
==== Front
Dermatol Ther (Heidelb)
Dermatol Ther (Heidelb)
Dermatology and Therapy
2193-8210
2190-9172
Springer Healthcare Cheshire

39075274
1236
10.1007/s13555-024-01236-7
Original Research
An Interim Report of a Phase 3, Long-Term, Open-Label Study to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of Difamilast Ointment in Japanese Infants with Atopic Dermatitis
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1095-0355
Saeki Hidehisa 1
Ohya Yukihiro 2
Baba Naoko 3
Imamura Tomomi 4
Yokota Daisuke 5
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2926-4603
Tsubouchi Hidetsugu Tsubouchi.Hidetsugu@otsuka.jp

6
1 https://ror.org/00krab219 grid.410821.e 0000 0001 2173 8328 Department of Dermatology, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan
2 https://ror.org/03fvwxc59 grid.63906.3a 0000 0004 0377 2305 Allergy Center, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan
3 https://ror.org/022h0tq76 grid.414947.b 0000 0004 0377 7528 Department of Dermatology, Kanagawa Children’s Medical Center, Kanagawa, Japan
4 grid.419953.3 0000 0004 1756 0784 Headquarters of Clinical Development, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan
5 grid.419953.3 0000 0004 1756 0784 Headquarters of Clinical Development, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan
6 grid.419953.3 0000 0004 1756 0784 Medical Affairs, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 3-2-27 Otedori, Chuo-ku, Osaka, 540-0021 Japan
29 7 2024
29 7 2024
9 2024
14 9 24432455
28 3 2024
10 7 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Introduction

Difamilast is the first selective phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor approved for atopic dermatitis (AD) in Japan. A phase 3, 52-week, open-label study is ongoing to establish efficacy and safety of difamilast ointments in infants with AD aged 3 to < 24 months because a clinical study has not been conducted in this population.

Methods

This study consisted of a 4-week primary evaluation period in which difamilast 0.3% ointment was applied twice daily to Japanese infants aged 3 to < 24 months (n = 41) and an ongoing 48-week long-term extension period in which difamilast 0.3% or 1% ointment was applied based on existing symptoms. The data on efficacy and safety of difamilast were obtained as of an interim report in the study period.

Results

The response rate in Investigator’s Global Assessment score was 45.0% at week 1, which was maintained at 56.1% at week 4 and 63.4% at the interim report. Infants achieved the response rate in Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 (improvement of ≥ 75%) of 47.5% at week 1, which further improved to 82.9% at week 4 and 78.1% at the interim report. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 22 (53.7%) infants in the primary evaluation period: of those the most frequent AE was nasopharyngitis (19.5%) followed by dermatitis contact (7.3%). As of the interim report, 36 (87.8%) infants experienced AEs: of those, nasopharyngitis (70.7%) and gastroenteritis (22.0%) were most frequently observed. The total AEs were mostly mild or moderate in severity. No investigational medicinal product-related AEs and no AEs leading to discontinuation were reported.

Conclusion

Difamilast ointments applied twice daily to Japanese infants with AD aged 3 to < 24 months is effective and well tolerated as of the interim report in the study period. The final results will be reported in the near future.

Clinical Trial Registration: Clinical Trials. gov identifier: NCT05372653.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13555-024-01236-7.

Keywords

Application
Atopic dermatitis
Difamilast
Efficacy and safety
Infants
Ointment
Phase 3, long-term, open-label study
Phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor
Topical treatment
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007132 Otsuka Pharmaceutical issue-copyright-statement© Springer Healthcare Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcKey Summary Points

Why carry out this study?	
Topical corticosteroids (TCSs) are only recommended to treat infants with atopic dermatitis (AD) aged < 2 years according to the clinical practice guidelines for the management of atopic dermatitis 2021 by the Japanese Dermatological Association.	
Because local adverse reactions such as skin atrophy and telangiectasia have been reported in the long-term use of TCSs, a new topical treatment option usable for a long time without safety concerns is required for the treatment of infants with AD aged < 2 years.	
A phase 3, long-term, open-label study of difamilast 0.3% or 1% ointment is ongoing to evaluate efficacy and safety in Japanese infants with AD aged 3 to < 24 months.	
What was learned from the study?	
This ongoing study suggests that difamilast 0.3% or 1% ointment applied to infants with AD aged 3 to < 24 months twice daily is effective and well tolerated as of the interim report in the study period, although it is an open-label study.	
Difamilast 0.3% or 1% ointment is expected to be a new long-term treatment option for AD in this population because of its efficacy and safety profiles.	

Introduction

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common chronic and relapsing inflammatory skin disease characterized by pruritus and eczema. Pruritus is the most troublesome symptom to control in AD, and it promotes scratching and excoriation, which can further aggravate inflammation, increase infection risk, and cause crusting and lichenification [1, 2]. Patients with AD experience sleep disturbance, functional impairment, anxiety, depression, anger, and reduced health-related quality of life [3–5].

Treatment strategies for AD in Japan include (1) use of topical corticosteroids (TCSs), tacrolimus ointment (a topical calcineurin inhibitor), and delgocitinib ointment (a Janus kinase inhibitor) [6] to suppress inflammation; (2) use of topical emollients and moisturizers to repair skin barrier function; (3) avoidance of aggravation factors. Thus, the principal goal of AD treatment is to achieve and maintain a state of no or minor clinical symptoms that do not disturb patients’ daily activities [7].

