The long-term safety and efficacy of cyclosporin in severe refractory atopic dermatitis: a comparison of two dosage regimens

A systematic review investigating the proportion of clinical images shared in prospective randomized controlled trials involving patients with atopic dermatitis and systemic pharmacotherapy

For individuals with atopic dermatitis (AD), interpreting scientific papers that present clinical outcomes including the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and Investigators Global Assessment may be difficult. When compared to tabulated data and graphs, images from before and after treatment are often far more meaningful to these patients that ultimately will be candidates for the treatment. This systematic review focused on determining the frequency of clinical image sharing in AD research.

Conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, the review concentrated on randomized controlled trials that investigated predefined and available systemic treatments for AD. The search was performed in the MEDLINE database for studies published from the inception until 21 December 2023.

The review included 60 studies, encompassing 17,799 randomized patients. Across these studies, 16 images representing 6 patients were shared in the manuscripts, leading to a sharing rate of 0.3‰.

The almost missing inclusion of patient images in clinical trial publications hinders patient understanding. Adding images to scientific manuscripts could significantly improve patients' comprehension of potential treatment outcomes. This review highlights the need for authors, the pharmaceutical industry, study sponsors, and publishers to enhance and promote patient information through increased use of visual data.

Risk of Developing Hypertension in Atopic Dermatitis Patients Receiving Long-term and Low-dose Cyclosporine: A Nationwide Population-based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Cyclosporine (CS) is a first-line immunosuppressive agent used to manage moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). To date, the risk of developing hypertension associated with the long-term use of low-dose CS in AD patients is understudied.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cumulative dose-dependent effect of CS on the risk of developing hypertension in patients with AD.

METHODS

A nationwide population-based retrospective cohort with 1,844,009 AD patients was built from the Korean National Health Insurance System database from 2005 to 2009. A Cox proportional-hazard regression analysis was performed according to patients' CS treatment history adjusted for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Current use of CS was associated with an increased risk of developing hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.442; 95% confidence interval, 3.761-5.247). Among the current CS users, a higher cumulative dose of CS (≥39,725 mg) or longer cumulative use of CS (≥182 days), was significantly associated with an increased risk of developing hypertension.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of CS-associated hypertension is very low when using low-dose treatment regimens for AD. However, the current use or a high cumulative dose of CS for treating patients with AD increases the risk of developing hypertension. Precaution is needed when prescribing CS for long-term treatment of AD.

Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition with multiple systemic treatments and uncertainty regarding their comparative impact on AD outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD systemic treatments.

METHODS

For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and GREAT databases from inception to November 29, 2022, for randomized trials addressing systemic treatments and phototherapy for AD. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/e5sna).

RESULTS

The 149 included trials (28,686 patients with moderate-to-severe AD) evaluated 75 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, high-dose upadacitinib was among the most effective for 5 of 6 patient-important outcomes; high-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib were among the most effective for 2 outcomes. These Janus kinase inhibitors were among the most harmful in increasing adverse events. With high-certainty evidence, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab were of intermediate effectiveness and among the safest, modestly increasing conjunctivitis. Low-dose baricitinib was among the least effective. Efficacy and safety of azathioprine, oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, phototherapy, and many novel agents are less certain.

CONCLUSIONS

Among individuals with moderate-to-severe AD, high-certainty evidence demonstrates that high-dose upadacitinib is among the most effective in addressing multiple patient-important outcomes, but also is among the most harmful. High-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib are effective, but also among the most harmful. Dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab are of intermediate effectiveness and have favorable safety.

Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Cyclosporine Relative to Immunomodulatory Drugs Used in Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cyclosporine A (CsA) is effective in treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the effectiveness and safety of low-dose (<4 mg/kg) versus high-dose (≥4 mg/kg) CsA and other systemic immunomodulatory agents in patients with AD. Five randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis included 159 patients with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomized to receive low-dose CsA, and 165 patients randomized to receive high-dose CsA and other systemic immunomodulatory agents. We found that low-dose CsA was not inferior to high-dose CsA and other systemic immunomodulatory agents in reducing AD symptoms [standard mean difference (SMD) -1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.47; 3.23]. High-dose CsA and other systemic immunomodulatory agents showed a significantly lower incidence of adverse events [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.56; 0.93], however, after sensitivity analysis, there was no difference between the two groups except for one study (IRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54; 1.07). Regarding serious adverse events requiring discontinuation of treatment, we observed no significant differences between low-dose CsA and other systemic immunomodulatory agents (IRR 1.83, 95% CI 0.62; 5.41). Our study may justify the use of low-dose CsA rather than high-dose CsA and other systemic immunomodulatory agents in moderate-to-severe AD.

Efficacy of topical and systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis on pruritus: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Pruritus is a major and burdensome symptom in atopic dermatitis (AD). The number of systemic treatments available for AD has increased recently, enabling improved patient relief.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of AD treatments on pruritus.

Methods

A systematic literature review and a meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate and compare the effects of treatment used in AD on pruritus. PubMed and Embase databases were searched to find articles published between January 1990 and December 2021. Topical and systemic treatments were studied in patients aged ≥10 years.

Results

Among the 448 articles identified, 56 studies were retained in the systematic review. A total of 15 studies evaluated topical treatments: topical corticosteroids (TCS; 2), calcineurin inhibitors (6), PDE4 inhibitors (3), and Jak inhibitors (4). A total of five studies were included in the meta- analysis. All treatments had a positive effect on pruritus, with a mean overall reduction of 3.32/10, 95% IC [2.32-4.33]. The greatest reduction was observed with halometasone (mean: 4.75), followed by tofacitinib 2% (mean: 4.38). A total of 41 studies evaluated systemic therapies: cyclosporine (6), phototherapy (5), azathioprine (2), dupilumab (9), anti-IL 13 (5), nemolizumab (3), Jak inhibitors (9), mepolizumab (1), and apremilast (1). A total of 17 studies were included in 2 meta-analyses according to the concomitant use or not of TCS. In the meta-analysis without TCS, the overall decrease was 3.07/10, 95% IC [2.58-3.56]. The molecules with the highest efficacy on pruritus were upadacitinib 30 mg (mean: 4.90) and nemolizumab (mean: 4.81).

