Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, Yorkshire, UK.
University Medical Centre of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Health Technol Assess. 2024 Oct;28(59):1-123. doi: 10.3310/TWQC0141.
Hand eczema is common and a cause of morbidity and occupational disability. When education, irritant/contact allergen avoidance, moisturisation and topical corticosteroids are insufficient to control chronic hand eczema, ultraviolet therapy or systemic immune-modifying drugs are used. There is no treatment pathway generally accepted by UK dermatologists.
Compare alitretinoin and ultraviolet therapy as first-line therapy in terms of disease activity at 12 weeks post planned start of treatment.
Prospective, multicentre, open-label, two-arm parallel group, adaptive randomised controlled trial with one planned interim analysis, and an economic evaluation.
UK secondary care dermatology outpatient clinics.
Patients with severe chronic hand eczema unresponsive to at least 4 weeks of treatment with potent topical corticosteroids.
Natural logarithm of the Hand Eczema Severity Index + 1, 12 weeks post planned start of treatment.
Participants randomised 1 : 1 by minimisation to alitretinoin or ultraviolet therapy for 12 to 24 weeks.
Blinded primary end-point assessor.
Intention-to-treat population: 441 (100.0%) participants; 220 (49.9%) alitretinoin and 221 (50.1%) ultraviolet therapy. At least one dose was received by 212 (96.4%) alitretinoin and 196 (88.7%) ultraviolet therapy participants.
The unadjusted median (interquartile range) relative change in hand eczema severity index at 12 weeks was 30% (10-70%) of that at baseline for alitretinoin compared with 50% (20-100%) for ultraviolet therapy. There was a statistically significant benefit of alitretinoin compared with ultraviolet therapy at 12 weeks, with an estimated fold change or relative difference (95% confidence interval) = 0.66 (0.52 to 0.82), = 0.0003 at 12 weeks. There was no evidence of a difference at 24 or 52 weeks, with the estimated fold change (95% confidence interval) equal to 0.92 (0.798 to 1.08) and 1.27 (0.97 to 1.67), respectively.
Fifty-nine per cent allocated to alitretinoin and 61% allocated to ultraviolet therapy achieved a clear/almost clear assessment during the trial period. Differential treatment compliance observed: 145 (65.9%) alitretinoin and 53 (24.0%) ultraviolet therapy participants confirmed compliance (≥ 80% received, no treatment breaks > 7 days during first 12 weeks). High levels of missing data were observed.
One hundred and thirty-five reportable adverse events across 79 participants, 55 (25.0%) alitretinoin and 24 (10.9%) ultraviolet therapy. Four serious adverse events (two alitretinoin, two ultraviolet therapy). Four pregnancies reported (three alitretinoin, one ultraviolet therapy). No new safety signals were detected.
As a first-line therapy, alitretinoin showed more rapid improvement and superiority to ultraviolet therapy at week 12. This difference was not observed at later time points. Alitretinoin is cost-effective at weeks 12 and 52. Ultraviolet therapy is cost-effective after 10 years, with a high degree of uncertainty. Hand eczema severity index may be a useful primary outcome measure for hand eczema trials; ALPHA results will inform future trials.
Treatment compliance was poor for ultraviolet therapy. Regular twice weekly treatment was not received by most patients. Assessment of long-term effects of randomised treatments was complicated by use of second-line treatments post treatment phase.
Further analysis of substudies and pilot data will provide valuable information for future studies. A clear need for better therapeutic approaches for severe chronic hand eczema remains. Future studies will need to further address long-term benefits of treatments given.
This trial is registered as ISRCTN80206075.
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/186/01) and is published in full in ; Vol. 28, No. 59. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
手部湿疹很常见,是发病率和职业残疾的一个原因。当教育、避免刺激性/接触性过敏原、保湿和局部皮质类固醇不足以控制慢性手部湿疹时,会使用紫外线治疗或全身免疫调节药物。英国皮肤科医生没有普遍接受的治疗途径。
比较阿利特罗汀和紫外线治疗在计划开始治疗后 12 周时疾病活动的情况。
前瞻性、多中心、开放标签、两臂平行组、适应性随机对照试验,有一次计划的中期分析和经济评估。
英国二级保健皮肤科门诊。
至少接受 4 周强效外用皮质类固醇治疗后仍无反应的严重慢性手部湿疹患者。
计划开始治疗后 12 周时手部湿疹严重指数的自然对数+1。
参与者通过最小化法按 1:1 随机分配至阿利特罗汀或紫外线治疗组,疗程为 12 至 24 周。
对主要终点评估者设盲。
意向治疗人群:441 名(100.0%)参与者;阿利特罗汀组 220 名(49.9%),紫外线治疗组 221 名(50.1%)。至少接受一剂治疗的阿利特罗汀组有 212 名(96.4%)参与者,紫外线治疗组有 196 名(88.7%)参与者。
与紫外线治疗组相比,阿利特罗汀组在第 12 周时手部湿疹严重指数的未调整中位数(四分位距)变化为 30%(10-70%),而紫外线治疗组为 50%(20-100%)。阿利特罗汀治疗在第 12 周时具有统计学显著优势,估计的折叠变化或相对差异(95%置信区间)为 0.66(0.52 至 0.82),在第 12 周时差异为 0.0003。在第 24 周和第 52 周时,没有差异的证据,估计的折叠变化(95%置信区间)分别等于 0.92(0.798 至 1.08)和 1.27(0.97 至 1.67)。
59%分配给阿利特罗汀组,61%分配给紫外线治疗组在试验期间获得了清晰/几乎清晰的评估。观察到治疗依从性的差异:145 名(65.9%)接受阿利特罗汀治疗的参与者和 53 名(24.0%)接受紫外线治疗的参与者确认了依从性(接受率≥80%,在最初 12 周内没有治疗中断超过 7 天)。观察到大量缺失数据。
79 名参与者中有 135 例报告了可报告的不良事件,其中 55 例(25.0%)接受了阿利特罗汀治疗,24 例(10.9%)接受了紫外线治疗。4 例严重不良事件(2 例阿利特罗汀,2 例紫外线治疗)。报告了 4 例妊娠(3 例阿利特罗汀,1 例紫外线治疗)。未发现新的安全信号。
作为一线治疗,阿利特罗汀在第 12 周时显示出更快的改善和优于紫外线治疗的优势。在随后的时间点未观察到这种差异。在第 12 周和第 52 周时,阿利特罗汀具有成本效益。紫外线治疗在 10 年后具有成本效益,但存在高度不确定性。手部湿疹严重指数可能是手部湿疹试验的有用主要结局指标;ALPHA 结果将为未来的试验提供信息。
紫外线治疗的治疗依从性很差。大多数患者没有接受每周两次的常规治疗。由于在治疗阶段后使用二线治疗,因此对随机治疗的长期效果进行评估很复杂。
对亚研究和试点数据的进一步分析将为未来的研究提供有价值的信息。严重慢性手部湿疹仍迫切需要更好的治疗方法。未来的研究需要进一步解决所给予治疗的长期益处。
该试验在 ISRCTN 注册,注册号为 ISRCTN80206075。
这项研究由英国国家卫生与保健优化研究所(NIHR)健康技术评估计划(NIHR 拨款编号:12/186/01)资助,并在 ; Vol. 28, No. 59 中全文发表。有关该研究的更多资助信息,可访问 NIHR 资助和奖项网站。