How to use the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema Core Outcome Set for atopic dermatitis trials: a users’ guide

BackgroundThe Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has agreed upon the Core Outcome Set (COS) for use in atopic dermatitis (AD) clinical trials, but additional guidance is needed to maximize its uptake.ObjectivesTo provide answers to some of the commonly asked questions about using the HOME COS; to provide data to help with the interpretation of trial results; and to support sample size calculations for future trials.Methods and resultsWe provide practical guidance on the use of the HOME COS for investigators planning clinical trials in patients with AD. It answers some of the common questions about using the HOME COS, how to access the outcome measurement instruments, what training/resources are needed to use them appropriately and clarifies when the COS is applicable. We also provide exemplar data to inform sample size calculations for eczema trials and encourage standardized data collection and reporting of the COS.ConclusionsBy encouraging adoption of the COS and facilitating consistent reporting of outcome data, it is hoped that the results of eczema trials will be more comprehensive and readily combined in meta-analyses and that patient care will subsequently be improved

Measuring atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice: The first consensus statement from the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema in clinical practice initiative

Background: Measuring patient-centered outcomes in clinical practice is valuable for monitoring patients and advancing real-world research. A new initiative from the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) group aims to recommend what might be recorded for atopic eczema patients in routine clinical care. Objectives: Prioritize outcome domains to measure atopic eczema in clinical practice and select valid and practical outcome measurement instruments for the highest-priority domain. Methods: An online survey of HOME members identified and ranked 21 possible health domains. Suitable instruments were then selected for the top-prioritized domain at the HOME VI meeting, using established consensus processes informed by systematic reviews of instrument quality. Results: Patient-reported symptoms was the top-prioritized domain. In accordance with psychometric properties and feasibility, there was consensus that the recommended instruments to measure atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice are the POEM, the PO-SCORAD index, or both. The numeric rating scale for itch received support pending definition and validation in atopic eczema. Conclusion: Following the first step of the HOME Clinical Practice initiative, we endorse using the POEM, the PO-SCORAD index, or both for measuring atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice. Additional high-priority domains for clinical practice will be assessed at subsequent HOME meetings

Comparison of real-world treatment outcomes of systemic immunomodulating therapy in atopic dermatitis patients with dark and light skin types

Background Few data exist on differences in treatment effectiveness and safety in atopic dermatitis patients of different skin types. Objective To investigate treatment outcomes of dupilumab, methotrexate, and ciclosporin, and morphological phenotypes in atopic dermatitis patients, stratified by Fitzpatrick skin type. Methods In an observational prospective cohort study, pooling data from the Dutch TREAT (TREatment of ATopic eczema) NL (treatregister.nl) and UK-Irish A-STAR (Atopic eczema Systemic TherApy Register; astar-register.org) registries, data on morphological phenotypes and treatment outcomes were investigated. Results A total of 235 patients were included (light skin types [LST]: Fitzpatrick skin type 1-3, n = 156 [Ethnicity, White: 94.2%]; dark skin types [DST]: skin type 4-6, n = 68 [Black African/Afro-Caribbean: 25%, South-Asian: 26.5%, and Hispanics: 0%]). DST were younger (19.5 vs 29.0 years; P .05). Limitations Unblinded, non-randomized. Conclusion Atopic dermatitis differs in several characteristics between LST and DST. Skin type may influence treatment effectiveness of dupilumab