Discussion

The therapeutic arsenal for AD has increased rapidly, and many molecules are under development. The primary endpoint of clinical trials is most often a score that assesses the severity of AD; however, the assessment of pruritus is also essential. The majority of molecules have a positive effect on pruritus, but the improvement varies between them. Efficacy on pruritus is not always correlated with efficacy on AD lesions; therefore, these two criteria are crucial to evaluate. The limitations of this study were the heterogeneity in the assessment of pruritus, the moment of the assessment, and the concomitant application of TCS or not for studies evaluating systemics. In the future, it would be useful to use standardized criteria for assessing pruritus.

Clinical phenotypes of adult atopic dermatitis and related therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To report current knowledge on the different clinical phenotypes of adult atopic dermatitis. Possible therapeutic intervention in relation to phenotype is also evaluated.

RECENT FINDINGS

Atopic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting up to 10% of adults. It can manifest with different clinical phenotypes, causing diagnostic difficulties. Long-term is often required and systemic drugs are needed for moderate-to-severe forms. However, few drugs are registered for atopic dermatitis in many countries. Furthermore, limited data exist regarding the treatment in relation to individual clinical phenotypes.

SUMMARY

Currently, the most relevant data are those for cyclosporine, alitretinoin, and dupilumab. Cyclosporine and dupilumab showed to be effective in the treatment of atopic dermatitis, although in trials and real-life experiences the different phenotypes treated are usually not reported. However, cyclosporine appears to be effective in prurigo nodularis. Alitretinoin is reported to be particularly efficacious for atopic dermatitis of the hands, while it is ineffective for other locations of the disease. Dupilumab demonstrated its efficacy in prurigo nodularis and nummular eczema phenotypes of atopic dermatitis; moreover, especially in elderly patients, its effectiveness seems to be faster if the folds of the limbs are involved.

Consensus Update for Systemic Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis

Background

In 2015, the Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association (KADA) working group published consensus guidelines for treating atopic dermatitis (AD).

Objective

We aimed to provide updated consensus recommendations for systemic treatment of AD in South Korea based on recent evidence and experience.

Methods

We compiled a database of references from relevant systematic reviews and guidelines on the systemic management of AD. Evidence for each statement was graded and classified based on thestrength of the recommendation. Forty-two council members from the KADA participated in three rounds of voting to establish a consensus on expert recommendations.

Results

We do not recommend long-term treatment with systemic steroids forpatients with moderate-to-severe AD due to the risk of adverse effects. We recommend treatment with cyclosporine or dupilumab and selective treatment with methotrexate or azathioprine for patients with moderate-to-severe AD. We suggest treatment with antihistamines as an option for alleviating clinical symptoms of AD. We recommend selective treatment with narrowband ultraviolet B for patients with chronic moderate-to-severe AD. We do not recommend treatment with oral antibiotics for patients with moderate-to-severe AD but who have no signs of infection. We did not reach a consensus on recommendations for treatment with allergen-specific immunotherapy, probiotics, evening primrose oil, orvitamin D for patients with moderate-to-severe AD. We also recommend educational interventions and counselling for patients with AD and caregivers to improve the treatment success rate.

Conclusion

We look forward to implementing a new and updated consensus of systemic therapy in controlling patients with moderate-to-severe AD.

Patient Reported Outcome Measure in Atopic Dermatitis Patients Treated with Dupilumab: 52-Weeks Results

Dupilumab is used to treat atopic dermatitis (AD) patients who have proven to be refractory to previous treatments. The aim of this study was to assess evolution and patient reported outcome measures in adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD treated with dupilumab in routine clinical practice. The outcomes were evaluated and registered at baseline and weeks 16, 40 and 52. The variables evaluated were: disease severity, pruritus, stressful life events, difficulty to sleep, anxiety and depression, quality of life, satisfaction, adherence to the treatment, efficacy and safety. Eleven patients were recruited between 14 Nov 2017 and 16 Jan 2018. Demographic variables: 90% Caucasian, 82% women. Clinical variables: Mean duration of AD = 17.7 (±12.8), 91% had severe disease severity. At baseline, SCORAD median (range) score = 69.2 (34.8–89.2); itch was reported by 100% of patients; itch visual analogue scale median (range) was 9 (6–10); HADS median (range) total score = 13 (5–21); DLQI mean score = 16 (2–27); EQ-5D-3L median (range) = 57 (30–99). At week-52 there was a significant reduction of SCORAD scores median (range) = 4.3 (0–17.1), HADS total score median (range) = 2 (0–10) and improved quality of life EQ-5D-3L median (range) = 89 (92–60). This study confirms that dupilumab, used for 52-weeks under routine clinical practice, maintains the improved atopic dermatitis signs and symptoms obtained at week 16, with a good safety profile.

Systemic treatments in the management of atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As an evidence resource for the currently planned European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) clinical practice guideline "systemic treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD)," we critically appraised evidence on systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe AD.

METHODS

We systematically identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the safety and efficacy of systemic treatments for AD up to February 2020. Primary efficacy outcomes were clinical signs, AD symptoms and health-related quality of life. Primary safety outcomes included cumulative incidence rates for (serious) adverse events. Trial quality was assessed applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Meta-analyses were conducted where appropriate.

