Different potencies of topical corticosteroids for a better treatment strategy in children with atopic dermatitis (the Rotterdam Eczema study): protocol for an observational cohort study with an embedded randomised open-label controlled 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.

Reasons for unsuccessful recruitment of children with atopic dermatitis in primary care in the Netherlands to a cohort study with an embedded pragmatic, randomised controlled open-label trial: a survey

BACKGROUND

The Rotterdam Eczema Study was an observational cohort study with an embedded pragmatic randomised controlled open-label trial. It was conducted in children with atopic dermatitis (AD) in the Dutch primary care system. The objective of the trial was to determine whether a potent topical corticosteroid (TCS) is more effective than a low-potency TCS.

OBJECTIVE

We are aiming to communicate transparently about the poor recruitment for the trial part and to explore the reasons why recruitment was weak.

DESIGN

We used a survey to find out what patients in the cohort did when they experienced a flare-up.

METHODS

Descriptive statistics were used to present the baseline characteristics of participants in the trial and the results of the survey.

RESULTS

In total, 367 patients were included in the cohort. Of these, 32 were randomly assigned to a trial treatment; they had a median age of 4.0 years (IQR 2.0-9.8). A total of 69 of the 86 children (80.2%) who could participate in the survey responded. 39 (56.5%) suffered a flare-up during the follow-up (making them potentially eligible for inclusion in the trial). 26 out of 39 (66.7%) increased their use of an emollient and/or TCS themselves. Only 12 of the 39 (30.7%) contacted their general practitioner (GP) as instructed in the study protocol, but 8 out of these 12 did not meet the inclusion criteria for the trial.

CONCLUSION

The main reason why cohort participants did not take part in the trial was that they did not contact their GPs when they experienced an AD flare-up. Furthermore, the majority of patients who contacted their GPs did not match the inclusion criteria of the trial. We expect that the lessons learnt from this study will be useful when developing future studies of children with AD in primary care.

Treatment Patterns of Atopic Dermatitis Medication in 0-10-Year-Olds: A Nationwide Prescription-Based Study

INTRODUCTION

The literature on treatment patterns for paediatric atopic dermatitis (AD) is scarce and is rarely based on real-world data. Using national registers, we sought to establish up-to-date, population-based prevalence estimates, predictors of risk and disease burden and a comprehensive overview of treatment patterns and course for paediatric patients with AD.

METHODS

Dispensed prescriptions for the entire Norwegian child population aged 0-10 years from 2014 to 2020 were analysed.

RESULTS

There were 176,458 paediatric patients with AD. Of these, 99.2% received topical corticosteroids, 5.1% received topical calcineurin inhibitors, 37.1% received potent topical corticosteroids and 2.1% received systemic corticosteroids. Of the 59,335 live births in Norway (2014), 14,385 [24.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 24.5-25.1] paediatric patients were treated for AD before the age of 6 years, and of these, only 934 (6.5%; 95% CI 6.1-6.9) received medication annually for 5 years or more. Compared with girls, 17.9% (95% CI 6.5-27.9) more boys were treated for at least 5 years, receiving 6.4% (95% CI 1.2-11.3) more potent topical corticosteroids and 12.4% (95% CI 6.5-18.0) more were treated for skin infections. Compared with patients with late-onset treatment, 18.9% (95% CI 7.5-29.0) more paediatric patients with early-onset treatment were still receiving treatment at 5 years of age, 15.7% (95% CI 7.1-23.4) more paediatric patients received potent topical corticosteroids and 44.4% (95% CI 36.5-51.2) more paediatric patients were treated for skin infections.

CONCLUSION

Most paediatric patients were treated for a mild disease for a limited period. Although the prevalence of AD is higher at a younger age, these paediatric patients were the least likely to receive potent topical corticosteroids. Male sex and early-onset AD are associated with and are potential predictors of long-term treatment and treatment of potent topical corticosteroids, antihistamines and skin infections, which may have clinical utility for personalised prognosis, healthcare planning and future AD prevention trials.

