Randomised controlled trial of topical corticosteroid and home?based narrowband UVB for active and limited vitiligo: results of the HI?Light Vitiligo trial

BackgroundEvidence for the effectiveness of vitiligo treatments is limited.ObjectivesTo determine effectiveness of (a) hand‐held narrowband‐UVB (NB‐UVB) and (b) combination of potent topical corticosteroid (TCS) and NB‐UVB compared to TCS, for localised vitiligo.MethodsPragmatic, 3‐arm, placebo‐controlled RCT (9 months’ treatment; 12 months’ follow‐up). Adults and children, recruited from secondary care and community, aged ≥5 years with active vitiligo affecting 75% expected were more likely to achieve treatment success, but effects were lost once treatment stopped. Localised grade 3 or 4 erythema was reported in 62 (12%) participants (including 3 with dummy light). Skin thinning was reported in 13 (2.5%) participants (including 1 with placebo ointment).ConclusionCombination treatment with home‐based hand‐held NB‐UVB plus TCS is likely to be superior to TCS alone for treatment of localised vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated but was only successful in around a quarter of participants

An economic evaluation of the randomized controlled trial of topical corticosteroid and home-based narrowband ultraviolet B for active and limited vitiligo (the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial)

Background: Economic evidence for vitiligo treatments is absent. Objectives: To determine the cost-effectiveness of (i) handheld narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) and (ii) a combination of topical corticosteroid (TCS) and NB-UVB compared with TCS alone for localized vitiligo. Methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a pragmatic, three-arm, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial with 9 months’ treatment. In total 517 adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active vitiligo affecting < 10% of skin were recruited from secondary care and the community and were randomized 1: 1: 1 to receive TCS, NB-UVB or both. Cost per successful treatment (measured on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale) was estimated. Secondary cost–utility analyses measured quality-adjusted life-years using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Levels for those aged ≥ 11 years and the Child Health Utility 9D for those aged 5 to < 18 years. The trial was registered with number ISRCTN17160087 on 8 January 2015. Results: The mean ± SD cost per participant was £775 ± 83·7 for NB-UVB, £813 ± 111.4 for combination treatment and £600 ± 96·2 for TCS. In analyses adjusted for age and target patch location, the incremental difference in cost for combination treatment compared with TCS was £211 (95% confidence interval 188–235), corresponding to a risk difference of 10·9% (number needed to treat = 9). The incremental cost was £1932 per successful treatment. The incremental difference in cost for NB-UVB compared with TCS was £173 (95% confidence interval 151–196), with a risk difference of 5·2% (number needed to treat = 19). The incremental cost was £3336 per successful treatment. Conclusions: Combination treatment, compared with TCS alone, has a lower incremental cost per additional successful treatment than NB-UVB only. Combination treatment would be considered cost-effective if decision makers are willing to pay £1932 per additional treatment success

Home-based narrowband UVB, topical corticosteroid or combination for children and adults with vitiligo: HI-Light Vitiligo three-arm RCT