RESULTS

50 RCTs totalling 6681 patients were included. Trial evidence was identified for apremilast, azathioprine (AZA), baricitinib, ciclosporin A (CSA), corticosteroids, dupilumab, interferon-gamma, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), mepolizumab, methotrexate (MTX), omalizumab, upadacitinib and ustekinumab. Meta-analyses were indicated for the efficacy of baricitinib [EASI75 RD 0.16, 95% CI (0.10;0.23)] and dupilumab [EASI75, RD 0.37, 95% CI (0.32;0.42)] indicating short-term (ie 16-week treatment) superiority over placebo. Furthermore, efficacy analyses of AZA and CSA indicated short-term superiority over placebo; however, nonvalidated scores were used and can therefore not be compared to EASI.

CONCLUSION

The most robust, replicated high-quality trial evidence is present for the efficacy and safety of dupilumab for up to 1 year in adults. Robust trial evidence was further revealed for AZA, baricitinib and CSA. Methodological restrictions led to limited evidence-based conclusions for all other systemic treatments. Head-to-head trials with novel systemic treatments are required to clarify the future role of conventional therapies.

Systemic treatments for eczema: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Eczema is a common and chronic, relapsing, inflammatory skin disorder. It seriously impacts quality of life and economic outcomes, especially for those with moderate to severe eczema. Various treatments allow sustained control of the disease; however, their relative benefit remains unclear due to the limited number of trials directly comparing treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of different types of systemic immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe eczema using NMA and to generate rankings of available systemic immunosuppressive treatments for eczema according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to August 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic immunosuppressive agents for moderate to severe atopic eczema when compared against placebo or any other eligible eczema treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We synthesised data using pair-wise analysis and NMA to compare treatments and rank them according to their effectiveness. Effectiveness was assessed primarily by determining the proportion of participants who achieved at least 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) and improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Safety was evaluated primarily by considering the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) and infection. We deemed short-term follow-up as ≤ 16 weeks and long-term follow-up as > 16 weeks. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for these primary outcomes using six domains of CiNEMA grading.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 74 studies, with 8177 randomised participants. Approximately 55% of participants were male, with average age of 32 years (range 2 to 84 years), although age and gender were unreported for 419 and 902 participants, respectively. Most of the included trials were placebo controlled (65%), 34% were head-to-head studies (15% assessed the effects of different doses of the same drug), and 1% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. All trials included participants with moderate to severe eczema, but 62% of studies did not separate data by severity; 38% of studies assessed only severe eczema. The total duration of included trials ranged from 2 weeks to 60 months, whereas treatment duration varied from a single dose (CIM331, KPL-716) to 60 months (methotrexate (MTX)). Seventy studies were available for quantitative synthesis; this review assessed 29 immunosuppressive agents from three classes of interventions. These included (1) conventional treatments, with ciclosporin assessed most commonly; (2) small molecule treatments, including phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors; and (3) biological treatments, including anti-CD31 receptors, anti-interleukin (IL)-22, anti-IL-31, anti-IL-13, anti-IL-12/23p40, anti-OX40, anti-TSLP, anti-CRTH2, and anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibodies, but most commonly dupilumab. Most trials (73) assessed outcomes at a short-term duration ranging from 2 to 16 weeks, whereas 33 trials assessed long-term outcomes, with duration ranging from 5 to 60 months. All participants were from a hospital setting. Fifty-two studies declared a source of funding, and of these, pharmaceutical companies funded 88%. We rated 37 studies as high risk; 21, unclear risk, and 16, low risk of bias, with studies most commonly at high risk of attrition bias. Network meta-analysis suggests that dupilumab ranks first for effectiveness when compared with other biological treatments. Dupilumab is more effective than placebo in achieving EASI75 (risk ratio (RR) 3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.51 to 3.69) and improvement in POEM score (mean difference 7.30, 95% CI 6.61 to 8.00) at short-term follow-up (high-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain of the effects of dupilumab when compared with placebo, in terms of the proportion of participants who achieve EASI75 (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.60) at longer-term follow-up. Low-certainty evidence indicates that tralokinumab may be more effective than placebo in achieving short-term EASI75 (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.34), but there was no evidence for tralokinumab to allow us to assess short-term follow-up of POEM or long-term follow-up of EASI75. We are uncertain of the effect of ustekinumab compared with placebo in achieving EASI75 (long-term follow-up: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.45; short-term follow-up: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.97; both very low certainty). We found no evidence on ustekinumab for the POEM outcome. We are uncertain whether other immunosuppressive agents that targeted our key outcomes influence the achievement of short-term EASI75 compared with placebo due to low- or very low-certainty evidence. Dupilumab and ustekinumab were the only immunosuppressive agents evaluated for longer-term EASI75. Dupilumab was the only agent evaluated for improvement in POEM during short-term follow-up. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence indicates a lower proportion of participants with SAEs after treatment with QAW039 and dupilumab compared to placebo during short-term follow-up, but low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in SAEs during short-term follow-up of other immunosuppressive agents compared to placebo. Evidence for effects of immunosuppressive agents on risk of any infection during short-term follow-up and SAEs during long-term follow-up compared with placebo was of low or very low certainty but did not indicate a difference. We did not identify differences in other adverse events (AEs), but dupilumab is associated with specific AEs, including eye inflammation and eosinophilia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that dupilumab is the most effective biological treatment for eczema. Compared to placebo, dupilumab reduces eczema signs and symptoms in the short term for people with moderate to severe atopic eczema. Short-term safety outcomes from clinical trials did not reveal new safety concerns with dupilumab. Overall, evidence for the efficacy of most other immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe atopic eczema is of low or very low certainty. Given the lack of data comparing conventional with newer biological treatments for the primary outcomes, there remains high uncertainty for ranking the efficacy and safety of conventional treatments such as ciclosporin and biological treatments such as dupilumab. Most studies were placebo-controlled and assessed only short-term efficacy of immunosuppressive agents. Further adequately powered head-to-head RCTs should evaluate comparative long-term efficacy and safety of available treatments for moderate to severe eczema.

