Clinical Approach to Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Spanish Delphi Consensus

Despite emerging evidence and advances in the management of atopic dermatitis there a lack of consensus regarding the diagnostic criteria, therapeutic approach, method to assess severity, and patient follow-up for this condition. An expert consensus study was conducted to provide recommendations on the management of patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. The study used Delphi-like methodology based on a literature review, a summary of the scientific evidence, and a 2-round survey. The agreement of 60 panellists on 21 statements was evaluated. Consensus was pre-defined as ≥ 80% agreement of all respondents. In the first round 6 statements reached consensus. Unanimous consensus was achieved regarding therapeutic goals and patient satisfaction (maintained in the long term and periodic goals reassessment recommended every 3-6 months). In the second round, half of the statements reached consensus, all related to patient follow-up, treatment goals, and atopic comorbidities. The statements that did not reach consensus were related to diagnosis (biomarkers, allergy, and food testing) and starting patients on conventional systemic treatment rather than advanced treatment. The study assessed expert opinion regarding a variety of topics related to the clinical approach to patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, in order to provide guidance on the diagnosis and management of patients with atopic dermatitis

Clinical Approach to Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Spanish Delphi Consensus

Despite emerging evidence and advances in the management of atopic dermatitis there a lack of consensus regarding the diagnostic criteria, therapeutic approach, method to assess severity, and patient follow-up for this condition. An expert consensus study was conducted to provide recommendations on the management of patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. The study used Delphi-like methodology based on a literature review, a summary of the scientific evidence, and a 2-round survey. The agreement of 60 panellists on 21 statements was evaluated. Consensus was predefined as >= 80% agreement of all respondents. In the first round 6 statements reached consensus. Unanimous consensus was achieved regarding therapeutic goals and patient satisfaction (maintained in the long term and periodic goals reassessment recommended every 3-6 months). In the second round, half of the statements reached consensus, all related to patient follow-up, treatment goals, and atopic comorbidities. The statements that did not reach consensus were related to diagnosis (biomarkers, allergy, and food testing) and starting patients on conventional systemic treatment rather than advanced treatment. The study assessed expert opinion regarding a variety of topics related to the clinical approach to patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, in order to provide guidance on the diagnosis and management of patients with atopic dermatitis

Phase 3 Trial of Nemolizumab in Patients with Prurigo Nodularis.

BACKGROUND Prurigo nodularis is a chronic, debilitating, and severely pruritic neuroimmunologic skin disease. Nemolizumab, an interleukin-31 receptor alpha antagonist, down-regulates key pathways in the pathogenesis of prurigo nodularis. METHODS In this phase 3, double-blind, multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned adults with moderate-to-severe prurigo nodularis to receive an initial 60-mg dose of nemolizumab followed by subcutaneous injections of 30 mg or 60 mg (depending on baseline weight) every 4 weeks for 16 weeks or matching placebo. The primary end points were an itch response (a reduction of ≥4 points on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale [PP-NRS; scores range from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating more severe itch]) and an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) response (a score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear] on the IGA [scores range from 0 to 4] and a reduction from baseline to week 16 of ≥2 points). There were five key secondary end points. RESULTS A total of 274 patients underwent randomization; 183 were assigned to the nemolizumab group, and 91 to the placebo group. Treatment efficacy was shown with respect to both primary end points at week 16; a greater percentage of patients in the nemolizumab group than in the placebo group had an itch response (56.3% vs. 20.9%; strata-adjusted difference, 37.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 26.3 to 48.5), and a greater percentage in the nemolizumab group had an IGA response (37.7% vs. 11.0%; strata-adjusted difference, 28.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 18.8 to 38.2) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Benefits were observed for the five key secondary end points: itch response at week 4 (41.0% vs. 7.7%), PP-NRS score of less than 2 at week 4 (19.7% vs. 2.2%) and week 16 (35.0% vs. 7.7%), and an improvement of 4 or more points on the sleep disturbance numerical rating scale (range, 0 [no sleep loss] to 10 [unable to sleep at all]) at week 4 (37.2% vs. 9.9%) and week 16 (51.9% vs. 20.9%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). The most common individual adverse events were headache (6.6% vs. 4.4%) and atopic dermatitis (5.5% vs. 0%). CONCLUSIONS Nemolizumab monotherapy significantly reduced the signs and symptoms of prurigo nodularis. (Funded by Galderma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501679; EudraCT number, 2019-004789-17.)

