TBD Meeting (5454-22)

MONTREAL – Children and young people with severe atopic dermatitis had a more rapid treatment response with ciclosporin, but more sustained disease control with methotrexate in the TREAT study, investigators reported at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

The findings are important, since many regulatory bodies require patients to have tried such first-line conventional systemic therapies before moving on to novel therapeutics, explained Carsten Flohr, MD, PhD, research and development lead at St John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust London.

“We don’t really have much pediatric trial data; very often the pediatric data that we have is buried in adult trials and when it comes to an adequately powered randomized controlled trial with conventional systemic medication in pediatric patients, we don’t have one – so we’re lacking that gold standard,” said Dr. Flohr, chair in dermatology and population health sciences at King’s College London.

In the TREAT trial, 103 patients with AD (mean age, 10 years) who had not responded to topical treatment, were randomly assigned to oral ciclosporin (4 mg/kg daily) or methotrexate (0.4 mg/kg weekly) for 36 weeks and then followed for another 24 weeks off therapy for the co-primary outcomes of change in objective Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (o-SCORAD) at 12 weeks, as well as time to first significant flare after treatment cessation, defined as returning to baseline o-SCORAD, or restarting a systemic treatment.

Secondary outcomes included disease severity and quality of life (QOL) measures, as well as safety. At baseline, the mean o-SCORAD was 46.81, with mean Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores of 28.05 and 20.62 respectively. The mean Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) score was 14.96.

Looking at change in eczema severity measured by o-SCORAD at 12 weeks, ciclosporin was superior to methotrexate, with a mean difference in o-SCORAD change of -5.69 (P =.01). For the co-primary endpoint of time to first significant flare during the 24 weeks after treatment cessation, “there was a trend toward more flare activity in the ciclosporin group, although with a hazard ratio of 1.55, this was statistically not significant,” Dr. Flohr said.

On a graph showing mean EASI scores from baseline through the 60-week study period, Dr. Flohr explained how the score first dropped more precipitously in patients treated with ciclosporin compared with those treated with methotrexate, reaching a statistically significant difference between the groups by 12 weeks (–3.13, P = .0145).

However, after that time, while the EASI score among those on methotrexate continued to drop, the ciclosporin score evened out, so that by 20 weeks, methotrexate EASI scores were better, and remained so until the end of treatment and further, out to 60 weeks (mean difference -6.36, P < .001). “The most interesting bit of this graph is [that] the curve is pointing downwards for methotrexate up to the 9-month point, suggesting these people had not reached their full therapeutic potential yet, whereas if you’re on ciclosporin you plateau and there’s not much additional improvement, if at all, and then people [on ciclosporin] start going up in their disease activity off therapy,” he said.

The same pattern was seen with all the other outcome measures, including o-SCORAD and POEM.

Quality of life significantly improved by about 8 points in both treatment groups, with no significant differences between groups, and this improvement was sustained through the 24 weeks following cessation of therapy. However, during this treatment-free phase, patients on methotrexate had fewer parent-reported flares compared with those on ciclosporin (mean 6.19 vs 5.40 flares, P =.0251), although there was no difference between groups in time to first flare.

Describing the treatment safety as “overall reassuring,” Dr. Flohr said there were slightly more nonserious adverse events in the methotrexate arm (407 vs. 369), with nausea occurring more often in this group (43.1% vs. 17.6%).

“I think we were seeing this clinically, but to see it in a clinical trial gives us more confidence in discussing with parents,” said session moderator Melinda Gooderham, MD, assistant professor at Queens University, Kingston, Ont., and medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology in Peterborough.

What she also took away from the study was safety of these treatments. “The discontinuation rate was not different with either drug, so it’s not like ciclosporin works fast but all these people have problems and discontinue,” Dr. Gooderham told this news organization. “That’s also reassuring.”

Asked which treatment she prefers, Dr. Gooderham, a consultant physician at Peterborough Regional Health Centre, picked methotrexate “because of the lasting effect. But there are times when you may need more rapid control ... where I might choose ciclosporin first, but for me it’s maybe 90% methotrexate first, 10% ciclosporin.”

Dr. Flohr and Dr. Gooderham report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Children and young people with severe atopic dermatitis had a more rapid treatment response with ciclosporin, but more sustained disease control with methotrexate in the TREAT study, investigators reported at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

The findings are important, since many regulatory bodies require patients to have tried such first-line conventional systemic therapies before moving on to novel therapeutics, explained Carsten Flohr, MD, PhD, research and development lead at St John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust London.

“We don’t really have much pediatric trial data; very often the pediatric data that we have is buried in adult trials and when it comes to an adequately powered randomized controlled trial with conventional systemic medication in pediatric patients, we don’t have one – so we’re lacking that gold standard,” said Dr. Flohr, chair in dermatology and population health sciences at King’s College London.

In the TREAT trial, 103 patients with AD (mean age, 10 years) who had not responded to topical treatment, were randomly assigned to oral ciclosporin (4 mg/kg daily) or methotrexate (0.4 mg/kg weekly) for 36 weeks and then followed for another 24 weeks off therapy for the co-primary outcomes of change in objective Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (o-SCORAD) at 12 weeks, as well as time to first significant flare after treatment cessation, defined as returning to baseline o-SCORAD, or restarting a systemic treatment.

Secondary outcomes included disease severity and quality of life (QOL) measures, as well as safety. At baseline, the mean o-SCORAD was 46.81, with mean Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores of 28.05 and 20.62 respectively. The mean Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) score was 14.96.

Looking at change in eczema severity measured by o-SCORAD at 12 weeks, ciclosporin was superior to methotrexate, with a mean difference in o-SCORAD change of -5.69 (P =.01). For the co-primary endpoint of time to first significant flare during the 24 weeks after treatment cessation, “there was a trend toward more flare activity in the ciclosporin group, although with a hazard ratio of 1.55, this was statistically not significant,” Dr. Flohr said.

On a graph showing mean EASI scores from baseline through the 60-week study period, Dr. Flohr explained how the score first dropped more precipitously in patients treated with ciclosporin compared with those treated with methotrexate, reaching a statistically significant difference between the groups by 12 weeks (–3.13, P = .0145).

However, after that time, while the EASI score among those on methotrexate continued to drop, the ciclosporin score evened out, so that by 20 weeks, methotrexate EASI scores were better, and remained so until the end of treatment and further, out to 60 weeks (mean difference -6.36, P < .001). “The most interesting bit of this graph is [that] the curve is pointing downwards for methotrexate up to the 9-month point, suggesting these people had not reached their full therapeutic potential yet, whereas if you’re on ciclosporin you plateau and there’s not much additional improvement, if at all, and then people [on ciclosporin] start going up in their disease activity off therapy,” he said.

The same pattern was seen with all the other outcome measures, including o-SCORAD and POEM.

Quality of life significantly improved by about 8 points in both treatment groups, with no significant differences between groups, and this improvement was sustained through the 24 weeks following cessation of therapy. However, during this treatment-free phase, patients on methotrexate had fewer parent-reported flares compared with those on ciclosporin (mean 6.19 vs 5.40 flares, P =.0251), although there was no difference between groups in time to first flare.

