Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-018-0243-4 REVIEW A Systematic Scoping Literature Review of Publications Supporting Treatment Guidelines for Pediatric Atopic Dermatitis in Contrast to Clinical Practice Patterns . . Elaine C. Siegfried Jennifer C. Jaworski Paola Mina-Osorio Received: April 20, 2018 / Published online: June 1, 2018 The Author(s) 2018 were disproportionately more publications for ABSTRACT topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) compared with topical corticosteroids (TCS); however, the Introduction: Treatment guidelines endorse a search interval may have biased the results variety of strategies for atopic dermatitis (AD) toward treatments approved near the beginning which may vary from published data and clin- of the time frame. In contrast, publications ical practice patterns. The objective of this documenting clinical practice patterns reﬂect review was to quantify the volume of available greater use of emollients and TCS (over TCI), as medical literature supporting pediatric AD well as systemic corticosteroids. Data is rela- treatments and compare these patterns to those tively limited for long-term and combination recommended by published guidelines and/or treatment, treatment of severe AD, and patients clinical practice patterns. younger than 2 years of age, and completely Methods: Searches of Embase (2005–2016) and lacking for systemic corticosteroids. abstracts from selected meetings (2014–2016) Conclusion: This scoping review demonstrates related to AD treatment in patients younger that available medical literature largely supports than 17 years of age yielded references that were published guidelines for topical therapy; how- assessed by study design, primary treatment, ever, clinical practice patterns are less aligned. age groups, and AD severity. There is a lack of data for older, more frequently Results: Published literature partially supports used generic treatments, including oral anti- clinical guidelines, with emollients and topical histamines, oral antibiotics, and systemic cor- medications being the most investigated. There ticosteroids. Overall, literature is lacking for Enhanced digital features To view enhanced digital long-term treatment, treatment for patients features for this article go to https://doi.org/10.6084/ younger than 2 years of age, and for systemic m9.ﬁgshare.6275408. treatment for severe disease. Funding: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. E. C. Siegfried Saint Louis University and Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital, St. Louis, MO, USA Keywords: Adolescents; Atopic dermatitis; Atopic eczema; Biologic agents; Children; J. C. Jaworski Infants; Systemic treatment; Topical Chicago, IL, USA calcineurin inhibitors; Topical corticosteroids; P. Mina-Osorio (&) Topical treatment Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, Tarrytown, NY, USA e-mail: email@example.com 350 Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 included the American Academy of Dermatol- INTRODUCTION ogy (AAD; annual and summer meetings), the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a systemic immune- Immunology (AAAAI), the Society for Pediatric mediated disease which primarily affects chil- Dermatology (SPD)/World Congress of Pediatric dren with variably reported pediatric prevalence Dermatology (WCPD), the European Academy of 9–25% [1, 2]. There is a wide range of disease of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV), the severity, and a variety of approaches to treat- Society for Investigational Dermatology (SID)/ ment. There are few US Food and Drug International Investigational Dermatology Administration (FDA)-approved treatments for (IID), and the European Society for Pediatric AD, leaving many health care providers to pre- Dermatology (ESPD) meetings in the previous scribe off-label medications. 3 years. References from meetings other than Several recent treatment-speciﬁc systematic these were not included. reviews evaluate the efﬁcacy and/or safety of Results are reported as numbers of references topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) [3, 4], by study design (interventional non-comparative, topical corticosteroids (TCS) , immunother- interventional non-randomized comparative, apy , immunosuppressants [6, 7], omal- randomized active-controlled, randomized pla- izumab , emollients [9, 10], phototherapy cebo/vehicle-controlled, randomized untreated- [11–14], and wet wraps . The goal of this controlled, observational prospective cohort, systematic scoping review was to quantitatively observational cross-sectional, observational and qualitatively assess the volume of medical comparative, registry, case report/series, pooled/ literature supporting guidelines-based treat- secondary/subgroup analysis of previously pub- ment as well as treatment with recently lished data, retrospective chart review, retrospec- approved and late-stage investigational phar- tive cohort, and survey/interview). On the basis of macologic and non-pharmacologic agents for keywords listed in Table 1, references were also AD in pediatric patients [1, 16–25]. Because identiﬁed by category of primary treatment there are no pediatric-speciﬁc AD treatment investigated [TCIs, TCS, systemic immunother- guidelines, we sought to evaluate how different apy, biologic, systemic immunosuppressant, treatment modalities have been investigated topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor, across age groups and disease severities and how topical antibiotic, oral PDE4 inhibitor, topical these correspond to published guidelines and immunotherapy, pharmacologic combination studies of clinical practice patterns. The results treatment, emollient, phototherapy, wet wraps, of this analysis indicate gaps in evidence sup- bathing, dilute bleach baths, and non-pharma- porting current clinical management. cologic combination treatment]. When more than one active treatment was compared, only the METHODS primary treatment was used to categorize the ref- erence; if a combination of treatments was used as A literature search for ‘‘atopic dermatitis’’ and primary treatment, the reference was categorized speciﬁc drug-related keywords was performed as ‘‘combination treatment’’. The potency of TCS using Embase on 7 November, 2016. Search was determined on the basis of several sources terms are listed in Table 1. A review protocol [16, 26–28], and clinical judgment in the case of does not exist. This article is based on previ- non-marketed products; if a study included more ously conducted studies and does not contain than one TCS of different potency (e.g., medium any studies with human participants or animals potency for the body and low potency for face), it performed by any of the authors. was counted for the highest potency TCS used. Results were limited to those published in References that described clinical practice pat- English after 1 January, 2005 that included terns were summarized separately. References newborns, infants, children, and/or adoles- regarding new data (i.e., not pooled/sec- cents. The search was supplemented with ondary/subgroup analysis of previously published manual searches of selected meetings, which data) were further categorized by AD severity as Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 351 Table 1 Search terms Treatment Search terms Corticosteroid ‘‘Topical corticosteroid*’’ OR ‘‘topical glucocorticoid*’’ OR ‘‘systemic corticosteroid*’’ OR ‘‘corticosteroid*’’ OR ‘‘glucocorticoid*’’ OR ‘‘hydrocortisone acetate’’ OR ‘‘alclometasone dipropionate’’ OR ‘‘clobetasone butyrate’’ OR ‘‘dexamethasone sodium phosphate’’ OR ‘‘dexamethasone valerate’’/de OR ‘‘dexamethasone valerate’’ OR ‘‘desonide’’ OR ‘‘ﬂuocortinbutylester’’ OR ‘‘beclomethasone dipropionate’’ OR ‘‘betamethasone benzoate’’ OR ‘‘betamethasone dipropionate’’ OR ‘‘budesonide’’ OR ‘‘desoximetasone’’ OR ‘‘diﬂucortolone valerate’’ OR ‘‘ﬂuocinolone acetonide’’ OR ‘‘ﬂuocinonide’’ OR ‘‘ﬂuocortolone’’ OR ‘‘ﬂuocortolone caproate’’ OR ‘‘ﬂuticasone propionate’’ OR ‘‘methylprednisolone aceponate’’ OR ‘‘mometasone furoate’’ OR ‘‘prednicarbate’’ OR ‘‘halcinonide’’ OR ‘‘clobetasol propionate’’ OR Calcineurin ‘‘Tacrolimus’’ OR ‘‘pimecrolimus’’ OR inhibitor Immunosuppressant ‘‘Cyclosporine’’ OR cyclosporin OR ‘‘azathioprine’’ OR ‘‘methotrexate’’ OR ‘‘mycophenolate mofetil’’ OR Oral antihistamine ‘‘Oral antihistamine*’’ OR Phototherapy ‘‘Phototherapy’’ OR Immunotherapy Immunotherapy OR Emollient ‘‘Emollient*’’ OR Wet wrap ‘‘Physical therap*’’ OR ‘‘wet wrap*’’ OR ‘‘wet dressing*’’ OR Bathing ‘‘Bath*’’ OR Dilute bleach baths ‘‘Hypochlorite sodium’’ OR Antibiotic ‘‘Antibiotic agent’’ OR ‘‘beta lactam antibiotic’’ OR ‘‘ﬂucloxacillin’’ OR ‘‘amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid’’ OR ‘‘cephalosporin’’ OR Biologic ‘‘Omalizumab’’ OR ‘‘ustekinumab’’ OR PDE4 inhibitor ‘‘Apremilast’’ OR ‘‘crisaborole’’ OR ‘‘e6005’’ OR ‘‘e-6005’’ OR ‘‘opa-15406’’ OR ‘‘opa15406’’ PDE4 phosphodiesterase 4 deﬁned within the reference (mild was analyzed RESULTS together with mild-to-moderate, and moderate was analyzed with moderate-to-severe/very sev- A total of 1579 references were retrieved from ere) and pediatric age groups included in Embase and screened for relevance (Fig. 1). The the study [newborns (up to 1 month), infants following references were excluded: those not (1–12 months), children (1–12 years), and/or focused on treatment (i.e., risk factors for AD), adolescents (13–17 years)]; studies that included those that did not specify treatment, duplicate patients from more than one age group were references, encore abstracts, abstracts present- counted in both groups. Interventional trials were ing data for which a manuscript has been pub- classiﬁed by duration of treatment, or duration of lished, abstracts from other meetings, non- follow-up for long-acting treatments like English articles, abstract supplements, retracted immunotherapy and biologics. articles, commentaries, review articles, and 352 Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 Fig. 1 PRISMA ﬂow diagram. AD atopic dermatitis introductory articles. An additional 77 articles hydrocolloid dressing, homeopathy, applica- were not included in the analysis because they tion of human milk, and high altitude treat- focused on treatments that are not part of cur- ment (n = 1 each). In addition, references rent guideline-based management or new ther- focusing on adult patients, patient populations apies: pro/prebiotics (n = 14); clothing (n = 10); with mean age greater than 20 years, patient traditional Chinese medicine (n = 8); intra- populations that were less than 40% pediatric, venous immunoglobulin (n = 5); cleansing, or prevention of AD were also excluded leaving vitamin supplements, and educational inter- 231 articles. Manual searches of abstracts from ventions (n = 4 each); dietary elimination and selected meetings yielded an additional 24 ref- balneo/crenotherapy (n = 3 each); oral leuko- erences, added to the 51 identiﬁed in the triene inhibitors, water softeners, apheresis, and Embase search, for a total of 75 abstract refer- phytotherapy (n = 2 each); and acupuncture, ences. This yields a total of 255 references for topical antifungal, temperature-controlled inclusion. lamellar airﬂow, skin acidiﬁcation, peroxisome Of these, 17 assessed clinical practice patterns proliferator-activated receptor-alpha agonist via prospective analysis, claims data, retrospec- treatment, efalizumab, etanercept, chloroquine, tive analysis, or surveys/interviews [29–45], and lipoxins, adrenergic agonist treatment, documented a wide variety of treatments used in Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 353 clinical practice (Fig. 2). Overall, 7 of 17 papers each). Other designs were utilized less often reported emollient use by up to 96% of patients. [randomized vehicle-controlled (n = 3), ran- Seven references also reported systemic corti- domized active-controlled (n = 2 and n =4, costeroid use in 1–25% of patients. respectively), and randomized active-/vehicle- The most frequently used study designs in controlled (n = 1 each)]. Studies that included this 11-year review were interventional non- infants were more often interventional non- comparative and randomized controlled. The comparative (n = 3) or randomized active-con- most frequently investigated medical treat- trolled (n = 3) compared with randomized ments were TCIs and emollients (Fig. 3). vehicle-controlled (n = 1). The single trial that included newborns was randomized, comparing different dosing regimens. Of the active-con- Treatments by AD Severity and Age Group