Successful interferon alpha therapy in atopic dermatitis of Besnier's prurigo pattern with normal serum IgE and blood eosinophil fraction: randomized case-controlled study

Mesenchymal stem/stromal cell therapy in atopic dermatitis and chronic urticaria: immunological and clinical viewpoints

Allergic diseases are immune-mediated diseases. Allergies share a common immunopathogenesis, with specific differences according to the specific disease. Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) have been applied to people suffering from allergic and many other diseases. In this review, the immunologic roles of MSCs are systemically reviewed according to disease immunopathogenesis from a clinical viewpoint. MSCs seem to be a promising therapeutic modality not only as symptomatic treatments but also as causative and even preventive treatments for allergic diseases, including atopic dermatitis and chronic urticaria.

Therapeutic potential of biologics in prurigo nodularis

INTRODUCTION

Prurigo nodularis (PN) or chronic prurigo of nodular type (CNPG) is a subtype of chronic prurigo with severe pruritus and neuroimmune underlying pathophysiology occurring in a plethora of dermatological, systemic, neurologic, and psychiatric conditions.

AREAS COVERED 

We review the increasing repertoire of biologics in the treatment of CNPG focusing on those targeting interleukins 4, 13, 31, oncostatin M and IgE. Presented information is based on a database research on current clinical trials (clinicaltrials.gov, European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT), US clinical trial registry ICH-GCP) and a PubMed search for latest publications conducted with the combinations of the terms 'chronic prurigo,' 'prurigo nodularis,' 'pathophysiology,' 'treatment,' 'therapy', and 'biologics.'

EXPERT OPINION

CNPG gets more and more attention as new therapeutic targets have been revealed in recent years, thus allowing the use of targeted approaches. The off-label advent of dupilumab offered advanced insight into the pathogenesis of CNPG and showed an impressive relief of pruritus in the vast majority of patients. New therapies including biologics (e.g. nemolizumab, tralokinumab, lebrikizumab), small molecules (e.g. neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, janus kinase inhibitors) as well as mu-opioid receptor antagonists and nalbuphine, a μ-antagonist/κ-agonist, are in the pipeline and offer new hope for an improved future patient care.

Guidelines for treatment of atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis) Part II

The existing evidence for treatment of atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis, AE) is evaluated using the national standard Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation. The consensus process consisted of a nominal group process and a DELPHI procedure. Management of AE must consider the individual symptomatic variability of the disease. Basic therapy is focused on hydrating topical treatment, and avoidance of specific and unspecific provocation factors. Anti-inflammatory treatment based on topical glucocorticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) is used for exacerbation management and more recently for proactive therapy in selected cases. Topical corticosteroids remain the mainstay of therapy, but the TCI tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are preferred in certain locations. Systemic immune-suppressive treatment is an option for severe refractory cases. Microbial colonization and superinfection may induce disease exacerbation and can justify additional antimicrobial treatment. Adjuvant therapy includes UV irradiation preferably with UVA1 wavelength or UVB 311 nm. Dietary recommendations should be specific and given only in diagnosed individual food allergy. Allergen-specific immunotherapy to aeroallergens may be useful in selected cases. Stress-induced exacerbations may make psychosomatic counselling recommendable. 'Eczema school' educational programs have been proven to be helpful. Pruritus is targeted with the majority of the recommended therapies, but some patients need additional antipruritic therapies.

Dermatologic disorders associated with chronic hepatitis C: effect of interferon therapy

Chronic hepatitis C virus infection (HCV) is associated with extrahepatic manifestations, including such dermatologic conditions as mixed cryoglobulinemia, porphyria cutanea tarda, and lichen planus. Patients with chronic HCV and extrahepatic manifestations are often excluded from clinical trials evaluating interferon (IFN) therapy due to concerns about poor response, adverse events, and toxicity. Thus, data regarding the efficacy of IFN not only on the underlying chronic HCV, but also on extrahepatic manifestations, are limited in these patients. Case reports suggest that the response of dermatologic extrahepatic manifestations to IFN in patients with chronic HCV is highly variable. This review summarizes available data on dermatologic conditions associated with chronic HCV and their response to IFN therapy.

Off-label uses of biologics in dermatology: Interferon and intravenous immunoglobulin (Part 1 of 2)

The introduction of a number of biologic therapies into the market has revolutionized the practice of dermatology. These therapies include interferons, intravenous immunoglobulin, infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, efalizumab, alefacept, and rituximab. Most dermatologists are familiar with the Food and Drug Administration-approved indications of these medications. However, numerous off-label uses have evolved. As part 1 of a 2-part series, this article will review the literature regarding the off-label uses of the interferons and intravenous immunoglobulin in dermatology.

Cytokine and Anti-Cytokine Therapies for Psoriasis and Atopic Dermatitis

Since the discovery of cytokines as key mediators in inflammation, targeting the cytokine network has represented a promising therapeutic approach. Psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, as T cell-mediated diseases with a strong cytokine component and a high unmet medical need, have moved into the focus of experimental therapies. Whereas pro-inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha are overexpressed in both diseases, a type 1 cytokine pattern predominates in psoriasis and a type 2 cytokine pattern is of pathophysiological importance at least in the initial stages of atopic dermatitis. Strategies for intervention into the cytokine network have included antagonism of pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g. TNFalpha, interleukin [IL]-1, IL-8, IL-12, IL-18, IL-23) with neutralizing antibodies and soluble receptors, application of recombinant cytokines (e.g. IL-4, IL-10, IL-11, interferon [IFN]-gamma) to shift the cytokine balance, and administration of small molecules to modulate cytokine expression or signaling. Results from the clinic have led to novel therapeutic options as well as a better understanding of the pathophysiology of inflammatory skin diseases. This review highlights the various therapeutic strategies, results from the clinic (that are in some cases preliminary), and insights that can be drawn from the more advanced clinical studies and the use of approved cytokine-directed therapies.

Measuring atopic dermatitis severity in randomized controlled clinical trials: what exactly are we measuring?

Well-designed clinical trials are a fundamental aspect of evidence-based medicine. Such trials are dependent on the use of valid, reliable, and relevant outcome measures. Wide variation in outcome methodology can have important detrimental effects on the correct interpretation and comparison of results. The objective of this study was to describe the variation in outcome methodology in randomized controlled trials of therapeutic interventions for atopic dermatitis published between January 1994 and December 2001. Of the 93 eligible randomized controlled trials identified using a systematic electronic database search strategy, 85 (91%) incorporated an objective measurement of clinical signs. Only 23 (27%) of these trials used a published severity scale, however. The remainder used either modified versions of published scales (14%) or unnamed scales with no data on validity or reliability (59%), although unpublished scales were used significantly less frequently over the last 2 y compared to previously (21%vs 74%, p<0.01). There was lack of consensus on which clinical features best reflect disease severity, with 31 different descriptions of clinical signs being used across all scoring systems. Fifty-six different "objective" clinical scales were identified. Patient symptoms were recorded in 80 trials (86%) and disease extent in 62 trials (67%). Quality of life was measured in only three trials (3%). This wide variation in outcome methodology is hindering evidence-based practice, and the widespread use of unvalidated outcome measures is a potential source of bias and inaccuracy. More emphasis should be placed on measuring things that are important to patients such as symptoms and quality of life.