Describing the treatment safety as “overall reassuring,” Dr. Flohr said there were slightly more nonserious adverse events in the methotrexate arm (407 vs. 369), with nausea occurring more often in this group (43.1% vs. 17.6%).

“I think we were seeing this clinically, but to see it in a clinical trial gives us more confidence in discussing with parents,” said session moderator Melinda Gooderham, MD, assistant professor at Queens University, Kingston, Ont., and medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology in Peterborough.

What she also took away from the study was safety of these treatments. “The discontinuation rate was not different with either drug, so it’s not like ciclosporin works fast but all these people have problems and discontinue,” Dr. Gooderham told this news organization. “That’s also reassuring.”

Asked which treatment she prefers, Dr. Gooderham, a consultant physician at Peterborough Regional Health Centre, picked methotrexate “because of the lasting effect. But there are times when you may need more rapid control ... where I might choose ciclosporin first, but for me it’s maybe 90% methotrexate first, 10% ciclosporin.”

Dr. Flohr and Dr. Gooderham report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Children and young people with severe atopic dermatitis had a more rapid treatment response with ciclosporin, but more sustained disease control with methotrexate in the TREAT study, investigators reported at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

The findings are important, since many regulatory bodies require patients to have tried such first-line conventional systemic therapies before moving on to novel therapeutics, explained Carsten Flohr, MD, PhD, research and development lead at St John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust London.

“We don’t really have much pediatric trial data; very often the pediatric data that we have is buried in adult trials and when it comes to an adequately powered randomized controlled trial with conventional systemic medication in pediatric patients, we don’t have one – so we’re lacking that gold standard,” said Dr. Flohr, chair in dermatology and population health sciences at King’s College London.

In the TREAT trial, 103 patients with AD (mean age, 10 years) who had not responded to topical treatment, were randomly assigned to oral ciclosporin (4 mg/kg daily) or methotrexate (0.4 mg/kg weekly) for 36 weeks and then followed for another 24 weeks off therapy for the co-primary outcomes of change in objective Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (o-SCORAD) at 12 weeks, as well as time to first significant flare after treatment cessation, defined as returning to baseline o-SCORAD, or restarting a systemic treatment.

Secondary outcomes included disease severity and quality of life (QOL) measures, as well as safety. At baseline, the mean o-SCORAD was 46.81, with mean Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores of 28.05 and 20.62 respectively. The mean Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) score was 14.96.

Looking at change in eczema severity measured by o-SCORAD at 12 weeks, ciclosporin was superior to methotrexate, with a mean difference in o-SCORAD change of -5.69 (P =.01). For the co-primary endpoint of time to first significant flare during the 24 weeks after treatment cessation, “there was a trend toward more flare activity in the ciclosporin group, although with a hazard ratio of 1.55, this was statistically not significant,” Dr. Flohr said.

On a graph showing mean EASI scores from baseline through the 60-week study period, Dr. Flohr explained how the score first dropped more precipitously in patients treated with ciclosporin compared with those treated with methotrexate, reaching a statistically significant difference between the groups by 12 weeks (–3.13, P = .0145).

However, after that time, while the EASI score among those on methotrexate continued to drop, the ciclosporin score evened out, so that by 20 weeks, methotrexate EASI scores were better, and remained so until the end of treatment and further, out to 60 weeks (mean difference -6.36, P < .001). “The most interesting bit of this graph is [that] the curve is pointing downwards for methotrexate up to the 9-month point, suggesting these people had not reached their full therapeutic potential yet, whereas if you’re on ciclosporin you plateau and there’s not much additional improvement, if at all, and then people [on ciclosporin] start going up in their disease activity off therapy,” he said.

The same pattern was seen with all the other outcome measures, including o-SCORAD and POEM.

Quality of life significantly improved by about 8 points in both treatment groups, with no significant differences between groups, and this improvement was sustained through the 24 weeks following cessation of therapy. However, during this treatment-free phase, patients on methotrexate had fewer parent-reported flares compared with those on ciclosporin (mean 6.19 vs 5.40 flares, P =.0251), although there was no difference between groups in time to first flare.

Describing the treatment safety as “overall reassuring,” Dr. Flohr said there were slightly more nonserious adverse events in the methotrexate arm (407 vs. 369), with nausea occurring more often in this group (43.1% vs. 17.6%).

“I think we were seeing this clinically, but to see it in a clinical trial gives us more confidence in discussing with parents,” said session moderator Melinda Gooderham, MD, assistant professor at Queens University, Kingston, Ont., and medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology in Peterborough.

What she also took away from the study was safety of these treatments. “The discontinuation rate was not different with either drug, so it’s not like ciclosporin works fast but all these people have problems and discontinue,” Dr. Gooderham told this news organization. “That’s also reassuring.”

Asked which treatment she prefers, Dr. Gooderham, a consultant physician at Peterborough Regional Health Centre, picked methotrexate “because of the lasting effect. But there are times when you may need more rapid control ... where I might choose ciclosporin first, but for me it’s maybe 90% methotrexate first, 10% ciclosporin.”

Dr. Flohr and Dr. Gooderham report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – An online behavioral intervention called Eczema Care Online, aimed at supporting self-management of atopic dermatitis (AD), resulted in a “small but sustained” improvement in eczema severity for up to 1 year, according to two randomized controlled trials presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

The intervention, directed either at parents of children with AD or young adults with AD, “is very low cost, evidence based, easily accessible, and free from possible commercial bias,” said investigator Kim Thomas, MD, professor of applied dermatology research and codirector of the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, faculty of medicine & health sciences, University of Nottingham (England).

The main focus of the intervention, along with general education, is “getting control” of the condition with flare-control creams and “keeping control” with regular emollient use.

Efficacy of the intervention, available free online, was compared with “usual eczema care” in 340 parents of children with AD up to age 12 and 337 young patients with AD aged 13-25. Participants were randomized to the intervention plus usual care or usual care alone. The primary outcome was the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure(POEM) at 24 weeks, with a further measurement at 52 weeks.

In the parent group, about half were women and 83% were White, and the median age of their children was 4 years. About 50% of parents had a university degree, making them “possibly better educated than we might want our target audience for this type of intervention,” Dr. Thomas commented. Most of the children had moderate AD.

In the young patient group, the mean age was 19 years, more than three-quarters were female, 83% were White, and most had moderate AD.

At 24 weeks, both intervention groups had improved POEM scores, compared with controls, with a mean difference of 1.5 points in the parent group (P = .002) and 1.7 points in the young patient group (P = .04). “A small difference, but statistically significant and sustained,” Dr. Thomas said, adding that this difference was sustained up to 52 weeks.

In terms of mechanism of action, a secondary outcome looked at the concept of enablement, “which again, seemed to be improved in the intervention group, which suggests it’s something to do with being able to understand and cope with their disease better,” she said. The tool is targeted to “people who wouldn’t normally get to a dermatologist and certainly wouldn’t get access to group interventions.”

An additional aim of the intervention was “to provide a single, consistent message received from every point of contact that people might engage with ... [from] community doctors, pharmacists, dermatologists, and importantly, eczema charities all signposting [the intervention] and sharing a consistent message.”

While the intervention is free and available to patients anywhere, Dr. Thomas emphasized that it is tailored to the U.K. health care system. “If people would like to get in touch and help work with us to maybe adapt it slightly to make it more suitable for your own health care systems, that’s something we’d be very happy to look at with you.”