Strategies for using topical corticosteroids in children and adults with eczema

BACKGROUND

Eczema is a common skin condition. Although topical corticosteroids have been a first-line treatment for eczema for decades, there are uncertainties over their optimal use.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the effectiveness and safety of different ways of using topical corticosteroids for treating eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched databases to January 2021 (Cochrane Skin Specialised Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; GREAT) and five clinical trials registers. We checked bibliographies from included trials to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in adults and children with eczema that compared at least two strategies of topical corticosteroid use. We excluded placebo comparisons, other than for trials that evaluated proactive versus reactive treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods, with GRADE certainty of evidence for key findings. Primary outcomes were changes in clinician-reported signs and relevant local adverse events. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported symptoms and relevant systemic adverse events. For local adverse events, we prioritised abnormal skin thinning as a key area of concern for healthcare professionals and patients.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 104 trials (8443 participants). Most trials were conducted in high-income countries (81/104), most likely in outpatient or other hospital settings. We judged only one trial to be low risk of bias across all domains. Fifty-five trials had high risk of bias in at least one domain, mostly due to lack of blinding or missing outcome data. Stronger-potency versus weaker-potency topical corticosteroids Sixty-three trials compared different potencies of topical corticosteroids: 12 moderate versus mild, 22 potent versus mild, 25 potent versus moderate, and 6 very potent versus potent. Trials were usually in children with moderate or severe eczema, where specified, lasting one to five weeks. The most reported outcome was Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) of clinician-reported signs of eczema. We pooled four trials that compared moderate- versus mild-potency topical corticosteroids (420 participants). Moderate-potency topical corticosteroids probably result in more participants achieving treatment success, defined as cleared or marked improvement on IGA (52% versus 34%; odds ratio (OR) 2.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.04; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled nine trials that compared potent versus mild-potency topical corticosteroids (392 participants). Potent topical corticosteroids probably result in a large increase in number achieving treatment success (70% versus 39%; OR 3.71, 95% CI 2.04 to 6.72; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled 15 trials that compared potent versus moderate-potency topical corticosteroids (1053 participants). There was insufficient evidence of a benefit of potent topical corticosteroids compared to moderate topical corticosteroids (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.89; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled three trials that compared very potent versus potent topical corticosteroids (216 participants). The evidence is uncertain with a wide confidence interval (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence). Twice daily or more versus once daily application We pooled 15 of 25 trials in this comparison (1821 participants, all reported IGA). The trials usually assessed adults and children with moderate or severe eczema, where specified, using potent topical corticosteroids, lasting two to six weeks. Applying potent topical corticosteroids only once a day probably does not decrease the number achieving treatment success compared to twice daily application (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.38; 15 trials, 1821 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Local adverse events Within the trials that tested 'treating eczema flare-up' strategies, we identified only 26 cases of abnormal skin thinning from 2266 participants (1% across 22 trials). Most cases were from the use of higher-potency topical corticosteroids (16 with very potent, 6 with potent, 2 with moderate and 2 with mild). We assessed this evidence as low certainty, except for very potent versus potent topical corticosteroids, which was very low-certainty evidence.  Longer versus shorter-term duration of application for induction of remission No trials were identified. Twice weekly application (weekend, or 'proactive therapy') to prevent relapse (flare-ups) versus no topical corticosteroids/reactive application Nine trials assessed this comparison, generally lasting 16 to 20 weeks. We pooled seven trials that compared weekend (proactive) topical corticosteroids therapy versus no topical corticosteroids (1179 participants, children and adults with a range of eczema severities, though mainly moderate or severe). Weekend (proactive) therapy probably results in a large decrease in likelihood of a relapse from 58% to 25% (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57; 7 trials, 1149 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Local adverse events We did not identify any cases of abnormal skin thinning in seven trials that assessed skin thinning (1050 participants) at the end of treatment. We assessed this evidence as low certainty. Other comparisons  Other comparisons included newer versus older preparations of topical corticosteroids (15 trials), cream versus ointment (7 trials), topical corticosteroids with wet wrap versus no wet wrap (6 trials), number of days per week applied (4 trials), different concentrations of the same topical corticosteroids (2 trials), time of day applied (2 trials), topical corticosteroids alternating with topical calcineurin inhibitors versus topical corticosteroids alone (1 trial), application to wet versus dry skin (1 trial) and application before versus after emollient (1 trial). No trials compared branded versus generic topical corticosteroids and time between application of emollient and topical corticosteroids.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Potent and moderate topical corticosteroids are probably more effective than mild topical corticosteroids, primarily in moderate or severe eczema; however, there is uncertain evidence to support any advantage of very potent over potent topical corticosteroids. Effectiveness is similar between once daily and twice daily (or more) frequent use of potent topical corticosteroids to treat eczema flare-ups, and topical corticosteroids weekend (proactive) therapy is probably better than no topical corticosteroids/reactive use to prevent eczema relapse (flare-ups). Adverse events were not well reported and came largely from low- or very low-certainty, short-term trials. In trials that reported abnormal skin thinning, frequency was low overall and increased with increasing potency. We found no trials on the optimum duration of treatment of a flare, branded versus generic topical corticosteroids, and time to leave between application of topical corticosteroids and emollient. There is a need for longer-term trials, in people with mild eczema.

