Phototherapy for atopic eczema

Advancements in pharmacological interventions for atopic dermatitis current strategies and future directions

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a complex chronic inflammatory skin disorder, with its incidence significantly increasing in recent years. The pathogenesis of AD is complex, involving multiple factors such as genetic susceptibility, dysbiosis of the skin microbiome, autoimmune abnormalities, impaired epidermal barrier function, and environmental factors. These factors collectively contribute to the high incidence of the disease and its significant socio-economic burden. This article reviews the pathogenesis of AD and analyzes the current traditional treatment approaches, including topical and systemic therapies, highlighting the issues they face. It focuses on the current status and treatment strategies. Specifically, as the significant heterogeneity of AD, treatment paradigms are gradually shifting from a "one-size-fits-all" approach to personalized treatments. The aim is to achieve more effective management of AD and address the issues arising from individual differences. Through these discussions, this article aims to provide new perspectives and strategies for the clinical treatment of AD, in order to reduce the disease burden on patients.

Skin microbiota: pathogenic roles and implications in atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic and inflammatory skin disorder characterized by impaired barrier function and imbalanced immunity. Recent advances have revealed that dysbiosis of skin microbiota plays important roles in the pathogenesis and development of AD. Meanwhile, endogenous and external factors contribute to the dysbiosis of skin microbiota in AD. Additionally, various treatments, including topical treatments, phototherapy, and systemic biologics, have demonstrated positive impacts on the clinical outcomes, alongside with the modulations of cutaneous microbiota in AD patients. Importantly, therapeutics or products regulating skin microbiota homeostasis have demonstrated potential for AD treatment in early clinical studies. In this review, we underline changes of the skin microbiota correlated with AD. Meanwhile, we provide an overview of the skin microbiota regarding its roles in the pathogenesis and development of AD. Finally, we summarize therapeutic strategies restoring the skin microbial homeostasis in AD management.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Associated Cutaneous Adverse Events: Mechanisms of Occurrence

Immunotherapy, particularly that based on blocking checkpoint proteins in many tumors, including melanoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), triple-negative breast (TNB cancer), renal cancer, and gastrointestinal and endometrial neoplasms, is a therapeutic alternative to chemotherapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapies have the potential to target different pathways leading to the destruction of cancer cells. Although ICIs are an effective treatment strategy for patients with highly immune-infiltrated cancers, the development of different adverse effects including cutaneous adverse effects during and after the treatment with ICIs is common. ICI-associated cutaneous adverse effects include mostly inflammatory and bullous dermatoses, as well as severe cutaneous side reactions such as rash or inflammatory dermatitis encompassing erythema multiforme; lichenoid, eczematous, psoriasiform, and morbilliform lesions; and palmoplantar erythrodysesthesia. The development of immunotherapy-related adverse effects is a consequence of ICIs' unique molecular action that is mainly mediated by the activation of cytotoxic CD4+/CD8+ T cells. ICI-associated cutaneous disorders are the most prevalent effects induced in response to anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1), anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4), and anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) agents. Herein, we will elucidate the mechanisms regulating the occurrence of cutaneous adverse effects following treatment with ICIs.

Exploring the Complexities of Atopic Dermatitis: Pathophysiological Mechanisms and Therapeutic Approaches

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a prevalent inflammatory skin condition impacting both children and adults globally, with a prevalence of 15-30%. It ranks as the most prevalent skin disorder based on disability-adjusted life-years by the World Health Organization. It presents with symptoms like skin irritation, redness, dryness, itchiness, and vesicular blisters and commonly coexists with other atopic symptoms like allergic rhinitis, asthma, and food allergies. The pathophysiology involves a complex interplay of genetic predispositions, immunological dysfunctions, and environmental factors leading to tissue inflammation and disrupted skin barrier integrity. Alopecia areata is characterized by nonscarring hair loss and shares correlations with AD including a higher prevalence of atopic diseases, shared intracellular mechanisms involving the JAK-STAT pathway, and potential treatment overlap such as dupilumab. These correlations could direct new areas of research and increased insight for both diseases. Treatment of AD requires a personalized approach due to its complex, multifactorial nature integrating nonpharmacological interventions like skin hydration and trigger avoidance as well as topical and systemic approaches, if necessary, with topical corticosteroids being the first line for flares; long term corticosteroid use poses risk for adverse effects like skin atrophy. Severe cases may require systemic treatments or phototherapy. Future treatment prospects include targeting the dysbiotic microbiome and identifying biomarkers for tailored therapeutic strategies, emphasizing the importance of personalized medicine in optimizing AD management.

The UPDATE trial (UVB Phototherapy in Dermatology for ATopic Eczema): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of narrowband UVB with optimal topical therapy versus optimal topical therapy in patients with atopic eczema

BACKGROUND

Narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) phototherapy is commonly prescribed for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema (AE). The efficacy of NB-UVB, however, has not yet properly been established, as current evidence is of low certainty. Our aim is to assess the short-term and long-term (cost-)effectiveness and safety of NB-UVB in adult AE patients by performing a pragmatic, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint (PROBE) trial. This protocol outlines its methodology.

