Phototherapy for atopic dermatitis: A survey of European practice.

BACKGROUND: Phototherapy is used to treat atopic dermatitis (AD). Evidence for its efficacy, impact on quality of life, cost-effectiveness and short- and long-term safety with real-life usage is weak. OBJECTIVES: We established a taskforce to examine how phototherapy is currently being used as a treatment for AD across the United Kingdom and Europe to inform our understanding and guide future research into management of patients with AD using UV-based phototherapies. METHODS: An anonymous electronic multiple-response survey exploring phototherapy prescribing practices and experience of phototherapy modalities was developed by the study authors and sent to members of phototherapy networks from the United Kingdom and Europe. Responses were received between February and July 2021. RESULTS: About 144 respondents from 27 European countries completed the survey. NBUVB was the most widely used [n = 138 (96%)]. Home-based NBUVB was available in 8/27 countries (25/144 respondents, 17%). Oral psoralen-UVA (PUVA) was more widely available than bath PUVA (n = 106, 74% vs. n = 60, 42%) and used mainly in adult patients. 49/144 (34%) of respondents had access to UVA1. Phototherapy would be considered instead of systemic treatment in 96% of adults and 82% of children for NBUVB, versus 40% of adults and 3% of children for PUVA. Starting doses, standard dosing increments, length of treatment courses, lifetime limits for treatments and thresholds for performing annual skin assessments varied between responders. CONCLUSIONS: NBUVB was the most widely used phototherapy for AD in adult and paediatric patients, while PUVA and UVA1 were less used. Prescribing practices varied considerably, highlighting the lack of consensus practice in many different aspects of phototherapy for the treatment of AD in children and adults. This indicates that further studies are required to determine optimal phototherapeutic regimens for AD and informs our understanding of parameters that should be included in future high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCT) of phototherapy.

Prevalence of and association between atopic dermatitis and food sensitivity, food allergy and challenge-proven food allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and food allergy (FA) share similar type 2 inflammation and commonly co-occur, but the precise proportion of AD patients with FA and vice versa, as well as the effect of AD disease severity on the strength of this association remains uncertain. The aim of this comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the prevalence and bidirectional associations of AD with food sensitivity (FS), FA and challenge-proven food allergy (CPFA). We searched PubMed and EMBASE and three independent reviewers performed title/abstract and full-text review and data extraction. Overall, 557 articles (n = 225,568 individuals with AD, n = 1,128,322 reference individuals; n = 1,357,793 individuals with FS, FA or CPFA, n = 1,244,596 reference individuals) were included in quantitative analyses. The overall pooled prevalence of FS, FA and CPFA in individuals with AD were 48.4% (95% confidence interval: 43.7-53.2), 32.7% (28.8-36.6) and 40.7% (34.1-47.5) respectively. AD prevalence among individuals with FS, FA and CPFA were 51.2% (46.3-56.2), 45.3% (41.4-49.3) and 54.9% (47.0-62.8) respectively. Children with AD had higher pooled FS (49.8% (44.4-55.1)) and FA (31.4% (26.9-36.1)) prevalences than adults with AD (28.6% (13.4-46.8) and 24.1% (12.1-38.7) respectively). Prevalences of FS and FA numerically increased with AD severity. FS, FA and CPFA are common comorbidities of AD and are closely related. Physicians should be attentive to this relationship to optimize management and treatment strategies in patients.

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.