Asked for comment, Natalie Cunningham, MD, panel moderator, was lukewarm about the tool. “It can be a supplement, but you can never replace the one-on-one patient–health care provider interaction,” she told this news organization. “That could be provided by a nondermatologist and supplemented by an online component,” said Dr. Cunningham, from the Izaak Walton Killam Hospital for Children in Halifax, N.S.

“First-line treatment for eczema, no matter what kind of eczema, is topical steroids, and that is something that requires a lot of education – and something you want to do one on one in person because everyone comes to it with a different experience, baggage, or understanding,” she said. “We need to figure out what the barrier is so that you can do the right education.”

In addition, with systemic AD therapies currently approved for children, parents and young patients need to be able to advocate for specialist care to access these medications, she noted.

Dr. Thomas and Dr. Cunningham reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – An online behavioral intervention called Eczema Care Online, aimed at supporting self-management of atopic dermatitis (AD), resulted in a “small but sustained” improvement in eczema severity for up to 1 year, according to two randomized controlled trials presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

The intervention, directed either at parents of children with AD or young adults with AD, “is very low cost, evidence based, easily accessible, and free from possible commercial bias,” said investigator Kim Thomas, MD, professor of applied dermatology research and codirector of the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, faculty of medicine & health sciences, University of Nottingham (England).

The main focus of the intervention, along with general education, is “getting control” of the condition with flare-control creams and “keeping control” with regular emollient use.

Efficacy of the intervention, available free online, was compared with “usual eczema care” in 340 parents of children with AD up to age 12 and 337 young patients with AD aged 13-25. Participants were randomized to the intervention plus usual care or usual care alone. The primary outcome was the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure(POEM) at 24 weeks, with a further measurement at 52 weeks.

In the parent group, about half were women and 83% were White, and the median age of their children was 4 years. About 50% of parents had a university degree, making them “possibly better educated than we might want our target audience for this type of intervention,” Dr. Thomas commented. Most of the children had moderate AD.

In the young patient group, the mean age was 19 years, more than three-quarters were female, 83% were White, and most had moderate AD.

At 24 weeks, both intervention groups had improved POEM scores, compared with controls, with a mean difference of 1.5 points in the parent group (P = .002) and 1.7 points in the young patient group (P = .04). “A small difference, but statistically significant and sustained,” Dr. Thomas said, adding that this difference was sustained up to 52 weeks.

In terms of mechanism of action, a secondary outcome looked at the concept of enablement, “which again, seemed to be improved in the intervention group, which suggests it’s something to do with being able to understand and cope with their disease better,” she said. The tool is targeted to “people who wouldn’t normally get to a dermatologist and certainly wouldn’t get access to group interventions.”

An additional aim of the intervention was “to provide a single, consistent message received from every point of contact that people might engage with ... [from] community doctors, pharmacists, dermatologists, and importantly, eczema charities all signposting [the intervention] and sharing a consistent message.”

While the intervention is free and available to patients anywhere, Dr. Thomas emphasized that it is tailored to the U.K. health care system. “If people would like to get in touch and help work with us to maybe adapt it slightly to make it more suitable for your own health care systems, that’s something we’d be very happy to look at with you.”

Asked for comment, Natalie Cunningham, MD, panel moderator, was lukewarm about the tool. “It can be a supplement, but you can never replace the one-on-one patient–health care provider interaction,” she told this news organization. “That could be provided by a nondermatologist and supplemented by an online component,” said Dr. Cunningham, from the Izaak Walton Killam Hospital for Children in Halifax, N.S.

“First-line treatment for eczema, no matter what kind of eczema, is topical steroids, and that is something that requires a lot of education – and something you want to do one on one in person because everyone comes to it with a different experience, baggage, or understanding,” she said. “We need to figure out what the barrier is so that you can do the right education.”

In addition, with systemic AD therapies currently approved for children, parents and young patients need to be able to advocate for specialist care to access these medications, she noted.

Dr. Thomas and Dr. Cunningham reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – An online behavioral intervention called Eczema Care Online, aimed at supporting self-management of atopic dermatitis (AD), resulted in a “small but sustained” improvement in eczema severity for up to 1 year, according to two randomized controlled trials presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

The intervention, directed either at parents of children with AD or young adults with AD, “is very low cost, evidence based, easily accessible, and free from possible commercial bias,” said investigator Kim Thomas, MD, professor of applied dermatology research and codirector of the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, faculty of medicine & health sciences, University of Nottingham (England).

The main focus of the intervention, along with general education, is “getting control” of the condition with flare-control creams and “keeping control” with regular emollient use.

Efficacy of the intervention, available free online, was compared with “usual eczema care” in 340 parents of children with AD up to age 12 and 337 young patients with AD aged 13-25. Participants were randomized to the intervention plus usual care or usual care alone. The primary outcome was the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure(POEM) at 24 weeks, with a further measurement at 52 weeks.

In the parent group, about half were women and 83% were White, and the median age of their children was 4 years. About 50% of parents had a university degree, making them “possibly better educated than we might want our target audience for this type of intervention,” Dr. Thomas commented. Most of the children had moderate AD.

In the young patient group, the mean age was 19 years, more than three-quarters were female, 83% were White, and most had moderate AD.

At 24 weeks, both intervention groups had improved POEM scores, compared with controls, with a mean difference of 1.5 points in the parent group (P = .002) and 1.7 points in the young patient group (P = .04). “A small difference, but statistically significant and sustained,” Dr. Thomas said, adding that this difference was sustained up to 52 weeks.

In terms of mechanism of action, a secondary outcome looked at the concept of enablement, “which again, seemed to be improved in the intervention group, which suggests it’s something to do with being able to understand and cope with their disease better,” she said. The tool is targeted to “people who wouldn’t normally get to a dermatologist and certainly wouldn’t get access to group interventions.”

An additional aim of the intervention was “to provide a single, consistent message received from every point of contact that people might engage with ... [from] community doctors, pharmacists, dermatologists, and importantly, eczema charities all signposting [the intervention] and sharing a consistent message.”

While the intervention is free and available to patients anywhere, Dr. Thomas emphasized that it is tailored to the U.K. health care system. “If people would like to get in touch and help work with us to maybe adapt it slightly to make it more suitable for your own health care systems, that’s something we’d be very happy to look at with you.”

Asked for comment, Natalie Cunningham, MD, panel moderator, was lukewarm about the tool. “It can be a supplement, but you can never replace the one-on-one patient–health care provider interaction,” she told this news organization. “That could be provided by a nondermatologist and supplemented by an online component,” said Dr. Cunningham, from the Izaak Walton Killam Hospital for Children in Halifax, N.S.

“First-line treatment for eczema, no matter what kind of eczema, is topical steroids, and that is something that requires a lot of education – and something you want to do one on one in person because everyone comes to it with a different experience, baggage, or understanding,” she said. “We need to figure out what the barrier is so that you can do the right education.”

In addition, with systemic AD therapies currently approved for children, parents and young patients need to be able to advocate for specialist care to access these medications, she noted.