METHODS

A pragmatic, multicenter, PROBE trial will be performed with 1:1 randomization of 316 adult patients with moderate-to-severe AE who have inadequate disease control with topical therapy and who are eligible for optimal topical therapy (OTT) or NB-UVB in combination with OTT as a next step. Participants in the interventional arm will receive a minimum of 3 months of OTT combined with 8 to 16 weeks of NB-UVB. The control group receives 3 months of OTT. Following the interventional phase, follow-up will continue for 9 months. Physician-reported and patient-reported outcomes (according to the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) Core Outcome Set) and adverse events are assessed at 4 weeks, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.

DISCUSSION

The UPDATE trial aims to provide high-quality evidence regarding the (cost-)effectiveness and safety of NB-UVB phototherapy in moderate-to-severe AE patients. Challenges that are addressed in the protocol include the possible bias arising from applying open-label treatment and the necessity of introducing OTT into the study design to prevent a high dropout rate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05704205. Registered on December 8, 2022.

Targeted Systemic Therapies for Adults with Atopic Dermatitis: Selecting from Biologics and JAK Inhibitors

Therapeutic options for people with moderate or severe atopic dermatitis refractory to topical therapy have rapidly expanded in recent years. These new targeted immunomodulatory agents-biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors-have each demonstrated high levels of efficacy and acceptable safety in mostly placebo-controlled clinical trials for atopic dermatitis, but there is no universally applicable algorithm to help choose between them for a given patient. Hence, patients and physicians should utilize shared decision making, discussing efficacy, safety, mode of delivery, monitoring, costs, speed of onset, and other factors to reach individualized treatment decisions. In this review, we try to aid shared decision making by summarizing the efficacy, safety, and monitoring of biologics and oral JAK inhibitors for adults with atopic dermatitis. Network meta-analyses suggest that higher doses of abrocitinib and upadacitinib are more effective than biologics. They also show that, among biologics, dupilumab is likely more effective than tralokinumab and lebrikizumab. Biologics are generally considered safer than JAK inhibitors, although concerns about JAK inhibitors are mainly extrapolated from older generation JAK inhibitors used in higher-risk populations. We also outline evidence and considerations for choosing and using systemic immunomodulatory treatments for special populations including pregnant individuals, those with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B and C, end stage kidney disease, and older adults.

Improving Psychological Health Outcomes in Children with Atopic Dermatitis

Introduction

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that usually develops in early childhood. AD has a significant impact on quality of life and psychological health outcomes in both adults and children. There are increased reported rates of psychiatric comorbidities including anxiety, depression, ADHD and suicidal ideation compared to the general population. Primary caregivers of children with pediatric eczema and their families may also have derangements in psychological health and quality of life. A number of interventions exist for AD and address wellbeing outcomes as an important aspect of effective treatment.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed/Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in February 2023. Published studies up to April 2023 were included related to interventions for childhood AD that included psychological health or quality of life outcomes. These interventions were stratified according to type and evidence quality.

Results

Search strategy revealed a wide variety of interventions with demonstrated improvements in quality of life or wellbeing of patients with pediatric AD or their families. Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions demonstrated effectiveness in improving disease outcomes.

Conclusion

A variety of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions may be employed to improve psychological health outcomes in children with AD.

Identification of novel candidate genes and predicted miRNAs in atopic dermatitis patients by bioinformatic methods

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common, chronic inflammatory dermatosis with relapsing eruptions. Our study used bioinformatics to find novel candidate differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and predicted miRNAs between AD patients and healthy controls. The Mesh term "atopic dermatitis" was retrieved to obtain DEGs in GEO datasets. DEGs between AD patients and healthy controls were analyzed using GEO2R. Overlapping DEGs between different datasets were obtained with use of Draw Venn software. GO and KEGG enrichment analyses were conducted by the use of DAVID. STRING and miRWalk were used to individually analyze PPI networks, interactions of candidate genes and predicted miRNAs. A total of 571 skin samples, as retrieved from 9 databases were assessed. There were 225 overlapping DEGs between lesioned skin samples of AD patients and that of healthy controls. Nineteen nodes and 160 edges were found in the largest PPI cluster, consisting of 17 up-regulated and 2 down-regulated nodes. Two KEGG pathways were identified, including the cell cycle (CCNB1, CHEK1, BUB1B, MCM5) and p53 (CCNB1, CHEK1, GTSE1) pathways. There were 56 nodes and 100 edges obtained in the miRNA-target gene network, with has-miR-17-5p targeted to 4 genes and has-miR-106b-5p targeted to 3 genes. While these findings will require further verification as achieved with experiments involving in vivo and in vitro modles, these results provided some initial insights into dysfunctional inflammatory and immune responses associated with AD. Such information offers the potential to develop novel therapeutic targets for use in preventing and treating AD.