trolled studies, 1 was once versus twice daily treatment, 1 was proactive versus reactive Published pharmacologic treatment trials varied treatment, 1 was soak-and-smear vs dry skin by AD severity (Fig. 4); however, AD severity application, and 1 was application before versus was not consistently deﬁned. A number of after emollient, all with the same TCS. The only studies did not prespecify severity (n = 48) or active- and vehicle-controlled trial compared used surrogate deﬁnitions (n = 8). The pattern different formulations of the same TCS. Among of severities studied was similar across age the 20 interventional TCS studies, 1 used lowest groups. Mild-to-moderate or not speciﬁed/other potency, 5 used low potency, 2 used lower- severity was included most frequently, and the medium potency, 11 used medium potency, 13- to 17-year age range was investigated most none used high potency, and 1 used very high often (Fig. 5). potency TCS. Of these, two of the medium Publications more often investigated topical potency TCS studies included a low potency treatments for mild-to-moderate AD and sys- TCS for the face and other sensitive skin areas temic treatments for more severe AD (Fig. 4). (Table 2). More studies of mild-to-moderate Non-pharmacologic treatments were investi- disease focused on older age groups (Table 2). gated primarily in mild-to-moderate AD (Fig. 4). There were 59 references with TCIs as pri- Across age groups, TCIs and emollients were mary treatment [73–131]; an additional 5 ref- the treatments most frequently investigated erences used TCIs as an active comparator. Of (Fig. 6). The number of treatment modalities the 59 references, 9 were pooled/secondary/post investigated in children (1–12 years) was greater hoc analyses of previously published studies than any other age group (Fig. 6). Few studies and 7 studies did not assess clinical efﬁcacy. The included treatment in infants and newborns greatest numbers of TCI clinical efﬁcacy studies (Fig. 6). Despite the frequency of systemic cor- in adolescents, children, and/or infants were ticosteroid use in clinical practice, this analysis interventional non-comparative (n = 12, n = 16, failed to identify any publications supporting n = 6, respectively) or randomized vehicle-con- use of this treatment. trolled (n =8, n = 12, n = 3) compared with randomized active-controlled (n =9, n = 10, Supporting Evidence by Treatment n = 3). Of the active-controlled studies, 9 were versus TCS, 1 was versus the same TCI using Topical Pharmacologic Treatments different doing regimen, 1 was versus another There were 27 references that studied TCS as TCI, and 2 were versus emollient/device cream. primary treatment [46–72]; an additional 16 The majority of references (10/16, 63%) used TCS as an active comparator. Of the 27 supporting topical PDE4 inhibitors were pooled references focusing on TCS, 2 were pooled or post hoc analyses [132–147]. Of the remain- analyses of previously published studies, 5 were ing references, 3 were randomized vehicle-con- case reports/series, and 3 did not assess clinical trolled, 2 were interventional non-comparative, efﬁcacy. TCS clinical efﬁcacy studies were pri- and 1 was randomized active-controlled versus marily interventional non-comparative (n =7 354 Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 Fig. 2 Clinical practice patterns. AD atopic dermatitis, ICD international classiﬁcation of diseases, NOS not otherwise speciﬁed, NR not reported, PIM pimecrolimus, RoA route of administration, TAC tacrolimus, TCI topical calcineurin inhibitor Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 355 Fig. 2 continued 356 Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 Fig. 2 continued Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 357 Fig. 3 Number of references by primary investigated treatment (a) and study design (b; n = 238). The same color coding used in a was used to indicate primary treatment investigated in b, and in all other ﬁgures. PDE4 phosphodiesterase 4 Fig. 4 Number of references investigating pharmacologic x-axis; pattern ﬁlled bars represent the ‘‘mild’’ (n =4) or (a) and non-pharmacologic (b) treatments by AD severity ‘‘moderate’’ (n = 8) subset of the indicated ranges. PDE4 (n = 215). Solid ﬁlled bars represent ranges listed on the phosphodiesterase 4 358 Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 Fig. 5 Number of references by AD severity and age group (n = 215). Solid ﬁlled bars represent ranges listed on the x-axis; pattern ﬁlled bars represent the ‘‘mild’’ (n = 4) or ‘‘moderate’’ (n = 8) subset of the indicated ranges Fig. 6 Number of references investigating pharmacologic (a) and non-pharmacologic (b) treatments by age group (n = 215). PDE4 phosphodiesterase 4 the same topical PDE4 inhibitor using a differ- interventional non-comparative (n = 3), ran- ent dosing regimen. domized vehicle-controlled (n = 3), or random- Topical combination treatments included ized active-controlled (n = 9; 8 were vs TCS–antibiotic (n = 4), TCI–phototherapy monotherapy and 1 was vs emollient) and (n = 1), TCS–TCI (n = 6), TCS–emollient (n =3), included adolescents (n = 11), children (n = 13), and TCS–wet wrap (n =2) [148–163]. There was and infants (n =4). 1 case series. The remaining studies were Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 359 Table 2 Number of references investigating topical corticosteroids by potency, AD severity, and age group a b Topical corticosteroid AD severity Age group (TCS) potency Mild-to- Moderate-to-severe/ Mild-to-severe/ Severe Not Adolescents Children Infants Newborns moderate very severe very severe speciﬁed/ other Lowest/class VII (n =5) 1 1 3 2 2 2 Low/class VI (n =5) 3 2 3 5 5 Lower–medium/class V (n =3) 1 2 2 3 3 Medium class III–IV (n =6) 1 2 1 1 1 3 6 1 1 High/class II (n =0) Very high/class I (n =6) 2 3 1 6 4 1 AD atopic dermatitis Mild-to-moderate includes ‘‘mild’’ (n = 4), moderate-to-severe/very severe includes ‘‘moderate’’ (n =8) Studies that spanned more than one age group are counted more than once If a study included[ 1 TCS of different potency (e.g., medium potency for the body and low potency for face), it was counted for the highest potency TCS used; lowest includes methylprednisolone aceponate 0.1% (formulation not speciﬁed), methylprednisolone aceponate 0.1% cream, prednisolone valerate 0.3% ointment, triamcinolone acetonide 0.0025% cream; low, desonide 0.05% foam, desonide 0.05% hydrogel, ﬂuocinolone acetonide 0.01% oil; lower-medium, hydrocortisone butyrate 0.1% cream, ﬂuticasone propionate 0.05% lotion; medium, betamethasone valerate 0.1% ointment, clobetasone butyrate 0.05% cream, clocortolone pivalate 0.1% cream, ﬂuticasone propionate 0.005% ointment, triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% ointment; very high, clobetasol propionate 0.05% cream/lotion, ﬂuocinonide 0.1% cream 360 Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 In addition, topical antibiotic treatment was were versus conventional multimodal therapy. the subject of a randomized vehicle-controlled There were no immunotherapy trials in infants study in children and adolescents , and or newborns. topical immunotherapy with Streptococcus pyo- There were 10 references that included genes ointment was the topic of a case study in a omalizumab (n = 9) or ustekinumab (n =1) child . biologic treatment [200–209]. Of these, only 3 Topical pharmacologic treatments were the were interventional: 2 non-comparative (1 in most frequently investigated. Overall, evidence adolescents, 1 in children and adolescents) and was high level and covered a wide range of age 1 randomized placebo-controlled in children groups. Notably, the only reference to include and adolescents. The other 7 were case reports/ newborns was a TCS trial. series. Systemic combination treatments included immunotherapy–immunomodulator (n =3) and Systemic Pharmacologic Treatments immunotherapy–immunosuppressant (n =1) There were 15 references that included one or combinations [210–213]. They were interven- more systemic immunosuppressant agents as tional non-comparative (n = 2) and interven- primary treatment [166–180]; 1 additional ref- tional non-randomized comparative (n =2) and erence used a systemic immunosuppressant as included children and adolescents (n =3) or an active comparator. Medications included adolescents alone (n =1). azathioprine (n = 7), cyclosporine (n =6), In addition, there was a case report of oral cyclosporine–glucosamine combination (n =2), PDE4 inhibitor treatment in a child . methotrexate (n = 3), and mycophenolate Systemic treatments were investigated less mofetil (n = 3). Of the 15 references, 2 were case frequently than topical treatments. The level of reports/series, 6 were retrospective chart re- evidence in these references was lower than views/cohorts, and 1 was a registry. Of the those in references about topical treatments. remaining 6 studies, all assessed clinical efﬁ- There was only 1 paper among 60 that included cacy—1 was interventional non-comparative infants; none included newborns. (including children and adolescents), 2 were randomized placebo-controlled (1 in adoles- cents, 1 in children), 2 were randomized active- Non-pharmacologic Management controlled (1 versus a different systemic There were 53 references addressing ﬁrst-line immunosuppressant in children and 1 combi- skin care as primary treatment [215–267], nation systemic immunosuppressant therapy including 42 papers assessing emollients (an versus monotherapy in adolescents). additional 4 used emollient as an active com- There were 19 references that used systemic parator), 4 assessing bathing (an additional 2 immunotherapy as primary treatment references used bathing as an active compara- [181–199] including subcutaneous (n = 12), tor), 2 assessing dilute bleach baths, and 5 sublingual (n = 4), or oral antigen administra- assessing emollient–cleanser combinations. Of tion (n = 1), and intradermal (n = 1) or subcu- these 53 references, 2 were case reports/series taneous Mycobacterium vaccae (n = 1). Of these, and 2 were pooled/secondary/subgroup analy- 1 was a case report and 2 were retrospective ses of previously published data. All but one of chart reviews. Of the remaining 16 studies, 15 the remaining papers assessed efﬁcacy including assessed clinical efﬁcacy. Of these, 6 were 2 retrospective chart reviews/cohorts, 6 obser- interventional non-comparative (1 in adoles- vational studies, 17 interventional non-com- cents, 1 in children, 4 included both groups), 3 parative studies, 10 randomized untreated/ were randomized placebo-controlled (1 in ado- vehicle-controlled studies, 12 randomized lescents, 1 in children, 1 included both groups), active-controlled studies, and 1 randomized 4 were untreated-controlled (all included chil- active- and untreated-controlled study. Of the dren and adolescents), and 2 were active-con- trials that included an active comparator, 2 were trolled (1 in adolescents, 1 included both versus TCS, 5 were versus a different emollient, groups). Of the active controlled trials, both 2 were versus bathing, and 3 were versus Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 361 Fig. 7 Duration of treatment for short-acting treat- treatment/follow-up could not be determined for 1 study ments/duration of follow-up for long-acting treatments published as an abstract. PDE4 phosphodiesterase 4, w in interventional studies (n = 162). Duration of weeks, y years monotherapy. First-line skin care efﬁcacy stud- investigating emollients and other skin care ies primarily included children (n = 48). included high level evidence, while references A total of 5 references assessed wet wrap investigating wet wrap therapy and photother- therapy as primary treatment [268–272]. Of apy had lower level evidence. these 1 was a retrospective chart review, 1 was an observational prospective cohort, and 2 were interventional non-comparative. The remain- Treatments and Interventional Trial ing reference was a randomized active-con- Evidence by Duration of Treatment trolled study versus conventional treatment in children and infants. Out of the 162 interventional studies, 106 There were 11 references assessing pho- (65%) were less than 12 weeks in duration totherapy as primary treatment [273–283]. The (Fig. 7). Only TCIs, TCS, systemic majority (7/11, 64%) were retrospective immunotherapy, and pharmacologic combina- chart reviews. One additional reference inclu- tion treatment have been investigated for more ded phototherapy as an active comparator. than 52 weeks (Fig. 7). All TCS and TCI studies Emollients were the second most investi- that were 24 weeks or longer used intermittent gated treatment. Overall, published studies of (less than daily treatment) or proactive (treating non-pharmacologic treatments included all age at ﬁrst signs or symptoms of a ﬂare) treatment groups, except newborns. References (Fig. 7). 