Dr. Thomas and Dr. Cunningham reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Remote assessment of atopic dermatitis (AD) severity is possible through the use of patient-provided clinical photos – opening a new avenue for improving access for patients, as well as the possibility of conducting remote clinical trials that would be less expensive and less burdensome for participants, according to investigators, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

Still, practical barriers need to be addressed, particularly the problem of image quality, noted study investigator Aviël Ragamin, MD, from the department of dermatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

“Good-quality images are crucial, [and] in our study, patients didn’t have any incentive to provide images because they had already received their medical consultation,” he explained. He suggested that this problem could be overcome by providing technical support for patients and compensation for trial participants.

The study included 87 children (median age, 7 years), who were assessed for AD severity at an academic outpatient clinic. The in-person visit included assessment with the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, as well as the collection of whole-body clinical images. Parents were then asked to return home and to provide their own clinical images and self-administered EASI assessments of their child for comparison. Four raters were asked to rate all images twice and to compare in-clinic and self-administered EASI scores based on the images.

At the in-clinic visit, the median EASI score of the group was 8.8. The majority of patients had moderate (46.6%) or severe (14.8%) AD. Roughly 40% of the patients had darker skin (Fitzpatrick skin types IV–VI).

Using Spearman rank correlation of 1,534 in-clinic and 425 patient-provided images, the study found good inter- and intra-rater reliability for clinical image assessment and strong agreement between images and the in-clinic EASI scores. The top outliers in the assessment were individuals with either darker skin or significant postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, which are “the most difficult cases to rate, based on images,” Dr. Ragamin noted.

There was only moderate correlation between the in-clinic and self-administered EASI scores, with a significant number of patients either underestimating or overestimating their AD severity, he added.

Overall, the main problem with remote assessment seems to be the feasibility of patients providing images, said Dr. Ragamin. Only 36.8% of parents provided any images at all, and of these, 1 of 5 were deemed too blurry, leaving just 13 for final assessment, he explained.

“Pragmatically, it’s tricky,” said Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital and associate professor at the University of Toronto, who was asked to comment on the study. “It takes long enough to do an EASI score in person, let alone looking through blurry pictures that take too long to load into your electronic medical record. We know it works, but when our hospital went virtual [during the COVID pandemic] ... most of my patients with chronic eczema weren’t even sending me pictures.”

Regarding the utility of remote, full-body photography in clinical practice, he said, “There’s too many feasibility hoops to jump through at this point. The most promise I see is for clinical trials, where it’s hard to get people to come in.”

Dr. Ragamin and Dr. Drucker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Remote assessment of atopic dermatitis (AD) severity is possible through the use of patient-provided clinical photos – opening a new avenue for improving access for patients, as well as the possibility of conducting remote clinical trials that would be less expensive and less burdensome for participants, according to investigators, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

Still, practical barriers need to be addressed, particularly the problem of image quality, noted study investigator Aviël Ragamin, MD, from the department of dermatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

“Good-quality images are crucial, [and] in our study, patients didn’t have any incentive to provide images because they had already received their medical consultation,” he explained. He suggested that this problem could be overcome by providing technical support for patients and compensation for trial participants.

The study included 87 children (median age, 7 years), who were assessed for AD severity at an academic outpatient clinic. The in-person visit included assessment with the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, as well as the collection of whole-body clinical images. Parents were then asked to return home and to provide their own clinical images and self-administered EASI assessments of their child for comparison. Four raters were asked to rate all images twice and to compare in-clinic and self-administered EASI scores based on the images.

At the in-clinic visit, the median EASI score of the group was 8.8. The majority of patients had moderate (46.6%) or severe (14.8%) AD. Roughly 40% of the patients had darker skin (Fitzpatrick skin types IV–VI).

Using Spearman rank correlation of 1,534 in-clinic and 425 patient-provided images, the study found good inter- and intra-rater reliability for clinical image assessment and strong agreement between images and the in-clinic EASI scores. The top outliers in the assessment were individuals with either darker skin or significant postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, which are “the most difficult cases to rate, based on images,” Dr. Ragamin noted.

There was only moderate correlation between the in-clinic and self-administered EASI scores, with a significant number of patients either underestimating or overestimating their AD severity, he added.

Overall, the main problem with remote assessment seems to be the feasibility of patients providing images, said Dr. Ragamin. Only 36.8% of parents provided any images at all, and of these, 1 of 5 were deemed too blurry, leaving just 13 for final assessment, he explained.

“Pragmatically, it’s tricky,” said Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital and associate professor at the University of Toronto, who was asked to comment on the study. “It takes long enough to do an EASI score in person, let alone looking through blurry pictures that take too long to load into your electronic medical record. We know it works, but when our hospital went virtual [during the COVID pandemic] ... most of my patients with chronic eczema weren’t even sending me pictures.”

Regarding the utility of remote, full-body photography in clinical practice, he said, “There’s too many feasibility hoops to jump through at this point. The most promise I see is for clinical trials, where it’s hard to get people to come in.”

Dr. Ragamin and Dr. Drucker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Remote assessment of atopic dermatitis (AD) severity is possible through the use of patient-provided clinical photos – opening a new avenue for improving access for patients, as well as the possibility of conducting remote clinical trials that would be less expensive and less burdensome for participants, according to investigators, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

Still, practical barriers need to be addressed, particularly the problem of image quality, noted study investigator Aviël Ragamin, MD, from the department of dermatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

“Good-quality images are crucial, [and] in our study, patients didn’t have any incentive to provide images because they had already received their medical consultation,” he explained. He suggested that this problem could be overcome by providing technical support for patients and compensation for trial participants.

The study included 87 children (median age, 7 years), who were assessed for AD severity at an academic outpatient clinic. The in-person visit included assessment with the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, as well as the collection of whole-body clinical images. Parents were then asked to return home and to provide their own clinical images and self-administered EASI assessments of their child for comparison. Four raters were asked to rate all images twice and to compare in-clinic and self-administered EASI scores based on the images.

At the in-clinic visit, the median EASI score of the group was 8.8. The majority of patients had moderate (46.6%) or severe (14.8%) AD. Roughly 40% of the patients had darker skin (Fitzpatrick skin types IV–VI).

Using Spearman rank correlation of 1,534 in-clinic and 425 patient-provided images, the study found good inter- and intra-rater reliability for clinical image assessment and strong agreement between images and the in-clinic EASI scores. The top outliers in the assessment were individuals with either darker skin or significant postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, which are “the most difficult cases to rate, based on images,” Dr. Ragamin noted.

There was only moderate correlation between the in-clinic and self-administered EASI scores, with a significant number of patients either underestimating or overestimating their AD severity, he added.

Overall, the main problem with remote assessment seems to be the feasibility of patients providing images, said Dr. Ragamin. Only 36.8% of parents provided any images at all, and of these, 1 of 5 were deemed too blurry, leaving just 13 for final assessment, he explained.

“Pragmatically, it’s tricky,” said Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital and associate professor at the University of Toronto, who was asked to comment on the study. “It takes long enough to do an EASI score in person, let alone looking through blurry pictures that take too long to load into your electronic medical record. We know it works, but when our hospital went virtual [during the COVID pandemic] ... most of my patients with chronic eczema weren’t even sending me pictures.”

