A prospective observational cohort study comparing the treatment effectiveness and safety of ciclosporin, dupilumab and methotrexate in adult and paediatric patients with atopic dermatitis: results from the UK-Irish A-STAR register.

Background: The main conventional systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) are methotrexate (MTX) and ciclosporin (CyA). Dupilumab was the first novel systemic agent to enter routine clinical practice. There are no head-to-head randomized controlled trials or real-world studies comparing these agents directly. Network meta-analyses provide indirect comparative efficacy and safety data and have shown strong evidence for dupilumab and CyA.

Objectives: To compare the real-world clinical effectiveness and safety of CyA, dupilumab and MTX in AD.

Methods: We compared the effectiveness and safety of these systemic agents in a prospective observational cohort study of adult and paediatric patients recruited into the UK-Irish Atopic eczema Systemic TherApy Register (A-STAR). Treatment effectiveness measures included Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and children's DLQI (cDLQI). The minimum duration of treatment was 28 days and follow-up was 12 months. Adjusted Cox-regression analysis was used to compare the hazard ratios of achieving EASI-50, EASI-75 and EASI-90 over time, and linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate changes in efficacy scores. Treatment safety was assessed by examining adverse events (AEs) at follow-up visits.

Results: We included 488 patients (311 adults and 177 children/adolescents) on dupilumab (n = 282), MTX (n = 149) or CyA (n = 57). CyA and MTX were primarily used as the first-line treatment, while dupilumab was mainly a second-line systemic treatment as per UK National Institute of Clinical and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations. EASI-50, EASI-75 and EASI-90 were achieved more rapidly in the dupilumab and CyA groups compared with MTX. After adjustment for previous severity, the reduction in EASI, POEM, PP-NRS and DLQI was greater for patients treated with dupilumab compared with MTX. In patients with severe disease the reduction in EASI, POEM and PP-NRS was even greater with CyA. The incidence rates of AEs were similar across groups (734, 654 and 594 per 10 000 person-month on CyA, dupilumab and MTX, respectively).

Conclusions: This real-world comparison of CyA, dupilumab and MTX in AD suggests that dupilumab is consistently more effective than MTX and that CyA is most effective in very severe disease within 1 year of follow-up.