Atopic Dermatitis

There is a tremendous amount of atopic dermatitis (AD) research underway. This month, we have several interesting articles to present.

Silverberg and colleagues described a very well-designed, vehicle-controlled, randomized 8-week study of a topical formulation of a purified strain of Nitrosomonas eutropha, an ammonia-oxidizing bacterium. In theory, this bacterium may reduce Staphylococcus aureus. The study compared two concentrations of the bacterium vs vehicle delivered as a spray twice per day. Study participants were adults with AD affecting 10%-40% of body surface area.

The study found "meaningful" improvements in itch and objective signs of disease, with clear separation between both doses of the bacterial spray compared with vehicle. At week 4, about 23% of participants treated with the bacterium were clear or almost clear (with a 2-point improvement) compared with 12% in the vehicle group (for comparison, in a phase 2 study comparing topical ruxolitinib with 0.1% triamcinolone cream, there was a 25% clear or almost clear rate [with 2-point improvement] in the triamcinolone-treated individuals).

Though an "all-natural" bacterial approach to managing AD may be appealing to some, it sounded like magic to me. But this well-done study makes it seem like the bacterial approach could be more promising than I had thought. This study also reported about twice as many adverse events (including gastrointestinal issues) with the bacterium-treated participants compared with those who received vehicle, adding to my belief that the bacterial product has efficacy. Whether any other topical will be more effective and safer than is topical triamcinolone remains to be seen. I'm still pessimistic about topicals because of patients' poor adherence to topical treatment, but perhaps an easy-to-use spray that isn't associated with patients' fear of "steroids" will be helpful.

I love articles like this one from Chen and colleagues. They analyzed data on hundreds of thousands of patients with and without AD. Adults with AD had a "significantly increased risk" of developing venous thromboembolism compared with adults without AD. The huge sample size of their study seems compelling. That huge sample size allows detection of effects so small that they may be clinically insignificant.

They report that patients with AD had a venous thromboembolism at a rate of 1.05/1000 patients-years; the rate was 0.82 for patients without AD. From that, we can calculate that there would be an additional 23 patients with venous thromboembolism for every 100,000 patient-years or about one more venous thromboembolism in the AD group in every 4000 patient-years. Though the finding was statistically significant, I don't think it is clinically meaningful.

The authors correctly conclude that "vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients with AD who present with relevant symptoms (eg, unexplained dyspnea, chest tightness, and limb swelling)." But it is probably also true that vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients without AD who present with those symptoms. I think the authors might have been on solid ground if they had concluded that there was a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increased risk for venous thromboembolism in patients with AD.

Eichenfeld and colleagues examined the use of topical crisaborole once per day as a maintenance treatment for patients with mild to moderate AD. The study compared patients given topical crisaborole with those randomly assigned to vehicle. The active treatment was effective because topical crisaborole treated patients had longer times to the first flare following treatment and fewer flares over the 1 year of treatment. The differences were not huge, but I think they were clinically meaningful. I'm guessing that the topical crisaborole maintenance treatment would have been even more effective had it been used regularly. The study did not, as far as I could tell, assess how well the treatment was used.

An interesting aspect of this study is that it began with nearly 500 participants who started on twice daily topical crisaborole. The 270 patients who responded to the treatment (achieving clear or almost clear with at least a 2-point improvement) were enrolled in the 1-year maintenance phase. Thus, the participants in the maintenance phase were preselected for patients who respond to topical crisaborole. We don't know why they were responders (I, of course, expect it is because they selected for patients who are better than others are at using a topical treatment), but it may be best not to try to generalize these results and assume this form of maintenance treatment would work equally well in a population who achieve initial success with an oral therapy regimen (for example, a quick course of oral prednisone).

Dupilumab was a revolutionary treatment for AD. I didn't think that I'd ever see a more effective treatment. It's so safe too! It has been a first-line treatment for AD since its introduction. Now, we also have oral Janus kinase inhibitor options. Blauvelt and colleagues examined what happens when patients who have been on dupilumab are switched to a high dose (30 mg/d) of upadacitinib (the standard starting dose of upadacitinib is 15 mg/d). Though dupilumab is very effective, upadacitinib is more so. After 4 weeks of switching to upadacitinib, nearly half the patients were completely clear of AD compared with only 16.0% after 24 weeks of dupilumab! The authors point out, optimistically, that "No new safety risks were observed." Though there were no cancers, gastrointestinal perforations, major adverse cardiovascular events, or venous thromboembolic events, there were cases of eczema herpeticum and zoster in patients treated with upadacitinib. Having upadacitinib available for patients who fail dupilumab is a clear benefit; the role of upadacitinib before dupilumab seems less clear.

Patients doing great on dupilumab for AD may be wondering: Do I still need to take it every 2 weeks? Spekhorst and colleagues may have the answer. They describe the response to tapering dupilumab in patients who had been on the drug for at least 1 year with well-controlled disease for at least 6 months. Patients in the study then continued dupilumab with the longest possible dosing interval while maintaining control of their AD.

Generally, patients maintained good control of their AD, with only a small increase in mean disease severity and in concomitant use of topical steroids. For the patients who attempted prolongation, 83% successfully continued dupilumab treatment with a prolonged interval. Not at all surprisingly, the authors calculated that prolonging the interval between dosing led to large savings in cost.

