Faculty Bibliography

The implementation of treatment guidelines for atopic dermatitis is challenging, in part because of different guidance documents being used by different groups of specialists and in part because the language of guidelines often reflects the evidence base rather than the practical "how to." The Atopic Dermatitis Yardstick is part of a series developed in response to the need to proactively address the loss of disease control for atopic illnesses at all levels of severity. It presents a comprehensive update on how to conduct a sustained step-up in therapy for the patient with inadequately controlled or poorly controlled atopic dermatitis. Patient profiles, based on current guidelines and the authors' combined clinical experience, provide a practical and clinically meaningful guide to aid physicians in helping their patients achieve the goal of clear to almost clear. The intent is not to replace guidelines but to complement their recommendations incorporating the latest research and therapies.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common, chronic, relapsing, inflammatory skin disease that affects children and adults. Until recently, the only Food and Drug Administration-approved systemic treatment option for patients with moderate-to-severe AD was systemic steroids, which are not recommended by current guidelines and are commonly associated with disease rebound. Instead, clinicians choose from several off-label immunosuppressants, which can have serious adverse effects. A significant number of these patients go untreated. Research on the immunopathogenesis of AD has paved the way for new, targeted, systemic therapies for moderate-to-severe AD. In early 2017, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab for adults with moderate-to-severe AD whose disease is not adequately controlled with topical therapies. Although the national guidelines can be very helpful to clinicians, the process for updating them does not allow for timely incorporation of novel therapies. A steering committee of AD experts, including dermatologists, allergists, and a patient advocacy group representative, developed recommendations on the basis of a literature review and expert opinion to help clinicians understand how new therapies fit into the current treatment paradigm and to provide practical recommendations for assessing AD severity, treatment response, and treatment failure.

BACKGROUND:The pneumococcal vaccine, a nonconjugated vaccine, may be used to evaluate the integrity of the humoral immune system. Those patients with an inferior response to a nonconjugated vaccine may be vaccinated with a conjugated vaccine, which elicits both a B- and T-cell response. OBJECTIVE:We evaluated the immunogenicity of a conjugated vaccine in patients with inferior responses to a nonconjugated vaccine. METHODS:This was an institutional review board approved retrospective study that involved 22 patients with suspected specific antibody deficiency who received a nonconjugated vaccine, followed by a conjugated vaccine. Patients with an inferior response had <70% response in pneumococcal serotypes (1.3 μg/mL, with at least a two to fourfold increase), whereas protective responses were those with a >70% response. These patients were subsequently administered a conjugated vaccine at various time intervals (1-36 months), and titers were evaluated 4-6 weeks later. RESULTS:A protective response was found in 6 of 22 patients (average age, 62.2 years) after conjugated vaccine administration. Half of the responders were vaccinated <12 months after nonconjugated vaccine administration. The majority of the nonresponders (n = 16) received a conjugated vaccine <12 months after a nonconjugated vaccine. Of the nonresponders, 10 received a conjugated vaccine <12 months after a nonconjugated vaccine and did not mount a protective response. Other associated immunologic findings included hypogammaglobulinemia (n = 6), low immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) levels (n = 5), and low IgG2 levels (n = 6). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The majority of the patients with an inferior response to a nonconjugated vaccine also had an inferior response to a conjugated vaccine. Conjugated vaccine administration time did not affect the response rate. Analysis of the data demonstrated that patients with suspected specific antibody deficiency may not benefit from a conjugated vaccine, which suggested a defect that may affect more than pure antibody responses. Also, the majority of patients with IgG2 deficiency mounted an inadequate response to Pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate vaccine.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a complex condition that results from the dynamic interplay between genetic predisposition, skin barrier defects, environmental factors, and a dysfunctional immune system. As a result, AD can be complicated by irritant and allergic contact dermatitis and imbalances in the skin microbiome, which can subsequently exacerbate the severity and complicate the course of preexisting atopic disease. Itch is an important symptom of AD, as it plays a large role in the quality of life of patients and their families. Since AD is a chronic, inflammatory disease that recrudesces throughout life, many have utilized alternative and/or complementary therapies, as monotherapy or in conjunction with conventional therapies, as a form of management.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Atopic dermatitis (AD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) have a dynamic relationship not yet fully understood. Investigation has been limited thus far by a paucity of data on the overlap of these disorders in pediatric patients. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To use data from the Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Registry to elucidate the associations and sensitizations among patients with concomitant AD and ACD. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This retrospective case review examined 1142 patch test cases of children younger than 18 years, who were registered between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, by 84 health care providers (physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants) from across the United States. Data were gathered electronically from multidisciplinary providers within outpatient clinics throughout the United States on pediatric patients (ages 0-18 years). Exposures/UNASSIGNED:All participants were patch-tested to assess sensitizations to various allergens; history of AD was noted by the patch-testing providers. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Primary outcomes were sensitization rates to various patch-tested allergens. Results/UNASSIGNED:A total of 1142 patients were evaluated: 189 boys (34.2%) and 363 girls (65.8%) in the AD group and 198 boys (36.1%) and 350 girls (63.9%) in the non-AD group (data on gender identification were missing for 17 patients). Compared with those without AD, patch-tested patients with AD were 1.3 years younger (10.5 vs 11.8 years; P < .001) and had longer history of dermatitis (3.5 vs 1.8 years; P < .001). Patch-tested patients designated as Asian or African American were more likely to have concurrent AD (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.20-3.10; P = .008; and OR, 4.09; 95% CI, 2.70-6.20; P <.001, respectively). Patients with AD with generalized distribution were the most likely to be patch tested (OR, 4.68; 95% CI, 3.50-6.30; P < .001). Patients with AD had different reaction profiles than those without AD, with increased frequency of reactions to cocamidopropyl betaine, wool alcohol, lanolin, tixocortol pivalate, and parthenolide. Patients with AD were also noted to have lower frequency of reaction to methylisothiazolinone, cobalt, and potassium dichromate. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:Children with AD showed significant reaction patterns to allergens notable for their use in skin care preparations. This study adds to the current understanding of AD in ACD, and the continued need to investigate the interplay between these disease processes to optimize care for pediatric patients with these conditions.

BACKGROUND:There has been growing interest in the potential for adverse immunologic reactions to metals in biomedical devices and increasing referrals for the evaluation and management of metal hypersensitivity reactions reported in orthopedic, cardiac, gynecologic, and dental implant devices. However, there are few studies that give evidence-based recommendations on how to evaluate this issue in our practices. METHODS:We reviewed reasonable evidence and expert opinion on biomedical device hypersensitivity and published guidelines on pre- and postimplantation evaluation of delayed hypersensitivity reactions in patients suspected of possible metal hypersensitivity to biomedical devices. RESULTS:There is consensus that routine preimplantation evaluation in individuals with no history of adverse cutaneous reactions to metals or a history of implant-related adverse events is not necessary. However, patients with a history of metal hypersensitivity of a magnitude sufficient to cause concern for the patient or health care provider may benefit from evaluation by patch testing (PT) before device implantation. Patients after implantation and with chronic unexplained implant failure or with dermatitis may benefit from patch test evaluation after other causes, such as infection and biomechanical issues, are ruled out. However, a positive metal patch test result does not prove symptom causality, and the decision regarding implant revision can only be made after a thorough discussion among the patient, the allergist or dermatologist, and the orthopedic surgeon. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Consensus guidelines for the evaluation of hypersensitivity to biomedical devices can be used by the practicing physician while awaiting for the results of further investigations.