362 Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 literature, although the number of references DISCUSSION identiﬁed and level of evidence in those refer- ences are low (Fig. 3). This is not unexpected as The results of our analysis largely reﬂect current these treatments are associated with safety AD treatment guidelines [1, 16–21], and the concerns and limited to use in a subset of quality of evidence supporting the use of these patients with severe AD. However, the high treatments is high (including randomized con- impact of severe AD represents a signiﬁcant trolled trials). The relatively large number of unmet need that deserves additional study. references investigating emollient treatment Systemic antimicrobials, topical antibiotics, and the high prevalence of emollient use and other antiseptic measures are discussed but reported in clinical practice (up to 96%; Fig. 2) not recommended by the guidelines, except for are indirect indicators that ﬁrst-line manage- oral antivirals/antibiotics and dilute bleach ment recommendations are being widely baths in patients with AD who have clinical implemented. signs of secondary infection. For patients who The highest proportion of published litera- experience frequent bacterial infections, guide- ture in this analysis focused on the use of TCIs, lines suggest that dilute bleach baths be con- likely reﬂecting the search interval. Topical sidered as a maintenance treatment. The range tacrolimus was approved by the FDA in 2000, of systemic antibiotic use among reports of and pimecrolimus in 2001, 3 years prior to the clinical practice was wide (16–63%; Fig. 2). This search start date. One year into the search likely reﬂects the lack of well-accepted clinical interval, substantial controversy focused on the and laboratory biomarkers to deﬁne infection, theoretical risk of TCI-related lymphoma and a rather than colonization, as well as the short- Boxed Warning. The number of references term improvement commonly observed after supporting the use of TCS is smaller than treatment with systemic anti-staphylococcal expected and more focused on mild-to-moder- antibiotics . However, high-level evidence ate disease and older age groups (Fig. 3). This supporting the use of systemic antibiotics is may also be related to the search interval, lacking, and a small meta-analysis recommends beginning decades after widespread, ‘‘grandfa- against this treatment . thered’’ use of these medications. It could also Guidelines also suggest that sedating oral reﬂect comparatively limited funding for clini- antihistamines may be useful, especially in the cal research to study older, generic drugs, or context of interrupted sleep. Like use of sys- changes in treatment patterns over time . temic antibiotics, the range of published prac- The potencies of TCS and durations of tice patterns is wide (7–84%; Fig. 2), possibly treatment used in clinical trials reﬂect guideline reﬂecting lack of evidence and potential adverse recommendations to use the lowest potency effects . agent for the shortest time period that will The AAD guidelines recommend avoiding control symptoms, but long-term studies of TCS systemic corticosteroids for AD, while the are lacking. Published studies of TCIs focus AAAAI/American College of Allergy, Asthma, more on the safety and efﬁcacy of monotherapy and Immunology (ACAAI), and European than as guidelines-directed long-term mainte- guidelines caution against their use, especially nance, but include data on intermittent use for on a long-term basis. In accordance with these up to 5 years [119, 285]. guidelines, our search strategy did not identify Current guidelines also recommend other any studies that speciﬁcally investigated the use options for moderate-to-severe AD including of systemic corticosteroids, although surpris- wet wrap therapy (with or without TCS), pho- ingly their use ranged from 1–25% in reports of totherapy, or systemic immunosuppressants clinical practice (Fig. 2). (cyclosporine, azathioprine, or methotrexate, Several references focused on the use of sys- with mycophenolate mofetil as an alternative). temic immunotherapy, many of which use higher These recommendations are also reﬂected in level interventional evidence. The AAD guidelines reports of clinical practice and the medical do not recommend allergen-speciﬁc immunother- Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 363 apy because of insufﬁcient evidence, while the chart reviews, case reports, and other non-ran- AAAAI/ACAAI and European guidelines suggest domized data) because in the absence of high that it canbeusefulinselectedpatients. level evidence in pediatric patients, dermatolo- Biologic therapy is discussed but not recom- gists often rely on these primary data sources mended by any current guideline because of when making clinical decisions regarding their insufﬁcient evidence. There were a few refer- patients. Including this diversity of publication ences regarding use of biologic agents in pedi- types reﬂects ‘‘real-world’’ clinical practice, but atric patients, with only one reporting higher limits our ability to assess the quality and out- level evidence. comes of the references included in this analysis. Regarding patient age groups and AD sever- However, the lack of a central database of con- ity, there was only one reference on AD treat- ference abstracts precludes inclusion of data ment in newborns and few references with high from all possibly relevant meetings, and some quality evidence to support treatment of severe important meetings may have been inadver- AD using systemic agents. Although recent tently overlooked in our search. publications have investigated the role of emollients in preventing atopic dermatitis in CONCLUSIONS newborns, they did not meet the inclusion cri- teria for this systematic review and were not In summary, treatments investigated in pub- included in this analysis [288, 289]. lished medical literature include those recom- We and others  have found that the mended in current treatment guidelines; deﬁnitions of mild, moderate, and severe used however, clinical practice pattern publications in clinical trials often overlap and many trials include a scope of therapies not supported by use a range of severity (i.e., mild-to-moderate or high level evidence or current treatment moderate-to-severe). This lack of standardiza- guidelines. This may be related to the fact that tion precludes comparative effectiveness analy- clinical practice patterns are often not com- sis of available data. There is a general need for a pletely evidence-based, but driven by medical better deﬁnition of AD severity to guide clinical training, individual experience, and institu- use. For example, topical tacrolimus is FDA-ap- tional ‘‘norms’’. This makes change difﬁcult and proved for moderate-to-severe AD ; how- also delays and interferes with introduction of ever, severe AD often requires systemic therapy. innovative treatments into guidelines and There is also a striking lack of medical liter- practice . Finally, standardized data are ature for long-term use of many of the treat- needed to support the treatments that are ments included in this analysis. The only actually used in clinical practice, especially topical treatment that has been studied for those used in younger children and for long- longer than 1 year is TCI and the only systemic term treatment and severe disease. treatment is immunotherapy, which is not rec- ommended by current guidelines for routine treatment. Given the chronic nature of AD and the need for ongoing maintenance treatment, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS long-term data is critical for making sound treatment decisions, especially for pediatric patients who are more susceptible to develop- Funding. This work was funded by Regen- mental effects and systemic exposure to topical eron Pharmaceuticals Inc. Article processing charges were funded by Regeneron Pharmaceu- treatments. This scoping review expands on the results of ticals Inc. Data collection and analysis, manu- script development, and the decision to submit a recent related publication; Nankervis et al.  assessed the quality of systematic reviews the manuscript were independent of the fund- and randomized controlled trials for AD treat- ing source. ments in patients of all ages. Our analysis inclu- ded additional primary data sources (abstracts, 364 Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 Medical Writing and/or Editorial Assis- presented is not related to any of the company’s tance. Ferdinando Giacco, PhD, of Excerpta investigational or approved products. She Medica, performed the Embase search and ini- designed the searches, provided substantial tial reference screening under the direction of contributions to the analysis and interpretation Ronald van Olffen, PhD, also of Excerpta Med- of data, critically reviewed each draft, and ica, and with ﬁnancial support from Regeneron approved the ﬁnal version for submission. Pharmaceuticals Inc. The authors thank Yufang Compliance with Ethics Guidelines. This Lu, MD, PhD, Executive Director, Immunology article is based on previously conducted studies Medical Affairs at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and does not contain any studies with human Inc, for her assistance with the development participants or animals performed by any of the and review of the manuscript and Lucy Musie- authors. lak-Stevanovic for her graphic design assistance. Data Availability. Data sharing not appli- Authorship. All named authors meet the cable to this article as no datasets were gener- International Committee of Medical Journal ated or analyzed during the current study. Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of Open Access. This article is distributed the work as a whole, and have given their under the terms of the Creative Commons approval for this version to be published. Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Disclosures. Elaine Siegfried is an employee by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommer- of Saint Louis University. She has served as cial use, distribution, and reproduction in any principal investigator for clinical trials con- medium, provided you give appropriate credit ducted by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and to the original author(s) and the source, provide Anacor Pharmaceuticals (now Pﬁzer Inc.); all a link to the Creative Commons license, and monies were paid directly to her institution. She indicate if changes were made. has served as a consultant for Pﬁzer Inc. and Dermavant Sciences and as member of the data safety monitoring board for GlaxoSmithKline plc. She did not receive ﬁnancial compensation REFERENCES for her work on this manuscript. She provided clinical perspective, contributed substantially to 1. Eichenﬁeld LF, Tom WL, Chamlin SL, et al. Guide- the analysis and interpretation of data, critically lines of care for the management of atopic der- reviewed each draft, and approved the ﬁnal matitis: section 1. Diagnosis and assessment of version for submission. Jennifer Jaworski was an atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. employee of Prescott Medical Communications 2014;70(2):338–51. Group (Chicago, IL, USA) during the prepara- 2. Silverberg JI, Silverberg NB. Childhood atopic der- tion of this manuscript; however, this work was matitis and warts are associated with increased risk completed independent of her employment. of infection: a US population-based study. J Allergy She received ﬁnancial compensation for her Clin Immunol. 2014;133(4):1041–7. work as a medical writer on this manuscript 3. Chen SL, Yan J, Wang FS. Two topical calcineurin from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. She per- inhibitors for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in formed manual searches of selected meetings, pediatric patients: a meta-analysis of randomized the majority of reference screening, analysis of clinical trials. J Dermatol Treat. 2010;21(3):144–56. included references, wrote the ﬁrst draft of the 4. Siegfried EC, Jaworski JC, Kaiser JD, et al. Systematic manuscript, and approved ﬁnal version for review of published trials: long-term safety of topi- submission. Paola Mina-Osorio is an employee cal corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibi- of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc; however, the tors in pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis. BMC Pediatr. 