In mild to moderate AD, the use of topical therapies is advantageous compared with systemic treatments because they have a minimum risk of adverse events (AEs) [2]. TCSs, tacrolimus ointment, and delgocitinib ointment are recommended as treatments for patients with AD in Japan. However, the safety of tacrolimus has not been established in infants aged < 2 years. Recently, the package insert of delgocitinib has covered Japanese infants aged 6 to < 24 months based on results of a phase 3, open-label, long-term study [8]. Therefore, TCSs are only recommended to treat patients with AD, including infants aged < 2 years, according to the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Atopic Dermatitis 2021 issued by the Japanese Dermatological Association [7]. However, local adverse reactions such as skin atrophy and telangiectasia occur with long-term use of TCSs [9–11]. Hence, a new topical treatment option that can be used for a long term without safety concerns is required for the treatment of AD in infants aged < 2 years.

AD is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin disease. Although AD symptoms commonly develop in childhood, most of them resolve with the age, while some may persist into adulthood [4]. AD is well known to be associated with other atopic disorders, including food allergy, asthma, and allergic rhinitis, with the allergic progression termed as atopic march [12, 13]. Thus, initiation of a suitable intervention for AD from an early stage of childhood is required to prevent the persistence of symptoms and subsequent development of atopic march. Non-adherence to TCSs owing to safety concerns by parents or guardians can result in treatment failure in infants [14].

Difamilast is a selective phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor developed by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan) [15]. PDE4 inhibition has been reported as a therapeutic strategy for inflammatory diseases, including AD [16–18]. Previous clinical studies conducted in Japan demonstrated the efficacy and safety of difamilast 1% ointment in adults (aged ≥ 15 years) and difamilast 0.3% or 1% ointment in children (aged 2–14 years) for the treatment of AD [19–23]. Difamilast is the first PDE4 inhibitor to receive manufacturing and marketing approval for the indication of AD in adult and pediatric patients (aged ≥ 2 years) in Japan in September 2021. Subsequently, a phase 3, long-term, open-label study was initiated to evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical difamilast in Japanese infants with AD aged 3 to < 24 months. Here, we report the interim results of the ongoing study.

Methods

This ongoing, phase 3, multicenter, open-label study was initiated on May 23, 2022, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical difamilast in infants with AD at five study sites in Japan. Parents or guardians of all included infants provided written informed consent before participation in the study. The study was approved by the institutional review board at each study site and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice guideline, and the applicable local laws and regulatory requirements in Japan.

Patients

Male and female infants aged 3 to < 24 months with a diagnosis of AD according to the Japanese Dermatological Association criteria [7], an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 2 or 3 (on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 [clear] to 4 [severe/very severe]; Table S1 in Supplementary Material) [24], and a total affected body surface area (BSA; excluding the scalp) of 5–40% were included.

Infants with an AD or contact dermatitis flare-up within 28 days before baseline, a complication or history of a skin disease other than AD, an active viral skin infection or clinically significant abnormal laboratory test results, blood pressure or pulse rate were excluded. The full exclusion criteria are summarized in Table S2 in Supplementary Material.

Study Design

The study consisted of a screening period (2–30 days), a 4-week primary evaluation period, and a 48-week long-term extension period (Fig. 1). The investigational medicinal products (IMPs) were difamilast 0.3% and 1% ointments. The vehicle used for the IMPs was white petrolatum. Difamilast 0.3% ointment was applied twice daily to infants in the primary evaluation period. In the long-term extension period, infants could receive difamilast 1% ointment twice daily based on existing clinical conditions at the investigator’s discretion if they had an IGA score of at least 2 and no concerns about unacceptable tolerability. Subsequently, the IMP could be changed back to difamilast 0.3% ointment if improvements in symptoms were observed. Interruption or restarting of IMP application in the long-term extension period was permitted based on existing clinical conditions.Fig. 1 Study design

Efficacy and safety were evaluated during study site visits at weeks 1, 2, and 4 in the primary evaluation period and, in principle, every 4 weeks in the long-term extension period. If the IMP was first changed to difamilast 1% ointment in the long-term extension period, the next visit was scheduled 2 weeks after the change (Fig. 1). Investigators instructed parents or guardians to apply the IMPs to the currently affected BSA (excluding the scalp) including the application range (%) and total application amount (g) by using a human body diagram at each visit. The amount of IMPs per application was calculated using the following formula: total BSA (m2) × percentage of treatment area (%) × 10 g/m2.

Infants who completed the 4-week primary evaluation period entered the 48-week long-term extension period. The day when evaluations were completed for all infants at week 8 (4 weeks after initiation of the long-term extension period) or at discontinuation was designated as the cut-off day (January 25, 2023). All data of difamilast immediately before the cut-off day were collected for the interim report.

Concomitant topical anti-inflammatory agents as a rescue medication were used for worsening of symptoms at the investigator’s discretion in the long-term extension period with the minimum dose and duration of use that did not interfere with efficacy assessments of IMPs. However, concomitant application of difamilast and anti-inflammatory agents to the same site was prohibited. Prohibited concomitant medications and therapies are summarized in Table S3 in Supplementary Material.

Treatment could be discontinued if investigators judged that the continuation of treatment with IMPs would be an undue risk for infants, for example, safety concerns related to IMPs or serious AEs.

Evaluations

Efficacy and safety of difamilast were assessed for the first time in this study in infants aged 3 to < 24 months. The response rate in the IGA score, defined as the percentage of infants who achieved an IGA score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-point improvement from baseline, was primarily evaluated for the efficacy evaluation. The response rates in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 50, 75, and 90 [25], defined as the percentages of infants who achieved, respectively, at least 50%, 75%, and 90% improvement in EASI total score from baseline, were also evaluated. Missing data were handled as non-response.

Efficacy evaluations also included mean percentage changes in EASI total score and each subscale (erythema, induration/papulation, excoriation, and lichenification) score [25] and mean changes in patient-oriented eczema measure (POEM) score [26] and total affected BSA (%) from baseline.

