Study protocol: Efficacy of oral alitretinoin versus oral cyclosporine A in patients with severe recurrent vesicular hand eczema (ALICsA)::A randomised prospective open-label trial with blinded outcome assessment

INTRODUCTION: Systemic treatment with alitretinoin is registered for all clinical types of severe chronic hand eczema. However, it is especially effective in the hyperkeratotic subtype and less effective in non-hyperkeratotic forms. Cyclosporine A (cyclosporine) is prescribed for hand eczema in daily practice as well. It has shown to be particularly effective in patients with vesicular hand eczema. The primary objective of this study is to compare efficacy of alitretinoin and cyclosporine in the treatment of severe recurrent vesicular hand eczema. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an investigator-initiated randomised prospective open-label trial with blinded outcome assessment. Severity assessments and laboratory measurements will be conducted corresponding to daily practice. The study population will consist of 72 adult patients (age 18-75 years) with severe recurrent vesicular hand eczema. Patients are treated with either (group I) alitretinoin 30 mg once daily or (group II) cyclosporine with a starting dose of 5 mg/kg/day and a decrease in dosage after 8 weeks to 3-3.5 mg/kg/day. The treatment period is 24 weeks for both drugs. Primary endpoint for efficacy is response to treatment, defined as an improvement of ≥2 steps on a Physician Global Assessment, using a validated Photoguide, after 24 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints are improvement of Hand Eczema Severity Index, Quality of Life in Hand Eczema Questionnaire and a Patient Global Assessment. Adverse events and time to response will be registered. Furthermore, cost-utility, quality-adjusted life years and cost-effectiveness will be assessed with the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire while monitoring costs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was reviewed and approved by the Medical Ethical Review Board of the University Medical Centre Groningen (reference METc 2015/375). The study will be conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, in accordance with the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03026946; Pre-results

Interventions for preventing occupational irritant hand dermatitis (Review)

Background: Occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) causes significant functional impairment, disruption of work, and discomfort in the working population. Different preventive measures such as protective gloves, barrier creams and moisturisers can be used, but it is not clear how effective these are. This is an update of a Cochrane review which was previously published in 2010. Objectives: To assess the effects of primary preventive interventions and strategies (physical and behavioural) for preventing OIHD in healthy people (who have no hand dermatitis) who work in occupations where the skin is at risk of damage due to contact with water, detergents, chemicals or other irritants, or from wearing gloves. Search methods: We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLlNE, and Embase. We also searched five trials registers and checked the bibliographies of included studies for further references to relevant trials. We handsearched two sets of conference proceedings. Selection criteria: We included parallel and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effectiveness of barrier creams, moisturisers, gloves, or educational interventions compared to no intervention for the primary prevention of OIHD under field conditions. Data collection and analysis: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were signs and symptoms of OIHD developed during the trials, and the frequency of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects

Strategies for measuring long-term control in atopic dermatitis trials: a systematic review

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease. There are no standardised methods for capturing long-term control of AD. Objective: To identify how long-term control has been captured in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Resultswill initiate consensus discussions on how best to measure long-term control in the core outcome set for AD. Methods: Systematic review of RCTs of AD treatments published between 2000 and 2013, with a follow-up period of ≥3 months, at least one outcome measure recorded at ≥3 time-points, full paper available, and published in English. Results: 101/ 353 RCTs were eligible. Methods to capture long-term control included: repeated measurement of AD outcomes (92 RCTs; 91%), use of AD medication (29 RCTs; 28.7%); and AD flares/remissions (26 RCTs; 25.7%). Repeated measurements of AD outcomes were typically collected 3 to 5 times during a trial, but analysis methods often failed to make best use of the data. Time to first flare was most commonly for trials including flare data (21/52). Medication-use was recorded based on quantity, potency and frequency of application. Limitations: Included RCT data only Conclusion: This review illustrates the difficulties in measuring long-term control, and points to the need for improved harmonization of outcomes

Current patch test results with the European baseline series and extensions to it from the 'European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy' network, 2007-2008

BACKGROUND: The pattern of contact sensitization to the supposedly most important allergens assembled in the baseline series differs between countries, presumably at least partly because of exposure differences. Objectives. To describe the prevalence of contact sensitization to allergens tested in consecutive patients in the years 2007 and 2008, and to discuss possible differences. METHODS: Data from the 39 departments in 11 European countries comprising the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy network (www.essca-dc.org) in this period have been pooled and analysed according to common standards. RESULTS: Patch test results with the European baseline series, and country-specific or department-specific additions to it, obtained in 25 181 patients, showed marked international variation. Metals and fragrances are still the most frequent allergens across Europe. Some allergens tested nationally may be useful future additions to the European baseline series, for example methylisothiazolinone, whereas a few long-term components of the European baseline series, namely primin and clioquinol, no longer warrant routine testing. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis points to 'excess' prevalences of specific contact sensitization in some countries, although interpretation must be cautious if only few, and possibly specialized, centres are representing one country. A comparison as presented may help to target in-depth research into possible causes of 'excess' exposure, and/or consideration of methodological issues, including modifications to the baseline series

The optimal patch test concentration for ascaridole as a sensitizing component of tea tree oil