2016;16:75. opinions expressed in this article do not reﬂect the views of the company and the data Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 365 5. Tam H, Calderon MA, Manikam L, et al. Speciﬁc management of atopic dermatitis: section 3. Man- allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of atopic agement and treatment with phototherapy and eczema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. systemic agents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;2:CD008774. 2014;71(2):327–49. 6. Schmitt J, Schmitt N, Meurer M. Cyclosporin in the 18. Sidbury R, Tom WL, Bergman JN, et al. Guidelines treatment of patients with atopic eczema—a sys- of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: tematic review and meta-analysis. J Eur Acad Der- section 4. Prevention of disease ﬂares and use of matol Venereol. 2007;21(5):606–19. adjunctive therapies and approaches. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71(6):1218–33. 7. Schram ME, Borgonjen RJ, Bik CM, et al. Off-label use of azathioprine in dermatology: a systematic 19. Schneider L, Tilles S, Lio P, et al. Atopic dermatitis: a review. Arch Dermatol. 2011;147(4):474–88. practice parameter update 2012. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;131(2):295–9 (299.e1-27). 8. Matin N, Tabatabaie O, Falsaperla R, et al. Efﬁcacy and safety of omalizumab in paediatric age: an 20. Ring J, Alomar A, Bieber T, for the European Der- update of literature data. J Biol Regul Homeost matology Forum (EDF), and the European Academy Agents. 2016;30(2):579–84. of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV), the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis (ETFAD), 9. Micali G, Paterno V, Cannarella R, et al. Evidence- European Federation of Allergy (EFA), the European based treatment of atopic dermatitis with topical Society of Pediatric Dermatology (ESPD), and the moisturizers. G Ital Dermatol Venereol. Global Allergy and Asthma European Network 2018;153(3):396–402. (GA2LEN), et al. Guidelines for treatment of atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis) Part I. J Eur Acad Der- 10. van Zuuren EJ, Fedorowicz Z, Christensen R, et al. matol Venereol. 2012;26(8):1045–60. Emollients and moisturisers for eczema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2:CD012119. 21. Ring J, Alomar A, Bieber T, for the European Der- matology Forum (EDF), and the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV), the 11. Garritsen FM, Brouwer MW, Limpens J, et al. European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis (ETFAD), Photo(chemo)therapy in the management of atopic dermatitis: an updated systematic review with European Federation of Allergy (EFA), the European implications for practice and research. Br J Derma- Society of Pediatric Dermatology (ESPD), and the tol. 2014;170(3):501–13. Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN), et al. Guidelines for treatment of atopic 12. Perez-Ferriols A, Aranegui B, Pujol-Montcusi JA, eczema (atopic dermatitis) Part II. J Eur Acad Der- et al. Phototherapy in atopic dermatitis: a system- matol Venereol. 2012;26(9):1176–93. atic review of the literature. Actas Dermosiﬁliogr. 2015;106(5):387–401. 22. Eichenﬁeld LF, Stein Gold LF. Addressing the immunopathogenesis of atopic dermatitis: advan- 13. Dogra S, Mahajan R. Phototherapy for atopic der- ces in topical and systemic treatment. Semin Cutan matitis. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. Med Surg. 2017;36(2 Suppl 2):S45–8. 2015;81(1):10–5. 23. Paller AS, Kabashima K, Bieber T. Therapeutic 14. Gambichler T, Breuckmann F, Boms S, et al. Nar- pipeline for atopic dermatitis: end of the drought? rowband UVB phototherapy in skin conditions J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;140(3):633–43. beyond psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52(4):660–70. 24. Honda T, Nomura T, Kabashima K. Advances in atopic dermatitis and urticarial in 2016. J Allergy 15. Devillers AC, Oranje AP. Efﬁcacy and safety of ‘wet- Clin Immunol. 2017;140(2):369–76. wrap’ dressings as an intervention treatment in children with severe and/or refractory atopic der- 25. Lauffer F, Ring J. Target-oriented therapy: emerging matitis: a critical review of the literature. Br J Der- drugs for atopic dermatitis. Expert Opin Emerg matol. 2006;154(4):579–85. Drugs. 2016;21(1):81–9. 16. Eichenﬁeld LF, Tom WL, Berger TG, et al. Guideli- 26. Arana A, Wentworth CW, Rivero E, et al. Lym- nes of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: phoma among patients with atopic dermatitis section 2. Management and treatment of atopic treated with topical corticosteroids (TCS) and/or dermatitis with topical therapies. J Am Acad Der- topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs). Pharmacoepi- matol. 2014;71(1):116–32. demiol Drug Saf. 2010;19(Suppl 1):S12. 17. Sidbury R, Davis DM, Cohen DE, et al. American 27. Jacob SE, Steele T. Corticosteroid classes: a quick Academy of Dermatology. Guidelines of care for the reference guide including patch test substances and 366 Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 cross-reactivity. J Am Acad Dermatol. pediatric atopic dermatitis: experience with 218 2006;54(4):723–7. patients over 30 years at Mayo Clinic. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67(1):100–6. 28. World Health Organization. Classiﬁcation of topical corticosteroids. In: WHO model prescribing infor- 40. Asch S, Joseph J, Major B, et al. Comparison of mation: drugs used in skin diseases. Geneva: World bleach, acetic acid, and other topical anti-infective Health Organization; 1997. p. 117–8. treatments in pediatric atopic dermatitis: a retro- spective cohort study on superinfection. J Am Acad 29. Rajar UDM, Kazi N, Kazi SAF. The proﬁle of atopic Dermatol. 2017;76(6 Suppl 1):AB79. dermatitis in out patient department of dermatol- ogy Isra University Hospital. Med Forum Mon. 41. Dilnawaz M, Sheikh ZI. Clinical audit of National 2015;26(7):10–3. Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal guidance (TAG) 81 and 82/clinical guide- 30. Maciejewska-Franczak M, Majak P, Kaczmarek J, lines (CG57) on atopic eczema in children. J Pak et al. Satisfaction with treatment of atopic der- Assoc Dermatol. 2013;23(1):47–51. matitis in children. Dermatol Rev. 2016;2(2):109–18. 42. Morais-Almeida M, Cabral AJ. Off-label prescribing for allergic diseases in pre-school children. Allergol 31. Scaria S, James E, Dharmaratnam AD. Epidemiology Immunopathol (Madr). 2014;42(4):342–7. and treatment pattern of atopic dermatitis in patients attending a tertiary care teaching hospital. 43. Horii KA, Simon SD, Liu DY, et al. Atopic dermatitis Int J Res Pharm Sci. 2011;2(1):38–44. in children in the United States, 1997–2004: visit trends, patient and provider characteristics, and 32. Kapoor R, Hoffstad O, Bilker W, et al. The frequency prescribing patterns. Pediatrics. and intensity of topical pimecrolimus treatment in 2007;120(3):e527–34. children with physician-conﬁrmed mild to moder- ate atopic dermatitis. Pediatr Dermatol. 44. Chawla V, Hogan MB, Moonie S, et al. Parental 2009;26(6):682–7. perception of efﬁcacy of antihistamines for pruritus in pediatric atopic dermatitis. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2016;37(2):157–63. 33. Martorell Aragones A, Felix Toledo R, Martorell Calatayud A, et al. Epidemiologic, clinical and socioeconomic factors of atopic dermatitis in Spain: 45. Zuberbier T, Orlow SJ, Paller AS, et al. Patient per- Alergologica-2005. J Investig Allergol Clin Immu- spectives on the management of atopic dermatitis. nol. 2009;19(Suppl 2):27–33. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;118(1):226–32. 34. Alexander T, Maxim E, Cardwell LA, et al. Pre- 46. Abramovits W, Oquendo M. Hydrocortisone buty- scriptions for atopic dermatitis: oral corticosteroids rate 0.1% cream (proprietary lipid rich cream vehi- remain commonplace. J Investig Dermatol. cle) does not signiﬁcantly suppress 2017;137(5):S121. hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis and is effec- tive in pediatric patients 3 months and older with 35. Schmitt J, Schmitt NM, Kirch W, et al. Outpatient extensive atopic dermatitis. Skinmed. care and medical treatment of children and adults 2010;8(3):150–4. with atopic eczema. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2009;7(4):345–51. 47. Abramovits W, Oquendo M. Hydrocortisone buty- rate 0.1% lipocream in pediatric patients with ato- 36. Manthripragada AD, Pinheiro SP, MaCurdy TE, pic dermatitis. Skinmed. 2010;8(2):72–9. et al. Off-label topical calcineurin inhibitor use in children. Pediatrics. 2013;132(5):e1327–32. 48. Breneman D, Fleischer AB Jr, Kaplan D, et al. Clo- betasol propionate 0.05% lotion in the treatment of 37. Misery L, Ansolabehere X, Grandﬁls N, et al. Nine- moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: a randomized year follow-up of children with atopic dermatitis by evaluation versus clobetasol propionate emollient general practitioners. Dermatology. cream. J Drugs Dermatol. 2005;4(3):330–6. 2014;228(4):344–9. 49. Brown KL, Krejci-Manwaring J, Tusa MG, et al. Poor 38. Lopes T, Bordalo D, Madureira C, et al. Atopic der- compliance with topical corticosteroids for atopic matitis and allergic diseases: the role of allergic dermatitis despite severe disease. Dermatol Online immunotherapy in a subgroup of patients. Allergy. J. 2008;14(9):13. 2016;71(Suppl 102):573. 50. Conde JF, Kaur M, Fleischer AB Jr, et al. Adherence 39. Dabade TS, Davis DM, Wetter DA, et al. Wet dress- to clocortolone pivalate cream 0.1% in a pediatric ing therapy in conjunction with topical corticos- population with atopic dermatitis. Cutis. teroids is effective for rapid control of severe 2008;81(5):435–41. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 367 51. Dohil MA, Alvarez-Connelly E, Eichenﬁeld LF. Flu- 62. Kohn LL, Kang Y, Antaya RJ. A randomized, con- ocinolone acetonide 0.01% in peanut oil: safety and trolled trial comparing topical steroid application to efﬁcacy data in the treatment of childhood atopic wet versus dry skin in children with atopic der- dermatitis in infants as young as 3 months of age. matitis (AD). J Am Acad Dermatol. Pediatr Dermatol. 2009;26(3):262–8. 2016;75(2):306–11. 52. Eichenﬁeld LF, Miller BH, Cutivate Lotion Study 63. Machado S. Effective use of methylprednisolone Group. Two randomized, double-blind, placebo- aceponate 0.1% in a 9-month-old infant with atopic controlled studies of ﬂuticasone propionate lotion eczema and sleep disturbance. J Eur Acad Dermatol 0.05% for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in Venereol. 2012;26(Suppl 6):14–5. subjects from 3 months of age. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54(4):715–7. 64. Ng SY, Begum S, Chong SY. Does order of applica- tion of emollient and topical corticosteroids make a 53. Fukuie T, Hirakawa S, Narita M, et al. Potential difference in the severity of atopic eczema in chil- preventive effects of proactive therapy on sensiti- dren? Pediatr Dermatol. 2016;33(2):160–4. zation in moderate to severe childhood atopic der- matitis: a randomized, investigator-blinded, 65. Nutan FN, Kanwar AJ, Parsad D. The effect of topi- controlled study. J Dermatol. 2016;43(11):1283–92. cally applied corticosteroids on interleukin 1beta levels in patients with atopic dermatitis. J Eur Acad 54. Glazenburg EJ, Wolkerstorfer A, Gerretsen AL, et al. Dermatol Venereol. 2012;26(8):1020–2. Efﬁcacy and safety of ﬂuticasone propionate 0.005% ointment in the long-term maintenance treatment 66. Pellanda C, Weber M, Bircher A, et al. Low-dose of children with atopic dermatitis: differences triamcinolone acetonide in the phytocosmetic between boys and girls? Pediatr Allergy Immunol. lichtena reduces inﬂammation in mild to moderate 2009;20(1):59–66. atopic dermatitis. Dermatology. 2005;211(4):338–40. 55. Hebert AA, Desonide Foam Phase III Clinical Study Group. Desonide foam 0.05%: safety in children as 67. Sandoval LF, Huang K, O’Neill JL, et al. Measure of young as 3 months. J Am Acad Dermatol. atopic dermatitis disease severity using actigraphy. 2008;59(2):334–40. J Cutan Med Surg. 2014;18(1):49–55. 56. Hebert AA, Cook-Bolden FE, Basu S, Desonide 68. Schlessinger J, Miller B, Gilbert RD, Vanos Study Hydrogel Study Group, et al. Safety and efﬁcacy of Group, et al. An open-label adrenal suppression desonide hydrogel 0.05% in pediatric subjects with study of 0.1% ﬂuocinonide cream in pediatric atopic dermatitis. J Drugs Dermatol. patients with atopic dermatitis. Arch Dermatol. 