Safety evaluations were based on the incidence and severity of AEs, clinical laboratory tests, physical examinations, and vital signs. AEs were classified by system organ class (SOC) and preferred term (PT) using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) version 25.1.

Plasma concentrations of difamilast were measured after application of 0.3% or 1% ointment twice daily for 4 weeks. Data for difamilast 0.3% ointment were collected at week 4 in the primary evaluation period, while data for difamilast 1% ointment were obtained 4 weeks after the IMP was first changed to difamilast 1% ointment in the long-term extension period. Blood samples to determine plasma concentrations were collected 4 (± 2) h after application of the IMPs. The time to maximum plasma concentration was estimated 4 (± 2) h after application.

Statistical Analyses

As this is a long-term open-label study, no statistical tests were prespecified for comparison. All infants who received IMPs at least once were included in both efficacy and safety analysis sets. Of these, infants who had at least one pharmacokinetic assessment after treatment initiation were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis set. Variables were analyzed descriptively using all observed data.

The sample size was set at 40 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of difamilast based on the results of a previous phase 3 study in pediatric patients [22].

Results

Patients

All 41 included infants completed treatment in the primary evaluation period, and no discontinuations were reported at the time of the interim report in the long-term extension period either.

At baseline, 13 infants (31.7%) had an IGA score of 2, and 28 (68.3%) had a score of 3. The mean age was 10.0 months. Mean EASI total score was 9.6, mean POEM score was 7.4, and mean total affected BSA was 27.1%. Based on the Japanese AD severity index [7], AD in 9 infants (22.0%) was assessed as mild, 30 (73.2%) as moderate, and 2 (4.9%) as severe (Table 1).Table 1 Patient demographics and baseline characteristics

	Patients treated (n = 41)	
Age, months, mean ± SD	10.0 ± 5.1	
Male	26 (63.4)	
Months since onset of AD, mean ± SD	6.2 ± 4.8	
IGA score	
 IGA 2, mild disease	13 (31.7)	
 IGA 3, moderate disease	28 (68.3)	
Severity of ADa	
 Mild	9 (22.0)	
 Moderate	30 (73.2)	
 Severe	2 (4.9)	
 Very severe	0 (0.0)	
EASI total score, mean ± SD	9.6 ± 4.9	
POEM score, mean ± SD	7.4 ± 4.5	
Affected body surface area, %, mean ± SD	27.1 ± 8.3	
 5% to < 10%	0 (0.0)	
 10% to < 20%	8 (19.5)	
 20% to < 40%	32 (78.0)	
  ≥ 40%	1 (2.4)	
Data are number of patients (%) unless otherwise indicated

AD atopic dermatitis; EASI eczema area and severity index; IGA investigator’s global assessment; POEM patient-oriented eczema measure; SD standard deviation

aJapanese severity index of AD is based on the “Guidelines for the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis 2008” by the Health and Labour Sciences Research

As of the interim report in the study period, the mean treatment duration was 135.7 days and the mean total dose of IMPs applied was 340.1 g. The maximum treatment duration was 222 days, and the minimum treatment duration was 53 days. The maximum total dose of IMPs applied was 820.7 g, and the minimum total dose of IMPs applied was 68.1 g. In the long-term extension period, 28 infants received difamilast 1% ointment.

As of the interim report, infants completed evaluations at weeks 8 (n = 8), 12 (n = 5), 16 (n = 7), 20 (n = 6), 24 (n = 1), 28 (n = 8), and 32 (n = 6) (Table S4 in Supplementary Material).

TCSs were only used as a rescue medication in this study. As of the interim report, 12 infants (29.3%) received the concomitant TCSs. TCS used most frequently as a rescue medication was dexamethasone valerate.

One infant who developed Kawasaki disease unrelated to the IMP as a serious AE (as described below) experienced interruption for about 2 weeks and then restarting of IMP application in the long-term extension period. No infants experienced interruption and restarting of IMP application except for this serious AE.

Efficacy

The response rate in the IGA score was 45.0% at week 1, which was maintained at 56.1% at week 4 and 63.4% at the interim report (Fig. 2).Fig. 2 Response rate in Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score at each time point. The data represent the percentage of patients who achieved an IGA score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-point improvement from baseline. Number of patients: 40 (Week 1); 39 (Week 2); 41 (Week 4); 41 (Interim report)

The response rate in EASI 50 was 80.0% at week 1 and was maintained at 92.7% at week 4 and 92.7% at the interim report. The response rate in EASI 75 was 47.5% at week 1 and was maintained at 82.9% at week 4 and 78.1% at the interim report. Furthermore, the response rate in EASI 90 was 17.5% at week 1 and was maintained at 46.3% at week 4 and 58.5% at the interim report (Fig. 3).Fig. 3 Response rate in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 50, 75, and 90 at each time point. The data represent the percentage of patients who achieved at least 50%, 75%, and 90% improvements in EASI total score from baseline, respectively. Number of patients: 40 (Week 1); 39 (Week 2); 41 (Week 4); 41 (Interim report)

The mean percentage change from baseline in EASI total score was − 67.0% at week 1, and the same degree of improvement was maintained at − 78.6% at week 4 and − 82.8% at the interim report (Fig. S1 in Supplementary Material). The mean percentage change from baseline in each EASI subscale (erythema, induration/papulation, excoriation, and lichenification) score also showed considerable reductions at week 1, and the improvement was maintained as of the interim report (Fig. S2 in Supplementary Material). The mean changes from baseline in POEM score and total affected BSA (%) showed the same trend (Figs. S3 and S4 in Supplementary Material).

Of the infants who have never achieved an IGA response under treatment with difamilast 0.3% ointment and whose dose was increased to difamilast 1% ointment from week 4 onward, 11 infants had no dose interruption and underwent IGA assessment after dose increase. In 54.6% of these infants (in 6/11 infants), an IGA response was achieved at atleast one time point after dose increase before data cut-off for the interim report.