Monitoring trough levels in cyclosporine for atopic dermatitis: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cyclosporine is a useful immunosuppressive agent for achieving disease control in moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in children and adults. However, it carries the potential for nephrotoxicity. Monitoring of drug levels is performed in other patient groups, such as transplant recipients, but is not commonplace in the management of atopic dermatitis.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate levels of nephrotoxicity associated with cyclosporine use in atopic dermatitis and assess potential correlation with trough levels of cyclosporine.

METHODS

An electronic search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies assessing the safety profile of cyclosporine compared to placebo or other atopic dermatitis treatments, in adult and pediatric atopic dermatitis patients from 1966 to May 2019. Studies that did not assess renal toxicity were excluded from analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight trials were included for analysis, excluding 11 that did not assess renal toxicity. Descriptive statistical analysis only was performed, due to the high heterogeneity between study methodologies. Significant renal toxicity was seen in 0%-9% of pediatric participants. Monitoring of trough cyclosporine levels was performed in only 10 of the studies, and their correlation to toxicity or disease activity was not explored.

CONCLUSION

There is limited evidence in atopic dermatitis regarding trough level monitoring of cyclosporine. Currently, the practice is not commonplace, particularly in pediatrics, and this is reflected in trial methodology. Monitoring may be useful in specific pediatric groups, such as those on multiple concurrent medications, patients with hepatic or renal dysfunction and non-responders to therapy.

Guidelines on Management of Atopic Dermatitis in India: An Evidence-Based Review and an Expert Consensus

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common and chronic, pruritic inflammatory skin condition that affects all age groups. There was a dearth of consensus document on AD for Indian practitioners. This article aims to provide an evidence-based consensus statement for the management of AD with a special reference to the Indian context. This guideline includes updated definition, etiological factors, classification, and management of atopic dermatitis.

METHODOLOGY

The preparation of guidelines was done in multiple phases. Indian Dermatology Expert Board Members (DEBM), recommended by the Skin Allergy Society of India, prepared 26 evidence-based recommendations for AD. An extensive literature search was done in MEDLINE, Google scholar, Cochrane, and other resources. Articles published in the past 10 years were reviewed and recommendations were graded based on the quality of evidence as per GRADE. After forming the initial structure, DEBM met in Mumbai and gave their decisions on an agree and disagree scale with an Indian perspective. Finally, their suggestions were compiled for preparing the article. After DEBM finalized the draft, a treatment algorithm was formulated for the management of AD.

RESULTS

DEBM suggested a working definition for AD. The panel agreed that moisturizers should be used as mainstay of therapy and should be continued in all lines of therapy and in maintenance phase. Topical corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors should be considered as the first line of treatment. Among systemic therapies, cyclosporin should be considered first line, followed by azathioprine, methotrexate, and mycophenolate mofetil. Phototherapy can be an effecive alternative. Empirical food restriction was recommended against.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines should form a reference for the management of patients with AD in an evidence-based manner.

Relative efficacy of systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Systemic medications are often required for severe atopic dermatitis (AD) refractory to topical therapies. Biologic medications are a recent advancement in the field and a comparison with standard systemic approaches would be beneficial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacies of systemic therapies for the treatment of AD.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using Medline, Ovid, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials looking at the efficacy of systemic treatments for AD in adults and children were included.

RESULTS

A total of 41 studies met criteria and were included in our final analysis. Consistent improvements in Eczema Area and Severity Index and Scoring Atopic Dermatitis were reported with dupilumab and cyclosporine. Phase 2 clinical trials for lebrikizumab and tralokinumab were effective and would benefit from phase 3 trials. No study reported efficacy of biologic medications in pediatric patients; however, cyclosporine improved clinical severity by the greatest amount in this group.

LIMITATIONS

A lack of well controlled comparison studies make direct comparisons between the treatments difficult.

CONCLUSION

For treatment of severe AD, the strongest evidence currently exists for dupilumab and cyclosporine at improving clinical disease severity. Further research is required to determine long-term safety and efficacy of biologic medications.

Profile of dupilumab and its potential in the treatment of inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common inflammatory skin disorder that manifests as eczematous lesions, often associated with allergic rhinitis and asthma. Historically, moderate-to-severe disease has been managed with systemic immunosuppression, such as oral corticosteroids, which result in relapse and limiting side effects. Due to recent advancements in the identification of interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13 as key mediators in AD, new biological agents have been developed for treatment. Dupilumab is a recently approved monoclonal antibody that targets the alpha subunit of the IL-4 receptor and, thus, downregulates activity of IL-4 and IL-13. This review discusses the profile of dupilumab and its potential for efficacy and safety in treating moderate-to-severe AD by reviewing data from Phase I–III clinical trials. Results suggest that dupilumab shows great therapeutic promise for AD. Further studies investigating extended use of dupilumab and dupilumab in comparison to other agents are needed to establish long-term efficacy and safety.

Long-term management of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis with dupilumab and concomitant topical corticosteroids (LIBERTY AD CHRONOS): a 1-year, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Dupilumab (an anti-interleukin-4-receptor-α monoclonal antibody) blocks signalling of interleukin 4 and interleukin 13, type 2/Th2 cytokines implicated in numerous allergic diseases ranging from asthma to atopic dermatitis. Previous 16-week monotherapy studies showed that dupilumab substantially improved signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis with acceptable safety, validating the crucial role of interleukin 4 and interleukin 13 in atopic dermatitis pathogenesis. We aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of dupilumab with medium-potency topical corticosteroids versus placebo with topical corticosteroids in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.