Phototherapy for atopic eczema

BACKGROUND

Atopic eczema (AE), also known as atopic dermatitis, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes significant burden. Phototherapy is sometimes used to treat AE when topical treatments, such as corticosteroids, are insufficient or poorly tolerated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of phototherapy for treating AE.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to January 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials in adults or children with any subtype or severity of clinically diagnosed AE. Eligible comparisons were any type of phototherapy versus other forms of phototherapy or any other treatment, including placebo or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. For key findings, we used RoB 2.0 to assess bias, and GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. Primary outcomes were physician-assessed signs and patient-reported symptoms. Secondary outcomes were Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), safety (measured as withdrawals due to adverse events), and long-term control.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 trials with 1219 randomised participants, aged 5 to 83 years (mean: 28 years), with an equal number of males and females. Participants were recruited mainly from secondary care dermatology clinics, and study duration was, on average, 13 weeks (range: 10 days to one year). We assessed risk of bias for all key outcomes as having some concerns or high risk, due to missing data, inappropriate analysis, or insufficient information to assess selective reporting. Assessed interventions included: narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB; 13 trials), ultraviolet A1 (UVA1; 6 trials), broadband ultraviolet B (BB-UVB; 5 trials), ultraviolet AB (UVAB; 2 trials), psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA; 2 trials), ultraviolet A (UVA; 1 trial), unspecified ultraviolet B (UVB; 1 trial), full spectrum light (1 trial), Saalmann selective ultraviolet phototherapy (SUP) cabin (1 trial), saltwater bath plus UVB (balneophototherapy; 1 trial), and excimer laser (1 trial). Comparators included placebo, no treatment, another phototherapy, topical treatment, or alternative doses of the same treatment. Results for key comparisons are summarised (for scales, lower scores are better): NB-UVB versus placebo/no treatment There may be a larger reduction in physician-assessed signs with NB-UVB compared to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (mean difference (MD) -9.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.62 to -15.18; 1 trial, 41 participants; scale: 0 to 90). Two trials reported little difference between NB-UVB and no treatment (37 participants, four to six weeks of treatment); another reported improved signs with NB-UVB versus no treatment (11 participants, nine weeks of treatment). NB-UVB may increase the number of people reporting reduced itch after 12 weeks of treatment compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.72, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.69; 1 trial, 40 participants). Another trial reported very little difference in itch severity with NB-UVB (25 participants, four weeks of treatment). The number of participants with moderate to greater global improvement may be higher with NB-UVB than placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.17; 1 trial, 41 participants). NB-UVB may not affect rates of withdrawal due to adverse events. No withdrawals were reported in one trial of NB-UVB versus placebo (18 participants, nine weeks of treatment). In two trials of NB-UVB versus no treatment, each reported one withdrawal per group (71 participants, 8 to 12 weeks of treatment). We judged that all reported outcomes were supported with low-certainty evidence, due to risk of bias and imprecision. No trials reported HRQoL. NB-UVB versus UVA1 We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to UVA1 to be very low certainty for all outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (MD -2.00, 95% CI -8.41 to 4.41; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 108), or patient-reported itch after six weeks (MD 0.3, 95% CI -1.07 to 1.67; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 10). Two split-body trials (20 participants, 40 sides) also measured these outcomes, using different scales at seven to eight weeks; they reported lower scores with NB-UVB. One trial reported HRQoL at six weeks (MD 2.9, 95% CI -9.57 to 15.37; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 30 to 150). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events over 12 weeks (13 participants). No trials reported IGA. NB-UVB versus PUVA We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to PUVA (8-methoxypsoralen in bath plus UVA) to be very low certainty for all reported outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (64.1% reduction with NB-UVB versus 65.7% reduction with PUVA; 1 trial, 10 participants, 20 sides). There was no evidence of a difference in marked improvement or complete remission after six weeks (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.89; 1 trial, 9/10 participants with both treatments). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events in 10 participants over six weeks. The trials did not report patient-reported symptoms or HRQoL. UVA1 versus PUVA There was very low-certainty evidence, due to serious risk of bias and imprecision, that PUVA (oral 5-methoxypsoralen plus UVA) reduced physician-assessed signs more than UVA1 after three weeks (MD 11.3, 95% CI -0.21 to 22.81; 1 trial, 40 participants; scale: 0 to 103). The trial did not report patient-reported symptoms, IGA, HRQoL, or withdrawals due to adverse events. There were no eligible trials for the key comparisons of UVA1 or PUVA compared with no treatment. Adverse events Reported adverse events included low rates of phototoxic reaction, severe irritation, UV burn, bacterial superinfection, disease exacerbation, and eczema herpeticum.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo or no treatment, NB-UVB may improve physician-rated signs, patient-reported symptoms, and IGA after 12 weeks, without a difference in withdrawal due to adverse events. Evidence for UVA1 compared to NB-UVB or PUVA, and NB-UVB compared to PUVA was very low certainty. More information is needed on the safety and effectiveness of all aspects of phototherapy for treating AE.