Safety of tacrolimus 0.03% and 0.1% ointments in young children with atopic dermatitis - a 36-month follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Topical tacrolimus is used off-label in young children, but data remains limited regarding children under 2 years of age and long-term treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To compare safety differences between tacrolimus 0.03% and 0.1% ointments with mild and moderate potency topical corticosteroids in young children with atopic dermatitis.

METHODS

We conducted a 36-month follow-up study with 152 young children from one to three years of age with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Children were followed prospectively and data concerning infections, disease severity, growth parameters, vaccination responses, and other relevant laboratory tests were gathered.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the treatment groups in skin-related infections (p = 0.198), other infections (p = 0.498), growth parameters height (p = 0.601) and weight (p = 0.812), EASI scores (p = 0.187), vaccination responses (p = 0.620), serum cortisone levels (p = 0.228) and serum levels of IL-4, IL-10, IL-12, IL-31 and IFN gamma. EASI decreased significantly in both groups (p < 0.0001). In the tacrolimus group, nine patients (11.68%) had detectable tacrolimus blood concentrations at the 1-week visit. We observed no malignancies or severe infections during the study. Blood eosinophil counts were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical tacrolimus (0.03% and 0.1%) and topical corticosteroids (mild and moderate potency) are safe to use in young children with moderate-to severe-atopic dermatitis and have comparable efficacy and safety profiles.

Clinical and Economic Burden of Mild-to-Moderate Atopic Dermatitis in the UK: A Propensity-Score-Matched Case-Control Study

Introduction

The burden of mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) in the United Kingdom (UK) is not well understood. Long-lasting AD flares may lead to systemic inflammation resulting in reversible progression from mild to more severe AD. This study aimed to assess the clinical and economic burden of mild-to-moderate AD in the UK.

Methods

AD patients were identified in the Health Improvement Network (THIN) from 2013 to 2017 and propensity score matched to non-AD controls by demographics. Patients were identified based on continuous disease activity using validated algorithms and sufficient patient status to fully validate data integrity for the entire period. Mild-to-moderate AD patients were identified by using treatment as a surrogate. Demographics, clinical characteristics and healthcare resource use (HCRU) were obtained from THIN. Literature reviews were conducted to obtain additional outcomes. A cost-of-illness model was developed to extrapolate the burden in 2017 to the UK population and in subsequent years (2018–2022).

Results

In 2017, the prevalence of mild-to-moderate AD in THIN was 1.28%. These patients reported higher comorbidity rates and significantly higher (p < 0.0001) HCRU, encompassing mean general practitioner visits (5.57 versus 3.59), AD-related prescriptions (5.85 versus 0.68) and total referrals (0.97 versus 0.82) versus matched non-AD controls. The model projected total HCRU and drug excess costs of €462.99M over the 5 years. The excess cost decreased to €417.35M after excluding patients on very potent topical corticosteroids, who most likely had at least moderate disease. The excess costs increased to €1.21B and €7.06B when considering comorbidity burden and productivity losses, respectively.

Conclusion

Mild-to-moderate AD patients had higher comorbidity burden, HCRU and cost compared with matched non-AD controls. Overall, UK country-based economic burden was high given partly the high prevalence of this disease. Moreover, productivity burden and comorbidities had considerable impact on the economic burden, which further suggests the importance of optimal disease management.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13555-021-00519-7.