Safety

AEs reported in the primary evaluation period are summarized in Table 2. In total, 22 infants (53.7%) experienced AEs, all of which were judged to be unrelated to the IMP and were mild or moderate in severity. No serious AEs or AEs leading to discontinuation were reported. AEs (classified by MedDRA PTs) that were observed in at least 5% of infants were nasopharyngitis (19.5%) and dermatitis contact (7.3%). These AEs were classified by SOC as infections and infestations (34.1%) or skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (12.2%). No clinically relevant abnormalities were reported in clinical laboratory tests, physical examinations, and vital signs.Table 2 Summary of adverse events (AEs) and AEs observed in at least 5% of patients in the 4-week primary evaluation period

	Patients treated (n = 41)	
Patients with any AEs	22 (53.7)	
Patients with IMP-related AEs	0 (0.0)	
Patients with severe AEs	0 (0.0)	
Patients with serious AEs	0 (0.0)	
Patients with non-serious AEs	22 (53.7)	
Patients with discontinuation of IMP due to AEs	0 (0.0)	
Patients with death due to AEs	0 (0.0)	
AEs observed in at least 5% of patients		
 Infections and infestations	14 (34.1)	
  Nasopharyngitis	8 (19.5)	
 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	5 (12.2)	
  Dermatitis contact	3 (7.3)	
Data are number of patients (%) unless otherwise indicated

AEs were classified by system organ class and preferred term using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities version 25.1

AE adverse event; IMP investigational medicinal product

Table 3 summarizes AEs that were reported as of the interim report in the study period (AEs reported until the cut-off day). AEs were reported in 36 infants (87.8%) and were all judged to be unrelated to the IMPs. No AEs leading to discontinuation were reported. Regarding the severity, 26 (63.4%) were assessed as mild, 8 (19.5%) as moderate, and 2 (4.9%) as severe. The two events that were assessed as severe were respiratory syncytial virus infection [27] and Kawasaki disease [28]. Although these were judged to be serious events, the two infants recovered from the events.Table 3 Summary of adverse events (AEs) and AEs observed in at least 5% of patients as of the interim report

	Patients treated (n = 41)	
Patients with any AEs	36 (87.8)	
Patients with IMP-related AEs	0 (0.0)	
Patients with severe AEs	2 (4.9)	
Patients with serious AEs	2 (4.9)	
Patients with non-serious AEs	36 (87.8)	
Patients with discontinuation of IMP due to AEs	0 (0.0)	
Patients with death due to AEs	0 (0.0)	
AEs observed in at least 5% of patients		
 Infections and infestations	36 (87.8)	
  Gastroenteritis	9 (22.0)	
  Hand-foot-and-mouth disease	5 (12.2)	
  Impetigo	5 (12.2)	
  Nasopharyngitis	29 (70.7)	
  Otitis media acute	6 (14.6)	
  Pharyngitis	4 (9.8)	
  Respiratory syncytial virus infection	4 (9.8)	
  Conjunctivitis bacterial	5 (12.2)	
  COVID-19	7 (17.1)	
 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	16 (39.0)	
  Dermatitis atopic	3 (7.3)	
  Dermatitis contact	7 (17.1)	
  Dermatitis diaper	6 (14.6)	
Data are number of patients (%) unless otherwise indicated

AEs were classified by system organ class and preferred term using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities version 25.1

AE adverse event; COVID coronavirus disease; IMP investigational medicinal product

AEs (classified by MedDRA PTs) observed in at least 5% of infants as of the interim report in the study period were nasopharyngitis (70.7%), gastroenteritis (22.0%), COVID-19 (17.1%), otitis media acute (14.6%), hand-foot-and-mouth disease, impetigo, conjunctivitis bacterial (12.2% each), pharyngitis, respiratory syncytial virus infection (9.8% each), dermatitis contact (17.1%), dermatitis diaper (14.6%), and dermatitis atopic (7.3%). These AEs were classified by SOC as infections and infestations (87.8%) or skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (39.0%). No clinically relevant abnormalities were reported in clinical laboratory tests, physical examinations, and vital signs.

Table 4 summarizes the AEs at application sites reported as of the interim report in the study period. In total, 11 infants (26.8%) experienced AEs at application sites, all of which were mild or moderate in severity. Furthermore, no clinically problematic events at application sites were reported. AEs at application sites (classified by MedDRA PTs) reported in at least two infants were impetigo (12.2%) and dermatitis atopic (4.9%). Of the AEs classified by SOC, infections and infestations were the most frequent (22.0%) followed by skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (7.3%).Table 4 Adverse events observed at application sites as of the interim report

	Patients treated (n = 41)	
Patients with any AEs at application sites	11 (26.8)	
Immune system disorders	1 (2.4)	
 Food allergy	1 (2.4)	
Infections and infestations	9 (22.0)	
 Folliculitis	1 (2.4)	
 Hand-foot-and-mouth disease	1 (2.4)	
 Impetigo	5 (12.2)	
 Molluscum contagiosum	1 (2.4)	
 Viral rash	1 (2.4)	
 Skin candida	1 (2.4)	
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications	1 (2.4)	
 Scratch	1 (2.4)	
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	3 (7.3)	
 Dermatitis atopic	2 (4.9)	
 Dermatitis contact	1 (2.4)	
 Erythema multiforme	1 (2.4)	
Data are number of patients (%) unless otherwise indicated

AEs were classified by system organ class and preferred term using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities version 25.1

AE adverse event

Pharmacokinetics

In infants who received difamilast 0.3% ointment (n = 36) and in those who received difamilast 1% ointment (n = 23), the mean plasma concentrations of the IMPs were 7.2 ng/ml and 12.7 ng/ml, respectively. Five infants who received only difamilast 0.3% ointment were excluded from the pharmacokinetic evaluation as they had not received the IMP within 7 days before blood collection; therefore, the plasma concentrations were considered not to have attained steady state.