2007;6(2):175–81. 2006;142(12):1568–72. 57. Hebert AA, Friedlander SF, Allen DB. Topical ﬂuti- 69. Torrelo A. Methylprednisolone aceponate 0.1% in casone propionate lotion does not cause HPA axis the treatment of pruritic licheniﬁed eczema in a suppression. J Pediatr. 2006;149(3):378–82. 3-year-old child with chronic atopic dermatitis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012;26(Suppl 58. Hix E, Gustafson CJ, O’Neill JL, et al. Adherence to a 6):18–9. ﬁve day treatment course of topical ﬂuocinonide 0.1% cream in atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Online J. 70. Woods MT, Brown PA, Baig-Lewis SF, et al. Effects of 2013;19(10):20029. a novel formulation of ﬂuocinonide 0.1% cream on skin barrier function in atopic dermatitis. J Drugs 59. Katoh N, Hosoi H, Sugimoto T, et al. Features and Dermatol. 2011;10(2):171–6. prognoses of infantile patients with atopic der- matitis hospitalized for severe complications. J Der- 71. Yentzer BA, Ade RA, Fountain JM, et al. Improve- matol. 2006;33(12):827–32. ment in treatment adherence with a 3-day course of ﬂuocinonide cream 0.1% for atopic dermatitis. 60. Kerney DL, Ford RO, Gotz V. Self-reported partici- Cutis. 2010;86(4):208–13. pant experience with desonide hydrogel in the treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis. 72. Yentzer BA, Camacho FT, Young T, et al. Good Cutis. 2011;88(1 Suppl):18–24. adherence and early efﬁcacy using desonide hydrogel for atopic dermatitis: results from a pro- 61. Khamaganova I. Alleviation of a severe pruritic gram addressing patient compliance. J Drugs Der- ﬂare-up in a 13-year-old child with chronic atopic matol. 2010;9(4):324–9. dermatitis treated with methylprednisolone ace- ponate 0.1%. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 73. Arkwright PD, Gillespie MC, Ewing CI, et al. Blinded 2012;26(Suppl 6):20–1. side-to-side comparison of topical corticosteroid and tacrolimus ointment in children with moderate 368 Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 to severe atopic dermatitis. Clin Exp Dermatol. treatment outcome. Int J Dermatol. 2007;32(2):145–7. 2005;44(1):70–5. 74. Aschoff R, Schmitt J, Knuschke P, et al. Evaluation 83. Ellis CN, Kahler KH, Grueger J, et al. Cost effec- of the atrophogenic potential of hydrocortisone 1% tiveness of management of mild-to-moderate atopic cream and pimecrolimus 1% cream in uninvolved dermatitis with 1% pimecrolimus cream in children forehead skin of patients with atopic dermatitis and adolescents 2–17 years of age. Am J Clin Der- using optical coherence tomography. Exp Derma- matol. 2006;7(2):133–9. tol. 2011;20(10):832–6. 84. Emer JJ, Frankel A, Sohn A, et al. A bilateral com- 75. Bieber T, Vick K, Folster-Holst R, et al. Efﬁcacy and parison study of pimecrolimus cream 1% and a safety of methylprednisolone aceponate ointment topical medical device cream in the treatment of 0.1% compared to tacrolimus 0.03% in children patients with atopic dermatitis. J Drugs Dermatol. and adolescents with an acute ﬂare of severe atopic 2011;10(7):735–43. dermatitis. Allergy. 2007;62(2):184–9. 85. Fowler J, Johnson A, Chen M, et al. Improvement in 76. Boguniewicz M, Abramovits W, Paller A, et al. A pruritus in children with atopic dermatitis using multiple-domain framework of clinical, economic, pimecrolimus cream 1%. Cutis. 2007;79(1):65–72. and patient-reported outcomes for evaluating ben- eﬁts of intervention in atopic dermatitis. J Drugs 86. Haniﬁn JM, Paller AS, Eichenﬁeld L, US Tacrolimus Dermatol. 2007;6(4):416–23. Ointment Study Group, et al. Efﬁcacy and safety of tacrolimus ointment treatment for up to 4 years in 77. Breneman D, Fleischer AB Jr, Abramovits W, et al. patients with atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Derma- Tacrolimus Ointment Study Group. Intermittent tol. 2005;53(2 Suppl 2):S186–94. therapy for ﬂare prevention and long-term disease control in stabilized atopic dermatitis: a random- 87. Hoeger PH, Lee KH, Jautova J, et al. The treatment ized comparison of 3-times-weekly applications of of facial atopic dermatitis in children who are tacrolimus ointment versus vehicle. J Am Acad intolerant of, or dependent on, topical corticos- Dermatol. 2008;58(6):990–9. teroids: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Br J Dermatol. 2009;160(2):415–22. 78. Chapman MS, Schachner LA, Breneman D, US Tacrolimus Ointment Study Group, et al. Tacroli- 88. Hon KL, Lam MC, Leung TF, et al. Assessing itch in mus ointment 0.03% shows efﬁcacy and safety in children with atopic dermatitis treated with tacro- pediatric and adult patients with mild to moderate limus: objective versus subjective assessment. Adv atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53(2 Ther. 2007;24(1):23–8. Suppl 2):S177–85. 89. Jirakova A, Rob F, Secnikova Z, et al. Topical corti- 79. De Backer M, Morren MA, Boonen H, et al. Belgian costeroids but not calcineurin inhibitors induced observational drug utilization study of pime- atrophy after four weeks. J Biol Regul Homeost crolimus cream 1% in routine daily practice in Agents. 2015;29(3):701–6. atopic dermatitis. Dermatology. 2008;217(2):156–63. 90. Khan AM, Khondker L, Afroze D. Comparative efﬁcacy of topical mometasone furoate 0.1% cream 80. Doss N, Kamoun MR, Dubertret L, et al. Efﬁcacy of vs topical tacrolimus 0.03% ointment in the treat- tacrolimus 0.03% ointment as second-line treat- ment of atopic dermatitis. J Pak Assoc Dermatol. ment for children with moderate-to-severe atopic 2014;24(1):57–62. dermatitis: evidence from a randomized, double- blind non-inferiority trial vs. ﬂuticasone 0.005% 91. Kim HO, Lee CH, Ahn HK, et al. Effects of tacroli- ointment. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2010;21(2 Pt mus ointment on the expression of substance P, 1):321–9. nerve growth factor, and neurotrophin-3 in atopic dermatitis. Int J Dermatol. 2009;48(4):431–8. 81. Eichenﬁeld LF, Ho V, Matsunaga J, et al. Blood concentrations, tolerability and efﬁcacy of pime- 92. Kirsner RS, Heffernan MP, Antaya R. Safety and crolimus cream 1% in Japanese infants and children efﬁcacy of tacrolimus ointment versus pime- with atopic dermatitis. J Dermatol. crolimus cream in the treatment of patients with 2007;34(4):231–6. atopic dermatitis previously treated with corticos- teroids. Acta Derm Venereol. 2010;90(1):58–64. 82. Eichenﬁeld LF, Lucky AW, Langley RG, et al. Use of pimecrolimus cream 1% (Elidel) in the treatment of 93. Kitchin O, Masekela R, Moodley T, et al. The value atopic dermatitis in infants and children: the effects of pimecrolimus in improving quality of life of of ethnic origin and baseline disease severity on children with severe eczema—an open non-ran- domised study. S Afr Fam Pract. 2010;52(1):69–71. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 369 94. Kondo Y, Nakajima Y, Komatsubara R, et al. Short- 105. Paller AS, Lebwohl M, Fleischer AB Jr, US/Canada term efﬁcacy of tacrolimus ointment and impact on Tacrolimus Ointment Study Group, et al. Tacroli- quality of life. Pediatr Int. 2009;51(3):385–9. mus ointment is more effective than pimecrolimus cream with a similar safety proﬁle in the treatment 95. Koo JY, Fleischer AB Jr, Abramovits W, et al. of atopic dermatitis: results from 3 randomized, Tacrolimus ointment is safe and effective in the comparative studies. J Am Acad Dermatol. treatment of atopic dermatitis: results in 8000 2005;52(5):810–22. patients. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53(2 Suppl 2):S195–205. 106. Papp KA, Breuer K, Meurer M, et al. Long-term treatment of atopic dermatitis with pimecrolimus 96. Langley RG, Eichenﬁeld LF, Lucky AW, et al. Sus- cream 1% in infants does not interfere with the tained efﬁcacy and safety of pimecrolimus cream development of protective antibodies after vacci- 1% when used long-term (up to 26 weeks) to treat nation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52(2):247–53. children with atopic dermatitis. Pediatr Dermatol. 2008;25(3):301–7. 107. Papp KA, Werfel T, Folster-Holst R, et al. Long-term control of atopic dermatitis with pimecrolimus 97. Lee SJ, Woo SI, Ahn SH, et al. Functional interpre- cream 1% in infants and young children: a two-year tation of metabolomics data as a new method for study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52(2):240–6. predicting long-term side effects: treatment of ato- pic dermatitis in infants. Sci Rep. 2014;4:7408. 108. Park CW, Lee BH, Han HJ, et al. Tacrolimus decreases the expression of eotaxin, CCR3, RANTES 98. Leung DY, Haniﬁn JM, Pariser DM, et al. Effects of and interleukin-5 in atopic dermatitis. Br J Derma- pimecrolimus cream 1% in the treatment of tol. 2005;152(6):1173–81. patients with atopic dermatitis who demonstrate a clinical insensitivity to topical corticosteroids: a 109. Park CW, Lee BH, Lee CH. Tacrolimus reduces randomized, multicentre vehicle-controlled trial. Br staphylococcal colonization on the skin in Korean J Dermatol. 2009;161(2):435–43. atopic dermatitis patients. Drugs Exp Clin Res. 2005;31(2):77–87. 99. Ling M, Gottlieb A, Pariser D, et al. A randomized study of the safety, absorption and efﬁcacy of 110. Rahman MF, Nandi AK, Kabir S, et al. Topical pimecrolimus cream 1% applied twice or four times tacrolimus versus hydrocortisone on atopic der- daily in patients with atopic dermatitis. J Dermatol matitis in paediatric patients: a randomized con- Treat. 2005;16(3):142–8. trolled trial. Mymensingh Med J. 2015;24(3):457–63. 100. Lubbe J, Friedlander SF, Cribier B, NOBEL (New Online Based ELidel) Study Group, et al. Safety, 111. Rahman MF, Rashid MM, Sikder AU, et al. Efﬁcacy efﬁcacy, and dosage of 1% pimecrolimus cream for of topical tacrolimus in atopic dermatitis. J Pak the treatment of atopic dermatitis in daily practice. Assoc Dermatol. 2008;18(2):84–92. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2006;7(2):121–31. 112. Reitamo S, Allsopp R. Treatment with twice-weekly 101. Mandelin JM, Rubins A, Remitz A, et al. Long-term tacrolimus ointment in patients with moderate to efﬁcacy and tolerability of tacrolimus 0.03% oint- severe atopic dermatitis: results from two random- ment in infants: a two-year open-label study. Int J ized, multicentre, comparative studies. J Dermatol Dermatol. 2012;51(1):104–10. Treat. 2010;21(1):34–44. 102. McKenna SP, Whalley D, de Prost Y, et al. Treat- 113. Reitamo S, Rustin M, Harper J, 0.1% Tacrolimus ment of paediatric atopic dermatitis with pime- Ointment Long-term Follow-up Study Group, et al. crolimus (Elidel, SDZ ASM 981): impact on quality A 4-year follow-up study of atopic dermatitis ther- of life and health-related quality of life. J Eur Acad apy with 0.1% tacrolimus ointment in children and Dermatol Venereol. 2006;20(3):248–54. adult patients. Br J Dermatol. 2008;159(4):942–51. 103. Neumann E, Amtage D, Bruckner-Tuderman L, et al. 114. Remitz A, Harper J, Rustin M, European Tacrolimus A single-center open-label long-term comparison of Ointment Study Group, et al. Long-term safety and tacrolimus ointment and topical corticosteroids for efﬁcacy of tacrolimus ointment for the treatment of treatment of atopic dermatitis. J Dtsch Dermatol atopic dermatitis in children. Acta Derm Venereol. Ges. 2008;6(7):548–53. 2007;87(1):54–61. 104. Paller AS, Eichenﬁeld LF, Kirsner RS, US Tacrolimus 115. Ring J, Abraham A, de Cuyper C, et al. Control of Ointment Study Group, et al. Three times weekly atopic eczema with pimecrolimus cream 1% under tacrolimus ointment reduces relapse in stabilized daily practice conditions: results of a[ 2000 patient atopic dermatitis: a new paradigm for use. Pedi- study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2008;22(2): atrics. 2008;122(6):e1210–8. 195–203. 370 Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 116. Schachner LA, Lamerson C, Sheehan MP, US 126. Thaci D, Chambers C, Sidhu M, et al. Twice-weekly Tacrolimus Ointment Study Group, et al. Tacroli- treatment with tacrolimus 0.03% ointment in mus ointment 0.03% is safe and effective for the children with atopic dermatitis: clinical efﬁcacy and treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in economic impact over 12 months. J Eur Acad Der- pediatric patients: results from a randomized, dou- matol Venereol. 2010;24(9):1040–6. ble-blind, vehicle-controlled study. Pediatrics. 2005;116(3):e334–42. 127. Thaci D, Reitamo S, Gonzalez Ensenat MA, Euro- pean Tacrolimus Ointment Study Group, et al. 117. Schneider L, Haniﬁn J, Boguniewicz M, et al. Study Proactive disease management with 0.03% tacroli- of the atopic March: development of atopic mus ointment for children with atopic dermatitis: comorbidities. Pediatr Dermatol. 