OBJECTIVE: This article aimed to provide an update on the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of nummular eczema.
METHODS: A PubMed search was performed in using the key terms "nummular eczema", "discoid eczema", OR "nummular dermatitis". The search strategy included meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, observational studies, and reviews. The search was restricted to English literature. The information retrieved from the above search was used in the compilation of the present article. Patents were searched using the key terms "nummular eczema", "discoid eczema", OR "nummular dermatitis" in www.google.com/patents and www.freepatentsonline.com.
RESULTS: Nummular eczema is characterized by sharply defined, oval or coin-shaped, erythematous, eczematous plaques. Typically, the size of the lesion varies from 1 to 10cm in diameter. The lesions are usually multiple and symmetrically distributed. Sites of predilection include the lower limbs followed by the upper limbs. The lesions are usually intensely pruritic. The diagnosis is mainly clinical based on the characteristic round to oval erythematous plaques in a patient with diffusely dry skin. Nummular eczema should be distinguished from other annular lesions. Dermoscopy can reveal additional features that can be valuable for correct diagnosis. Biopsy or laboratory tests are generally not necessary. However, a potassium hydroxide wet-mount examination of skin scrapings should be performed if tinea corporis is suspected. Because contact allergy is common with nummular eczema, patch testing should be considered in patients with chronic, recalcitrant nummular eczema. Avoidance of precipitating factors, optimal skin care, and high or ultra-high potency topical corticosteroids are the mainstay of therapy. Recent patents related to the management of nummular eczema are also discussed.
CONCLUSION: With proper treatment, nummular eczema can be cleared over a few weeks, although the course can be chronic and characterized by relapses and remissions. Moisturizing of the skin and avoidance of identifiable exacerbating factors, such as hot water baths and harsh soaps may reduce the frequency of recurrence. Diseases that present with annular lesions may mimic nummular eczema and the differential diagnosis is broad. As such, physicians must be familiar with this condition so that an accurate diagnosis can be made, and appropriate treatment initiated.
PATIENT CONCERNS: An 83-year-old Japanese man was hospitalized with general fatigue and high fever. He had been treated with prednisolone at 13 mg/d for 7 years because of an eczematous skin disease. He had a history of travel to Los Angeles, Egypt, and Malaysia 10 to 15 years prior to admission. Five years earlier, computed tomography (CT) identified a solitary calcified nodule in the left lingual lung segment. The nodule size remained unchanged throughout a 5-year observation period. Upon admission, his respiratory condition remained stable while breathing room air. CT revealed small, randomly distributed nodular shadows in the bilateral lungs, in addition to the solitary nodule.
DIAGNOSIS: Disseminated histoplasmosis, based on fungal staining and cultures of autopsy specimens.
INTERVENTIONS: The patient's fever continued despite several days of treatment with meropenem, minocycline, and micafungin. Although he refused bone marrow aspiration, isoniazid, rifampicin, ethambutol, and prednisolone were administered for a tentative diagnosis of miliary tuberculosis.
OUTCOMES: His fever persisted, and a laboratory examination indicated severe thrombocytopenia with disseminated intravascular coagulation. He died on day 43 postadmission. During autopsy, the fungal burden was noted to be higher in the calcified nodule than in the disseminated nodules of the lung, suggesting a pathogenesis involving endogenous reactivation of the nodule and subsequent hematogenous and lymphatic spread.
LESSONS: Physicians should consider histoplasmosis in patients with calcified nodules because the infection may reactivate during long-term corticosteroid therapy.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of different types of systemic immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe eczema using NMA and to generate rankings of available systemic immunosuppressive treatments for eczema according to their efficacy and safety.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to August 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic immunosuppressive agents for moderate to severe atopic eczema when compared against placebo or any other eligible eczema treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We synthesised data using pair-wise analysis and NMA to compare treatments and rank them according to their effectiveness. Effectiveness was assessed primarily by determining the proportion of participants who achieved at least 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) and improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Safety was evaluated primarily by considering the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) and infection. We deemed short-term follow-up as ≤ 16 weeks and long-term follow-up as > 16 weeks. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for these primary outcomes using six domains of CiNEMA grading.
MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 74 studies, with 8177 randomised participants. Approximately 55% of participants were male, with average age of 32 years (range 2 to 84 years), although age and gender were unreported for 419 and 902 participants, respectively. Most of the included trials were placebo controlled (65%), 34% were head-to-head studies (15% assessed the effects of different doses of the same drug), and 1% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. All trials included participants with moderate to severe eczema, but 62% of studies did not separate data by severity; 38% of studies assessed only severe eczema. The total duration of included trials ranged from 2 weeks to 60 months, whereas treatment duration varied from a single dose (CIM331, KPL-716) to 60 months (methotrexate (MTX)). Seventy studies were available for quantitative synthesis; this review assessed 29 immunosuppressive agents from three classes of interventions. These included (1) conventional treatments, with ciclosporin assessed most commonly; (2) small molecule treatments, including phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors; and (3) biological treatments, including anti-CD31 receptors, anti-interleukin (IL)-22, anti-IL-31, anti-IL-13, anti-IL-12/23p40, anti-OX40, anti-TSLP, anti-CRTH2, and anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibodies, but most commonly dupilumab. Most trials (73) assessed outcomes at a short-term duration ranging from 2 to 16 weeks, whereas 33 trials assessed long-term outcomes, with duration ranging from 5 to 60 months. All participants were from a hospital setting. Fifty-two studies declared a source of funding, and of these, pharmaceutical companies funded 88%. We rated 37 studies as high risk; 21, unclear risk, and 16, low risk of bias, with studies most commonly at high risk of attrition bias. Network meta-analysis suggests that dupilumab ranks first for effectiveness when compared with other biological treatments. Dupilumab is more effective than placebo in achieving EASI75 (risk ratio (RR) 3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.51 to 3.69) and improvement in POEM score (mean difference 7.30, 95% CI 6.61 to 8.00) at short-term follow-up (high-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain of the effects of dupilumab when compared with placebo, in terms of the proportion of participants who achieve EASI75 (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.60) at longer-term follow-up. Low-certainty evidence indicates that tralokinumab may be more effective than placebo in achieving short-term EASI75 (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.34), but there was no evidence for tralokinumab to allow us to assess short-term follow-up of POEM or long-term follow-up of EASI75. We are uncertain of the effect of ustekinumab compared with placebo in achieving EASI75 (long-term follow-up: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.45; short-term follow-up: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.97; both very low certainty). We found no evidence on ustekinumab for the POEM outcome. We are uncertain whether other immunosuppressive agents that targeted our key outcomes influence the achievement of short-term EASI75 compared with placebo due to low- or very low-certainty evidence. Dupilumab and ustekinumab were the only immunosuppressive agents evaluated for longer-term EASI75. Dupilumab was the only agent evaluated for improvement in POEM during short-term follow-up. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence indicates a lower proportion of participants with SAEs after treatment with QAW039 and dupilumab compared to placebo during short-term follow-up, but low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in SAEs during short-term follow-up of other immunosuppressive agents compared to placebo. Evidence for effects of immunosuppressive agents on risk of any infection during short-term follow-up and SAEs during long-term follow-up compared with placebo was of low or very low certainty but did not indicate a difference. We did not identify differences in other adverse events (AEs), but dupilumab is associated with specific AEs, including eye inflammation and eosinophilia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that dupilumab is the most effective biological treatment for eczema. Compared to placebo, dupilumab reduces eczema signs and symptoms in the short term for people with moderate to severe atopic eczema. Short-term safety outcomes from clinical trials did not reveal new safety concerns with dupilumab. Overall, evidence for the efficacy of most other immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe atopic eczema is of low or very low certainty. Given the lack of data comparing conventional with newer biological treatments for the primary outcomes, there remains high uncertainty for ranking the efficacy and safety of conventional treatments such as ciclosporin and biological treatments such as dupilumab. Most studies were placebo-controlled and assessed only short-term efficacy of immunosuppressive agents. Further adequately powered head-to-head RCTs should evaluate comparative long-term efficacy and safety of available treatments for moderate to severe eczema.