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews suggest that narrowband ultraviolet B light combined with treatments such as topical corticosteroids may be more effective than monotherapy for vitiligo. OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topical corticosteroid monotherapy compared with (1) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light monotherapy and (2) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light/topical corticosteroid combination treatment for localised vitiligo. DESIGN: Pragmatic, three-arm, randomised controlled trial with 9 months of treatment and a 12-month follow-up. SETTING: Sixteen UK hospitals - participants were recruited from primary and secondary care and the community. PARTICIPANTS: Adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active non-segmental vitiligo affecting ≤ 10% of their body area. INTERVENTIONS: Topical corticosteroids [mometasone furoate 0.1% (Elocon®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) plus dummy narrowband ultraviolet B light]; narrowband ultraviolet B light (narrowband ultraviolet B light plus placebo topical corticosteroids); or combination (topical corticosteroids plus narrowband ultraviolet B light). Topical corticosteroids were applied once daily on alternate weeks and narrowband ultraviolet B light was administered every other day in escalating doses, with a dose adjustment for erythema. All treatments were home based. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-assessed treatment success for a chosen target patch after 9 months of treatment ('a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable' on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale). Secondary outcomes included blinded assessment of primary outcome and percentage repigmentation, onset and maintenance of treatment response, quality of life, side effects, treatment burden and cost-effectiveness (cost per additional successful treatment). RESULTS: In total, 517 participants were randomised (adults, n = 398; and children, n =  119; 52% male; 57% paler skin types I-III, 43% darker skin types IV-VI). At the end of 9 months of treatment, 370 (72%) participants provided primary outcome data. The median percentage of narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment-days (actual/allocated) was 81% for topical corticosteroids, 77% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 74% for combination groups; and for ointment was 79% for topical corticosteroids, 83% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 77% for combination. Target patch location was head and neck (31%), hands and feet (32%), and rest of the body (37%). Target patch treatment 'success' was 20 out of 119 (17%) for topical corticosteroids, 27 out of 123 (22%) for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 34 out of 128 (27%) for combination. Combination treatment was superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 10.9%, 95% confidence interval 1.0% to 20.9%; p = 0.032; number needed to treat = 10). Narrowband ultraviolet B light was not superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 5.2%, 95% confidence interval -4.4% to 14.9%; p = 0.290; number needed to treat = 19). The secondary outcomes supported the primary analysis. Quality of life did not differ between the groups. Participants who adhered to the interventions for > 75% of the expected treatment protocol were more likely to achieve treatment success. Over 40% of participants had lost treatment response after 1 year with no treatment. Grade 3 or 4 erythema was experienced by 62 participants (12%) (three of whom were using the dummy) and transient skin thinning by 13 participants (2.5%) (two of whom were using the placebo). We observed no serious adverse treatment effects. For combination treatment compared with topical corticosteroids, the unadjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £2328.56 (adjusted £1932) per additional successful treatment (from an NHS perspective). LIMITATIONS: Relatively high loss to follow-up limits the interpretation of the trial findings, especially during the post-intervention follow-up phase. CONCLUSION: Hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light plus topical corticosteroid combination treatment is superior to topical corticosteroids alone for treatment of localised vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated, but was effective in around one-quarter of participants only. Whether or not combination treatment is cost-effective depends on how much decision-makers are willing to pay for the benefits observed. FUTURE WORK: Development and testing of new vitiligo treatments with a greater treatment response and longer-lasting effects are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17160087. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Case Report: ISG15 deficiency caused by novel variants in two families and effective treatment with Janus kinase inhibition

ISG15 deficiency is a rare disease caused by autosomal recessive variants in the ISG15 gene, which encodes the ISG15 protein. The ISG15 protein plays a dual role in both the type I and II interferon (IFN) immune pathways. Extracellularly, the ISG15 protein is essential for IFN-γ-dependent anti-mycobacterial immunity, while intracellularly, ISG15 is necessary for USP18-mediated downregulation of IFN-α/β signalling. Due to this dual role, ISG15 deficiency can present with various clinical phenotypes, ranging from susceptibility to mycobacterial infection to autoinflammation characterised by necrotising skin lesions, intracerebral calcification, and pulmonary involvement. In this report, we describe novel variants found in two different families that result in complete ISG15 deficiency and severe skin ulceration. Whole exome sequencing identified a heterozygous missense p.Q16X ISG15 variant and a heterozygous multigene 1p36.33 deletion in the proband from the first family. In the second family, a homozygous total ISG15 gene deletion was detected in two siblings. We also conducted further analysis, including characterisation of cytokine dysregulation, interferon-stimulated gene expression, and p-STAT1 activation in lymphocytes and lesional tissue. Finally, we demonstrate the complete and rapid resolution of clinical symptoms associated with ISG15 deficiency in one sibling from the second family following treatment with the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor baricitinib.Published version, accepted version, submitted versionRD&E staff can access the full-text of this article by clicking on the 'Additional Link' above and logging in with NHS OpenAthens if prompted