The global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management and course of chronic urticaria

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically disrupts health care around the globe. The impact of the pandemic on chronic urticaria (CU) and its management are largely unknown. Aim: To understand how CU patients are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; how specialists alter CU patient management; and the course of CU in patients with COVID-19. Materials and Methods: Our cross-sectional, international, questionnaire-based, multicenter UCARE COVID-CU study assessed the impact of the pandemic on patient consultations, remote treatment, changes in medications, and clinical consequences. Results: The COVID-19 pandemic severely impairs CU patient care, with less than 50% of the weekly numbers of patients treated as compared to before the pandemic. Reduced patient referrals and clinic hours were the major reasons. Almost half of responding UCARE physicians were involved in COVID-19 patient care, which negatively impacted on the care of urticaria patients. The rate of face-to-face consultations decreased by 62%, from 90% to less than half, whereas the rate of remote consultations increased by more than 600%, from one in 10 to more than two thirds. Cyclosporine and systemic corticosteroids, but not antihistamines or omalizumab, are used less during the pandemic. CU does not affect the course of COVID-19, but COVID-19 results in CU exacerbation in one of three patients, with higher rates in patients with severe COVID-19. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic brings major changes and challenges for CU patients and their physicians. The long-term consequences of these changes, especially the increased use of remote consultations, require careful evaluation

The global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management and course of chronic urticaria

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically disrupts health care around the globe. The impact of the pandemic on chronic urticaria (CU) and its management are largely unknown. Aim: To understand how CU patients are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; how specialists alter CU patient management; and the course of CU in patients with COVID-19. Materials and methods: Our cross-sectional, international, questionnaire-based, multicenter UCARE COVID-CU study assessed the impact of the pandemic on patient consultations, remote treatment, changes in medications, and clinical consequences. Results: The COVID-19 pandemic severely impairs CU patient care, with less than 50% of the weekly numbers of patients treated as compared to before the pandemic. Reduced patient referrals and clinic hours were the major reasons. Almost half of responding UCARE physicians were involved in COVID-19 patient care, which negatively impacted on the care of urticaria patients. The rate of face-to-face consultations decreased by 62%, from 90% to less than half, whereas the rate of remote consultations increased by more than 600%, from one in 10 to more than two thirds. Cyclosporine and systemic corticosteroids, but not antihistamines or omalizumab, are used less during the pandemic. CU does not affect the course of COVID-19, but COVID-19 results in CU exacerbation in one of three patients, with higher rates in patients with severe COVID-19. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic brings major changes and challenges for CU patients and their physicians. The long-term consequences of these changes, especially the increased use of remote consultations, require careful evaluation

A concept for integrated care pathways for atopic dermatitis—A GA2LEN ADCARE initiative

Abstract Introduction The integrated care pathways for atopic dermatitis (AD‐ICPs) aim to bridge the gap between existing AD treatment evidence‐based guidelines and expert opinion based on daily practice by offering a structured multidisciplinary plan for patient management of AD. ICPs have the potential to enhance guideline recommendations by combining interventions and aspects from different guidelines, integrating quality assurance, and describing co‐ordination of care. Most importantly, patients can enter the ICPs at any level depending on AD severity, resources available in their country, and economic factors such as differences in insurance reimbursement systems. Methods The GA2LEN ADCARE network and partners as well as all stakeholders, abbreviated as the AD‐ICPs working group, were involved in the discussion and preparation of the AD ICPs during a series of subgroup workshops and meetings in years 2020 and 2021, after which the document was circulated within all GAL2EN ADCARE centres. Results The AD‐ICPs outline the diagnostic procedures, possible co‐morbidities, different available treatment options including differential approaches for the pediatric population, and the role of the pharmacists and other stakeholders, as well as remaining unmet needs in the management of AD. Conclusion The AD‐ICPs provide a multidisciplinary plan for improved diagnosis, treatment, and patient feedback in AD management, as well as addressing critical unmet needs, including improved access to care, training specialists, implementation of educational programs, assessment on the impact of climate change, and fostering a personalised treatment approach. By focusing on these key areas, the initiative aims to pave the way for a brighter future in the management of AD