's assessment (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.49, 1 study, n = 972, moderate level of evidence) and for some of the secondary outcomes. Compared with pimecrolimus 1%, people treated with tacrolimus were almost twice as likely to improve by the physician's assessment (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.42, 2 studies, n = 506, moderate quality of evidence). Compared with the lower concentration of 0.03%, the tacrolimus 0.1% formulation reduced the risk of not having an improvement by 18% as evaluated by the physician's assessment (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.92, 6 studies, n = 1640, high-quality evidence). Tacrolimus 0.1% compared with moderate-to-potent TCS showed no difference by the physician's assessment, and 2 secondary outcomes (1 study, 377 participants) and a marginal benefit favouring tacrolimus 0.1% was found by the participant's assessment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.29, 1 study, n = 974, low quality of evidence) and SCORAD.Based on data from 2 trials, tacrolimus 0.03% was superior to mild TCS for the physician's assessment (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.96 to 3.38, 2 studies, n = 790, moderate-quality evidence) and the participant's self-assessment (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.90, 1 study, n = 416, moderate quality of evidence). One trial showed moderate benefit of tacrolimus 0.03% compared with pimecrolimus 1% on the physician's assessment (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.98, 1 study, n = 139, low-quality evidence), but the effects were equivocal when evaluating BSA. In the comparison of tacrolimus 0.03% with moderate-to-potent corticosteroids, no difference was found in most of the outcomes measured (including physician's and participant's assessment and also for the secondary outcomes), but in two studies, a marginal benefit favouring the corticosteroid group was found for the EASI and BSA scores.Burning was more frequent in those using calcineurin inhibitors than those using corticosteroid tacrolimus 0.03% (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.96 to 3.14, 5 studies, 1883 participants, high-quality evidence), but no difference was found for skin infections. Symptoms observed were mild and transient. The comparison between the two calcineurin inhibitors (pimecrolimus and tacrolimus) showed the same overall incidence of adverse events, but with a small difference in the frequency of local effects.Serious adverse events were rare; occurred in both the tacrolimus and corticosteroid groups; and in most cases, were considered to be unrelated to the treatment. No cases of lymphoma were noted in the included studies nor in the non-comparative studies. Cases were only noted in spontaneous reports, cohorts, and case-control studies. Systemic absorption was rarely detectable, only in low levels, and this decreased with time. Exception is made for diseases with severe barrier defects, such as Netherton's syndrome, lamellar ichthyosis, and a few others, with case reports of a higher absorption. We evaluated clinical trials; case reports; and in vivo, in vitro, and animal studies; and didn't find any evidence that topical tacrolimus could cause skin atrophy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tacrolimus 0.1% was better than low-potency corticosteroids, pimecrolimus 1%, and tacrolimus 0.03%. Results were equivocal when comparing both dose formulations to moderate-to-potent corticosteroids. Tacrolimus 0.03% was superior to mild corticosteroids and pimecrolimus. Both tacrolimus formulations seemed to be safe, and no evidence was found to support the possible increased risk of malignancies or skin atrophy with their use. The reliability and strength of the evidence was limited by the lack of data; thus, findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. We did not evaluate costs.

Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 2. Management and treatment of atopic dermatitis with topical therapies

Atopic dermatitis is a common and chronic, pruritic inflammatory skin condition that can affect all age groups. This evidence-based guideline addresses important clinical questions that arise in its management. In this second of 4 sections, treatment of atopic dermatitis with nonpharmacologic interventions and pharmacologic topical therapies are reviewed. Where possible, suggestions on dosing and monitoring are given based on available evidence.