METHODS

In this 1-year, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (LIBERTY AD CHRONOS), adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis and inadequate response to topical corticosteroids were enrolled at 161 hospitals, clinics, and academic institutions in 14 countries in Europe, Asia-Pacific, and North America. Patients were randomly assigned (3:1:3) to subcutaneous dupilumab 300 mg once weekly (qw), dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (q2w), or placebo via a central interactive voice/web response system, stratified by severity and global region. All three groups were given concomitant topical corticosteroids with or without topical calcineurin inhibitors where inadvisable for topical corticosteroids. Topical corticosteroids could be tapered, stopped, or restarted on the basis of disease activity. Coprimary endpoints were patients (%) achieving Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) 0/1 and 2-point or higher improvement from baseline, and Eczema Area and Severity Index 75% improvement from baseline (EASI-75) at week 16. Week 16 efficacy and week 52 safety analyses included all randomised patients; week 52 efficacy included patients who completed treatment by US regulatory submission cutoff. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02260986.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 3, 2014, and July 31, 2015, 740 patients were enrolled: 319 were randomly assigned to dupilumab qw plus topical corticosteroids, 106 to dupilumab q2w plus topical corticosteroids, and 315 to placebo plus topical corticosteroids. 623 (270, 89, and 264, respectively) were evaluable for week 52 efficacy. At week 16, more patients who received dupilumab plus topical corticosteroids achieved the coprimary endpoints of IGA 0/1 (39% [125 patients] who received dupilumab plus topical corticosteroids qw and 39% [41 patients] who received dupilumab q2w plus topical corticosteroids vs 12% [39 patients] who received placebo plus topical corticosteroids; p<0·0001) and EASI-75 (64% [204] and 69% [73] vs 23% [73]; p<0·0001). Week 52 results were similar. Adverse events were reported in 261 (83%) patients who received dupilumab qw plus topical corticosteroids, 97 (88%) patients who received dupilumab q2w, and 266 (84%) patients who received placebo, and serious adverse events in nine (3%), four (4%), and 16 (5%) patients, respectively. No significant dupilumab-induced laboratory abnormalities were noted. Injection-site reactions and conjunctivitis were more common in patients treated with dupilumab plus topical corticosteroids-treated patients than in patients treated with placebo plus topical corticosteroids.

INTERPRETATION

Dupilumab added to standard topical corticosteroid treatment for 1 year improved atopic dermatitis signs and symptoms, with acceptable safety.

FUNDING

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Review of Systemic Treatment Options for Adult Atopic Dermatitis

Background:

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, pruritic inflammatory skin disease resulting from defects in skin barrier and aberrant immune responses. AD significantly affects the quality of life. Not all patients respond to topical therapies, and often systemic therapy is required to control the disease.

Objective:

To review the treatment options for adult AD patients including those options for patients who do not respond adequately or have contraindications to oral systemic therapy.

Methods:

A working group of clinicians with experience managing AD was convened to review the current literature on treatment options for adult AD patients. This review is based on the best available evidence from a published systematic review and an additional literature search.

Results:

Current treatments for AD are reviewed, including options for adult AD patients who do not respond or have contraindications to current systemic therapies. A new approach with targeted therapies is reviewed based on best available evidence.

Conclusion:

Many AD patients respond satisfactorily to topical or systemic treatments, but for those patients who do not respond or have contraindications, new biologic agents appear to be promising therapies.

Topical tacrolimus for atopic dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) (or atopic eczema) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects children and adults and has an important impact on quality of life. Topical corticosteroids (TCS) are the first-line therapy for this condition; however, they can be associated with significant adverse effects when used chronically. Tacrolimus ointment (in its 2 manufactured strengths of 0.1% and 0.03%) might be an alternative treatment. Tacrolimus, together with pimecrolimus, are drugs called topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of topical tacrolimus for moderate and severe atopic dermatitis compared with other active treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 3 June 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 5, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), and the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT database). We searched six trials registers and checked the bibliographies of included studies for further references to relevant trials. We contacted specialists in the field for unpublished data.A separate search for adverse effects of topical tacrolimus was undertaken in MEDLINE and EMBASE on 30 July 2013. We also scrutinised the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites for adverse effects information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of participants with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (both children and adults) using topical tacrolimus at any dose, course duration, and follow-up time compared with other active treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened and examined the full text of selected studies for compliance with eligibility criteria, risk of bias, and data extraction. Our three prespecified primary outcomes were physician's assessment, participant's self-assessment of improvement, and adverse effects. Our secondary outcomes included assessment of improvement of the disease by validated or objective measures, such as SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis), the EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index), and BSA (Body Surface Area) scores.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies, with 5885 participants. The variability of drug doses, outcomes, and follow-up periods made it difficult to carry out meta-analyses.A single trial showed that tacrolimus 0.1% was better than low-potency TCS by the physician's assessment (risk ratio (RR) 3.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.14 to 4.45, 1 study, n = 371, moderate-quality evidence). It was also marginally better than low-potency TCS on face and neck areas and moderate-potency TCS on the trunk and extremities by the physician's assessment (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.49, 1 study, n = 972, moderate level of evidence) and for some of the secondary outcomes. Compared with pimecrolimus 1%, people treated with tacrolimus were almost twice as likely to improve by the physician's assessment (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.42, 2 studies, n = 506, moderate quality of evidence). Compared with the lower concentration of 0.03%, the tacrolimus 0.1% formulation reduced the risk of not having an improvement by 18% as evaluated by the physician's assessment (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.92, 6 studies, n = 1640, high-quality evidence). Tacrolimus 0.1% compared with moderate-to-potent TCS showed no difference by the physician's assessment, and 2 secondary outcomes (1 study, 377 participants) and a marginal benefit favouring tacrolimus 0.1% was found by the participant's assessment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.29, 1 study, n = 974, low quality of evidence) and SCORAD.Based on data from 2 trials, tacrolimus 0.03% was superior to mild TCS for the physician's assessment (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.96 to 3.38, 2 studies, n = 790, moderate-quality evidence) and the participant's self-assessment (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.90, 1 study, n = 416, moderate quality of evidence). One trial showed moderate benefit of tacrolimus 0.03% compared with pimecrolimus 1% on the physician's assessment (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.98, 1 study, n = 139, low-quality evidence), but the effects were equivocal when evaluating BSA. In the comparison of tacrolimus 0.03% with moderate-to-potent corticosteroids, no difference was found in most of the outcomes measured (including physician's and participant's assessment and also for the secondary outcomes), but in two studies, a marginal benefit favouring the corticosteroid group was found for the EASI and BSA scores.Burning was more frequent in those using calcineurin inhibitors than those using corticosteroid tacrolimus 0.03% (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.96 to 3.14, 5 studies, 1883 participants, high-quality evidence), but no difference was found for skin infections. Symptoms observed were mild and transient. The comparison between the two calcineurin inhibitors (pimecrolimus and tacrolimus) showed the same overall incidence of adverse events, but with a small difference in the frequency of local effects.Serious adverse events were rare; occurred in both the tacrolimus and corticosteroid groups; and in most cases, were considered to be unrelated to the treatment. No cases of lymphoma were noted in the included studies nor in the non-comparative studies. Cases were only noted in spontaneous reports, cohorts, and case-control studies. Systemic absorption was rarely detectable, only in low levels, and this decreased with time. Exception is made for diseases with severe barrier defects, such as Netherton's syndrome, lamellar ichthyosis, and a few others, with case reports of a higher absorption. We evaluated clinical trials; case reports; and in vivo, in vitro, and animal studies; and didn't find any evidence that topical tacrolimus could cause skin atrophy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tacrolimus 0.1% was better than low-potency corticosteroids, pimecrolimus 1%, and tacrolimus 0.03%. Results were equivocal when comparing both dose formulations to moderate-to-potent corticosteroids. Tacrolimus 0.03% was superior to mild corticosteroids and pimecrolimus. Both tacrolimus formulations seemed to be safe, and no evidence was found to support the possible increased risk of malignancies or skin atrophy with their use. The reliability and strength of the evidence was limited by the lack of data; thus, findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. We did not evaluate costs.