One of the nice features of dupilumab treatment is that loss of response over time seems unusual. Perhaps there is a low propensity for forming antidrug antibodies when dupilumab is used in the standard every 2-week dosing regimen. I don't know whether antidrug antibodies would be more likely with the intermittent dosing regimen. But now that we have other good systemic treatment options for AD, losing dupilumab efficacy would not be as critical a problem as it used to be. I also want to point out that patients' adherence to injection treatment, though better than adherence to topicals, is far from perfect. It's likely that many patients have already been prolonging the interval between taking their treatments. If you want to know, just ask them. The way I like to phrase the question is: "Are you keeping the extra injectors you've accumulated refrigerated like you are supposed to?"

There is a tremendous amount of atopic dermatitis (AD) research underway. This month, we have several interesting articles to present.

Silverberg and colleagues described a very well-designed, vehicle-controlled, randomized 8-week study of a topical formulation of a purified strain of Nitrosomonas eutropha, an ammonia-oxidizing bacterium. In theory, this bacterium may reduce Staphylococcus aureus. The study compared two concentrations of the bacterium vs vehicle delivered as a spray twice per day. Study participants were adults with AD affecting 10%-40% of body surface area.

The study found "meaningful" improvements in itch and objective signs of disease, with clear separation between both doses of the bacterial spray compared with vehicle. At week 4, about 23% of participants treated with the bacterium were clear or almost clear (with a 2-point improvement) compared with 12% in the vehicle group (for comparison, in a phase 2 study comparing topical ruxolitinib with 0.1% triamcinolone cream, there was a 25% clear or almost clear rate [with 2-point improvement] in the triamcinolone-treated individuals).

Though an "all-natural" bacterial approach to managing AD may be appealing to some, it sounded like magic to me. But this well-done study makes it seem like the bacterial approach could be more promising than I had thought. This study also reported about twice as many adverse events (including gastrointestinal issues) with the bacterium-treated participants compared with those who received vehicle, adding to my belief that the bacterial product has efficacy. Whether any other topical will be more effective and safer than is topical triamcinolone remains to be seen. I'm still pessimistic about topicals because of patients' poor adherence to topical treatment, but perhaps an easy-to-use spray that isn't associated with patients' fear of "steroids" will be helpful.

I love articles like this one from Chen and colleagues. They analyzed data on hundreds of thousands of patients with and without AD. Adults with AD had a "significantly increased risk" of developing venous thromboembolism compared with adults without AD. The huge sample size of their study seems compelling. That huge sample size allows detection of effects so small that they may be clinically insignificant.

They report that patients with AD had a venous thromboembolism at a rate of 1.05/1000 patients-years; the rate was 0.82 for patients without AD. From that, we can calculate that there would be an additional 23 patients with venous thromboembolism for every 100,000 patient-years or about one more venous thromboembolism in the AD group in every 4000 patient-years. Though the finding was statistically significant, I don't think it is clinically meaningful.

The authors correctly conclude that "vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients with AD who present with relevant symptoms (eg, unexplained dyspnea, chest tightness, and limb swelling)." But it is probably also true that vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients without AD who present with those symptoms. I think the authors might have been on solid ground if they had concluded that there was a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increased risk for venous thromboembolism in patients with AD.

Eichenfeld and colleagues examined the use of topical crisaborole once per day as a maintenance treatment for patients with mild to moderate AD. The study compared patients given topical crisaborole with those randomly assigned to vehicle. The active treatment was effective because topical crisaborole treated patients had longer times to the first flare following treatment and fewer flares over the 1 year of treatment. The differences were not huge, but I think they were clinically meaningful. I'm guessing that the topical crisaborole maintenance treatment would have been even more effective had it been used regularly. The study did not, as far as I could tell, assess how well the treatment was used.

An interesting aspect of this study is that it began with nearly 500 participants who started on twice daily topical crisaborole. The 270 patients who responded to the treatment (achieving clear or almost clear with at least a 2-point improvement) were enrolled in the 1-year maintenance phase. Thus, the participants in the maintenance phase were preselected for patients who respond to topical crisaborole. We don't know why they were responders (I, of course, expect it is because they selected for patients who are better than others are at using a topical treatment), but it may be best not to try to generalize these results and assume this form of maintenance treatment would work equally well in a population who achieve initial success with an oral therapy regimen (for example, a quick course of oral prednisone).

Dupilumab was a revolutionary treatment for AD. I didn't think that I'd ever see a more effective treatment. It's so safe too! It has been a first-line treatment for AD since its introduction. Now, we also have oral Janus kinase inhibitor options. Blauvelt and colleagues examined what happens when patients who have been on dupilumab are switched to a high dose (30 mg/d) of upadacitinib (the standard starting dose of upadacitinib is 15 mg/d). Though dupilumab is very effective, upadacitinib is more so. After 4 weeks of switching to upadacitinib, nearly half the patients were completely clear of AD compared with only 16.0% after 24 weeks of dupilumab! The authors point out, optimistically, that "No new safety risks were observed." Though there were no cancers, gastrointestinal perforations, major adverse cardiovascular events, or venous thromboembolic events, there were cases of eczema herpeticum and zoster in patients treated with upadacitinib. Having upadacitinib available for patients who fail dupilumab is a clear benefit; the role of upadacitinib before dupilumab seems less clear.

Patients doing great on dupilumab for AD may be wondering: Do I still need to take it every 2 weeks? Spekhorst and colleagues may have the answer. They describe the response to tapering dupilumab in patients who had been on the drug for at least 1 year with well-controlled disease for at least 6 months. Patients in the study then continued dupilumab with the longest possible dosing interval while maintaining control of their AD.

Generally, patients maintained good control of their AD, with only a small increase in mean disease severity and in concomitant use of topical steroids. For the patients who attempted prolongation, 83% successfully continued dupilumab treatment with a prolonged interval. Not at all surprisingly, the authors calculated that prolonging the interval between dosing led to large savings in cost.