Children with psoriasis and COVID-19: factors associated with an unfavourable COVID-19 course, and the impact of infection on disease progression (Chi-PsoCov registry).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions regarding the management of chronic skin diseases, especially in patients on systemic treatments. Data concerning the use of biologics in adults with psoriasis are reassuring, but data specific to children are missing. Moreover, COVID-19 could impact the course of psoriasis in children. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was therefore to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the psoriasis of children, and the severity of the infection in relation to systemic treatments. METHODS: We set up an international registry of paediatric psoriasis patients. Children were included if they were under 18 years of age, had a history of psoriasis, or developed it within 1 month of COVID-19 and had COVID-19 with or without symptoms. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty episodes of COVID-19 in 117 children (mean age: 12.4 years) were reported. The main clinical form of psoriasis was plaque type (69.4%). Most children were without systemic treatment (54.2%); 33 (28.3%) were on biologic therapies, and 24 (20%) on non-biologic systemic drugs. COVID-19 was confirmed in 106 children (88.3%) and 3 children had two COVID-19 infections each. COVID-19 was symptomatic for 75 children (62.5%) with a mean duration of 6.5 days, significantly longer for children on non-biologic systemic treatments (P = 0.02) and without systemic treatment (P = 0.006) when compared with children on biologics. The six children who required hospitalization were more frequently under non-biologic systemic treatment when compared with the other children (P = 0.01), and particularly under methotrexate (P = 0.03). After COVID-19, the psoriasis worsened in 17 cases (15.2%). Nine children (8%) developed a psoriasis in the month following COVID-19, mainly a guttate form (P = 0.01). DISCUSSION: Biologics appear to be safe with no increased risk of severe form of COVID-19 in children with psoriasis. COVID-19 was responsible for the development of psoriasis or the worsening of a known psoriasis for some children.

Requirements and expectations of high-quality biomarkers for atopic dermatitis and psoriasis in 2021-a two-round Delphi survey among international experts.

BACKGROUND: Chronic inflammatory skin diseases such as atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis (PSO) present major challenges in health care. Thus, biomarkers to identify disease trajectories and response to treatments to improve the lives of affected individuals warrant great research consideration. The requirements that these biomarkers must fulfil for use as practical clinical tools have not yet been adequately investigated. AIM: To identify the core elements of high-quality AD and PSO biomarkers to prepare recommendations for current biomarker research. METHOD: A cross-sectional two-round Delphi survey was conducted from August to October 2019 and October to November 2020. All participants were members of the BIOMAP project, an EU-funded consortium of clinicians, researchers, patient organizations and pharmaceutical industry partners. The first round consisted of three open-ended questions. Responses were qualitatively analysed, and 26 closed statements were developed. For the second round, 'agreement' was assumed when the responses of ≥70% of the participants were ≥5 points on a 7-point Likert scale for each statement. Priority classification was based on mean scores (<20th percentile = low, 20th to 60th percentile = medium, >60th percentile = high). RESULTS: Twenty-one and twenty-six individuals participated in rounds one and two, respectively. From 26 statements that were included in round 2, 18 achieved agreement (8 concerning the performance, 8 for the purpose and 2 on current obstacles). Seven statements were classified as high priority, e.g. those concerning reliability, clinical validity, a high positive predictive value, prediction of the therapeutic response and disease progression. Another seven statements were assigned medium priority, e.g. those about analytical validity, prediction of comorbidities and therapeutic algorithm. Low priority included four statements, like those concerning cost effectiveness and prediction of disease flares. CONCLUSION: The core requirements that experts agreed on being essential for high-quality AD and PSO biomarkers require rapid validation. Biomarkers can therefore be assessed based on these prioritized requirements.

Randomized controlled pilot trial with ion-exchange water softeners to prevent eczema (SOFTER trial).