Methotrexate versus cyclosporine in the treatment of severe atopic dermatitis in children: a multicenter experience from Egypt

Topical therapy is usually of limited benefit in the treatment of severe atopic dermatitis (AD), and the need for a safe and effective systemic treatment may be required in certain cases especially in children. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of methotrexate and cyclosporine in the treatment of 40 children with severe AD. Patients were divided into two groups (each consisting of 20 patients); group A was treated with methotrexate (7.5 mg/week) while group B was treated with cyclosporine (2.5 mg/kg/day). The severity scoring for atopic dermatitis (SCORAD) was used to indicate efficacy of treatment. In group A, the mean SCORAD score at the beginning of the study was 57.90 ± 3.21 that was reduced at the end of the treatment period to reach 29.35 ± 6.32 with a mean absolute reduction of 26.25 ± 7.03. In group B, the mean SCORAD score was 56.54 ± 4.82 at the start of treatment and was 31.35 ± 8.89 at the end of 12 weeks of treatment. The mean absolute reduction was 25.02 ± 8.21. There was no statistically significant difference in the reduction of SCORAD score between both groups (P ± 0.93). Mild and temporary adverse effects were reported in some patients in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Methotrexate or cyclosporine in low doses can be considered as effective, relatively safe, and well-tolerated treatments for severe AD in children.

Eczema

Atopic dermatitis, commonly known as eczema, is a common chronic, relapsing skin disease characterized by pruritus, disrupted epidermal barrier function, and immunoglobulin E-mediated sensitization to food and environmental allergens. Atopic dermatitis is a complex disease that arises from interactions between genes and the environment. Loci on several chromosomes have been identified, including a family of epithelium-related genes called the epidermal differentiation complex on chromosome 1q21. Mutations in filaggrin, a key protein in epidermal differentiation, have also been identified in early-onset and severe atopic dermatitis. There are 3 classical stages of eczema: infantile, childhood, and adulthood. The spectrum of eczema presentation varies widely from a variant that only affect the hand to major forms where a patient presents with erythroderma. The acute and subacute lesions of atopic dermatitis are often characterized by intensely pruritic, erythematous papules and vesicles with excoriations and a serous exudate. Chronic atopic dermatitis is exemplified by lichenified plaques and papules with excoriations. Atopic dermatitis patients are also at higher risk for skin infections, including bacterial and viral superinfections. Conventional therapy includes avoidance of irritants and potential allergens, as well as continued hydration of the skin with thick emollients. Topical corticosteroids and topical immunomodulators are often used primarily. Other therapies including phototherapy, antimicrobials, antihistamines, and systemic immunosuppressives are also options in certain situations.

The use of cyclosporine in dermatology: part I

Cyclosporine is a calcineurin inhibitor that acts selectively on T cells. It has been used in dermatology since 1997 for its US Food and Drug Administration indication of psoriasis and off-label for various other inflammatory skin conditions, including atopic dermatitis, blistering disorders, and connective tissue diseases. In the last decade, many dermatologists have hesitated to use this important drug in their clinical practices because of its toxicity profile. The purpose of this article is to review the mechanism of action of cyclosporine and its current uses and dosing schedules. It is our goal to create a framework in which dermatologists feel comfortable and safe incorporating cyclosporine into their prescribing regimens.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After completing this learning activity, participants should be able to describe the mechanism of action of cyclosporine, recognize the potential role of cyclosporine in dermatology and the evidence to support this role, and incorporate cyclosporine into his or her prescribing regimens.

Atopic dermatitis: systemic immunosuppressive therapy

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a pruritic, relapsing skin disorder that negatively impacts the quality of life of those affected and that of their families. Treatment options for AD encompass a variety of emollients, topical corticosteroids, topical immunomodulators, phototherapy, and systemic agents. Such agents as systemic corticosteroids, cyclosporine, azathioprine, interferon-gamma, methotrexate, and mycophenolate mofetil have been shown to be efficacious in the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD but are not officially approved for this purpose. In this article, we review some of the data supporting efficacy of these medications and discuss some of the adverse events associated with their use.

Systemic therapeutic options for severe atopic dermatitis

Systemic therapy of severe atopic dermatitis (AD) is difficult in some cases, because the use of immunosuppressive agents such as cyclosporine A, mofetil mycophenolate, tacrolimus, and azathioprine is limited by adverse reactions or contraindications. Recent reports suggest a helpful role for biologics, methotrexate, anti-IgE antibodies, and immunotherapy. We review the modes of action, as well as advantages and disadvantages of current and new systemic therapeutic options for severe AD.

Atopic dermatitis: understanding the disease and its management

OBJECTIVE

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common, chronic, inflammatory skin disease that can significantly reduce the quality of life of not only patients but also entire families. This review will focus on the currently available non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic treatments for the control and management of AD.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A review of English-language articles from January 1953 to May 2006 was performed within the MEDLINE database. Search terms included, but were not limited to, atopic dermatitis, topical corticosteroids, and topical calcineurin inhibitors. Studies evaluating the diagnosis, physical and psychological burden, and underlying pathophysiology of AD were included. Particular focus was placed on literature presenting key safety and efficacy data from clinical trials involving AD treatment.

RESULTS

Although good skin care and trigger avoidance are fundamental to AD management, most patients also require pharmacologic intervention. Topical therapies comprise the foundation of AD treatment. In particular, topical corticosteroids have been a mainstay in AD treatment for several decades and the newer topical calcineurin inhibitors have become a valuable addition to the therapeutic armamentarium. TCIs are a safe and effective AD treatment; they limit the number of disease flares, extend the time between flares, and provide a steroid-sparing option that may be of particular benefit in the pediatric population. The use of more potent therapies, such as systemic (oral/injected) agents or phototherapy, is typically limited to the treatment of severe, refractory disease. Additionally, owing to the increased risk for bacterial, viral, and fungal infections in patients with AD, topical or systemic antimicrobials are an important component of treatment.

LIMITATIONS

Case reports and small-scale studies were typically not included in this analysis and owing to the limited number of trials evaluating TCSs, consensus statements and comprehensive review articles were used to obtain information pertaining to the use of this treatment in AD.

CONCLUSIONS

AD is a common, chronic disease requiring a long-term management strategy that incorporates preventive measures and a multipronged treatment approach.

Cyclosporin in the treatment of patients with atopic eczema - a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess the effectiveness of systemic cyclosporin in patients with severe atopic eczema.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled and uncontrolled trials. Electronic (MEDLINE, Cochrane databases) and hand search of published work. Independent standardized assessment of eligibility and data abstraction by two reviewers.

METHODS

For the qualitative review data on study design, study population, methodology, results, tolerability and methodological quality was independently extracted by two reviewers. Qualitatively homogeneous studies were pooled using a random-effects model. The mean relative change in objective disease severity was chosen as the main outcome measure for the quantitative analysis. Publication bias was explored by regressing treatment effect on sample size. Sensitivity analysis included meta-regression of study-specific covariates (inclusion of children, study type, concomitant topical therapy, study quality).

RESULTS

Fifteen studies including 602 patients met the eligibility criteria. In all studies analysed, cyclosporin consistently decreased the severity of atopic eczema. Twelve studies appeared homogeneous enough to be pooled. After 2 weeks of treatment we found a dose-related response with a pooled mean decrease in disease severity of 22% (95%-CI 8-36%) under low-dose cyclosporin ( 3 mg/kg) and 40% (95%-CI 29-51%) at dosages >or=4 mg/kg. After 6-8 weeks the relative effectiveness was 55% (95%-CI 48-62%).

CONCLUSIONS

Due to evidence of publication bias the quantitative results need to be interpreted with caution. Effectiveness of cyclosporin is similar in adults and children, but tolerability might be better in children. As data to adequately evaluate the long-term effectiveness and safety of cyclosporin in patients with atopic eczema are unavailable, long-term registries are encouraged.

Efficacy and safety of long-term treatment with cyclosporin A for atopic dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Cyclosporin A (CsA) is being increasingly used in the treatment of severe refractory atopic dermatitis. Clinical efficacy and safety of short-term cyclosporin A treatment in atopic dermatitis patients has been proven, however, data on long-term treatment are limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy, safety and the effect of discontinuation of cyclosporin A treatment in atopic dermatitis patients, with a particular focus on patients treated with cyclosporin A for more than 6 months.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of clinical and adverse effects of cyclosporin A treatment in 73 atopic dermatitis patients, with an average duration of cyclosporin A treatment of 1.3 years.

RESULTS

We included 73 patients (31 women and 42 men, with a mean age of 33.8 years) with severe atopic dermatitis refractory to conventional therapy that was treated with cyclosporin A. Treatment was successful in 56/73 patients. Increases in serum creatinine levels > 30% compared to baseline were reported in 7/73 patients. Arterial hypertension appeared in 11/73 patients during treatment. After discontinuation of treatment, 40/73 patients experienced a relapse and 33/73 patients experienced clinical remission for at least 3 months. No correlation between treatment duration and nephrotoxicity or hypertension was found. Strikingly, 6/73 patients experienced a rebound phenomenon.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that CsA is an effective and safe treatment for patients with severe AD refractory to conventional treatment, provided that the recommended guidelines for its administration are strictly observed. However, in contrast to previous reports, we found that 8% (6/73) of patients experienced a rebound phenomenon after discontinuation of treatment.