Which dressing do donor site wounds need?: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Donor site wounds after split-skin grafting are rather 'standard' wounds. At present, lots of dressings and topical agents for donor site wounds are commercially available. This causes large variation in the local care of these wounds, while the optimum 'standard' dressing for local wound care is unclear. This protocol describes a trial in which we investigate the effectiveness of various treatment options for these donor site wounds. A 14-center, six-armed randomized clinical trial is being carried out in the Netherlands. An a-priori power analysis and an anticipated dropout rate of 15% indicates that 50 patients per group are necessary, totaling 300 patients, to be able to detect a 25% quicker mean time to complete wound healing. Randomization has been computerized to ensure allocation concealment. Adult patients who need a split-skin grafting operation for any reason, leaving a donor site wound of at least 10 cm2 are included and receive one of the following dressings: hydrocolloid, alginate, film, hydrofiber, silicone dressing, or paraffin gauze. No combinations of products from other intervention groups in this trial are allowed. Optimum application and changes of these dressings are pursued according to the protocol as supplied by the dressing manufacturers. Primary outcomes are days to complete wound healing and pain (using a Visual Analogue Scale). Secondary outcomes are adverse effects, scarring, patient satisfaction, and costs. Outcome assessors unaware of the treatment allocation will assess whether or not an outcome has occurred. Results will be analyzed according to the intention to treat principle. The first patient was randomized October 1, 2009. This study will provide comprehensive data on the effectiveness of different treatment options for donor site wounds. The dressing(s) that will prevail in effectiveness, satisfaction and costs will be promoted among clinicians dealing with such patients. Thus, we aim to contribute a well-designed trial, relevant to all clinicians involved in the care for donor site wounds, which will help enhance uniformity and quality of care for these patients. http://www.trialregister.nl, NTR1849. Date registered: June 9, 200

On which evidence can we rely when prescribing off-label methotrexate in dermatological practice?–a systematic review with GRADE approach

If an authorized drug is prescribed for a use that is not described in the Summary of Product Characteristics, this is defined as ‘off-label use.’ Methotrexate is often used off-label for dermatological indications. Off-label use is permitted if physicians can justify the treatment based on scientific evidence available to them. Our objective here was therefore to summarize the evidence for the effectiveness, efficacy, and safety of the dermatological off-label use of methotrexate in a systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for studies for evidence on the effectiveness, efficacy, and safety of the off-label use of methotrexate in dermatological indications up to November 2019. We used the GRADE system to rate the quality of the evidence. The search retrieved 34,583 hits of which 3566 were selected after the title and abstract screening. After the full-text screening, 143 studies were included, which involved 3688 patients in total. We found low-quality evidence for the effectiveness, efficacy, and safety of the off-label use of methotrexate in 31 dermatological diseases. To optimize the quality of evidence to support off-label use, we need high-quality studies in which well-characterized patients are treated with standardized treatments regimens using well-validated outcomes relevant to patients and physicians

The clinical relevance of dupilumab serum concentration in patients with atopic dermatitis: a two-center prospective cohort study

Background Dupilumab is prescribed in one dosage across adult atopic dermatitis patients. Differences in drug exposure may explain variation in treatment response. Objective Investigating the clinical relevance of dupilumab serum concentration in atopic dermatitis in real-world practice. Methods In two centers (Netherlands, UK), adults treated with dupilumab for atopic dermatitis were evaluated for effectiveness and safety pretreatment and at 2, 12, 24, and 48 weeks; trough serum samples were analyzed for dupilumab concentration at corresponding time points. Results In 149 patients, median dupilumab levels during follow-up ranged from 57.4 to 72.4 μg/mL. Levels showed high inter-patient and low intra-patient variability. No correlation was found between levels and ΔEASI. At 2 weeks, levels of ≥64.1 μg/mL predict EASI ≤7 at 24 weeks (specificity:100%, sensitivity:60%; p = .022). At 12 weeks, ≤32.7 μg/mL predicts EASI >7 at 24 weeks (sensitivity:95%, specificity:26%; p = .011). Inverse correlations were found between baseline EASI and levels at 2, 12, and 24 weeks (r = −0.25 to 0.36; p ≤ .023). Low levels were particularly observed in patients with adverse events, treatment interval deviation, and discontinuation. Conclusion At the on-label dosage, the measured range of dupilumab levels does not seem to yield differences in treatment effectiveness. However, disease activity does seem to influence dupilumab levels - higher baseline disease activity results in lower levels at follow-up