Regarding the utility of remote, full-body photography in clinical practice, he said, “There’s too many feasibility hoops to jump through at this point. The most promise I see is for clinical trials, where it’s hard to get people to come in.”

Dr. Ragamin and Dr. Drucker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Ocular surface disease (OSD) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated with dupilumab may be exacerbated rather than caused by the therapy, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

In a prospective trial of 69 patients with AD starting dupilumab (Dupixent), baseline OSD was found in 91.3%, with about half of these patients reporting no symptoms, said investigator Roselie Achten, MD, from the National Expertise Center for Atopic Dermatitis at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Among these patients, ophthalmologic assessment revealed no OSD in 6 patients and mild OSD in 37 patients, but moderate and severe disease in 20 and 6 patients, respectively, she said, adding that 71% of the group also reported allergic conjunctivitis at baseline.

The patients enrolled in the study who started dupilumab were aged 36-38 years, with Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores of 14.7-16.5. Baseline ocular surface health was assessed with the Utrecht Ophthalmic Inflammatory and Allergic disease (UTOPIA) score. Tear fluid was collected to analyze biomarkers and dupilumab levels, and impression cytology was performed to collect conjunctival tissue cells for analysis of goblet cells. These measurements were repeated at 4 and 28 weeks after the start of therapy.

Over 28 weeks of treatment, 14.5% of patients experienced worsening of OSD, with worsening disease associated with a decline in the number of goblet cells. In addition, dupilumab treatment was associated with a significant decline in the production of Mucin5AC, suggesting a decline in function of the goblet cells. “Our hypothesis that the blocking effect of dupilumab on [interleukin-] IL-13 might lead to less goblet cells and less mucin production,” she explained.

In a subset of 48 patients, the researchers also detected significantly higher tear fluid dupilumab levels among those patients with more severe OSD, with comparable serum levels.

OSD has been reported in up to 34% of dupilumab-treated patients with AD and is the most frequently reported side-effect of this treatment, noted Dr. Achten. This side effect is not reported by other patients treated with dupilumab for other indications, she added, “suggesting that AD patients may have a predisposition to develop OSD during dupilumab treatment.”

Indeed, as recently noted by Vivian Shi, MD, from the department of dermatology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, and colleagues, “for reasons not well understood, the incidence of conjunctivitis in dupilumab patients with asthma (0%-2.3%), chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (1.6%), or eosinophilic esophagitis (0%) is low to none; thus, patients with AD may be particularly susceptible.”

Dr. Achten said that dupilumab-treated patients with AD at her center are prescribed topical tacrolimus and ketotifen eye drops if they develop OSD.

Asked for comment, Melinda Gooderham, MD, who moderated the session, was impressed with the study. “I’d heard about the goblet cells, there were little bits of data here and there, but the tear analysis is something I hadn’t seen before. It was a nice series of experiments that pulled everything together,” she told this news organization. Dr. Gooderham, who is assistant professor at Queens University, in Kingston, Ontario, medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology in Peterborough, Ontario, and consultant physician at Peterborough Regional Health Centre, said that she first began noticing dupilumab-related OSD as an early trial investigator for the drug. “When you put some patients on the drug it’s almost like tipping the balance – that little bit of mucin they’re dependent on is now reduced and it makes them more symptomatic,” she said.

Though she prescribes lubricating eye drops as prophylaxis for all her dupilumab-treated patients with AD, she recommends referring any patients who develop OSD to an ophthalmologist who is familiar with this specific side effect. “If they just see a random ophthalmologist who doesn’t know dupilumab, and doesn’t know the story around it, they could get any sort of diagnosis, or even be told to stop the medication altogether.”

The study was sponsored by Sanofi. Dr. Achten disclosed no other conflicts of interest. Dr. Gooderham is an investigator with Sanofi Genzyme for dupilumab.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Ocular surface disease (OSD) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated with dupilumab may be exacerbated rather than caused by the therapy, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

In a prospective trial of 69 patients with AD starting dupilumab (Dupixent), baseline OSD was found in 91.3%, with about half of these patients reporting no symptoms, said investigator Roselie Achten, MD, from the National Expertise Center for Atopic Dermatitis at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Among these patients, ophthalmologic assessment revealed no OSD in 6 patients and mild OSD in 37 patients, but moderate and severe disease in 20 and 6 patients, respectively, she said, adding that 71% of the group also reported allergic conjunctivitis at baseline.

The patients enrolled in the study who started dupilumab were aged 36-38 years, with Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores of 14.7-16.5. Baseline ocular surface health was assessed with the Utrecht Ophthalmic Inflammatory and Allergic disease (UTOPIA) score. Tear fluid was collected to analyze biomarkers and dupilumab levels, and impression cytology was performed to collect conjunctival tissue cells for analysis of goblet cells. These measurements were repeated at 4 and 28 weeks after the start of therapy.

Over 28 weeks of treatment, 14.5% of patients experienced worsening of OSD, with worsening disease associated with a decline in the number of goblet cells. In addition, dupilumab treatment was associated with a significant decline in the production of Mucin5AC, suggesting a decline in function of the goblet cells. “Our hypothesis that the blocking effect of dupilumab on [interleukin-] IL-13 might lead to less goblet cells and less mucin production,” she explained.

In a subset of 48 patients, the researchers also detected significantly higher tear fluid dupilumab levels among those patients with more severe OSD, with comparable serum levels.

OSD has been reported in up to 34% of dupilumab-treated patients with AD and is the most frequently reported side-effect of this treatment, noted Dr. Achten. This side effect is not reported by other patients treated with dupilumab for other indications, she added, “suggesting that AD patients may have a predisposition to develop OSD during dupilumab treatment.”

Indeed, as recently noted by Vivian Shi, MD, from the department of dermatology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, and colleagues, “for reasons not well understood, the incidence of conjunctivitis in dupilumab patients with asthma (0%-2.3%), chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (1.6%), or eosinophilic esophagitis (0%) is low to none; thus, patients with AD may be particularly susceptible.”

Dr. Achten said that dupilumab-treated patients with AD at her center are prescribed topical tacrolimus and ketotifen eye drops if they develop OSD.

Asked for comment, Melinda Gooderham, MD, who moderated the session, was impressed with the study. “I’d heard about the goblet cells, there were little bits of data here and there, but the tear analysis is something I hadn’t seen before. It was a nice series of experiments that pulled everything together,” she told this news organization. Dr. Gooderham, who is assistant professor at Queens University, in Kingston, Ontario, medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology in Peterborough, Ontario, and consultant physician at Peterborough Regional Health Centre, said that she first began noticing dupilumab-related OSD as an early trial investigator for the drug. “When you put some patients on the drug it’s almost like tipping the balance – that little bit of mucin they’re dependent on is now reduced and it makes them more symptomatic,” she said.

Though she prescribes lubricating eye drops as prophylaxis for all her dupilumab-treated patients with AD, she recommends referring any patients who develop OSD to an ophthalmologist who is familiar with this specific side effect. “If they just see a random ophthalmologist who doesn’t know dupilumab, and doesn’t know the story around it, they could get any sort of diagnosis, or even be told to stop the medication altogether.”