Topical calcineurin inhibitors and lymphoma risk: evidence update with implications for daily practice

Topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), commercially available since 2000–2001, are the first and only topical medications approved for chronic treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in pediatric patients and remain a welcomed alternative to topical corticosteroids. In January 2006, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a boxed warning requirement based on a theoretical risk of malignancy (including lymphoma) with TCI use. However, in the years since, analyses of epidemiologic and clinical data have failed to demonstrate a causal relationship between TCI use and malignancy or lymphoma risk, especially for pimecrolimus cream. In fact, the observed number of malignancies and lymphomas observed both in post-marketing surveillance and reported to the FDA using its adverse events reporting system is much lower among TCI-exposed patients than the expected number for the general population. Furthermore, among children enrolled in post-marketing pediatric registry studies for both tacrolimus and pimecrolimus followed for up to 5.5 years [10,724 patient-years (PY)] or 6.5 years (16,219 PY), respectively, the observed number of malignancies and lymphomas is very low and similar to the number expected for a sample of similar size in the general population. In addition to reporting these comparative malignancy and lymphoma data, this article provides a historical overview of the boxed warning requirement and critically evaluates the preclinical, clinical, and epidemiological evidence that has thus far failed to substantiate a relationship between TCI use and malignancy. The authors also provide practical clinical advice for optimizing AD management and patient care in the context of the boxed warning.

Efficacy of the topical therapy with Tacrolimus in case of atopic dermatitis in adults

Objective: to assess the efficacy and safety of 0.1% Tacrolimus ointment in case of atopic dermatitis in adults during the period of exacerbation. Materials and methods. The authors conducted a study of 60 patients (37 male and 23 female patients) with atopic dermatitis aged 22—45 during the period of exacerbation. Topical therapy with Tacrolimus (0.1% ointment) was administered to 22 patients once a day for 14 days. A topical glucocorticosteroid belonging to the 3rd bioactivity class according to the European classification of topical glucocorticosteroids (Miller, Munro) (0.1% methylprednisolone aceponate ointment) was administered for the treatment of 38 patients suffering from atopic dermatitis. For the purposes of unbiased assessment of the efficacy and safety of the topical therapy with different drugs, the authors performed an ultrasonic skin examination using a digital ultrasonic high-resolution system, DUB (manufactured by TPM GmbH). Results: In the course of the therapy, the authors observed a reliable reduction in the prevalence and severity of dermatosis as well as normalization of a number of ultrasonic indices of epidermis and derma. Conclusion: The therapeutic efficacy of short-term administration of Tacrolimus is comparable by its anti-inflammatory action to such potent topical glucocorticosteroid as methylprednisolone aceponate. Unlike the topical glucocorticosteroid, administration of Tacrolimus for exacerbated atopic dermatitis does not accelerate any skin atrophy phenomena.

Comparative effectiveness of topical calcineurin inhibitors in adult patients with atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by extreme pruritis and lichenified papules and plaques that may begin in or persist into adulthood. Topical corticosteroids are first-line prescription therapy for AD; they are efficacious and have a well established safety profile. The topical calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and pimecrolimus were approved by the US FDA in 2000 and 2001, respectively, as second-line topical therapy for AD. This review evaluates the available studies on the comparative effectiveness, safety, cost, and impact on quality of life of topical corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors for the treatment of adult AD. Tacrolimus was found to be as effective as class III-V topical corticosteroids for AD of the trunk and extremities, and more effective than low-potency class VI or VII corticosteroids for AD of the face or neck. Pimecrolimus was less effective than both tacrolimus and low-potency topical corticosteroids for moderate to severe AD. The short-term safety studies found that, compared with topical corticosteroid-treated adults, patients treated with topical calcineurin inhibitors had an increased frequency of application-site reactions, an equivalent infection risk, and a decreased risk of skin atrophy. The long-term safety of topical calcineurin inhibitors remains under investigation. Currently published studies that evaluated the comparative cost and quality-of-life effects compared tacrolimus with less potent topical corticosteroids despite the availability of equivalent potency corticosteroids. Further cost and quality-of-life studies are needed that compare topical calcineurin inhibitors with stronger classes of topical corticosteroids over longer time periods. The available clinical trials data do not suggest an efficacy advantage for topical calcineurin inhibitors over topical corticosteroids in adults with AD of the trunk and extremities, and there is not yet adequate evidence to support topical calcineurin inhibitors as first-line therapy for adult AD.

A systematic review of tacrolimus ointment compared with corticosteroids in the treatment of atopic dermatitis

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the efficacy and tolerability of tacrolimus ointment for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) compared with topical corticosteroids.