2016;33(4): results of a randomized, multicentre, comparative 388–98. study. Br J Dermatol. 2008;159(6):1348–56. 118. Siegfried E, Korman N, Molina C, et al. Safety and 128. Thompson MM, Haniﬁn JM. Effective therapy of efﬁcacy of early intervention with pimecrolimus childhood atopic dermatitis allays food allergy cream 1% combined with corticosteroids for major concerns. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53(2 Suppl ﬂares in infants and children with atopic dermatitis. 2):S214–9. J Dermatol Treat. 2006;17(3):143–50. 129. Yeung CK, Ma KC, Chan HH. Efﬁcacy and safety of 119. Sigurgeirsson B, Boznanski A, Todd G, et al. Safety tacrolimus ointment monotherapy in chinese chil- and efﬁcacy of pimecrolimus in atopic dermatitis: a dren with atopic dermatitis. Skinmed. 5-year randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2015;135(4): 2006;5(1):12–7. 597–606. 130. Zuberbier T, Brautigam M. Long-term management 120. Sigurgeirsson B, Ho V, Ferrandiz C, Pimecrolimus of facial atopic eczema with pimecrolimus cream 1% cream in (paediatric) eczema: prevention of 1% in paediatric patients with mild to moderate progression multi-centre investigator study group, disease. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. et al. Effectiveness and safety of a prevention-of- 2008;22(6):718–21. ﬂare-progression strategy with pimecrolimus cream 1% in the management of paediatric atopic der- 131. Zuberbier T, Heinzerling L, Bieber T, et al. Steroid- matitis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. sparing effect of pimecrolimus cream 1% in chil- 2008;22(11):1290–301. dren with severe atopic dermatitis. Dermatology. 2007;215(4):325–30. 121. Simon D, Lubbe J, Wuthrich B, et al. Beneﬁts from the use of a pimecrolimus-based treatment in the 132. Boguniewicz M, Paller AS, Tom WL, et al. Efﬁcacy management of atopic dermatitis in clinical prac- and safety of crisaborole topical ointment, 2%, a tice. Analysis of a Swiss cohort. Dermatology. novel, nonsteroidal, topical, anti-inﬂammatory, 2006;213(4):313–8. phosphodiesterase inhibitor in 2 phase 3 studies in children and adults with mild-to-moderate atopic 122. Singalavanija S, Noppakun N, Limpongsanuruk W, dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;137(2 et al. Efﬁcacy and safety of tacrolimus ointment in Suppl 1):AB397. pediatric patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. J Med Assoc Thai. 2006;89(11):1915–22. 133. Draelos ZD, Stein Gold L, Murrell D, et al. Post-hoc analyses of the effect of AN2728 topical ointment, 123. Spergel JM, Boguniewicz M, Schneider L, et al. Food 2% on atopic dermatitis-associated pruritus. Pre- allergy in infants with atopic dermatitis: limitations sented at 24th annual congress of the European of food-speciﬁc IgE measurements. Pediatrics. Academy of Dermatology and Venereology; 2015; 2015;136(6):e1530–8. Copenhagen, EADV 2015. 124. Staab D, Kaufmann R, Brautigam M, 134. Eichenﬁeld L, Call R, Forsha D, et al. Long-term CASM981CDE04-Study Group, et al. Treatment of safety of crisaborole in children and adults with infants with atopic eczema with pimecrolimus mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis. Pediatr Der- cream 1% improves parents’ quality of life: a mul- matol. 2016;33(Suppl 1):S46–7. ticenter, randomized trial. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2005;16(6):527–33. 135. Fowler J, Cook-Bolden F, Pariser D, et al. Crisaborole ointment improves global atopic dermatitis sever- 125. Stiehm ER, Roberts RL, Kaplan MS, et al. Pneumo- ity: pooled results from two phase 3 clinical trials. coccal seroconversion after vaccination for children J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(6 Suppl 1):AB86. with atopic dermatitis treated with tacrolimus ointment. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53(2 Suppl 136. Guttman-Yassky E, Haniﬁn J, Murell D, et al. Cris- 2):S206–13. aborole ointment provides early relief of pruritus regardless of baseline disease severity in two phase 3 Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 371 clinical trials in patients with mild or moderate AD. 146. Stein Gold LF, Spelman L, Spellman MC, et al. A J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(6 Suppl 1):AB86. phase 2, randomized, controlled, dose-ranging study evaluating crisaborole topical ointment, 0.5% 137. Haniﬁn JM, Ellis CN, Frieden IJ, et al. OPA-15406, a and 2% in adolescents with mild to moderate atopic novel, topical, nonsteroidal, selective phosphodi- dermatitis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2015;14(12):1394–9. esterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor, in the treatment of adult and adolescent patients with mild to moder- 147. Zane LT, Kircik L, Call R, et al. Crisaborole topical ate atopic dermatitis (AD): a phase-II randomized, ointment, 2% in patients ages 2 to 17 years with double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Am Acad atopic dermatitis: a phase 1b, open-label, maximal- Dermatol. 2016;75(2):297–305. use systemic exposure study. Pediatr Dermatol. 2016;33(4):380–7. 138. Hebert AA, Eichenﬁeld L, Lebwohl MG, Elsevier, et al. Reduced pruritus and signs of atopic der- 148. Canpolat F, Erkocoglu M, Tezer H, et al. Hydrocor- matitis in phase 3 trials with a nonsteroidal topical tisone acetate alone or combined with mupirocin phosphodiesterase inhibitor, crisaborole. J Investig for atopic dermatitis in infants under two years of Dermatol. 2016;136(5):S49. age—a randomized double blind pilot trial. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012;16(14):1989–93. 139. Murrell D, Spelman L, Tom W, et al. AN2728 topical ointment, 2% in the treatment of children, adoles- 149. Gong JQ, Lin L, Lin T, et al. Skin colonization by cents, and adults with atopic dermatitis: summary Staphylococcus aureus in patients with eczema and of the phase 1b/2 studies. Presented at 24th annual atopic dermatitis and relevant combined topical congress of the European Academy of Dermatology therapy: a double-blind multicentre randomized and Venereology; 2015; Copenhagen, EADV 2015. controlled trial. Br J Dermatol. 2006;155(4):680–7. 140. Nemoto O, Hayashi N, Kitahara Y, Japanese E6005 150. Hebert AA, Koo J, Fowler J, et al. Desoximetasone Study Investigators, et al. Effect of topical phos- 0.25% and tacrolimus 0.1% ointments versus phodiesterase 4 inhibitor E6005 on Japanese chil- tacrolimus alone in the treatment of atopic der- dren with atopic dermatitis: results from a matitis. Cutis. 2006;78(5):357–63. randomized, vehicle-controlled exploratory trial. J Dermatol. 2016;43(8):881–7. 151. Hon KL, Wang SS, Lee KK, et al. Combined antibi- otic/corticosteroid cream in the empirical treatment 141. Paller A, Tom W, Lebwohl M, et al. Two phase 3 of moderate to severe eczema: friend or foe? J Drugs studies in atopic dermatitis with crisaborole, the Dermatol. 2012;11(7):861–4. novel, nonsteroidal topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor. Pediatr Dermatol. 2016;33(Suppl 1):S19. 152. Hung SH, Lin YT, Chu CY, et al. Staphylococcus colonization in atopic dermatitis treated with ﬂu- 142. Paller A, Tom W, Lebwohl MM, et al. Crisaborole ticasone or tacrolimus with or without antibiotics. topical ointment, 2%: A novel, nonsteroidal, topical Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2007;98(1):51–6. antiinﬂammatory, phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor: results from two phase 3 studies treating children 153. Janmohamed SR, Oranje AP, Devillers AC, et al. The and adult patients with mild to moderate atopic proactive wet-wrap method with diluted corticos- dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74(5 Suppl teroids versus emollients in children with atopic 1):AB86. dermatitis: a prospective, randomized, double- blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 143. Paller AS, Tom WL, Call RS, et al. Phase 3 studies in 2014;70(6):1076–82. atopic dermatitis with the novel, nonsteroidal topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, crisaborole. 154. Kubota Y, Yoneda K, Nakai K, et al. Effect of J Investig Dermatol. 2016;136(5):S50. sequential applications of topical tacrolimus and topical corticosteroids in the treatment of pediatric 144. Simpson E, Paller A, Boguniewicz M, et al. Cris- atopic dermatitis: an open-label pilot study. J Am aborole demonstrates improvement in quality of Acad Dermatol. 2009;60(2):212–7. life in patients with mild to moderate atopic der- matitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 155. Leloup P, Stalder JF, Barbarot S. Outpatient home-based 2016;117(5):S20–1. wet wrap dressings with topical steroids with children with severe recalcitrant atopic dermatitis: a feasibility 145. Simpson E, Paller A, Boguniewicz M, et al. Cris- pilot study. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32(4):e177–8. aborole topical ointment, 2%, demonstrates improvement in the quality of life of patients with 156. Meurer M, Eichenﬁeld LF, Ho V, et al. Addition of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis. Presented at pimecrolimus cream 1% to a topical corticosteroid 25th annual congress of the European Academy of treatment regimen in paediatric patients with sev- Dermatology and Venereology; 2016; Vienna, ere atopic dermatitis: a randomized, double-blind EADV 2016. trial. J Dermatol Treat. 2010;21(3):157–66. 372 Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 157. Msika P, De Belilovsky C, Piccardi N, et al. New 168. Garrido Colmenero C, Blasco Morente G, Tercedor emollient with topical corticosteroid-sparing effect Sanchez J. Oral cyclosporine weekend therapy: a in treatment of childhood atopic dermatitis: new maintenance therapeutic option in patients SCORAD and quality of life improvement. Pediatr with severe atopic dermatitis. Pediatr Dermatol. Dermatol. 2008;25(6):606–12. 2015;32(4):551–2. 158. O’Keeffe C, Cox H, Leitao E, et al. Atopic eczema— 169. Cauﬁeld M, Tom WL. Oral azathioprine for recal- can a multidisciplinary and multisystem approach citrant pediatric atopic dermatitis: clinical response avoid the need for systemic immunosuppression? and thiopurine monitoring. J Am Acad Dermatol. Allergy. 2014;69(Suppl 99):584. 2013;68(1):29–35. 159. Sikder AU, Al Mamun S, Khan RM, et al. Topical 170. El-Khalawany MA, Hassan H, Shaaban D, et al. 0.03% tacrolimus ointment, 0.05% clobetasone Methotrexate versus cyclosporine in the treatment butyrate cream alone and their combination in of severe atopic dermatitis in children: a multicen- older children with atopic dermatitis—an open ter experience from Egypt. Eur J Pediatr. randomized comparative study. J Pak Assoc Der- 2013;172(3):351–6. matol. 2005;15(4):304–12. 171. Kwon HB, Ahn BJ, Choi Y, et al. Combination of 160. Simpson E, Dutronc Y. A new body moisturizer glucosamine improved therapeutic effect of low- increases skin hydration and improves atopic der- dose cyclosporin A in patients with atopic der- matitis symptoms among children and adults. matitis: a pilot study. J Dermatol. 2013;40(3): J Drugs Dermatol. 2011;10(7):744–9. 207–10. 161. Spergel JM, Boguniewicz M, Paller AS, et al. Addi- 172. Jin SY, Lim WS, Sung NH, et al. Combination of tion of topical pimecrolimus to once-daily mid-po- glucosamine and low-dose cyclosporine for atopic tent steroid confers no short-term therapeutic dermatitis treatment: a randomized, placebo-con- beneﬁt in the treatment of severe atopic dermatitis; trolled, double-blind, parallel clinical trial. Derma- a randomized controlled trial. Br J Dermatol. tol Ther. 2015;28(1):44–51. 2007;157(2):378–81. 173. Meggitt SJ, Gray JC, Reynolds NJ. Azathioprine 162. Szczepanowska J, Reich A, Szepietowski JC. Emol- dosed by thiopurine methyltransferase activity for lients improve treatment results with topical corti- moderate-to-severe atopic eczema: a double-blind, costeroids in childhood atopic dermatitis: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. randomized comparative study. Pediatr Allergy 2006;367(9513):839–46. Immunol. 2008;19(7):614–8. 174. Adil H, Siegfried E, Armbrecht E. Systemic treatment 163. Tzung TY, Lin CB, Chen YH, et al. Pimecrolimus for severe pediatric atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad and narrowband UVB as monotherapy or combi- Dermatol. 2015;72(5 Suppl 1):AB76. nation therapy in children and adolescents with atopic dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol. 175. Deo M, Yung A, Hill S, et al. Methotrexate for 2006;86(1):34–8. treatment of atopic dermatitis in children and adolescents. Int J Dermatol. 2014;53(8):1037–41. 