Discussion

In this ongoing phase 3, 52-week, open-label study, we evaluated efficacy and safety of difamilast ointments in infants with AD aged 3 to < 24 months. Difamilast ointments demonstrated the efficacy and safety in phase 3, 4-week, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled studies in adult and pediatric patients with AD (aged ≥ 2 years) [21, 22] and received manufacturing and marketing approval for the indication of AD in Japan. Because the present study was conducted in infants with AD aged 3 to < 24 months, we employed the open-label study without vehicle control by ethical considerations. The objective of the present study was to assess the improvements in AD symptoms and the long-term safety with difamilast ointments in this population. To evaluate the preventive effect of difamilast on atopic march will be a challenge in the future.

Response rates in IGA score and EASI 50, 75, and 90 at week 4 in this study were numerically higher than those reported in previous phase 3 studies in Japanese adult and pediatric patients [21, 22]. Innate immunity carried by basophils or group 2 innate lymphoid cells is thought to be mainly involved in the early-onset phase of AD [29, 30]. Difamilast has been reported to improve the symptoms of AD by suppressing interleukin-4 production in basophils [31]. These factors could account for the somewhat high response rates of difamilast ointments in infants with early-onset AD in this study. The clinical manifestations of AD are categorized into three stages according to age: infantile, childhood, and adult stages. It is known that treatment efficacy is likely to appear within a short time in infants and children [7, 32]. This trend was also reflected in the results of the response rates in IGA score and EASI 50, 75, and 90 at week 4 in this study. These response rates were maintained as of the interim report.

Six infants who did not respond successfully to difamilast 0.3% ointment according to the IGA scores showed response with subsequent application of difamilast 1% ointment. Thus, infants in whom difamilast 0.3% ointment shows insufficient efficacy may experience therapeutic effect with difamilast 1% ointment.

Difamilast 0.3% ointment improved not only the EASI total score but also its subscale scores in the primary evaluation period, and the improvement was maintained as of the interim report. This indicates that difamilast is effective regardless of symptoms or area of the eruption in infants. The mean changes from baseline in the POEM score and total affected BSA (%) also showed beneficial results.

Thus, difamilast ointments applied twice daily to infants aged 3 to < 24 months improved clinical signs and symptoms, providing beneficial therapeutic effects to infants.

In the 4-week primary evaluation period, no notable safety concerns were reported. The most frequent AE was nasopharyngitis (19.5%) followed by dermatitis contact (7.3%). These symptoms are widely prevalent in children [33, 34]. Nevertheless, all AEs were judged to be unrelated to the IMP and were mild or moderate in severity; no AEs leading to discontinuation were reported. Thus, no new safety concerns were found in infants treated with difamilast 0.3% ointment in the primary evaluation period.

As of the interim report in the study period, no notable safety concerns were identified with the application of difamilast 0.3% or 1% twice daily. The incidence of AEs (87.8%) was similar to that reported in pediatric patients (89.0%) in the previous phase 3 long-term study of difamilast [23]. Among the AEs, hand-foot-and-mouth disease, impetigo, nasopharyngitis, respiratory syncytial virus infection, dermatitis contact, and dermatitis diaper are commonly prevalent in children. Infants aged < 2 years are thought to be at high risk of infections due to their premature skin barrier function and immature immune function, which result in a high exposure to pathogens [35].

The two IMP-unrelated severe AEs, respiratory syncytial virus infection [27] and Kawasaki disease [28], reported in one infant each as of the interim report, were judged to be serious events. These infants continued treatment without changing dosage and administration because they recovered from the symptoms with medical treatment by hospitalization. The latter continued treatment after interruption for about 2 weeks.

Skin atrophy and telangiectasia, which have been previously reported with TCSs [8–10], and burning or stinging sensations, which have been previously reported with tacrolimus ointment [9, 36], were not observed at the application sites in this study.

No IMP-related AEs and no AEs leading to discontinuation were reported. No new safety concerns were found in infants treated with difamilast 0.3% or 1% ointment as of the interim report in the study period.

No IMP-related systemic serious AEs were reported in this study. The systemic influence of topical difamilast may be limited considering the pharmacokinetic profile of minimal systemic absorption.

This study has some limitations. First, this study lacked a control group. The efficacy of the vehicle in infants with AD aged 3 to < 24 months is uncertain because of lack of a control group. The actual usage of a rescue medication is also uncertain when the vehicle is only applied to this population. The lack of the control group may limit the interpretation of the study results of difamilast in this population. Second, use of topical anti-inflammatory agents as a rescue medication was permitted for worsening of symptoms in the 48-week long-term extension period (to the cut-off day), and TCSs were used for 12 infants as of the interim report. However, TCSs as a rescue medication were actually used to treat many symptoms observed other than in the sites to be evaluated, including contact dermatitis, dermatitis diaper, impetigo, folliculitis, erythema multiforme exudativum, otitis externa, and insect bite. Therefore, the influence of TCSs as a rescue medication on the efficacy assessment is unknown in this study. The use of TCSs may also limit discussions on the long-term study results of difamilast in this population. Third, results from this study cannot be directly compared with those from the previous phase 3 studies in patients aged ≥ 2 years [21–23]. Fourth, because of the infants’ age range, some assessments relied on reports from parents or guardians. Finally, only Japanese infants were included; therefore, it is not clear whether the results are generalizable to non-Japanese infants.