The study was sponsored by Sanofi. Dr. Achten disclosed no other conflicts of interest. Dr. Gooderham is an investigator with Sanofi Genzyme for dupilumab.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Ocular surface disease (OSD) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated with dupilumab may be exacerbated rather than caused by the therapy, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

In a prospective trial of 69 patients with AD starting dupilumab (Dupixent), baseline OSD was found in 91.3%, with about half of these patients reporting no symptoms, said investigator Roselie Achten, MD, from the National Expertise Center for Atopic Dermatitis at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Among these patients, ophthalmologic assessment revealed no OSD in 6 patients and mild OSD in 37 patients, but moderate and severe disease in 20 and 6 patients, respectively, she said, adding that 71% of the group also reported allergic conjunctivitis at baseline.

The patients enrolled in the study who started dupilumab were aged 36-38 years, with Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores of 14.7-16.5. Baseline ocular surface health was assessed with the Utrecht Ophthalmic Inflammatory and Allergic disease (UTOPIA) score. Tear fluid was collected to analyze biomarkers and dupilumab levels, and impression cytology was performed to collect conjunctival tissue cells for analysis of goblet cells. These measurements were repeated at 4 and 28 weeks after the start of therapy.

Over 28 weeks of treatment, 14.5% of patients experienced worsening of OSD, with worsening disease associated with a decline in the number of goblet cells. In addition, dupilumab treatment was associated with a significant decline in the production of Mucin5AC, suggesting a decline in function of the goblet cells. “Our hypothesis that the blocking effect of dupilumab on [interleukin-] IL-13 might lead to less goblet cells and less mucin production,” she explained.

In a subset of 48 patients, the researchers also detected significantly higher tear fluid dupilumab levels among those patients with more severe OSD, with comparable serum levels.

OSD has been reported in up to 34% of dupilumab-treated patients with AD and is the most frequently reported side-effect of this treatment, noted Dr. Achten. This side effect is not reported by other patients treated with dupilumab for other indications, she added, “suggesting that AD patients may have a predisposition to develop OSD during dupilumab treatment.”

Indeed, as recently noted by Vivian Shi, MD, from the department of dermatology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, and colleagues, “for reasons not well understood, the incidence of conjunctivitis in dupilumab patients with asthma (0%-2.3%), chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (1.6%), or eosinophilic esophagitis (0%) is low to none; thus, patients with AD may be particularly susceptible.”

Dr. Achten said that dupilumab-treated patients with AD at her center are prescribed topical tacrolimus and ketotifen eye drops if they develop OSD.

Asked for comment, Melinda Gooderham, MD, who moderated the session, was impressed with the study. “I’d heard about the goblet cells, there were little bits of data here and there, but the tear analysis is something I hadn’t seen before. It was a nice series of experiments that pulled everything together,” she told this news organization. Dr. Gooderham, who is assistant professor at Queens University, in Kingston, Ontario, medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology in Peterborough, Ontario, and consultant physician at Peterborough Regional Health Centre, said that she first began noticing dupilumab-related OSD as an early trial investigator for the drug. “When you put some patients on the drug it’s almost like tipping the balance – that little bit of mucin they’re dependent on is now reduced and it makes them more symptomatic,” she said.

Though she prescribes lubricating eye drops as prophylaxis for all her dupilumab-treated patients with AD, she recommends referring any patients who develop OSD to an ophthalmologist who is familiar with this specific side effect. “If they just see a random ophthalmologist who doesn’t know dupilumab, and doesn’t know the story around it, they could get any sort of diagnosis, or even be told to stop the medication altogether.”

The study was sponsored by Sanofi. Dr. Achten disclosed no other conflicts of interest. Dr. Gooderham is an investigator with Sanofi Genzyme for dupilumab.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Daily use of full-body emollients from birth to age 1 year in infants at high risk for developing atopic dermatitis (AD) was not more effective at preventing the condition than standard skin-care advice alone, according to 5-year results of the BEEP randomized trial, reported at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

“So far, the science does not look convincing, and I am concerned about the possible harms,” commented senior investigator Hywel C. Williams, DSc, from the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham (England).

The rate of AD at 2 years – the primary outcome of the BEEP trial – have already shown no benefit of either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel plus standard skin-care advice versus standard skin-care advice alone among 1,394 infants at high risk for developing AD. “These are children born to parents with a first-degree relative with eczema,” Dr. Williams explained.

At 2 years, 23% of the emollient group versus 25% of the control group developed eczema (adjusted relative risk, 0.95), and the parent-reported clinical skin infection rate was statistically increased (incidence rate ratio, 1.55). Despite these results, follow-up of BEEP was extended to 5 years to determine if there was a delayed benefit of emollients, both in AD prevention but also with other related disorders, he explained.

“Prevention is so much more logical than treating sick individuals with severe disease who present after a long chain of pathological events with expensive drugs. And even if you can’t primarily prevent eczema, even a small shift in the severity of distribution to the left has major public health implications,” Dr. Williams added. “And if you believe in the atopic march, then if you could prevent eczema, you might be able to prevent subsequent food allergy, asthma, and allergic rhinitis.”

The extension data was based on questionnaires at 3, 4, and 5 years documenting parental reports of doctor-diagnosed eczema and eczema severity, wheezing, allergic rhinitis, food allergy symptoms, and clinical diagnosis, as well as 5-year clinical diagnoses of asthma or allergic rhinitis. About 70% of parents returned their questionnaires at each point, showing no significant difference at 5 years for a clinical diagnosis of eczema (31% in the emollient group vs. 28% in controls), clinical diagnosis of food allergy (15% vs. 14%, respectively), or other outcomes.

“It’s a lovely hypothesis, but did we use the wrong emollients, or did we start it too late? Or should we start facing the possibility that maybe emollients really do not prevent eczema?” Dr. Williams commented, adding that he does not recommend use of emollients for AD prevention.

“There’s more research needed,” agreed panelist Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, whose AD primary prevention CASCADE trial is expected to shed more light on the role of emollients in the near future. “And we can’t just ignore [another] randomized controlled trial that was done really well ... showing a positive effect,” he added, referring to the small, single-center STOP-AD trial.

“We’re always hoping, and it’s scientifically incredibly frustrating that none of this has borne out,” Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital and associate professor at the University of Toronto, told this news organization. “It’s so appealing that emollients early in life would improve the skin barrier and then decrease likelihood of getting eczema. It’s great that there’s a new, large study from Dr. Simpson that is going to be coming out soon, so we’ll have another piece of this puzzle.”

Dr. Drucker said that although it sounds simple, there is much nuance in the question of emollients and skin barrier protection: “Who is the population that you ought to use the emollients in? What kind of emollient? How often and where? All of these things can influence potentially what the results of a trial might be. That’s where there’s still hope. I think the hope fades more and more as more evidence piles up.”

He added that although there currently is not enough evidence to recommend emollients for AD prevention, there is also not enough evidence of harm. “It’s nothing we should be afraid of,” Dr. Drucker advised.

Dr. Williams and Dr. Drucker report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Daily use of full-body emollients from birth to age 1 year in infants at high risk for developing atopic dermatitis (AD) was not more effective at preventing the condition than standard skin-care advice alone, according to 5-year results of the BEEP randomized trial, reported at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

“So far, the science does not look convincing, and I am concerned about the possible harms,” commented senior investigator Hywel C. Williams, DSc, from the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham (England).

