Rapid and Sustained Effect of Dupilumab on Work Productivity in Patients with Difficult-to-treat Atopic Dermatitis: Results from the Dutch BioDay Registry

Dupilumab treatment improves signs, symptoms, and quality of life in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. This study evaluated the impact of dupilumab treatment on absenteeism, presenteeism, and related costs in a large multi-centre cohort of adult patients with difficult-to-treat atopic dermatitis in daily practice. Patients treated with dupilumab participating in the Dutch BioDay Registry reporting employment were included. Absenteeism, presenteeism, and related costs at baseline and during follow-up were calculated using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire. A total of 218 adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis were included. Total work impairment reduced significantly from baseline (35.5%) to week 52 (11.5%), p < 0.001. Median weekly productivity losses reduced significantly from baseline (€379.8 (140.7–780.8)) to week 52 (€0.0 (0.0–211.0), p < 0.001). In this study, dupilumab treatment demonstrated a significant improvement in work productivity and reduction in associated costs in a large cohort of patients with difficult-to-treat atopic dermatitis in daily practice.

Economic Burden of Adult Patients with Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis Indicated for Systemic Treatment

Given the introduction of new therapies targeting specific immune pathways for atopic dermatitis (AD), information on the economic burden of AD patients is needed. Direct costs (medication use and healthcare resource utilization) and costs of productivity loss were studied in 90 adult patients with AD indicated for systemic treatment. Costs were calculated for patients with controlled (Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) 0-2) and uncontrolled (IGA 3-5) disease at inclusion. Mean (95% confidence interval (95% CI)) total direct costs were €5,191 (€4,382-6,019) per patient per year (PPY), €4,401 (€3,695-5,215) for patients with controlled AD vs. €6,993 (€5,552-8,406), mean difference €2,593 (€820-4,282) (p=0.014) for patients with uncontrolled AD. Costs of productivity loss were €10,040 (€6,260-14,012) PPY for the total group, €6,886 (€4,188-10,129) PPY for patients with controlled AD vs. €13,702 (€6,124-22,996) for patients with uncontrolled AD, mean difference €6,816 (-€1,638-16,677; p=0.148). Total costs (direct costs+costs of productivity loss) were €15,231 (€11,487-19,455) PPY for the total group, €11,287 (€7,974-15,436) for patients with controlled AD vs. €20,695 (€14,068-34,564), mean difference €9,408 (-€119-19,964) (p=0.077) for patients with uncontrolled AD. Patients with AD using systemic immunosuppressive treatment incur considerable direct costs and costs of productivity loss.

Towards personalized treatment in atopic dermatitis

INTRODUCTION

For many years, oral immunosuppressive drugs such as cyclosporine A, azathioprine, mycophenolic acid, and methotrexate were the only treatment options, in addition to topical treatment, in patients with severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-4 receptor alpha, is the first antibody-based treatment commercially available for the treatment of AD. In the near future, more antibody-based treatments and small molecules will become available in the treatment of severe AD.

AREAS COVERED

This review gives an overview of current and future therapies for severe AD, outlines options to optimize treatment with oral immunosuppressive drugs and gives an insight into the future of personalized treatment in AD.

EXPERT OPINION

Due to the heterogeneous character of AD, it is unlikely that all patients will respond equally to these newly tested drugs. We believe that biomarkers will lead to better identification of patients that will benefit from these highly specific, but expensive new treatments. In addition to a role for biomarkers in new treatments, the use of pharmacogenomic biomarkers can improve the efficacy of currently used oral immunosuppressive drugs in AD, which will still be needed for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in the coming years.

Dupilumab in atopic dermatitis: rationale, latest evidence and place in therapy

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is one of the most common chronic inflammatory skin diseases. The prevalence of AD is increasing and is currently estimated at 10-20% in adults worldwide. In the majority of patients, AD can be adequately controlled with topical treatment or ultraviolet light therapy, but there is a high unmet need for effective and safe therapeutics in patients with more severe or difficult to treat AD. During the past decade, new advances in the understanding of the underlying immune pathogenesis of AD have led to the development of new, more targeted therapies. Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor α, thereby blocking the IL-4 and IL-13 pathway, is one of the first biologics that has been developed for AD. Dupilumab has shown promising results in phase III trials and has recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Commission for the treatment of moderate to severe AD. With the approval of dupilumab, we are entering a new era of biological therapeutics in AD management. The place of dupilumab should be established in the current treatment standards. Based on current treatment guidelines and experts' opinions in the management of AD, we have built a proposal for a treatment algorithm for systemic treatment of AD in European countries.

Lymphopenia in atopic dermatitis patients treated with oral immunosuppressive drugs

INTRODUCTION

Oral immunosuppressive drugs are commonly used in the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD). In patients with autoimmune- and rheumatic diseases, these drugs have been associated with lymphopenia. Lymphopenia is related to an increased risk of opportunistic infections. The incidence of lymphopenia in patients with AD treated with oral immunosuppressive drugs is yet unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the occurrence of recurrent lymphopenia in patients with AD treated with oral immunosuppressive drugs and to make recommendations for screening in daily practice.

METHODS

Patients with recurrent lymphopenia (i.e. >5 times lymphocyte counts below 0.8 × 10⁹/L) during treatment with oral immunosuppressive drugs were included from our immunosuppressive drugs database and further analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 360 AD patients, treated with oral immunosuppressive drugs, were screened. A recurrent lymphopenia during treatment was found in 11 patients. In 8/11 patients, recurrent lymphopenia was observed during concomitant treatment with prednisone. No serious infections were observed.

CONCLUSION

Lymphopenia is occasionally seen in AD patients treat with oral immunosuppressive drugs. Concomitant treatment with prednisone seems to be a risk factor. We suggest to include monitoring of lymphocyte counts in the standard follow-up for all AD patients treated with oral immunosuppressive drugs.

When does atopic dermatitis warrant systemic therapy? Recommendations from an expert panel of the International Eczema Council

BACKGROUND

Although most patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) are effectively managed with topical medication, a significant minority require systemic therapy. Guidelines for decision making about advancement to systemic therapy are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To guide those considering use of systemic therapy in AD and provide a framework for evaluation before making this therapeutic decision with the patient.

METHODS

A subgroup of the International Eczema Council determined aspects to consider before prescribing systemic therapy. Topics were assigned to expert reviewers who performed a topic-specific literature review, referred to guidelines when available, and provided interpretation and expert opinion.

RESULTS

We recommend a systematic and holistic approach to assess patients with severe signs and symptoms of AD and impact on quality of life before systemic therapy. Steps taken before commencing systemic therapy include considering alternate or concomitant diagnoses, avoiding trigger factors, optimizing topical therapy, ensuring adequate patient/caregiver education, treating coexistent infection, assessing the impact on quality of life, and considering phototherapy.

LIMITATIONS

Our work is a consensus statement, not a systematic review.

CONCLUSION

The decision to start systemic medication should include assessment of severity and quality of life while considering the individual's general health status, psychologic needs, and personal attitudes toward systemic therapies.

Risk of Non-melanoma Skin Cancer in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis Treated with Oral Immunosuppressive Drugs

There is uncertainty about the risk of developing non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), including basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated with oral immunosuppressive drugs. A total of 557 patients with AD treated with these drugs in the University Medical Center Utrecht and Groningen, the Netherlands, were analysed. NMSC after oral immunosuppressive treatment was reported in 18 patients (3.2%). The standardized incidence ratio for developing SCC was 13.1 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 6.5-19.7). Patients developing NMSC were older at the start of therapy (p<0.001) and data lock (p<0.001) compared with patients without NMSC. No significant differences were found in sex, cumulative days of oral immunosuppressive drugs and follow-up between these groups (p=0.42, p=0.88, and p=0.34, respectively). In interpreting these results it is important to include other factors, such as lack of association between treatment duration and tumour development and the long interval between treatment discontinuation and tumour development in some patients.

Is There an Additional Value of Inpatient Treatment for Patients with Atopic Dermatitis?

An inpatient treatment and education programme has been developed for patients with difficult to control atopic dermatitis (AD), with the aim of achieving adequate self-management and long-term disease control. This observational study included adult patients diagnosed with difficult to control AD, admitted for a structured inpatient treatment and education programme. The primary outcome was the Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis (SASSAD) score. In total, 79 patients (mean ± SD age 38.8 ± 17.1 years) were included. The median duration of hospitalization was 11 days (interquartile range 8-14). The mean percentage decrease in SASSAD score between admission and discharge was 60.7%, of which 64 (81.0%) patients achieved SASSAD50. The mean percentage decrease in SASSAD score was 69.0% during follow-up, of which 63 (79.7%) patients still had a SASSAD50. In the majority of these patients with difficult to control AD the admission resulted in sustained disease control. This could be achieved by optimization of treatment with topical corticosteroids.

Serum creatinine levels during and after long-term treatment with cyclosporine A in patients with severe atopic dermatitis

Safety data with respect to kidney function during long-term treatment with cyclosporine A (CsA) in patients with atopic dermatitis is limited. Data on serum creatinine levels before, during and after CsA treatment were collected in a retrospective cohort of adult patients with atopic dermatitis. The median duration of treatment of 150 patients was 280 days (interquartile range 203-528 days). There was a significant, but not clinically relevant, increase in serum creatinine compared with the baseline level after 3 weeks of treatment with CsA and stabilization during the maintenance phase at the group level. Twenty-two (14.7%) patients had a greater than 30% increase in serum creatinine (cut-off point for clinically relevant change) compared with baseline. These patients were significantly older than the patients without a 30% increase (mean ± standard deviation age 41.4 ± 15.6 vs. 33.8 ± 11.7 years (p = 0.01)). During follow-up, all patients had a less than 30% increase in serum creatinine levels compared with baseline levels. At the group level serum creatinine levels during follow-up were not significantly different from baseline.