One of the nice features of dupilumab treatment is that loss of response over time seems unusual. Perhaps there is a low propensity for forming antidrug antibodies when dupilumab is used in the standard every 2-week dosing regimen. I don't know whether antidrug antibodies would be more likely with the intermittent dosing regimen. But now that we have other good systemic treatment options for AD, losing dupilumab efficacy would not be as critical a problem as it used to be. I also want to point out that patients' adherence to injection treatment, though better than adherence to topicals, is far from perfect. It's likely that many patients have already been prolonging the interval between taking their treatments. If you want to know, just ask them. The way I like to phrase the question is: "Are you keeping the extra injectors you've accumulated refrigerated like you are supposed to?"

There is a tremendous amount of atopic dermatitis (AD) research underway. This month, we have several interesting articles to present.

Silverberg and colleagues described a very well-designed, vehicle-controlled, randomized 8-week study of a topical formulation of a purified strain of Nitrosomonas eutropha, an ammonia-oxidizing bacterium. In theory, this bacterium may reduce Staphylococcus aureus. The study compared two concentrations of the bacterium vs vehicle delivered as a spray twice per day. Study participants were adults with AD affecting 10%-40% of body surface area.

The study found "meaningful" improvements in itch and objective signs of disease, with clear separation between both doses of the bacterial spray compared with vehicle. At week 4, about 23% of participants treated with the bacterium were clear or almost clear (with a 2-point improvement) compared with 12% in the vehicle group (for comparison, in a phase 2 study comparing topical ruxolitinib with 0.1% triamcinolone cream, there was a 25% clear or almost clear rate [with 2-point improvement] in the triamcinolone-treated individuals).

Though an "all-natural" bacterial approach to managing AD may be appealing to some, it sounded like magic to me. But this well-done study makes it seem like the bacterial approach could be more promising than I had thought. This study also reported about twice as many adverse events (including gastrointestinal issues) with the bacterium-treated participants compared with those who received vehicle, adding to my belief that the bacterial product has efficacy. Whether any other topical will be more effective and safer than is topical triamcinolone remains to be seen. I'm still pessimistic about topicals because of patients' poor adherence to topical treatment, but perhaps an easy-to-use spray that isn't associated with patients' fear of "steroids" will be helpful.

I love articles like this one from Chen and colleagues. They analyzed data on hundreds of thousands of patients with and without AD. Adults with AD had a "significantly increased risk" of developing venous thromboembolism compared with adults without AD. The huge sample size of their study seems compelling. That huge sample size allows detection of effects so small that they may be clinically insignificant.

They report that patients with AD had a venous thromboembolism at a rate of 1.05/1000 patients-years; the rate was 0.82 for patients without AD. From that, we can calculate that there would be an additional 23 patients with venous thromboembolism for every 100,000 patient-years or about one more venous thromboembolism in the AD group in every 4000 patient-years. Though the finding was statistically significant, I don't think it is clinically meaningful.

The authors correctly conclude that "vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients with AD who present with relevant symptoms (eg, unexplained dyspnea, chest tightness, and limb swelling)." But it is probably also true that vascular examination and consultation with the emergency department, cardiologists, or pulmonologists are indicated for patients without AD who present with those symptoms. I think the authors might have been on solid ground if they had concluded that there was a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increased risk for venous thromboembolism in patients with AD.

Eichenfeld and colleagues examined the use of topical crisaborole once per day as a maintenance treatment for patients with mild to moderate AD. The study compared patients given topical crisaborole with those randomly assigned to vehicle. The active treatment was effective because topical crisaborole treated patients had longer times to the first flare following treatment and fewer flares over the 1 year of treatment. The differences were not huge, but I think they were clinically meaningful. I'm guessing that the topical crisaborole maintenance treatment would have been even more effective had it been used regularly. The study did not, as far as I could tell, assess how well the treatment was used.

An interesting aspect of this study is that it began with nearly 500 participants who started on twice daily topical crisaborole. The 270 patients who responded to the treatment (achieving clear or almost clear with at least a 2-point improvement) were enrolled in the 1-year maintenance phase. Thus, the participants in the maintenance phase were preselected for patients who respond to topical crisaborole. We don't know why they were responders (I, of course, expect it is because they selected for patients who are better than others are at using a topical treatment), but it may be best not to try to generalize these results and assume this form of maintenance treatment would work equally well in a population who achieve initial success with an oral therapy regimen (for example, a quick course of oral prednisone).

Dupilumab was a revolutionary treatment for AD. I didn't think that I'd ever see a more effective treatment. It's so safe too! It has been a first-line treatment for AD since its introduction. Now, we also have oral Janus kinase inhibitor options. Blauvelt and colleagues examined what happens when patients who have been on dupilumab are switched to a high dose (30 mg/d) of upadacitinib (the standard starting dose of upadacitinib is 15 mg/d). Though dupilumab is very effective, upadacitinib is more so. After 4 weeks of switching to upadacitinib, nearly half the patients were completely clear of AD compared with only 16.0% after 24 weeks of dupilumab! The authors point out, optimistically, that "No new safety risks were observed." Though there were no cancers, gastrointestinal perforations, major adverse cardiovascular events, or venous thromboembolic events, there were cases of eczema herpeticum and zoster in patients treated with upadacitinib. Having upadacitinib available for patients who fail dupilumab is a clear benefit; the role of upadacitinib before dupilumab seems less clear.

Patients doing great on dupilumab for AD may be wondering: Do I still need to take it every 2 weeks? Spekhorst and colleagues may have the answer. They describe the response to tapering dupilumab in patients who had been on the drug for at least 1 year with well-controlled disease for at least 6 months. Patients in the study then continued dupilumab with the longest possible dosing interval while maintaining control of their AD.