164. Tan WP, Suresh S, Tey HL, et al. A randomized double-blind controlled trial to compare a triclosan- 176. Heller M, Shin HT, Orlow SJ, et al. Mycophenolate containing emollient with vehicle for the treatment mofetil for severe childhood atopic dermatitis: of atopic dermatitis. Clin Exp Dermatol. experience in 14 patients. Br J Dermatol. 2010;35(4):e109–12. 2007;157(1):127–32. 165. Horiuchi Y. Topical streptococcal preparation, OK- 177. Hernandez-Martin A, Noguera-Morel L, Torrelo A, 432, for atopic dermatitis. J Dermatol Treat. et al. Cyclosporin therapy in children with severe 2005;16(2):117–20. atopic dermatitis. Efﬁcacy and adverse effects pro- ﬁle assessment. Pediatr Dermatol. 2016;33(Suppl 166. Hon KL, Ching GK, Leung TF, et al. Efﬁcacy and 1):S45. tolerability at 3 and 6 months following use of azathioprine for recalcitrant atopic dermatitis in 178. Kudryavtseva A, Balabolkin I, Ksenzova L, et al. children and young adults. J Dermatol Treat. Cyclosporin A and resistant atopic dermatitis with 2009;20(3):141–5. children. Allergy. 2015;70(Suppl 101):534. 167. Waxweiler WT, Agans R, Morrell DS. Systemic 179. Almeida JP, Tapadinhas MC, Marques MS. Clinical treatment of pediatric atopic dermatitis with aza- efﬁcacy of oral azathioprine for severe refractory thioprine and mycophenolate mofetil. Pediatr Der- pediatric atopic eczema. Allergy. 2014;69(Suppl matol. 2011;28(6):689–94. 99):237–8. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 373 180. Beaumont DR, Arkwright PD. Factors determining 191. Marogna M, Braidi C, Colombo C, et al. Can sub- the effectiveness of oral ciclosporin in the treatment lingual allergen immunotherapy for house dust of severe childhood atopic dermatitis. J Dermatol mites inﬂuence the long-term evolution of severe Treat. 2012;23(5):318–22. atopic dermatitis and the progression to respiratory allergy? Results of an observational comparison 181. Martinez-Tadeo JA, Hernandez-Santana G, Rodri- with pharmacotherapy. Allergy. 2015;70(Suppl guez-Plata E, et al. Case report: speciﬁc 101):461. immunotherapy with dust mite allergens in a child with severe atopic dermatitis. Allergol Immuno- 192. Wyrzykowska N, Czarnecka-Operacz M, Adamski Z. pathol (Madr). 2011;39(5):310–1. Long-term efﬁcacy of allergen speciﬁc immunotherapy in atopic dermatitis patients in 182. Kwon YS, Oh SH, Wu WH, et al. CC chemokines as relation to quality of life. Eur Ann Allergy Clin potential immunologic markers correlated with Immunol. 2015;47(1):5–9. clinical improvement of atopic dermatitis patients by immunotherapy. Exp Dermatol. 2010;19(3): 193. Berth-Jones J, Arkwright PD, Marasovic D, et al. 246–51. Killed Mycobacterium vaccae suspension in children with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a ran- 183. Nahm DH, Kim ME, Kwon B, et al. Clinical efﬁcacy domized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. of subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy in Clin Exp Allergy. 2006;36(9):1115–21. patients with atopic dermatitis. Yonsei Med J. 2016;57(6):1420–6. 194. Pajno GB, Caminiti L, Vita D, et al. Sublingual immunotherapy in mite-sensitized children with 184. Nahm DH, Lee ES, Park HJ, et al. Treatment of atopic dermatitis: a randomized, double-blind, pla- atopic dermatitis with a combination of allergen- cebo-controlled study. J Allergy Clin Immunol. speciﬁc immunotherapy and a histamine-im- 2007;120(1):164–70. munoglobulin complex. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2008;146(3):235–40. 195. Davies MG, Symons C, Shaw S, et al. An open study to assess the efﬁcacy clinically and immunologically 185. Cadario G, Galluccio AG, Pezza M, et al. Sublingual of M. vaccae vaccine in patients with atopic der- immunotherapy efﬁcacy in patients with atopic matitis. J Dermatol Treat. 2006;17(2):74–7. dermatitis and house dust mites sensitivity: a prospective pilot study. Curr Med Res Opin. 196. Sanchez J, Cardona R. Effect of immunotherapy on 2007;23(10):2503–6. basophil activation induced by allergens in patients with atopic dermatitis. Rev Alerg Mex. 186. Brunetti L, Francavilla R, Tesse R, et al. Effects of 2014;61(3):168–77. oral bacterial immunotherapy in children with atopic eczema/dermatitis syndrome: a pilot study. 197. Di Rienzo V, Cadario G, Grieco T, et al. Sublingual BioDrugs. 2005;19(6):393–9. immunotherapy in mite-sensitized children with atopic dermatitis: a randomized, open, parallel- 187. Morais-Almeida M, Arede C, Sampaio G, et al. group study. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. Ultrarush schedule of subcutaneous immunother- 2014;113(6):671.e1–673.e1. apy with modiﬁed allergen extracts is safe in pae- diatric age. Asia Pac Allergy. 2016;6(1):35–42. 198. Cardona R, Lopez E, Beltran J, et al. Safety of immunotherapy in patients with rhinitis, asthma or 188. Czarnecka-Operacz M, Silny W. Speciﬁc atopic dermatitis using an ultra-rush buildup. A immunotherapy in atopic dermatitis—Four-year retrospective study. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). treatment in different age and airborne allergy type 2014;42(2):90–5. subgroups. Acta Dermatovenerol Croat. 2006;14(4):230–40. 199. Slavyanskaya T, Derkach V. Targeted therapy in children with atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin 189. Zhong H, Deng X, Song Z, et al. Immunological Immunol. 2016;137(2 Suppl 1):AB148. changes after ASIT in AD allergen-speciﬁc immunotherapy and their potential correlation 200. Caruso C, Gaeta F, Valluzzi RL, et al. Omalizumab with clinical response in patients with atopic der- efﬁcacy in a girl with atopic eczema. Allergy. matitis patients sensitized to house dust mite. J Eur 2010;65(2):278–9. Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015;29(7):1318–24. 201. Geraldo DJ, Mendes A, Pedro E, et al. Asthma and 190. Czarnecka-Operacz M, Silny W. Immunological atopic eczema in a child: successful treatment with parameters in the sera of patients with atopic der- omalizumab. Rev Port Imunoalergol. matitis and airborne allergy treated with allergy 2013;21(1):49–53. vaccines. Acta Dermatovenerol Croat. 2006;14(1):8–20. 374 Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 202. Wlodek C, Hewitt H, Kennedy CT. Use of ustek- 216. Puviani M, Agostinis F, Milani M. Barrier repair inumab for severe refractory atopic dermatitis in a therapy for facial atopic eczema with a non-ster- young teenager. Clin Exp Dermatol. oidal emollient cream containing rhamnosoft, cer- 2016;41(6):625–7. amides and iso-leucine. A six-case report series. Minerva Pediatr. 2014;66(4):307–11. 203. Amrol D. Anti-immunoglobulin E in the treatment of refractory atopic dermatitis. South Med J. 217. Flores GE, Seite S, Henley JB, et al. Microbiome of 2010;103(6):554–8. affected and unaffected skin of patients with atopic dermatitis before and after emollient treatment. 204. Eguı ´luz-Gracia I, Robledo-Echarren T, Sua ´ rez-Fer- J Drugs Dermatol. 2014;13(11):1365–72. na ´ndez R, et al. Omalizumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis. Clin Investig (Lond). 218. Gelmetti C, Boralevi F, Seite S, et al. Quality of life 2015;5(2):121–36. of parents living with a child suffering from atopic dermatitis before and after a 3-month treatment 205. Lacombe Barrios J, Begin P, Paradis L, et al. Anti-IgE with an emollient. Pediatr Dermatol. therapy and severe atopic dermatitis: a pediatric 2012;29(6):714–8. perspective. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;69(5):832–4. 219. Hon KL, Pong NH, Wang SS, et al. Acceptability and 206. Lane JE, Cheyney JM, Lane TN, et al. Treatment of efﬁcacy of an emollient containing ceramide-pre- recalcitrant atopic dermatitis with omalizumab. cursor lipids and moisturizing factors for atopic J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54(1):68–72. dermatitis in pediatric patients. Drugs R D. 2013;13(1):37–42. 207. Sheinkopf LE, Raﬁ AW, Do LT, et al. Efﬁcacy of omalizumab in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a 220. Hon KL, Tsang YC, Pong NH, et al. Patient accept- pilot study. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2008;29(5):530–7. ability, efﬁcacy, and skin biophysiology of a cream and cleanser containing lipid complex with shea 208. Ramirez del Pozo ME, Contreras Contreras E, Lopez butter extract versus a ceramide product for eczema. Hong Kong Med J. 2015;21(5):417–25. Tiro J, et al. Omalizumab (an anti-IgE antibody) in the treatment of severe atopic eczema. J Investig 221. Ionescu MA, Chene G, Robert G, et al. Anti-in- Allergol Clin Immunol. 2011;21(5):416–7. ﬂammatory mediators lipoxins and maresin up- regulation by a topical amide in keratinocytes and 209. Iyengar SR, Hoyte EG, Loza A, et al. Immunologic effects of omalizumab in children with severe dendritic cells and clinical application in a series of refractory atopic dermatitis: a randomized, placebo- 72 cases of atopic dermatitis. Presented at 25th controlled clinical trial. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. annual congress of the European Academy of Der- 2013;162(1):89–93. matology and Venereology; 2016; Vienna, EADV 210. Nahm DH, Kim ME. Treatment of severe atopic dermatitis with a combination of subcutaneous 222. Kim H, Ban J, Park MR, et al. Effect of bathing on allergen immunotherapy and cyclosporin. Yonsei atopic dermatitis during the summer season. Asia Med J. 2012;53(1):158–63. Pac Allergy. 2012;2(4):269–74. 211. Slavyanskaya T, Derkach V. Targeted therapy as a 223. Lisante TA, Mathes B, Zhang P, et al. Therapeutic basic issue of atopic dermatitis’ management in beneﬁts of an over-the-counter daily moisturizing patients. Allergy. 2016;71(Suppl 102):399. 1% colloidal oatmeal cream on dry, itchy skin due to atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 212. Derkach V, Slavyanskaya T, Sangidorj B. Combina- 2015;72(5 Suppl 1):76. tion immunotropic therapy of atopic dermatitis in children: cost-beneﬁt analysis. J Allergy Clin 224. Lynde CW, Andriessen A. A cohort study on a cer- Immunol. 2015;135(2 Suppl 1):AB265. amide-containing cleanser and moisturizer used for atopic dermatitis. Cutis. 2014;93(4):207–13. 213. Slavyanskaya T, Derkach V. Rationale for the use of multiagent immunotherapy in children with atopic 225. Meckfessel MH, Hernandez K, Pham H. Perfor- dermatitis. Allergy. 2014;69(Suppl 99):190. mance and parent satisfaction of a moisturizer used for atopic-prone babies and toddlers. J Am Acad 214. Saporito RC, Cohen DJ. Apremilast use for moder- Dermatol. 2017;76(6 Suppl 1):194. ate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in pediatric patients. Case Rep Dermatol. 2016;8(2):179–84. 226. Mochizuki H, Muramatsu R, Tadaki H, et al. Effects of skin care with shower therapy on children with 215. Van Onselen J. Itching to get over it. J Fam Health atopic dermatitis in elementary schools. Pediatr Care. 2011;21(3):12-4, 16. Dermatol. 2009;26(2):223–5. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 375 227. Simpson E, Trookman NS, Rizer RL, et al. Safety and 238. Eberlein B, Eicke C, Reinhardt HW, et al. Adjuvant tolerability of a body wash and moisturizer when treatment of atopic eczema: assessment of an applied to infants and toddlers with a history of emollient containing N-palmitoylethanolamine atopic dermatitis: results from an open-label study. (ATOPA study). J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. Pediatr Dermatol. 2012;29(5):590–7. 2008;22(1):73–82. 228. Weber TM, Herndon JH Jr, Ewer M, et al. Efﬁcacy 239. Hon KL, Wang SS, Lau Z, et al. Pseudoceramide for and tolerability of steroid-free, over-the-counter childhood eczema: does it work? Hong Kong Med J. treatment formulations in infants and children 2011;17(2):132–6. with atopic dermatitis. J Dermatol Nurses Assoc. 2015;7(1):17–24. 240. Virassamynaik S, Sayag M, Jourdan E. The interest of an emollient use during and after topical corti- 229. Agostinis F, Milani M. Barrier repair therapy in costeroid treatment in subjects with atopic der- atopic eczema: efﬁcacy of an isoleucine, rhamnosoft matitis. Presented at 25th annual congress of the and niacinamide body cream. A pilot, prospective European Academy of Dermatology and Venereol- study. Presented at 24th annual congress of the ogy; 2016; Vienna, EADV 2016. European Academy of Dermatology and Venereol- ogy; 2015; Copenhagen, EADV 2015. 241. Tiplica GS, Delarue A, Marinescu R, et al. Emollients in the management of atopic dermatitis in children: 230. Mengeaud V, Phulpin C, Bacquey A, et al. An prevention of ﬂares. Presented at 23rd annual con- innovative oat-based sterile emollient cream in the gress of the European Academy of Dermatology and maintenance therapy of childhood atopic dermati- Venereology; 2014; Amsterdam, EADV 2014. tis. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32(2):208–15. 