Remission of the clinical signs of atopic dermatitis in dogs after cessation of treatment with cyclosporin A or methyiprednisolone

Seventy-eight dogs with atopic dermatitis were treated for four months with either cyclosporin A or methylprednisolone. During the two months after the treatment ceased, 87 per cent of the dogs treated with methylprednisolone relapsed after a mean period of 27.9 days, whereas only 62 per cent of the dogs treated with cyclosporin A relapsed after a mean period of 40.7 days (P < .0.001). The clinical condition of the dogs was evaluated either when they relapsed, or two months after the treatment ceased if they had not relapsed. Both the skin lesions and pruritus increased significantly more markedly in the dogs treated with methylprednisolone than in those treated with cyclosporin A. At the end of the study the skin lesions were markedly less severe than before the therapy; in the dogs in both groups that did not relapse, the lesion score was improved by 77 per cent two months after the treatment had stopped, and in the dogs that did relapse the lesion scores had improved by 45 per cent and 35 per cent in the dogs treated with cyclosporin A and methylprednisolone, respectively. Pruritus remained well controlled in the dogs that did not relapse, but increased to baseline levels or close to baseline in the dogs that relapsed.

Complementary therapy for atopic eczema and other allergic skin diseases

Atopic eczema is one of the most common chronic inflammatory skin diseases, with a prevalence of at least 10% in children and 0.5-1% in adults. The disease shows a drastically increasing tendency. This article provides an overview of the pathophysiology, pathomechanisms, prevention, and treatment of atopic eczema. We present a therapeutic concept that integrates all aspects of the complex pathophysiology that is a prerequisite for individualized and successful treatment. This is based on intervention in the pathophysiology of atopic eczema and elimination of exogenous provocation factors. Particular attention is given to unconventional therapy options such as phytotherapy, which are attracting patients in many countries, and possible effects, side effects, and interactions with other drugs are discussed.

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.

Evaluation of once daily treatment with cyclosporine for anal furunculosis in dogs

Twenty-four dogs with anal furunculosis were treated with cyclosporine once daily for 13 weeks at dosages of 1.5, 3.0, 5.0 or 7.5 mg/kg, and re-examined after six and 12 months. After 13 weeks the disease in six of the dogs was in remission, 11 were controlled or improved and seven had failed to respond. The response of the dogs given the highest dose was significantly better than the response of the other groups taken together (P < 0.014), and better than the responses of the groups given 1.5 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg (P < 0.05). The dogs improved clinically during the treatment, most rapidly during the first five weeks. Of the six dogs that were in remission after 13 weeks, three relapsed after one, two and six months. The 11 dogs that were improved or controlled after 13 weeks were either left untreated or were continued on cyclosporine medication for one to three months at a dosage of 1.5 to 7.5 mg/kg; the disease went into remission in four cases and remained controlled in the other seven, but four of the 11 cases relapsed during the 12 months following the treatment. The side effects observed included increased coat turnover and transient vomiting.

Comparison of cyclosporine A with methylprednisolone for treatment of canine atopic dermatitis: a parallel, blinded, randomized controlled trial

The objective of this multicentre, parallel, blinded, randomized controlled study was to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of cyclosporine (CsA group, 117 dogs) in comparison with methylprednisolone (MP group, 59 dogs) in the treatment of atopic dermatitis for 4 months. Mean induction dose of both drugs (5 mg/kg CsA, 0.75 mg/kg MP) was tapered over time according to the clinical response. At the end of the study, the mean estimated percentage reduction from baseline (confidence interval) of lesion scores was 52% (44-59) and 45% (35-56), and the reduction in pruritus score was 36% (27-43) and 33% (23-43) in dogs in the CsA and MP groups, respectively. These percentages were not significantly different between groups. A significantly better overall assessment of efficacy was obtained in the CsA-treated dogs (76 vs. 63% responses excellent or good in the CsA compared with MP group). CsA-treated dogs presented a higher frequency of gastrointestinal disorders, mainly vomiting, but MP dogs tended to be more susceptible to infections. There was no remarkable change over baseline of the haematological and biochemical parameters in the two groups.

Severe resistant subacute prurigo successfully controlled by long-term cyclosporin

The case of a 50-year-old woman with an intensely pruritic subacute prurigo resistant to multiple therapeutic regimens is described. Therapy with cyclosporin was started, achieving complete control of the disease, demonstrating a good safety profile during long-term treatment. This is the first report on the successful use of cyclosporin for subacute prurigo.

Cyclosporine decreases skin lesions and pruritus in dogs with atopic dermatitis: a blinded randomized prednisolone-controlled trial

During the last decade, oral cyclosporin (CsA) has proven to be effective, in randomized controlled trials, for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in human patients. The purpose of this blinded randomized controlled trial was to test the hypothesis that CsA was successful in reducing the gravity of clinical signs of AD in dogs. Thirty dogs with nonseasonal AD were randomly allocated to receive an oral solution of either NEORAL CsA (5 mg kg-1) or prednisolone (0.5 mg kg-1) once daily for 6 weeks. Before, and 3 and 6 weeks after therapy, skin lesions were graded by clinicians using the Canine AD Extent and Severity Index (CADESI). Pruritus was assessed by the owners using a visual analog scale (PVAS). In both groups, CADESI and PVAS values were significantly lower at 6 weeks post treatment than before the initiation of therapy (Friedman test, P < 0.0004). The percentage reductions in CADESI and PVAS values from baseline were not statistically different between groups (Mann-Whitney test, P > 0.3). In this experiment, the tolerability and safety of oral CsA and prednisolone appeared similar. One-fifth of dogs given oral CsA occasionally developed diarrhoea or soft stools. One dog that was given CsA developed a generalized papillomatous skin eruption during the second half of the trial. Our study provides randomized controlled trial evidence that CsA reduces the severity of clinical signs in dogs with nonseasonal AD. Moreover, the anti-allergic efficacy of CsA appears comparable with that of prednisolone. We propose that oral CsA should be considered as a valuable alternative to glucocorticoid therapy in dogs with AD.