Conclusions

Regardless of some limitations, based on the results of efficacy and safety observed as of the interim report in the study period, difamilast 0.3% or 1% ointment applied twice daily to infants with AD aged 3 to < 24 months is expected to be a new topical therapeutic option usable for a long-term treatment. The final result will be presented in the near future.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.Supplementary file1 (PDF 600 KB)

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely thank all investigators (Table S5 in Supplementary Material) and personnel at each study site for their effort and contribution to this study and all infants and parents/guardians who participated in the study.

Medical Writing and Editorial Assistance

The authors also thank all project members at Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan) who were engaged in the study. Particularly Toshiya Oka, Tomoyo Takayama, Ayaka Soga, Yu Takeuchi, Daisaku Michikami, Takahiro Tsuchiya, and Hiroe Takeda positively reviewed the manuscript with all authors.

Authorship

All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.

Author Contributions

Hidehisa Saeki, Yukihiro Ohya, Naoko Baba, Tomomi Imamura, and Daisuke Yokota contributed to the concept and design of the study and data acquisition. Daisuke Yokota and Hidetsugu Tsubouchi participated in data analysis, and all authors were involved in the interpretation of the data. Hidetsugu Tsubouchi wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all authors reviewed the previous versions of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript before submission.

Funding

This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. The journal’s Rapid Service Fee was also sponsored by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest

Hidehisa Saeki received grants from AbbVie, Eisai Co., Ltd., LEO Pharma K.K., Maruho Co., Ltd., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Torii Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Tokiwa Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and honoraria from AbbVie, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Japan Tobacco Inc., LEO Pharma K.K., Maruho Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Novartis Pharma K.K., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Sanofi K.K., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Pfizer Japan Inc., Amgen Inc., and Torii Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Yukihiro Ohya received grants from Fam Pharma, Kao, and Maruho Co., Ltd., consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly Japan K.K., LEO Pharma K. K., Maruho Co., Ltd., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Sanofi K.K., and honoraria from AbbVie, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Pfizer, Pola Pharma Inc., Sanofi K.K., Sinopharm, Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Thermo Fisher Scientific, and Torii Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Naoko Baba received honoraria from Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Maruho Co., Ltd., and Torii Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Tomomi Imamura, Daisuke Yokota, Hidetsugu Tsubouchi, Toshiya Oka, Tomoyo Takayama, Ayaka Soga, Yu Takeuchi, Daisaku Michikami, Takahiro Tsuchiya, and Hiroe Takeda are employees of Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Ethical Approval

This study received approval by the respective institutional review boards at study sites and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice guideline, and the applicable local laws and regulatory requirements in Japan. Parents or guardians of all infants provided written informed consents before participation in the study.

Prior Presentation: This manuscript is based on work that has been previously presented. Presented at: The 53rd Annual Meeting of the Japanese Society for Cutaneous Immunology and Allergy; December 8–10, 2023; Tokyo.
==== Refs
References