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest an increased risk of eczema in children living in hard versus soft water areas, and there is, therefore, an interest in knowing whether softening water may prevent eczema. We evaluated the feasibility of a parallel-group assessor-blinded pilot randomized controlled trial to test whether installing a domestic ion-exchange water softener before birth in hard water areas reduces the risk of eczema in infants with a family history of atopy. METHODS: Pregnant women living in hard water areas (>250 mg/L calcium carbonate) in and around London UK, were randomized 1:1 antenatally to either have an ion-exchange water softener installed in their home or not (ie to continue to receive usual domestic hard water). Infants were assessed at birth and followed up for 6 months. The main end-points were around feasibility, the primary end-point being the proportion of eligible families screened who were willing and able to be randomized. Clinical end-points were evaluated including frequency of parent-reported doctor-diagnosed eczema and visible eczema on skin examination. Descriptive analyses were conducted, and no statistical testing was performed as this was a pilot study. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-nine families screened were eligible antenatally and 28% (41/149) could not have a water softener installed due to technical reasons or lack of landlord approval. Eighty of 149 (54%) were randomized, the primary end-point. Two participants withdrew immediately after randomization, leaving 39 participants in each arm (78 total). Attrition was 15% (12/78) by 6 months postpartum. All respondents (n = 69) to the study acceptability questionnaire reported that the study was acceptable. Fifty-six of 708 (7.9%) water samples in the water softener arm were above the hard water threshold of 20 mg/L CaCO3 . At 6 months of age 27/67 infants (40%) developed visible eczema, 12/36 (33%) vs. 15/31 (48%) in the water softener and control groups, respectively, difference -15% (95% CI -38, 8.3%), with most assessments (≥96%) remaining blinded. Similarly, a lower proportion of infants in the water softener arm had parent-reported, doctor-diagnosed eczema by 6 months compared to the control arm, 6/17 (35%) versus 9/19 (47%), difference -12% (95% CI -44, 20%). CONCLUSION: A randomized controlled trial of water softeners for the prevention of atopic eczema in high-risk infants is feasible and acceptable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03270566 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP): a scoping review of dermatology clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) play a critical role in standardizing and improving treatment outcomes based on the available evidence. It is unclear how many CPGs are available globally to assist clinicians in the management of patients with skin disease. OBJECTIVES: To search for and identify CPGs for dermatological conditions with the highest burden globally. METHODS: We adapted a list of 12 dermatological conditions with the highest burden from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study 2019. A systematic literature search was done to identify CPGs published between October 2014 to October 2019. The scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework. RESULTS: A total of 226 CPGs were included. Melanoma had the greatest representation in the CPGs, followed by dermatitis and psoriasis. Skin cancers had a relatively high CPG representation but with lower GBD disease burden ranking. There was an uneven distribution by geographical region, with resource-poor settings being under-represented. The skin disease categories of the CPGs correlated weakly with the GBD disability-adjusted life-years metrics. Eighty-nine CPGs did not have funding disclosures and 34 CPGs were behind a paywall. CONCLUSIONS: The global production of dermatology CPGs showed wide variation in geographical representation, article accessibility and reporting of funding. The number of skin disease CPGs were not commensurate with its disease burden. Future work will critically appraise the methodology and quality of dermatology CPGs and lead to the production of an accessible online resource summarizing these findings.

The global burden of atopic dermatitis: lessons from the Global Burden of Disease Study 1990-2017.

BACKGROUND: The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study provides an annually updated resource to study disease-related morbidity and mortality worldwide. OBJECTIVES: Here we present the burden estimates for atopic dermatitis (AD), including data from inception of the GBD project in 1990 until 2017. METHODS: Data on the burden of AD were obtained from the GBD Study. RESULTS: Atopic dermatitis (AD) ranks 15th among all nonfatal diseases and has the highest disease burden among skin diseases as measured by disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Overall, the global DALY rate for AD in 1990 was 121 [95% uncertainty interval (UI) 65·4-201] and remained similar in 2017 at 123 (95% UI 66·8-205). The three countries with the highest DALY rates of AD were Sweden (327, 95% UI 178-547), the UK (284, 95% UI 155-478) and Iceland (277, 95% UI 149-465), whereas Uzbekistan (85·1, 95% UI 45·2-144), Armenia (85·1, 95% UI 45·8-143) and Tajikistan (85·1, 95% UI 46·1-143) ranked lowest. CONCLUSIONS: The global prevalence rate of AD has remained stable from 1990 to 2017. However, the distribution of AD by age groups shows a bimodal curve with the highest peak in early childhood, decreasing in prevalence among young adults, and a second peak in middle-aged and older populations. We also found a moderate positive correlation between a country's gross domestic product and disease burden. GBD data confirm the substantial worldwide burden of AD, which has remained stable since 1990 but shows significant geographical variation. Lifestyle factors, partially linked to affluence, are likely important disease drivers. However, the GBD methodology needs to be developed further to incorporate environmental risk factors, such as ultraviolet exposure, to understand better the geographical and age-related variations in disease burden.