BACKGROUND: Tea tree oil is used as a natural remedy, but is also a popular ingredient in household and cosmetic products. Oxidation of tea tree oil results in degradation products, such as ascaridole, which may cause allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVES: To identify the optimal patch test concentration for ascaridole, and to investigate the relationship between a positive reaction to ascaridole and a positive reaction to oxidized tea tree oil. PATIENTS/MATERIALS/METHODS: Three hundred and nineteen patients with eczema were patch tested with ascaridole 1%, 2%, and 5%, and 250 patients were patch tested with oxidized tea tree oil 5%. Readings were performed on D3 and D7 according to a patch test calibration protocol. RESULTS: With an increasing ascaridole test concentration, the frequency of positive reactions increased: ascaridole 1%, 1.4%; ascaridole 2%, 5.5%; and ascaridole 5%, 7.2%. However, the frequencies of irritant and doubtful reactions also increased, especially for ascaridole 5%. A positive reaction to ascaridole was related to a positive reaction to tea tree oil. CONCLUSIONS: This study is in support of ascaridole being a sensitizer. We recommend patch testing with ascaridole at 2%. The finding that every positive reaction to oxidized tea tree oil is accompanied by a positive reaction to ascaridole suggests that ascaridole might be a contact allergen in oxidized tea tree oil

Alitretinoin and acitretin in severe chronic hand eczema;: results from a retrospective daily practice study

Acitretin has been used off-label for years to treat chronic hand eczema, but acitretin is less often prescribed as alitretinoine was approved. This study evaluates both retinoids in a daily practice cohort of patients with severe chronic hand eczema in terms of drug survival and reasons for discontinuation. Patients using alitretinoin or acitretin between 01-01-1994 and 01-08-2015 were included in this retrospective daily practice study and analyzed by Kaplan-Meier drug survival curves. Potential determinants were analyzed by Cox regression analyses. Ninety-five patients were treated with alitretinoin and 109 patients with acitretin. The main reasons for discontinuation were adverse events and cleared hand eczema, 29.5 and 27.4% in alitretinoin versus 43.1 and 23.9% in acitretin. Patients with hyperkeratotic hand eczema had most often a good effect of treatment: 68.3% in alitretinoin and 50.7% in acitretin treatment. The drug survival rates of alitretinoin and acitretin after 12, 24, 36, and 52 weeks were 69.3, 45.1, 19.6, 7.0% and 74.3, 45.5, 33.8, 23.2%, respectively. Alitretinoin and acitretin are effective treatment options for patients with hand eczema. However, both treatments were more effective in patients with hyperkeratotic hand eczema. Fewer patients discontinued alitretinoin compared with acitretin due to adverse events

European task force on contact dermatitis statement on coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) outbreak and the risk of adverse cutaneous reactions

Among the basic protective measures against COVID-19, the need to wash hands frequently and in a prolonged way using soap, and to regularly use alcohol-based hand sanitizers is well established for the whole population

Contact allergy to preservatives: ESSCA* results with the baseline series, 2009-2012

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis caused by biocides is common and causes significant patient morbidity. OBJECTIVE: To describe the current frequency and pattern of patch test reactivity to biocide allergens included in the baseline series of most European countries. METHODS: Data collected by the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA) network between 2009 and 2012 from 12 European countries were analysed. RESULTS: Methylisothiazolinone 0.2% aq. produced the highest prevalence of sensitization during the study period, with an overall prevalence of 4.5%. The mixture methylchloroisothiazolinone /methylisothiazolinone tested at 0.02% aq. followed closely, with 4.1% of positive reactions. Other preservatives with lower rates of sensitization, but still over 1%, include methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN) 0.5% pet. and iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC) 0.2% pet. Formaldehyde releasers and parabens yielded less than 1% positive reactions during the study period. Some regional differences in the prevalence of contact allergy to biocides among European countries were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Contact allergy to biocides is common throughout Europe, and regional differences could be explained by differences in exposure or characteristics of the population tested. Timely regulatory action for isothiazolinones is required. Although MDBGN is banned from cosmetics products since 2005, sensitization prevalence has not appeared to plateau. IPBC is an emerging allergen with an increasing prevalence over the last few years, and its inclusion in the European baseline series may be appropriate

Current patch test results with the European baseline series and extensions to it from the 'European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy' network, 2007-2008

BACKGROUND: The pattern of contact sensitization to the supposedly most important allergens assembled in the baseline series differs between countries, presumably at least partly because of exposure differences. Objectives. To describe the prevalence of contact sensitization to allergens tested in consecutive patients in the years 2007 and 2008, and to discuss possible differences.METHODS: Data from the 39 departments in 11 European countries comprising the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy network (www.essca-dc.org) in this period have been pooled and analysed according to common standards.RESULTS: Patch test results with the European baseline series, and country-specific or department-specific additions to it, obtained in 25 181 patients, showed marked international variation. Metals and fragrances are still the most frequent allergens across Europe. Some allergens tested nationally may be useful future additions to the European baseline series, for example methylisothiazolinone, whereas a few long-term components of the European baseline series, namely primin and clioquinol, no longer warrant routine testing.CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis points to 'excess' prevalences of specific contact sensitization in some countries, although interpretation must be cautious if only few, and possibly specialized, centres are representing one country. A comparison as presented may help to target in-depth research into possible causes of 'excess' exposure, and/or consideration of methodological issues, including modifications to the baseline series.</p