The rate of AD at 2 years – the primary outcome of the BEEP trial – have already shown no benefit of either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel plus standard skin-care advice versus standard skin-care advice alone among 1,394 infants at high risk for developing AD. “These are children born to parents with a first-degree relative with eczema,” Dr. Williams explained.

At 2 years, 23% of the emollient group versus 25% of the control group developed eczema (adjusted relative risk, 0.95), and the parent-reported clinical skin infection rate was statistically increased (incidence rate ratio, 1.55). Despite these results, follow-up of BEEP was extended to 5 years to determine if there was a delayed benefit of emollients, both in AD prevention but also with other related disorders, he explained.

“Prevention is so much more logical than treating sick individuals with severe disease who present after a long chain of pathological events with expensive drugs. And even if you can’t primarily prevent eczema, even a small shift in the severity of distribution to the left has major public health implications,” Dr. Williams added. “And if you believe in the atopic march, then if you could prevent eczema, you might be able to prevent subsequent food allergy, asthma, and allergic rhinitis.”

The extension data was based on questionnaires at 3, 4, and 5 years documenting parental reports of doctor-diagnosed eczema and eczema severity, wheezing, allergic rhinitis, food allergy symptoms, and clinical diagnosis, as well as 5-year clinical diagnoses of asthma or allergic rhinitis. About 70% of parents returned their questionnaires at each point, showing no significant difference at 5 years for a clinical diagnosis of eczema (31% in the emollient group vs. 28% in controls), clinical diagnosis of food allergy (15% vs. 14%, respectively), or other outcomes.

“It’s a lovely hypothesis, but did we use the wrong emollients, or did we start it too late? Or should we start facing the possibility that maybe emollients really do not prevent eczema?” Dr. Williams commented, adding that he does not recommend use of emollients for AD prevention.

“There’s more research needed,” agreed panelist Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, whose AD primary prevention CASCADE trial is expected to shed more light on the role of emollients in the near future. “And we can’t just ignore [another] randomized controlled trial that was done really well ... showing a positive effect,” he added, referring to the small, single-center STOP-AD trial.

“We’re always hoping, and it’s scientifically incredibly frustrating that none of this has borne out,” Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital and associate professor at the University of Toronto, told this news organization. “It’s so appealing that emollients early in life would improve the skin barrier and then decrease likelihood of getting eczema. It’s great that there’s a new, large study from Dr. Simpson that is going to be coming out soon, so we’ll have another piece of this puzzle.”

Dr. Drucker said that although it sounds simple, there is much nuance in the question of emollients and skin barrier protection: “Who is the population that you ought to use the emollients in? What kind of emollient? How often and where? All of these things can influence potentially what the results of a trial might be. That’s where there’s still hope. I think the hope fades more and more as more evidence piles up.”

He added that although there currently is not enough evidence to recommend emollients for AD prevention, there is also not enough evidence of harm. “It’s nothing we should be afraid of,” Dr. Drucker advised.

Dr. Williams and Dr. Drucker report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Daily use of full-body emollients from birth to age 1 year in infants at high risk for developing atopic dermatitis (AD) was not more effective at preventing the condition than standard skin-care advice alone, according to 5-year results of the BEEP randomized trial, reported at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

“So far, the science does not look convincing, and I am concerned about the possible harms,” commented senior investigator Hywel C. Williams, DSc, from the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham (England).

The rate of AD at 2 years – the primary outcome of the BEEP trial – have already shown no benefit of either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel plus standard skin-care advice versus standard skin-care advice alone among 1,394 infants at high risk for developing AD. “These are children born to parents with a first-degree relative with eczema,” Dr. Williams explained.

At 2 years, 23% of the emollient group versus 25% of the control group developed eczema (adjusted relative risk, 0.95), and the parent-reported clinical skin infection rate was statistically increased (incidence rate ratio, 1.55). Despite these results, follow-up of BEEP was extended to 5 years to determine if there was a delayed benefit of emollients, both in AD prevention but also with other related disorders, he explained.

“Prevention is so much more logical than treating sick individuals with severe disease who present after a long chain of pathological events with expensive drugs. And even if you can’t primarily prevent eczema, even a small shift in the severity of distribution to the left has major public health implications,” Dr. Williams added. “And if you believe in the atopic march, then if you could prevent eczema, you might be able to prevent subsequent food allergy, asthma, and allergic rhinitis.”

The extension data was based on questionnaires at 3, 4, and 5 years documenting parental reports of doctor-diagnosed eczema and eczema severity, wheezing, allergic rhinitis, food allergy symptoms, and clinical diagnosis, as well as 5-year clinical diagnoses of asthma or allergic rhinitis. About 70% of parents returned their questionnaires at each point, showing no significant difference at 5 years for a clinical diagnosis of eczema (31% in the emollient group vs. 28% in controls), clinical diagnosis of food allergy (15% vs. 14%, respectively), or other outcomes.

“It’s a lovely hypothesis, but did we use the wrong emollients, or did we start it too late? Or should we start facing the possibility that maybe emollients really do not prevent eczema?” Dr. Williams commented, adding that he does not recommend use of emollients for AD prevention.

“There’s more research needed,” agreed panelist Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, whose AD primary prevention CASCADE trial is expected to shed more light on the role of emollients in the near future. “And we can’t just ignore [another] randomized controlled trial that was done really well ... showing a positive effect,” he added, referring to the small, single-center STOP-AD trial.

“We’re always hoping, and it’s scientifically incredibly frustrating that none of this has borne out,” Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital and associate professor at the University of Toronto, told this news organization. “It’s so appealing that emollients early in life would improve the skin barrier and then decrease likelihood of getting eczema. It’s great that there’s a new, large study from Dr. Simpson that is going to be coming out soon, so we’ll have another piece of this puzzle.”

Dr. Drucker said that although it sounds simple, there is much nuance in the question of emollients and skin barrier protection: “Who is the population that you ought to use the emollients in? What kind of emollient? How often and where? All of these things can influence potentially what the results of a trial might be. That’s where there’s still hope. I think the hope fades more and more as more evidence piles up.”

He added that although there currently is not enough evidence to recommend emollients for AD prevention, there is also not enough evidence of harm. “It’s nothing we should be afraid of,” Dr. Drucker advised.

Dr. Williams and Dr. Drucker report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Systemic treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) boosts mood in addition to relieving skin symptoms, according to a prospective, real-world, clinical cohort study presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

“Randomized, controlled, phase 3 studies have shown that systemic treatment of AD reduces depressive symptoms, but whether this holds true in real-world cohorts remains to be shown,” said study investigator Lina Ivert, MD, PhD, of the dermatology and venereology unit in the department of medicine at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

The study used data from SwedAD, a newly launched web-based Swedish national registry of patients with AD on systemic treatment between June 2017 and August 2021. Participants were followed at 6 and 12 months for the primary outcome of depressive symptoms using the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale–self-report (MADRS-S). Secondary outcomes included the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and pruritus visual analog scale/numeric rating scale (VAS/NRS).

At baseline, 120 patients (median age, 39 years; 57.5% men) were started on dupilumab (n = 91), methotrexate (26), or cyclosporin (3). Although almost half had no depression at baseline, mild depression was present in 29.2%, with moderate and severe depression in 20% and 4.2%, respectively.