242. Wananukul S, Chatproedprai S, Chunharas A, et al. 231. Nocera T, Bacquey A, Rossi AB, et al. Tolerance and Randomized, double-blind, split-side, comparison efﬁcacy of a new emollient barrier cream in paedi- study of moisturizer containing licochalcone A and atric and adult population with mild to moderate 1% hydrocortisone in the treatment of childhood atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(6 atopic dermatitis. J Med Assoc Thai. Suppl 1):261. 2013;96(9):1135–42. 232. Seghers AC, Cai SC, Ho MS, et al. Evaluation of a 243. Frankel A, Sohn A, Patel RV, et al. Bilateral com- pseudoceramide moisturizer in patients with mild- parison study of pimecrolimus cream 1% and a to-moderate atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Ther ceramide–hyaluronic acid emollient foam in the (Heidelb). 2014;4(1):83–92. treatment of patients with atopic dermatitis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2011;10(6):666–72. 233. Silverberg NB. A pilot trial of dermoscopy as a rapid assessment tool in pediatric dermatoses. Cutis. 244. Tsang YC, Hon KL, Pong NH, et al. Efﬁcacy of 2011;87(3):148–54. sodium hypochlorite (bleach) baths to reduce Sta- phylococcus aureus colonization in patients with 234. Daehnhardt-Pfeiffer S, Surber C, Wilhelm KP, et al. moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Allergy. Noninvasive stratum corneum sampling and elec- 2015;70(Suppl 101):81. tron microscopical examination of skin barrier integrity: pilot study with a topical glycerin for- 245. Gayraud F, Imko-Walczuk B, Sayag M, et al. Com- mulation for atopic dermatitis. Skin Pharmacol parative, randomized, double-blinded study assess- Physiol. 2012;25(3):155–61. ing the efﬁcacy of a new kind of dermocosmetic product containing Skin Barrier Therapy on 235. Hon KL, Ching GK, Leung TF, et al. Estimating infants and children with moderate atopic der- emollient usage in patients with eczema. Clin Exp matitis. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2014;12(Suppl Dermatol. 2010;35(1):22–6. 2):14–5. 236. Koutroulis I, Pyle T, Kopylov D, et al. The associa- 246. Ridd M, Gaunt DM, Garﬁeld K, et al. Effectiveness tion between bathing habits and severity of atopic and acceptability of four commonly used leave-on dermatitis in children. Clin Pediatr (Phila). emollients in the treatment of childhood eczema. 2016;55(2):176–81. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175(Suppl S1):160. 237. Coutanceau C, Stalder JF. Analysis of correlations 247. Bianchi P, Theunis J, Casas C, et al. Effects of a new between patient-oriented SCORAD (PO-SCORAD) emollient-based treatment on skin microﬂora bal- and other assessment scores of atopic dermatitis ance and barrier function in children with mild severity and quality of life. Dermatology. atopic dermatitis. Pediatr Dermatol. 2014;229(3):248–55. 2016;33(2):165–71. 376 Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 248. Giordano-Labadie F, Cambazard F, Guillet G, et al. cromoglicate (Altoderm) in atopic dermatitis in Evaluation of a new moisturizer (Exomega milk) in children aged 2–12 years: a double-blind, random- children with atopic dermatitis. J Dermatol Treat. ized, placebo-controlled trial. Br J Dermatol. 2006;17(2):78–81. 2005;152(2):334–41. 249. Hlela C, Lunjani N, Gumedze F, et al. Affordable 259. Tripodi S, Di Rienzo Businco A, Panetta V, et al. moisturisers are effective in atopic eczema: a ran- Lack of efﬁcacy of topical furfuryl palmitate in domised controlled trial. S Afr Med J. pediatric atopic dermatitis: a randomized double- 2015;105(9):780–4. blind study. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2009;19(3):204–9. 250. Weber TM, Samarin F, Babcock MJ, et al. Steroid- free over-the-counter eczema skin care formulations 260. Boralevi F, Saint Aroman M, Delarue A, et al. Long- reduce risk of ﬂare, prolong time to ﬂare, and reduce term emollient therapy improves xerosis in children eczema symptoms in pediatric subjects with atopic with atopic dermatitis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Vener- dermatitis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2015;14(5):478–85. eol. 2014;28(11):1456–62. 251. Wong SM, Ng TG, Baba R. Efﬁcacy and safety of 261. Gayraud F, Sayag M, Jourdan E. Efﬁcacy and toler- sodium hypochlorite (bleach) baths in patients with ance assessment of a new type of dermocosmetic in moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in Malaysia. infants and children with moderate atopic der- J Dermatol. 2013;40(11):874–80. matitis. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2015;14(2):107–12. 252. Sugarman JL, Parish LC. Efﬁcacy of a lipid-based 262. Korting HC, Schollmann C, Cholcha W, Collabo- barrier repair formulation in moderate-to-severe rative Study Group, et al. Efﬁcacy and tolerability of pediatric atopic dermatitis. J Drugs Dermatol. pale sulfonated shale oil cream 4% in the treatment 2009;8(12):1106–11. of mild to moderate atopic eczema in children: a multicentre, randomized vehicle-controlled trial. 253. Marseglia A, Licari A, Agostinis F, et al. Local J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2010;24(10): 1176–82. rhamnosoft, ceramides and L-isoleucine in atopic eczema: a randomized, placebo controlled trial. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2014;25(3):271–5. 263. Patrizi A, Raone B, Neri I, et al. Randomized, con- trolled, double-blind clinical study evaluating the 254. Weber TM, Samarin F, Babcock MJ, Filbry A, et al. A safety and efﬁcacy of MD2011001 cream in mild-to- novel daily moisturizing cream for effective man- moderate atopic dermatitis of the face and neck in agement of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in children, adolescents and adults. J Dermatol Treat. infants and children. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;27(4):346–50. 2015;72(5 Suppl 1):AB73. 264. Hajar T, Haniﬁn JM, Tofte SJ, et al. Prehydration is 255. Grimalt R, Mengeaud V, Cambazard F, Study effective for rapid control of recalcitrant atopic Investigators’ Group. The steroid-sparing effect of dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2014;25(2):56–9. an emollient therapy in infants with atopic der- matitis: a randomized controlled study. Dermatol- 265. Taieb C, Delas M. Evaluation of 2 different drug ogy. 2007;214(1):61–7. related in atopic dermatitis managements. Pre- sented at 23rd annual congress of the European 256. Theunis J, Bianchi P, Villeneuve C, et al. Evaluation Academy of Dermatology and Venereology; 2014; on clinical, functional and microbiological param- Amsterdam, EADV 2014. eters of a novel emollient balm containing an Aquaphilus dolomiae extract in 1-to-4 years old 266. Barbarot S, Aubert H, Stalder J-F. How patient-re- children suffering from atopic dermatitis: interna- ported outcomes can be useful in routine practice in tional, multicenter, randomized versus control children with atopic dermatitis? Pediatr Dermatol. group. Presented at 23rd annual congress of the 2016;33(Suppl 1):S46. European Academy of Dermatology and Venereol- ogy; 2014; Amsterdam, EADV 2014. 267. Kircik LH, Del Rosso JQ. Nonsteroidal treatment of atopic dermatitis in pediatric patients with a cer- 257. Patrizi A, Capitanio B, Neri I, et al. A double-blind, amide-dominant topical emulsion formulated with randomized, vehicle-controlled clinical study to an optimized ratio of physiological lipids. J Clin evaluate the efﬁcacy and safety of MAS063DP Aesthet Dermatol. 2011;4(12):25–31. (ATOPICLAIR) in the management of atopic der- matitis in paediatric patients. Pediatr Allergy 268. Ong PY, Ferdman RM, Dunaway T, et al. Down- Immunol. 2008;19(7):619–25. regulation of atopic dermatitis-associated serum chemokines by wet-wrap treatment: a pilot study. 258. Stainer R, Matthews S, Arshad SH, et al. Efﬁcacy and Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008;100(3):286–7. acceptability of a new topical skin lotion of sodium Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) (2018) 8:349–377 377 269. Hon KL, Wong KY, Cheung LK, et al. Efﬁcacy and children: a single-center retrospective review. Pedi- problems associated with using a wet-wrap garment atr Dermatol. 2016;33(Suppl 1):S20–1. for children with severe atopic dermatitis. J Derma- tol Treat. 2007;18(5):301–5. 282. Mok ZR, Koh MJ, Chong WS. Is phototherapy useful in the treatment of atopic dermatitis in asian chil- 270. Nicol NH, Boguniewicz M, Strand M, et al. Wet dren? A 5-year report from Singapore. Pediatr Der- wrap therapy in children with moderate to severe matol. 2014;31(6):698–702. atopic dermatitis in a multidisciplinary treatment program. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2014;2(4): 283. Patrizi A, Savoia F, Giacomini F, et al. The effect of 400–6. summer holidays and sun exposure on atopic der- matitis. G Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2009;144(4): 271. Hindley D, Galloway G, Murray J, et al. A ran- 463–6. domised study of wet wraps versus conventional treatment for atopic eczema. Arch Dis Child. 284. He A, Feldman SR, Fleischer AB. Trends in atopic 2006;91(2):164–8. dermatitis management: comparison of 1990–1997 to 2003–2012. J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17(2): 272. Yun Y, Lee S, Kim S, et al. Inpatient treatment for 135–40. severe atopic dermatitis in a Traditional Korean Medicine hospital: introduction and retrospective 285. Eichenﬁeld LF, Boguniewicz M, Simpson EL, et al. chart review. Complement Ther Med. 2013;21(3): Translating atopic dermatitis management guideli- 200–6. nes into practice for primary care providers. Pedi- atrics. 2015;136(3):554–65. 273. Baltas E, Csoma Z, Bodai L, et al. Treatment of atopic dermatitis with the xenon chloride excimer laser. 286. Bath-Hextall FJ, Birnie AJ, Ravenscroft JC, et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2006;20(6):657–60. Interventions to reduce Staphylococcus aureus in the management of atopic eczema: an updated 274. Darne S, Leech SN, Taylor AE. Narrowband ultravi- Cochrane review. Br J Dermatol. 2010;163(1):12–26. olet B phototherapy in children with moderate-to- severe eczema: a comparative cohort study. Br J 287. Schmitt J, Buske-Kirschbaum A, Tesch F, et al. Dermatol. 2014;170(1):150–6. Increased attention-deﬁcit/hyperactivity symptoms in atopic dermatitis are associated with history of 275. Cameron H, Yule S, Dawe RS, et al. Review of an antihistamine use. Allergy. 2018;73(3):615–26. established UK home phototherapy service 1998–2011: improving access to a cost-effective 288. Simpson EL, Berry TM, Brown PA, et al. A pilot treatment for chronic skin disease. Public Health. study of emollient therapy for the primary preven- 2014;128(4):317–24. tion of atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;63(4):587–93. 276. Clayton TH, Clark SM, Turner D, et al. The treat- ment of severe atopic dermatitis in childhood with 289. Simpson EL, Chalmers JR, Haniﬁn JM, et al. Emol- narrowband ultraviolet B phototherapy. Clin Exp lient enhancement of the skin barrier from birth Dermatol. 2007;32(1):28–33. offers effective atopic dermatitis prevention. J Al- lergy Clin Immunol. 2014;134(4):818–23. 277. Jury CS, McHenry P, Burden AD, et al. Narrowband ultraviolet B (UVB) phototherapy in children. Clin 290. Dizon MP, Yu AM, Singh RK, et al. Systematic Exp Dermatol. 2006;31(2):196–9. review of atopic dermatitis disease deﬁnition in studies using routinely collected health data. Br J 278. Mamtora A, Gambles BJ, Lloyd A, et al. Photother- Dermatol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.16340. apy for paediatric dermatoses: data from a single- centre retrospective survey. Br J Dermatol. 291. Protopic (tacrolimus) ointment 0.03% and oint- 2016;175(Suppl S1):164. ment 0.1% (US package insert). Northbook: Astellas Pharma US, Inc. 2012. 279. Pavlovsky M, Baum S, Shpiro D, et al. Narrow band UVB: is it effective and safe for paediatric psoriasis 292. Nankervis H, Thomas KS, Delamere FM, et al. What and atopic dermatitis? J Eur Acad Dermatol Vener- is the evidence base for atopic eczema treatments? A eol. 2011;25(6):727–9. summary of published randomized controlled trials. Br J Dermatol. 2017;176(4):910–27. 280. Tan E, Lim D, Rademaker M. Narrowband UVB phototherapy in children: a New Zealand experi- 293. Williams HC. Strengths and limitations of evidence- ence. Australas J Dermatol. 2010;51(4):268–73. based dermatology. Indian J Dermatol. 2014;59(2):127–33. 281. Tekin B, Gencosmanoglu DS, Yucelten D, et al. Safe and effective use of photo(chemo)therapy in
Dermatology and Therapy – Springer Journals
Published: Jun 1, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud