European guideline (EuroGuiDerm) on atopic eczema - part II: non-systemic treatments and treatment recommendations for special AE patient populations

The evidence- and consensus-based guideline on atopic eczema was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. Four consensus conferences were held between December 2020 and July 2021. Twenty-nine experts (including clinicians and patient representatives) from 12 European countries participated. This second part of the guideline includes recommendations and detailed information on basic therapy with emollients and moisturizers, topical anti-inflammatory treatment, antimicrobial and antipruritic treatment and UV phototherapy. Furthermore, this part of the guideline covers techniques for avoiding provocation factors, as well as dietary interventions, immunotherapy, complementary medicine and educational interventions for patients with atopic eczema and deals with occupational and psychodermatological aspects of the disease. It also contains guidance on treatment for paediatric and adolescent patients and pregnant or breastfeeding women, as well as considerations for patients who want to have a child. A chapter on the patient perspective is also provided. The first part of the guideline, published separately, contains recommendations and guidance on systemic treatment with conventional immunosuppressive drugs, biologics and janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as information on the scope and purpose of the guideline, and a section on guideline methodology.

European guideline (EuroGuiDerm) on atopic eczema: part I - systemic therapy

The evidence- and consensus-based guideline on atopic eczema was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. Four consensus conferences were held between December 2020 and July 2021. Twenty-nine experts (including clinicians and patient representatives) from 12 European countries participated. This first part of the guideline includes general information on its scope and purpose, the health questions covered, target users and a methods section. It also provides guidance on which patients should be treated with systemic therapies, as well as recommendations and detailed information on each systemic drug. The systemic treatment options discussed in the guideline comprise conventional immunosuppressive drugs (azathioprine, ciclosporin, glucocorticosteroids, methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil), biologics (dupilumab, lebrikizumab, nemolizumab, omalizumab and tralokinumab) and janus kinase inhibitors (abrocitinib, baricitinib and upadacitinib). Part two of the guideline will address avoidance of provocation factors, dietary interventions, immunotherapy, complementary medicine, educational interventions, occupational and psychodermatological aspects, patient perspective and considerations for paediatric, adolescent, pregnant and breastfeeding patients.

Primary alterations during the development of hidradenitis suppurativa

Background

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, inflammatory disease of the apocrine gland‐rich (AGR) skin region. The initial steps of disease development are not fully understood, despite intense investigations into immune alterations in lesional HS skin.

Objectives

We aimed to systematically investigate the inflammatory molecules involved in three stages of HS pathogenesis, including healthy AGR, non‐lesional HS and lesional HS skin, with the parallel application of multiple mRNA and protein‐based methods.

Methods

Immune cell counts (T cells, dendritic cells, macrophages), Th1/Th17‐related molecules (IL‐12B, TBX21, IFNG, TNFA, IL‐17, IL10, IL‐23A, TGFB1, RORC, CCL20), keratinocyte‐related sensors (TLR2,4), mediators (S100A7, S100A8, S100A9, DEFB4B, LCN2, CAMP, CCL2) and pro‐inflammatory molecules (IL1B, IL6, TNFA, IL‐23A) were investigated in the three groups by RNASeq, RT‐qPCR, immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence.

Results

Epidermal changes were already detectable in non‐lesional HS skin; the epidermal occurrence of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), IL‐1β, TNF‐α and IL‐23 was highly upregulated compared with healthy AGR skin. In lesional HS epidermis, TNF‐α and IL‐1β expression remained at high levels while AMPs and IL‐23 increased even more compared with non‐lesional skin. In the dermis of non‐lesional HS skin, signs of inflammation were barely detectable (vs. AGR), while in the lesional dermis, the number of inflammatory cells and Th1/Th17‐related mediators were significantly elevated.

Conclusions

Our findings that non‐lesional HS epidermal keratinocytes produce not only AMPs and IL‐1β but also high levels of TNF‐α and IL‐23 confirm the driver role of keratinocytes in HS pathogenesis and highlight the possible role of keratinocytes in the transformation of non‐inflammatory Th17 cells (of healthy AGR skin) into inflammatory cells (of HS) via the production of these mediators. The fact that epidermal TNF‐α and IL‐23 appear also in non‐lesional HS seems to prove these cytokines as excellent therapeutic targets.

Improvement of clinical and immunological parameters after allergen-specific immunotherapy in atopic dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is considered a curative treatment in some atopic diseases, but in AD contradictory clinical results exist and the action of AIT has not been elucidated. In the literature, there is no evidence for parallel investigations of permeability barrier, cutaneous and blood immune responses after AIT in AD.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to investigate immune parameters in the blood and skin and to detect clinical and barrier changes after AIT in AD.

METHODS

Mild-to-moderate AD patients (n = 14) with concomitant allergic rhinitis to house dust mites were selected. All patients received topical treatment, while eight patients were randomly selected for adjuvant AIT also. At baseline and after 6 months, clinical, barrier and immunological investigations (serum and skin tests) were performed. In selected patients, biopsies from atopy patch tests (APTs) were analysed by immunohistochemistry for AD-relevant immune cells and mediators.

RESULTS

In the adjuvant AIT group, clinical parameters and barrier functions improved significantly. Blood immune parameters displayed no significant changes. Post-AIT APT became negative in all patients in the AIT group, but remained positive in the non-AIT group. Cutaneous dendritic cell and T-cell recruitment decreased significantly after allergen challenge in the AIT group, but no significant changes in skin or serum immunoglobulin E levels or prick test (SPT) reactivity were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Allergen immunotherapy is a beneficial adjuvant treatment for sensitized AD patients. AIT improves not only clinical symptoms, but also permeability barrier functions. The effect of AIT on sensitization should be detected by APT, not by SPT.

Validity of EQ-5D-5L, Skindex-16, DLQI and DLQI-R in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa

BACKGROUND

Numerous generic, skin- and disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures are available for patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Yet, robust psychometric evidence is lacking in many aspects of these outcome measures.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine convergent and known-groups validity of multiple generic and skin-specific HRQoL measures and to identify predictors of impaired HRQoL in patients with HS.

METHODS

Between 2017 and 2019, a multicentre cross-sectional study was carried out involving 200 consecutive HS patients. HRQoL outcomes included the EQ-5D-5L, EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS), Skindex-16, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and DLQI-Relevant (DLQI-R). Disease severity was graded by HS-Physician's Global Assessment (HS-PGA) scale and the Modified Sartorius scale (MSS).

RESULTS

Overall, 77%, 56%, 51%, 46% and 28% reported problems in the pain/discomfort, usual activities, anxiety/depression, mobility and self-care dimensions of EQ-5D-5L. Mean ± SD EQ VAS, DLQI and DLQI-R scores were 64.29 ± 22.68, 11.75 ± 8.11 and 12.19 ± 8.33, respectively. Skindex-16 responses indicated that the emotional burden of HS (64.55 ± 29.28) far exceeded those of functioning (49.40 ± 34.70) and physical symptoms (46.74 ± 29.36). EQ-5D-5L, EQ VAS, DLQI, DLQI-R and Skindex-16 total scores had moderate or strong correlations with each other (range: |0.487| to |0.993|), weak or moderate correlations with HS-PGA (|0.350| to |0.433|) and weak correlations with MSS (|0.324| to |0.389|). DLQI-R slightly outperformed DLQI both in terms of convergent and known-groups validity. Being female, lower education level, more severe disease and genital involvement were associated with worse HRQoL (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study provides high-quality evidence that among skin-specific outcomes, the DLQI, DLQI-R and Skindex-16, and among generic instruments, the EQ-5D-5L are suitable to be used in HS patients. In future research, we recommend the use of existing well-validated HRQoL tools instead of developing new measures for each study. The development of composite measures that combine physician- and patient-reported outcomes is not supported by evidence in HS. [Correction added on 25 July 2020, after first online publication: in the Abstract section, the ± signs were missing and have been added to this version.].

Severe skin inflammation and filaggrin mutation similarly alter the skin barrier in patients with atopic dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Filaggrin (FLG) deficiency is a well-known predisposing factor for the development of atopic dermatitis (AD). Decreased FLG expression can be the result of haploinsufficiency or severe inflammation, which can cause acquired FLG alterations. FLG mutations are related to several clinical and laboratory parameters of AD; however, some recent data seem to contradict these associations.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to determine which clinical and biochemical parameters are connected to FLG haploinsufficiency and which ones are also associated with acquired FLG alterations due to severe skin symptoms in patients with AD.

METHODS

We introduced a novel classification of patients with AD, based on FLG mutations and SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis). Based on these parameters, we created three groups of patients with AD: mild-to-moderate wild-type (A), severe wild-type (B) and severe mutant (C). In all groups, we assessed laboratory and clinical parameters and performed immunohistochemical analyses.

RESULTS

Groups B and C contained patients with equally severe symptoms based on the SCORAD. The two severe groups did not differ significantly with respect to barrier-specific parameters, whereas group A had significantly better results for the barrier function measurements. However, significant differences were detected between groups B and C with respect to the allergic sensitization-specific parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that skin barrier function correlates with the severity of skin inflammation and can be equally impaired in patients with FLG mutant- and wild-type AD with severe symptoms. Nevertheless, our results also suggest that patients with FLG mutant-type AD may have a higher risk of allergic sensitization compared with patients with the wild-type.