Generally, patients maintained good control of their AD, with only a small increase in mean disease severity and in concomitant use of topical steroids. For the patients who attempted prolongation, 83% successfully continued dupilumab treatment with a prolonged interval. Not at all surprisingly, the authors calculated that prolonging the interval between dosing led to large savings in cost.

One of the nice features of dupilumab treatment is that loss of response over time seems unusual. Perhaps there is a low propensity for forming antidrug antibodies when dupilumab is used in the standard every 2-week dosing regimen. I don't know whether antidrug antibodies would be more likely with the intermittent dosing regimen. But now that we have other good systemic treatment options for AD, losing dupilumab efficacy would not be as critical a problem as it used to be. I also want to point out that patients' adherence to injection treatment, though better than adherence to topicals, is far from perfect. It's likely that many patients have already been prolonging the interval between taking their treatments. If you want to know, just ask them. The way I like to phrase the question is: "Are you keeping the extra injectors you've accumulated refrigerated like you are supposed to?"

Key clinical point: Presence of concurrent atopic dermatitis (AD) significantly affects the biologic-free survival in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Major finding: Presence of concurrent AD was associated with a significantly shorter biologic-free survival in patients with IBD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.743; P = .032), with the association being stronger in patients with ulcerative colitis (aHR 4.769; P = .004).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 61 adult patients with IBD and concurrent AD and 122 matched control individuals with IBD alone.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korea government and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kim KW, et al, and Seoul National University Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Network (SIRN) and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Group of Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Disease (KASID). Atopic dermatitis is associated with the clinical course of inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2023;1-7 (May 11). doi: 10.1080/00365521.2023.2209688

Key clinical point: Presence of concurrent atopic dermatitis (AD) significantly affects the biologic-free survival in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Major finding: Presence of concurrent AD was associated with a significantly shorter biologic-free survival in patients with IBD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.743; P = .032), with the association being stronger in patients with ulcerative colitis (aHR 4.769; P = .004).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 61 adult patients with IBD and concurrent AD and 122 matched control individuals with IBD alone.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korea government and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kim KW, et al, and Seoul National University Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Network (SIRN) and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Group of Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Disease (KASID). Atopic dermatitis is associated with the clinical course of inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2023;1-7 (May 11). doi: 10.1080/00365521.2023.2209688

Key clinical point: Presence of concurrent atopic dermatitis (AD) significantly affects the biologic-free survival in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Major finding: Presence of concurrent AD was associated with a significantly shorter biologic-free survival in patients with IBD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.743; P = .032), with the association being stronger in patients with ulcerative colitis (aHR 4.769; P = .004).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 61 adult patients with IBD and concurrent AD and 122 matched control individuals with IBD alone.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korea government and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kim KW, et al, and Seoul National University Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Network (SIRN) and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research Group of Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Disease (KASID). Atopic dermatitis is associated with the clinical course of inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2023;1-7 (May 11). doi: 10.1080/00365521.2023.2209688

Key clinical point: Dupilumab significantly improves disease signs and symptoms in children with severe atopic dermatitis (AD), including those not achieving a clear or almost clear skin by week 16.

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly higher proportion of children in the dupilumab 200 mg+topical corticosteroid (TCS) and dupilumab 300 mg+TCS vs placebo+TCS groups achieved a ≥50% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (both P < .0001), with patients in both treatment groups with an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of >1 also showing significant improvements (P = .0002 and P < .0001, respectively). No new safety signals were reported.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of LIBERTY AD PEDS trial included 304 children age 6-11 years with severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive dupilumab 200 mg+TCS, dupilumab 300 mg+TCS, or placebo+TCS.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. Some authors reported ties with Sanofi-Regeneron and others. Six authors declared being employees of or holding stock or stock options in Sanofi/Regeneron.

Source: Siegfried EC et al. Dupilumab provides clinically meaningful responses in children aged 6–11 years with severe atopic dermatitis: Post hoc analysis results from a phase III trial. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 (Jun 10). doi: 10.1007/s40257-023-00791-7

Key clinical point: Dupilumab significantly improves disease signs and symptoms in children with severe atopic dermatitis (AD), including those not achieving a clear or almost clear skin by week 16.

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly higher proportion of children in the dupilumab 200 mg+topical corticosteroid (TCS) and dupilumab 300 mg+TCS vs placebo+TCS groups achieved a ≥50% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (both P < .0001), with patients in both treatment groups with an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of >1 also showing significant improvements (P = .0002 and P < .0001, respectively). No new safety signals were reported.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of LIBERTY AD PEDS trial included 304 children age 6-11 years with severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive dupilumab 200 mg+TCS, dupilumab 300 mg+TCS, or placebo+TCS.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. Some authors reported ties with Sanofi-Regeneron and others. Six authors declared being employees of or holding stock or stock options in Sanofi/Regeneron.

Source: Siegfried EC et al. Dupilumab provides clinically meaningful responses in children aged 6–11 years with severe atopic dermatitis: Post hoc analysis results from a phase III trial. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 (Jun 10). doi: 10.1007/s40257-023-00791-7

Key clinical point: Dupilumab significantly improves disease signs and symptoms in children with severe atopic dermatitis (AD), including those not achieving a clear or almost clear skin by week 16.