1. Silverberg JI Nelson DB Yosipovitch G Addressing treatment challenges in atopic dermatitis with novel topical therapies J Dermatol Treat 2016 27 568 576 10.1080/09546634.2016.1174765
Silverberg JI, Nelson DB, Yosipovitch G. Addressing treatment challenges in atopic dermatitis with novel topical therapies. J Dermatol Treat. 2016;27:568–76.10.1080/09546634.2016.1174765
2. Nygaard U Deleuran M Vestergaard C Emerging treatment options in atopic dermatitis: topical therapies Dermatology 2017 233 333 343 10.1159/000484407 29216643
Nygaard U, Deleuran M, Vestergaard C. Emerging treatment options in atopic dermatitis: topical therapies. Dermatology. 2017;233:333–43.29216643 10.1159/000484407
3. Simpson EL Bieber T Eckert L Patient burden of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD): insights from a phase 2b clinical trial of dupilumab in adults J Am Acad Dermatol 2016 74 491 498 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.10.043 26777100
Simpson EL, Bieber T, Eckert L, et al. Patient burden of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD): insights from a phase 2b clinical trial of dupilumab in adults. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:491–8.26777100 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.10.043
4. Langan SM Irvine AD Weidinger S Atopic dermatitis Lancet 2020 396 10247 345 360 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31286-1 32738956
Langan SM, Irvine AD, Weidinger S. Atopic dermatitis. Lancet. 2020;396(10247):345–60.32738956 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31286-1
5. Bieber T Atopic dermatitis N Engl J Med 2008 358 1483 1494 10.1056/NEJMra074081 18385500
Bieber T. Atopic dermatitis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1483–94.18385500 10.1056/NEJMra074081
6. Dhillon S Delgocitinib: first approval Drugs 2020 80 609 615 10.1007/s40265-020-01291-2 32166597
Dhillon S. Delgocitinib: first approval. Drugs. 2020;80:609–15.32166597 10.1007/s40265-020-01291-2
7. Saeki H Ohya Y Furuta J English version of clinical practice guidelines for the management of atopic dermatitis 2021 J Dermatol 2022 49 e315 e375 35996152
Saeki H, Ohya Y, Furuta J, et al. English version of clinical practice guidelines for the management of atopic dermatitis 2021. J Dermatol. 2022;49:e315–75.35996152
8. Nakagawa H Igarashi A Saeki H Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of delgocitinib ointment in infants with atopic dermatitis: A phase 3, open-label, and long-term study Allergol Int 2024 73 137 142 10.1016/j.alit.2023.04.003 37100717
Nakagawa H, Igarashi A, Saeki H, et al. Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of delgocitinib ointment in infants with atopic dermatitis: A phase 3, open-label, and long-term study. Allergol Int. 2024;73:137–42.37100717 10.1016/j.alit.2023.04.003
9. Hanifin J Gupta AK Rajagopalan R Intermittent dosing of fluticasone propionate cream for reducing the risk of relapse in atopic dermatitis patients Br J Dermatol 2002 147 528 537 10.1046/j.1365-2133.2002.05006.x 12207596
Hanifin J, Gupta AK, Rajagopalan R. Intermittent dosing of fluticasone propionate cream for reducing the risk of relapse in atopic dermatitis patients. Br J Dermatol. 2002;147:528–37.12207596 10.1046/j.1365-2133.2002.05006.x
10. Callen J Chamlin S Eichenfield LF A systematic review of the safety of topical therapies for atopic dermatitis Br J Dermatol 2007 156 203 221 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07538.x 17223859
Callen J, Chamlin S, Eichenfield LF, et al. A systematic review of the safety of topical therapies for atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2007;156:203–21.17223859 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07538.x
11. Friedlander F Hebert AA Allen DB Safety of fluticasone propionate cream 0.05% for the treatment of severe and extensive atopic dermatitis in children as young as 3 months J Am Acad Dermatol 2002 46 387 393 10.1067/mjd.2002.118337 11862174
Friedlander F, Hebert AA, Allen DB. Safety of fluticasone propionate cream 0.05% for the treatment of severe and extensive atopic dermatitis in children as young as 3 months. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;46:387–93.11862174 10.1067/mjd.2002.118337
12. Egawa G Kabashima K Multifactorial skin barrier deficiency and atopic dermatitis: essential topics to prevent the atopic march J Allergy Clin Immunol 2016 138 350 358.e1 10.1016/j.jaci.2016.06.002 27497277
Egawa G, Kabashima K. Multifactorial skin barrier deficiency and atopic dermatitis: essential topics to prevent the atopic march. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;138:350-358.e1.27497277 10.1016/j.jaci.2016.06.002
13. Paller AS Spergel JM Mina-Osorio P Irvine AD The atopic march and atopic multimorbidity: many trajectories, many pathways J Allergy Clin Immunol 2019 143 46 55 10.1016/j.jaci.2018.11.006 30458183
Paller AS, Spergel JM, Mina-Osorio P, Irvine AD. The atopic march and atopic multimorbidity: many trajectories, many pathways. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;143:46–55.30458183 10.1016/j.jaci.2018.11.006
14. Aubert-Wastiaux H Moret L Le Rhun A Topical corticosteroid phobia in atopic dermatitis: a study of its nature, origins and frequency Br J Dermatol 2011 165 808 814 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10449.x 21671892
Aubert-Wastiaux H, Moret L, Le Rhun A, et al. Topical corticosteroid phobia in atopic dermatitis: a study of its nature, origins and frequency. Br J Dermatol. 2011;165:808–14.21671892 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10449.x
15. Hiyama H Arichika N Okada M Pharmacological profile of difamilast, a novel selective phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, for topical treatment of atopic dermatitis J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2023 386 45 55 10.1124/jpet.123.001609 37041087
Hiyama H, Arichika N, Okada M, et al. Pharmacological profile of difamilast, a novel selective phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, for topical treatment of atopic dermatitis. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2023;386:45–55.37041087 10.1124/jpet.123.001609
16. Li G He D Cai X Advances in the development of phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors Eur J Med Chem 2023 10.1016/j.ejmech.2023.115195 38215589
Li G, He D, Cai X, et al. Advances in the development of phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors. Eur J Med Chem. 2023. 10.1016/j.ejmech.2023.115195.38215589 10.1016/j.ejmech.2023.115195
17. Guttman-Yassky E Hanifin JM Boguniewicz M The role of phosphodiesterase 4 in the pathophysiology of atopic dermatitis and the perspective for its inhibition Exp Dermatol 2019 28 3 10 10.1111/exd.13808 30332502
Guttman-Yassky E, Hanifin JM, Boguniewicz M, et al. The role of phosphodiesterase 4 in the pathophysiology of atopic dermatitis and the perspective for its inhibition. Exp Dermatol. 2019;28:3–10.30332502 10.1111/exd.13808
18. Zebda R Paller AS Phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors J Am Acad Dermatol 2018 78 3 Suppl 1 S43 S52 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.11.056 29248522
Zebda R, Paller AS. Phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(3 Suppl 1):S43–52.29248522 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.11.056
19. Saeki H Kawashima M Sugaya S Oshiden K Tsubouchi H Efficacy and safety of topical OPA-15406, a new phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, in Japanese patients with atopic dermatitis for 8 weeks: a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study J Dermatol 2019 46 672 679 10.1111/1346-8138.14979 34263481