METHODS

Electronic searches were performed in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library, as well as relevant conference proceedings. Two researchers independently selected trials investigating the efficacy and/or safety of tacrolimus ointment in the treatment of AD. No language restrictions were applied. Relevant outcome data from included trials were extracted by two independent reviewers. Direct meta-analysis to calculate relative risks (RR) (95% confidence intervals (CIs)) was conducted on dichotomous efficacy/safety outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Seventeen trials comparing tacrolimus ointment with topical corticosteroids in both paediatric (n = 2328) and adult (n = 2849) patients were identified. No studies comparing tacrolimus ointment with class IV topical corticosteroids were identified. Tacrolimus 0.1% ointment was found to be of similar efficacy to class I/II and class III topical corticosteroids. In three individual trials (comparing tacrolimus 0.1% ointment to a topical corticosteroid), evaluation of the Physician's Global Evaluation of Clinical Response (PGECR) resulted in RRs of 0.95 (95% CI 0.78-1.16), 3.09 (95% CI 2.14-4.45) and 1.35 (95% CI 0.86-2.12), where values above one favour tacrolimus ointment. With the exception that tacrolimus ointment caused more skin burning than comparator treatments (tacrolimus 0.03% versus a class III topical corticosteroid, the RR was 3.00 (95% CI 1.21-7.43) in favour of the corticosteroid), no significant differences with regards to side-effects and withdrawals due to AEs were found. Quality of life data were reported in two studies. While one study reported greater improvements in tacrolimus-treated adult patients compared with topical steroids, the second reported greater improvements in paediatric patients treated with steroids compared with tacrolimus ointment.

CONCLUSIONS

The current review and meta-analysis showed tacrolimus ointment to be of similar efficacy to corticosteroids. The interpretation of available data is limited by heterogeneity in outcome measures between trials. Further trials are needed to assess the impact of treatments on patient reported outcomes.

Tacrolimus: 10 years of successful clinical application

Tacrolimus (FK506) is the first drug from the new class of drugs - calcineurin inhibitors. It has a great potential and can change the current approaches to treatment of different dermatoses. Topical forms of Tacrolimus are activated due to the effect on T-lymphocyte signal transduction, and they also inhibit gene transcription. As a result, the T-cell response to antigens is alleviated. Percutaneous absorption of Tacrolimus in affection foci is higher than in healthy skin. Due to this a smaller amount of the drug is absorbed by the skin as long as the skin is healed. Systemic absorption of Tacrolimus is low in the course of treatment. The maximum clinical experience has been gained in the field of applying Tacrolimus for treatment of atopic dermatitis. In a number of clinical studies, 0.03-0.3% Tacrolimus ointment efficiently reduced the severity of symptoms and course of atopic dermatitis in adults and children. Moreover, topical treatment with Tacrolimus did not involve any substantial toxic effects. The patients most often complained of local irritations in the area where the ointment was applied, which were transient by nature and did not demand the drug withdrawal. Today Tacrolimus is a valuable and safer alternative to glucocorticosteroids for treatment of atopic dermatitis. It can also be used for treating other dermatoses, which demands additional all-round examination.

Update on the management of chronic eczema: new approaches and emerging treatment options

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common disease with worldwide prevalence, affecting up to 20% of children and 3% of adults. Recent evidence regarding pathogenesis has implicated epidermal barrier defects deriving from filagrin mutations with resulting secondary inflammation. In this report, the authors comprehensively review the literature on atopic dermatitis therapy, including topical and systemic options. Most cases of AD will benefit from emollients to enhance the barrier function of skin. Topical corticosteroids are first-line therapy for most cases of AD. Topical calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus ointment, pimecrolimus cream) are considered second line therapy. Several novel barrier-enhancing prescription creams are also available. Moderate to severe cases inadequately controlled with topical therapy may require phototherapy or systemic therapy. The most commonly employed phototherapy modalites are narrow-band UVB, broadband UVB, and UVA1. Traditional systemic therapies include short-term corticosteroids, cyclosporine (considered to be the gold standard), methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, and most recently leflunamide. Biologic therapies include recombinant monoclonal antibodies acting on the immunoglobulin E / interleukin-5 pathway (omalizumab, mepolizumab), acting as tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab), and acting as T-cell (alefacept) and B-cell (rituxumab) inhibitors, as well as interferon γ and intravenous immunoglobulin. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability are reviewed for each medication.