Among 59 patients with 6-month follow-up data (48 on dupilumab, 10 on methotrexate, 1 on cyclosporin), all nine depressive symptoms in MADRS-S improved significantly, with reduced sleep improving the most (from a median of 3 points to a median of 1 point). Similarly, overall MADRS-S scores improved (from a median of 14 points to a median of 5; P < .001), as did EASI scores (from a median of 20.5 to 2), POEM scores (from a median of 22 to 6), DLQI (from a median of 15 to 3), and pruritus scores (from a median of 7.1 to 1.8; all P < .001).

The analysis also found a strong correlation between the MADRS-S score and all of the secondary outcomes (P < .001 for all). All these improvements remained significant among the 36 patients with 12-month follow-up data.

“The median MADRS-S reduction also remained when we excluded eight patients who were on antidepressants during the study period, so these results cannot be explained by psychiatric medication,” noted Dr. Ivert, adding that three patients with severe suicide ideation at baseline improved their MADRS-S suicide item to less than 2 points. “So, this study taught us to look at the suicide item score and not only the total MADRS-S score,” she commented.

Comparing patients treated with dupilumab with those treated with methotrexate, the analysis showed that though baseline median MADRS-S scores did not differ significantly between them, there was a significant 6-month reduction in the dupilumab group but not in the methotrexate group.

Asked to comment on the findings, moderator Marissa Joseph, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at the University of Toronto, said that “the mental health effects of inflammatory skin conditions like atopic dermatitis are well known, but whether or not they are well explored in the patient-physician interaction is a whole other scenario.” There are time constraints, she said, adding, “it sometimes takes some deep-diving ... but exploring those types of symptoms is something we need to do more of, and the severity of the disease and reasons for treatment are not just what you can see.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Systemic treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) boosts mood in addition to relieving skin symptoms, according to a prospective, real-world, clinical cohort study presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

“Randomized, controlled, phase 3 studies have shown that systemic treatment of AD reduces depressive symptoms, but whether this holds true in real-world cohorts remains to be shown,” said study investigator Lina Ivert, MD, PhD, of the dermatology and venereology unit in the department of medicine at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

The study used data from SwedAD, a newly launched web-based Swedish national registry of patients with AD on systemic treatment between June 2017 and August 2021. Participants were followed at 6 and 12 months for the primary outcome of depressive symptoms using the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale–self-report (MADRS-S). Secondary outcomes included the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and pruritus visual analog scale/numeric rating scale (VAS/NRS).

At baseline, 120 patients (median age, 39 years; 57.5% men) were started on dupilumab (n = 91), methotrexate (26), or cyclosporin (3). Although almost half had no depression at baseline, mild depression was present in 29.2%, with moderate and severe depression in 20% and 4.2%, respectively.

Among 59 patients with 6-month follow-up data (48 on dupilumab, 10 on methotrexate, 1 on cyclosporin), all nine depressive symptoms in MADRS-S improved significantly, with reduced sleep improving the most (from a median of 3 points to a median of 1 point). Similarly, overall MADRS-S scores improved (from a median of 14 points to a median of 5; P < .001), as did EASI scores (from a median of 20.5 to 2), POEM scores (from a median of 22 to 6), DLQI (from a median of 15 to 3), and pruritus scores (from a median of 7.1 to 1.8; all P < .001).

The analysis also found a strong correlation between the MADRS-S score and all of the secondary outcomes (P < .001 for all). All these improvements remained significant among the 36 patients with 12-month follow-up data.

“The median MADRS-S reduction also remained when we excluded eight patients who were on antidepressants during the study period, so these results cannot be explained by psychiatric medication,” noted Dr. Ivert, adding that three patients with severe suicide ideation at baseline improved their MADRS-S suicide item to less than 2 points. “So, this study taught us to look at the suicide item score and not only the total MADRS-S score,” she commented.

Comparing patients treated with dupilumab with those treated with methotrexate, the analysis showed that though baseline median MADRS-S scores did not differ significantly between them, there was a significant 6-month reduction in the dupilumab group but not in the methotrexate group.

Asked to comment on the findings, moderator Marissa Joseph, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at the University of Toronto, said that “the mental health effects of inflammatory skin conditions like atopic dermatitis are well known, but whether or not they are well explored in the patient-physician interaction is a whole other scenario.” There are time constraints, she said, adding, “it sometimes takes some deep-diving ... but exploring those types of symptoms is something we need to do more of, and the severity of the disease and reasons for treatment are not just what you can see.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Systemic treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) boosts mood in addition to relieving skin symptoms, according to a prospective, real-world, clinical cohort study presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

“Randomized, controlled, phase 3 studies have shown that systemic treatment of AD reduces depressive symptoms, but whether this holds true in real-world cohorts remains to be shown,” said study investigator Lina Ivert, MD, PhD, of the dermatology and venereology unit in the department of medicine at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

The study used data from SwedAD, a newly launched web-based Swedish national registry of patients with AD on systemic treatment between June 2017 and August 2021. Participants were followed at 6 and 12 months for the primary outcome of depressive symptoms using the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale–self-report (MADRS-S). Secondary outcomes included the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and pruritus visual analog scale/numeric rating scale (VAS/NRS).

At baseline, 120 patients (median age, 39 years; 57.5% men) were started on dupilumab (n = 91), methotrexate (26), or cyclosporin (3). Although almost half had no depression at baseline, mild depression was present in 29.2%, with moderate and severe depression in 20% and 4.2%, respectively.

Among 59 patients with 6-month follow-up data (48 on dupilumab, 10 on methotrexate, 1 on cyclosporin), all nine depressive symptoms in MADRS-S improved significantly, with reduced sleep improving the most (from a median of 3 points to a median of 1 point). Similarly, overall MADRS-S scores improved (from a median of 14 points to a median of 5; P < .001), as did EASI scores (from a median of 20.5 to 2), POEM scores (from a median of 22 to 6), DLQI (from a median of 15 to 3), and pruritus scores (from a median of 7.1 to 1.8; all P < .001).

The analysis also found a strong correlation between the MADRS-S score and all of the secondary outcomes (P < .001 for all). All these improvements remained significant among the 36 patients with 12-month follow-up data.

“The median MADRS-S reduction also remained when we excluded eight patients who were on antidepressants during the study period, so these results cannot be explained by psychiatric medication,” noted Dr. Ivert, adding that three patients with severe suicide ideation at baseline improved their MADRS-S suicide item to less than 2 points. “So, this study taught us to look at the suicide item score and not only the total MADRS-S score,” she commented.

Comparing patients treated with dupilumab with those treated with methotrexate, the analysis showed that though baseline median MADRS-S scores did not differ significantly between them, there was a significant 6-month reduction in the dupilumab group but not in the methotrexate group.

Asked to comment on the findings, moderator Marissa Joseph, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at the University of Toronto, said that “the mental health effects of inflammatory skin conditions like atopic dermatitis are well known, but whether or not they are well explored in the patient-physician interaction is a whole other scenario.” There are time constraints, she said, adding, “it sometimes takes some deep-diving ... but exploring those types of symptoms is something we need to do more of, and the severity of the disease and reasons for treatment are not just what you can see.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.