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly higher proportion of children in the dupilumab 200 mg+topical corticosteroid (TCS) and dupilumab 300 mg+TCS vs placebo+TCS groups achieved a ≥50% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (both P < .0001), with patients in both treatment groups with an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of >1 also showing significant improvements (P = .0002 and P < .0001, respectively). No new safety signals were reported.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of LIBERTY AD PEDS trial included 304 children age 6-11 years with severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive dupilumab 200 mg+TCS, dupilumab 300 mg+TCS, or placebo+TCS.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. Some authors reported ties with Sanofi-Regeneron and others. Six authors declared being employees of or holding stock or stock options in Sanofi/Regeneron.

Source: Siegfried EC et al. Dupilumab provides clinically meaningful responses in children aged 6–11 years with severe atopic dermatitis: Post hoc analysis results from a phase III trial. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 (Jun 10). doi: 10.1007/s40257-023-00791-7

Key clinical point: Abrocitinib and upadacitinib demonstrated acceptable safety profiles and provided greater improvements in disease signs and symptoms compared with dupilumab as early as week 2 in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients in the abrocitinib/upadacitinib vs dupilumab group achieved a ≥75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index scores and ≥4-point improvement in Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale scores at 2 weeks (relative risk [RR] 1.92 and RR 1.87, respectively; both P < .001) and the end of therapy (RR 1.12; P = .002 and RR 1.20; P < .001, respectively). Although the severe adverse event rate was higher in the abrocitinib/upadacitinib vs dupilumab group (P = .043), the treatment-emergent adverse event rate leading to treatment discontinuation was similar.

Study details: This meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials included 2256 patients with moderate-to-severe AD who received abrocitinib, upadacitinib, or dupilumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gao Q et al. Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib and upadacitinib versus dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon. 2023;9:E16704 (Jun 2). doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16704/p>

Key clinical point: Abrocitinib and upadacitinib demonstrated acceptable safety profiles and provided greater improvements in disease signs and symptoms compared with dupilumab as early as week 2 in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients in the abrocitinib/upadacitinib vs dupilumab group achieved a ≥75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index scores and ≥4-point improvement in Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale scores at 2 weeks (relative risk [RR] 1.92 and RR 1.87, respectively; both P < .001) and the end of therapy (RR 1.12; P = .002 and RR 1.20; P < .001, respectively). Although the severe adverse event rate was higher in the abrocitinib/upadacitinib vs dupilumab group (P = .043), the treatment-emergent adverse event rate leading to treatment discontinuation was similar.

Study details: This meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials included 2256 patients with moderate-to-severe AD who received abrocitinib, upadacitinib, or dupilumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gao Q et al. Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib and upadacitinib versus dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon. 2023;9:E16704 (Jun 2). doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16704/p>

Key clinical point: Abrocitinib and upadacitinib demonstrated acceptable safety profiles and provided greater improvements in disease signs and symptoms compared with dupilumab as early as week 2 in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients in the abrocitinib/upadacitinib vs dupilumab group achieved a ≥75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index scores and ≥4-point improvement in Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale scores at 2 weeks (relative risk [RR] 1.92 and RR 1.87, respectively; both P < .001) and the end of therapy (RR 1.12; P = .002 and RR 1.20; P < .001, respectively). Although the severe adverse event rate was higher in the abrocitinib/upadacitinib vs dupilumab group (P = .043), the treatment-emergent adverse event rate leading to treatment discontinuation was similar.

Study details: This meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials included 2256 patients with moderate-to-severe AD who received abrocitinib, upadacitinib, or dupilumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gao Q et al. Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib and upadacitinib versus dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon. 2023;9:E16704 (Jun 2). doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16704/p>

Key clinical point: Daily use of an emollient with a prebiotic lysate in the first year of life was safe but did not decrease the risk of developing atopic dermatitis (AD) in high-risk infants.

Major finding: At 2 years, the cumulative incidence of AD among infants receiving general skin care+emollient containing a prebiotic Vitreoscilla filiformis lysate (at least once daily until 1 year of age; intervention group) and general skin care (control group) was comparable (28% and 24%, respectively; adjusted relative risk 1.17; 95% CI 0.46-2.98). No emollient-related adverse events were reported.

Study details: Findings are from the randomized prospective EARLYEmollient study including 50 term-born infants aged 1-21 days with a high risk for AD who were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 25) or control (n = 25) group.

Disclosures: This study was supported by La Roche-Posay Laboratoire Pharmaceutique, France. Some authors declared serving as lecturers or consultants, receiving institutional grants, or participating in advisory board meetings for various sources.

Source: Harder I et al. Effects of early emollient use in children at high risk of atopic dermatitis: A German pilot study. Acta Derm Venereol. 2023;103:adv5671 (May 29). doi: 10.2340/actadv.v103.5671

Key clinical point: Daily use of an emollient with a prebiotic lysate in the first year of life was safe but did not decrease the risk of developing atopic dermatitis (AD) in high-risk infants.

Major finding: At 2 years, the cumulative incidence of AD among infants receiving general skin care+emollient containing a prebiotic Vitreoscilla filiformis lysate (at least once daily until 1 year of age; intervention group) and general skin care (control group) was comparable (28% and 24%, respectively; adjusted relative risk 1.17; 95% CI 0.46-2.98). No emollient-related adverse events were reported.

Study details: Findings are from the randomized prospective EARLYEmollient study including 50 term-born infants aged 1-21 days with a high risk for AD who were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 25) or control (n = 25) group.

Disclosures: This study was supported by La Roche-Posay Laboratoire Pharmaceutique, France. Some authors declared serving as lecturers or consultants, receiving institutional grants, or participating in advisory board meetings for various sources.

Source: Harder I et al. Effects of early emollient use in children at high risk of atopic dermatitis: A German pilot study. Acta Derm Venereol. 2023;103:adv5671 (May 29). doi: 10.2340/actadv.v103.5671

Key clinical point: Daily use of an emollient with a prebiotic lysate in the first year of life was safe but did not decrease the risk of developing atopic dermatitis (AD) in high-risk infants.

Major finding: At 2 years, the cumulative incidence of AD among infants receiving general skin care+emollient containing a prebiotic Vitreoscilla filiformis lysate (at least once daily until 1 year of age; intervention group) and general skin care (control group) was comparable (28% and 24%, respectively; adjusted relative risk 1.17; 95% CI 0.46-2.98). No emollient-related adverse events were reported.

Study details: Findings are from the randomized prospective EARLYEmollient study including 50 term-born infants aged 1-21 days with a high risk for AD who were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 25) or control (n = 25) group.

Disclosures: This study was supported by La Roche-Posay Laboratoire Pharmaceutique, France. Some authors declared serving as lecturers or consultants, receiving institutional grants, or participating in advisory board meetings for various sources.

Source: Harder I et al. Effects of early emollient use in children at high risk of atopic dermatitis: A German pilot study. Acta Derm Venereol. 2023;103:adv5671 (May 29). doi: 10.2340/actadv.v103.5671

Key clinical point: Abrocitinib led to greater and rapid improvements in itch and skin clearance compared with placebo in patients with severe or difficult-to-treat atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, Eczema Area and Severity Index-75 and -90 responses, and a ≥4-point improvement in Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score with abrocitinib 200-mg vs placebo across all subgroups (all nominal P < .05).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the JADE COMPARE trial (n = 837) included a subset of patients with severe or difficult-to-treat AD who were randomly assigned to receive oral abrocitinib (200 or 100 mg), subcutaneous dupilumab (300 mg), or placebo with medicated topical therapy for 16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer Inc. Some authors declared receiving grants or personal fees or serving as consultants, speakers, board members, or investigators for various organizations, including Pfizer. Five authors declared being employees of or shareholders in Pfizer.

Source: Simpson EL et al. Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib in patients with severe and/or difficult‑to‑treat atopic dermatitis: A post hoc analysis of the randomized phase 3 JADE COMPARE trial. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 (May 22). doi: 10.1007/s40257-023-00785-5

Key clinical point: Abrocitinib led to greater and rapid improvements in itch and skin clearance compared with placebo in patients with severe or difficult-to-treat atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, Eczema Area and Severity Index-75 and -90 responses, and a ≥4-point improvement in Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score with abrocitinib 200-mg vs placebo across all subgroups (all nominal P < .05).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the JADE COMPARE trial (n = 837) included a subset of patients with severe or difficult-to-treat AD who were randomly assigned to receive oral abrocitinib (200 or 100 mg), subcutaneous dupilumab (300 mg), or placebo with medicated topical therapy for 16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer Inc. Some authors declared receiving grants or personal fees or serving as consultants, speakers, board members, or investigators for various organizations, including Pfizer. Five authors declared being employees of or shareholders in Pfizer.

Source: Simpson EL et al. Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib in patients with severe and/or difficult‑to‑treat atopic dermatitis: A post hoc analysis of the randomized phase 3 JADE COMPARE trial. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 (May 22). doi: 10.1007/s40257-023-00785-5

Key clinical point: Abrocitinib led to greater and rapid improvements in itch and skin clearance compared with placebo in patients with severe or difficult-to-treat atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1, Eczema Area and Severity Index-75 and -90 responses, and a ≥4-point improvement in Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score with abrocitinib 200-mg vs placebo across all subgroups (all nominal P < .05).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the JADE COMPARE trial (n = 837) included a subset of patients with severe or difficult-to-treat AD who were randomly assigned to receive oral abrocitinib (200 or 100 mg), subcutaneous dupilumab (300 mg), or placebo with medicated topical therapy for 16 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer Inc. Some authors declared receiving grants or personal fees or serving as consultants, speakers, board members, or investigators for various organizations, including Pfizer. Five authors declared being employees of or shareholders in Pfizer.

Source: Simpson EL et al. Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib in patients with severe and/or difficult‑to‑treat atopic dermatitis: A post hoc analysis of the randomized phase 3 JADE COMPARE trial. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 (May 22). doi: 10.1007/s40257-023-00785-5

Key clinical point: Dupilumab dose was successfully tapered while maintaining controlled disease in the majority of patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) using a patient-centered dosing regimen in a large daily practice cohort study.

Major finding: Dose reduction was successful in 83.3% of patients who prolonged dupilumab interval while maintaining controlled disease, with most patients receiving dupilumab every 3 or 4 weeks. Although a significant small increase was observed in the highest mean Eczema Area and Severity Index and Numeric Rating Scale-Pruritis scores (both P < .001), the scores remained low.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective, multicenter study including 595 adult patients with controlled AD treated with dupilumab for ≥1 yearfrom the BioDay registry, of which 401 patients prolonged the dupilumab interval.

Disclosures: The BioDay registry was sponsored by Sanofi, AbbVie, and others. Some authors declared serving as investigators, speakers, advisors, or consultants for various sources, including the BioDay registry sponsors.

Source: Spekhorst LS, Boesjes CM, et al. Successful tapering of dupilumab in atopic dermatitis patients with low disease activity: A large pragmatic daily practice study from the BioDay registry. Br J Dermatol. 2023 (May 13). doi: 10.1093/bjd/ljad159

Key clinical point: Dupilumab dose was successfully tapered while maintaining controlled disease in the majority of patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) using a patient-centered dosing regimen in a large daily practice cohort study.

Major finding: Dose reduction was successful in 83.3% of patients who prolonged dupilumab interval while maintaining controlled disease, with most patients receiving dupilumab every 3 or 4 weeks. Although a significant small increase was observed in the highest mean Eczema Area and Severity Index and Numeric Rating Scale-Pruritis scores (both P < .001), the scores remained low.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective, multicenter study including 595 adult patients with controlled AD treated with dupilumab for ≥1 yearfrom the BioDay registry, of which 401 patients prolonged the dupilumab interval.

Disclosures: The BioDay registry was sponsored by Sanofi, AbbVie, and others. Some authors declared serving as investigators, speakers, advisors, or consultants for various sources, including the BioDay registry sponsors.

Source: Spekhorst LS, Boesjes CM, et al. Successful tapering of dupilumab in atopic dermatitis patients with low disease activity: A large pragmatic daily practice study from the BioDay registry. Br J Dermatol. 2023 (May 13). doi: 10.1093/bjd/ljad159

Key clinical point: Dupilumab dose was successfully tapered while maintaining controlled disease in the majority of patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) using a patient-centered dosing regimen in a large daily practice cohort study.

Major finding: Dose reduction was successful in 83.3% of patients who prolonged dupilumab interval while maintaining controlled disease, with most patients receiving dupilumab every 3 or 4 weeks. Although a significant small increase was observed in the highest mean Eczema Area and Severity Index and Numeric Rating Scale-Pruritis scores (both P < .001), the scores remained low.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective, multicenter study including 595 adult patients with controlled AD treated with dupilumab for ≥1 yearfrom the BioDay registry, of which 401 patients prolonged the dupilumab interval.

Disclosures: The BioDay registry was sponsored by Sanofi, AbbVie, and others. Some authors declared serving as investigators, speakers, advisors, or consultants for various sources, including the BioDay registry sponsors.

Source: Spekhorst LS, Boesjes CM, et al. Successful tapering of dupilumab in atopic dermatitis patients with low disease activity: A large pragmatic daily practice study from the BioDay registry. Br J Dermatol. 2023 (May 13). doi: 10.1093/bjd/ljad159

Key clinical point: In patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), continuous upadacitinib treatment was safe and provided sustained responses through 40 weeks and switch to upadacitinib treatment improved outcomes irrespective of prior dupilumab response.

Major finding: At open-label extension week 16 vs Heads Up week 24, the mean Eczema Area and Severity Index scores were similar with continuous upadacitinib treatment (2.7 vs 2.6) and improved with a switch to upadacitinib from dupilumab (1.09 vs 3.29). Most patients without minimal threshold or adequate response with dupilumab achieved it with upadacitinib. No new safety signals were reported.

Study details: This 16-week interim analysis of a 52-week open-label extension study of the Heads Up trial included adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were assigned to continue receiving upadacitinib (n = 239) or switch to upadacitinib after 24 weeks of dupilumab (n = 245).

Disclosures: This study was supported by AbbVie Inc. Some authors reported ties with various organizations, including AbbVie. Eight authors declared being employees of or holding stock or stock options in AbbVie.

Source: Blauvelt A et al. Efficacy and safety of switching from dupilumab to upadacitinib versus continuous upadacitinib in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Results from an open-label extension of the phase 3, randomized, controlled trial (Heads Up). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023 (May 22). doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.05.033

Key clinical point: In patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), continuous upadacitinib treatment was safe and provided sustained responses through 40 weeks and switch to upadacitinib treatment improved outcomes irrespective of prior dupilumab response.

Major finding: At open-label extension week 16 vs Heads Up week 24, the mean Eczema Area and Severity Index scores were similar with continuous upadacitinib treatment (2.7 vs 2.6) and improved with a switch to upadacitinib from dupilumab (1.09 vs 3.29). Most patients without minimal threshold or adequate response with dupilumab achieved it with upadacitinib. No new safety signals were reported.

Study details: This 16-week interim analysis of a 52-week open-label extension study of the Heads Up trial included adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were assigned to continue receiving upadacitinib (n = 239) or switch to upadacitinib after 24 weeks of dupilumab (n = 245).

Disclosures: This study was supported by AbbVie Inc. Some authors reported ties with various organizations, including AbbVie. Eight authors declared being employees of or holding stock or stock options in AbbVie.

Source: Blauvelt A et al. Efficacy and safety of switching from dupilumab to upadacitinib versus continuous upadacitinib in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Results from an open-label extension of the phase 3, randomized, controlled trial (Heads Up). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023 (May 22). doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.05.033

Key clinical point: In patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), continuous upadacitinib treatment was safe and provided sustained responses through 40 weeks and switch to upadacitinib treatment improved outcomes irrespective of prior dupilumab response.

Major finding: At open-label extension week 16 vs Heads Up week 24, the mean Eczema Area and Severity Index scores were similar with continuous upadacitinib treatment (2.7 vs 2.6) and improved with a switch to upadacitinib from dupilumab (1.09 vs 3.29). Most patients without minimal threshold or adequate response with dupilumab achieved it with upadacitinib. No new safety signals were reported.

Study details: This 16-week interim analysis of a 52-week open-label extension study of the Heads Up trial included adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were assigned to continue receiving upadacitinib (n = 239) or switch to upadacitinib after 24 weeks of dupilumab (n = 245).

Disclosures: This study was supported by AbbVie Inc. Some authors reported ties with various organizations, including AbbVie. Eight authors declared being employees of or holding stock or stock options in AbbVie.

Source: Blauvelt A et al. Efficacy and safety of switching from dupilumab to upadacitinib versus continuous upadacitinib in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Results from an open-label extension of the phase 3, randomized, controlled trial (Heads Up). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023 (May 22). doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.05.033

Key clinical point: Maintenance therapy with once-daily crisaborole is safe and effective in adult and pediatric patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) who have previously responded to twice-daily crisaborole treatment.

Major finding: The crisaborole vs vehicle group had a significantly longer median flare-free maintenance time (111 vs 30 days; P = .0034), higher mean number of flare-free days (234.0 vs 199.4 days; P = .0346), and lower mean number of flares (0.95 vs 1.36; P = .0042). No new safety signals were reported.

Study details: This phase 3 study (CrisADe CONTROL) included 270 patients age ≥3 months with mild-to-moderate AD who received twice-daily crisaborole for a maximum of 8 weeks; the responders were randomly assigned to receive once-daily crisaborole 2% ointment (n = 135) or vehicle (n = 135) for 52 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer Inc. Some authors declared serving as investigators, speakers, or consultants for or receiving research grants from various sources, including Pfizer. Six authors declared being employees of and shareholders in Pfizer.

Source: Eichenfield LF et al. Once‑daily crisaborole ointment, 2%, as a long‑term maintenance treatment in patients aged ≥ 3 months with mild‑to‑moderate atopic dermatitis: A 52-week clinical study. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 (May 15). doi: 10.1007/s40257-023-00780-w

Key clinical point: Maintenance therapy with once-daily crisaborole is safe and effective in adult and pediatric patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) who have previously responded to twice-daily crisaborole treatment.

Major finding: The crisaborole vs vehicle group had a significantly longer median flare-free maintenance time (111 vs 30 days; P = .0034), higher mean number of flare-free days (234.0 vs 199.4 days; P = .0346), and lower mean number of flares (0.95 vs 1.36; P = .0042). No new safety signals were reported.

Study details: This phase 3 study (CrisADe CONTROL) included 270 patients age ≥3 months with mild-to-moderate AD who received twice-daily crisaborole for a maximum of 8 weeks; the responders were randomly assigned to receive once-daily crisaborole 2% ointment (n = 135) or vehicle (n = 135) for 52 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer Inc. Some authors declared serving as investigators, speakers, or consultants for or receiving research grants from various sources, including Pfizer. Six authors declared being employees of and shareholders in Pfizer.

Source: Eichenfield LF et al. Once‑daily crisaborole ointment, 2%, as a long‑term maintenance treatment in patients aged ≥ 3 months with mild‑to‑moderate atopic dermatitis: A 52-week clinical study. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 (May 15). doi: 10.1007/s40257-023-00780-w

Key clinical point: Maintenance therapy with once-daily crisaborole is safe and effective in adult and pediatric patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) who have previously responded to twice-daily crisaborole treatment.

Major finding: The crisaborole vs vehicle group had a significantly longer median flare-free maintenance time (111 vs 30 days; P = .0034), higher mean number of flare-free days (234.0 vs 199.4 days; P = .0346), and lower mean number of flares (0.95 vs 1.36; P = .0042). No new safety signals were reported.

Study details: This phase 3 study (CrisADe CONTROL) included 270 patients age ≥3 months with mild-to-moderate AD who received twice-daily crisaborole for a maximum of 8 weeks; the responders were randomly assigned to receive once-daily crisaborole 2% ointment (n = 135) or vehicle (n = 135) for 52 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Pfizer Inc. Some authors declared serving as investigators, speakers, or consultants for or receiving research grants from various sources, including Pfizer. Six authors declared being employees of and shareholders in Pfizer.

Source: Eichenfield LF et al. Once‑daily crisaborole ointment, 2%, as a long‑term maintenance treatment in patients aged ≥ 3 months with mild‑to‑moderate atopic dermatitis: A 52-week clinical study. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 (May 15). doi: 10.1007/s40257-023-00780-w

Key clinical point: Adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) have a 1.28-fold increased risk for incident venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared with those without AD.

Major finding: Patients with AD vs control individuals without AD had an increased risk for incident VTE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.28; 95% CI 1.17-1.40), with the risk being elevated for both deep vein thrombosis (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.14-1.40) and pulmonary embolism (HR 1.30; 95% CI 1.08-1.57).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study that included 142,429 patients age ≥ 20 years with AD and 142,429 matched control individuals without AD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital, Taiwan. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen TL et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism among adults with atopic dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol. 2023 (May 31). doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2023.1300.

Key clinical point: Adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) have a 1.28-fold increased risk for incident venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared with those without AD.

Major finding: Patients with AD vs control individuals without AD had an increased risk for incident VTE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.28; 95% CI 1.17-1.40), with the risk being elevated for both deep vein thrombosis (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.14-1.40) and pulmonary embolism (HR 1.30; 95% CI 1.08-1.57).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study that included 142,429 patients age ≥ 20 years with AD and 142,429 matched control individuals without AD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital, Taiwan. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen TL et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism among adults with atopic dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol. 2023 (May 31). doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2023.1300.

Key clinical point: Adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) have a 1.28-fold increased risk for incident venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared with those without AD.

Major finding: Patients with AD vs control individuals without AD had an increased risk for incident VTE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.28; 95% CI 1.17-1.40), with the risk being elevated for both deep vein thrombosis (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.14-1.40) and pulmonary embolism (HR 1.30; 95% CI 1.08-1.57).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective cohort study that included 142,429 patients age ≥ 20 years with AD and 142,429 matched control individuals without AD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Hualien Tzu Chi Hospital, Taiwan. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen TL et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism among adults with atopic dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol. 2023 (May 31). doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2023.1300.