Saeki H, Kawashima M, Sugaya S, Oshiden K, Tsubouchi H. Efficacy and safety of topical OPA-15406, a new phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, in Japanese patients with atopic dermatitis for 8 weeks: a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Dermatol. 2019;46:672–9.34263481 10.1111/1346-8138.14979
20. Saeki H Baba N Oshiden K Abe Y Tsubouchi H Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 4-week study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of OPA-15406 (difamilast), a new topical selective phosphodiesterase type-4 inhibitor, in Japanese pediatric patients aged 2–14 years with atopic dermatitis J Dermatol 2019 47 17 24 10.1111/1346-8138.15137 31713267
Saeki H, Baba N, Oshiden K, Abe Y, Tsubouchi H. Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 4-week study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of OPA-15406 (difamilast), a new topical selective phosphodiesterase type-4 inhibitor, in Japanese pediatric patients aged 2–14 years with atopic dermatitis. J Dermatol. 2019;47:17–24.31713267 10.1111/1346-8138.15137
21. Saeki H Ito K Yokota D Tsubouchi H Difamilast ointment in adult patients with atopic dermatitis: a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial J Am Acad Dermatol 2022 86 607 614 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.10.027 34710557
Saeki H, Ito K, Yokota D, Tsubouchi H. Difamilast ointment in adult patients with atopic dermatitis: a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;86:607–14.34710557 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.10.027
22. Saeki H Baba N Ito K Yokota D Tsubouchi H Difamilast, a selective phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, ointment in paediatric patients with atopic dermatitis: a phase III randomized double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial Br J Dermatol 2022 186 40 49 10.1111/bjd.20655 34289086
Saeki H, Baba N, Ito K, Yokota D, Tsubouchi H. Difamilast, a selective phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, ointment in paediatric patients with atopic dermatitis: a phase III randomized double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial. Br J Dermatol. 2022;186:40–9.34289086 10.1111/bjd.20655
23. Saeki H Imamura T Yokota D Tsubouchi H Difamilast ointment in Japanese adult and pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis: a phase III, long-term, open-label study Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) 2022 12 1589 1601 10.1007/s13555-022-00751-9 35716332
Saeki H, Imamura T, Yokota D, Tsubouchi H. Difamilast ointment in Japanese adult and pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis: a phase III, long-term, open-label study. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2022;12:1589–601.35716332 10.1007/s13555-022-00751-9
24. Futamura M Leshem YA Thomas KS Nankervis H Williams HC Simpson EL A systematic review of investigator global assessment (IGA) in atopic dermatitis (AD) trials: many options, no standards J Am Acad Dermatol 2016 74 288 294 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.09.062 26685719
Futamura M, Leshem YA, Thomas KS, Nankervis H, Williams HC, Simpson EL. A systematic review of investigator global assessment (IGA) in atopic dermatitis (AD) trials: many options, no standards. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:288–94.26685719 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.09.062
25. Hanifin JM Thurston M Omoto M Cherill R Tofte SJ Graeber M The eczema area and severity index (EASI): assessment of reliability in atopic dermatitis Exp Dermatol 2001 10 11 18 10.1034/j.1600-0625.2001.100102.x 11168575
Hanifin JM, Thurston M, Omoto M, Cherill R, Tofte SJ, Graeber M. The eczema area and severity index (EASI): assessment of reliability in atopic dermatitis. Exp Dermatol. 2001;10:11–8.11168575 10.1034/j.1600-0625.2001.100102.x
26. Charman CR Venn AJ Ravenscroft JC Williams HC Translating patient-oriented eczema measure (POEM) scores into clinical practice by suggesting severity strata derived using anchor-based methods Br J Dermatol 2013 169 1326 1332 10.1111/bjd.12590 24024631
Charman CR, Venn AJ, Ravenscroft JC, Williams HC. Translating patient-oriented eczema measure (POEM) scores into clinical practice by suggesting severity strata derived using anchor-based methods. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169:1326–32.24024631 10.1111/bjd.12590
27. Jiang MY Duan YP Tong X Clinical manifestations of respiratory syncytial virus infection and the risk of wheezing and recurrent wheezing illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis World J Pediatr 2023 19 1030 1040 10.1007/s12519-023-00743-5 37531038
Jiang MY, Duan YP, Tong X, et al. Clinical manifestations of respiratory syncytial virus infection and the risk of wheezing and recurrent wheezing illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Pediatr. 2023;19:1030–40.37531038 10.1007/s12519-023-00743-5
28. Noval Rivas M Arditi M Kawasaki disease and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: common inflammatory pathways of two distinct diseases Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2023 49 647 659 10.1016/j.rdc.2023.03.002 37331738
Noval Rivas M, Arditi M. Kawasaki disease and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: common inflammatory pathways of two distinct diseases. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2023;49:647–59.37331738 10.1016/j.rdc.2023.03.002
29. Honda T Kabashima K Reconciling innate and acquired immunity in atopic dermatitis J Allergy Clin Immunol 2020 145 1136 1137 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.02.008 32109456
Honda T, Kabashima K. Reconciling innate and acquired immunity in atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;145:1136–7.32109456 10.1016/j.jaci.2020.02.008
30. Otsuka A Nomura T Rerknimitr P Seidel JA Honda T Kabashima K The interplay between genetic and environmental factors in the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis Immunol Rev 2017 278 246 262 10.1111/imr.12545 28658541
Otsuka A, Nomura T, Rerknimitr P, Seidel JA, Honda T, Kabashima K. The interplay between genetic and environmental factors in the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis. Immunol Rev. 2017;278:246–62.28658541 10.1111/imr.12545
31. Takahashi K Miyake K Ito J Topical application of a PDE4 inhibitor ameliorates atopic dermatitis through inhibition of basophil IL-4 production J Invest Dermatol 2023 10.1016/j.jid.2023.09.272 37827277
Takahashi K, Miyake K, Ito J, et al. Topical application of a PDE4 inhibitor ameliorates atopic dermatitis through inhibition of basophil IL-4 production. J Invest Dermatol. 2023. 10.1016/j.jid.2023.09.272.37827277 10.1016/j.jid.2023.09.272
32. Rudikoff D Lebwohl M Atopic dermatitis Lancet 1998 351 9117 1715 1721 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)12082-7 9734903
Rudikoff D, Lebwohl M. Atopic dermatitis. Lancet. 1998;351(9117):1715–21.9734903 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)12082-7
33. Brook I Microbial dynamics of purulent nasopharyngitis in children Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2003 67 10 1047 1053 10.1016/S0165-5876(03)00203-9 14550957
Brook I. Microbial dynamics of purulent nasopharyngitis in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2003;67(10):1047–53.14550957 10.1016/S0165-5876(03)00203-9
34. Borok J Matiz C Goldenberg A Jacob SE Contact dermatitis in atopic dermatitis children—past, present, and future Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2019 56 86 98 10.1007/s12016-018-8711-2 30225535
Borok J, Matiz C, Goldenberg A, Jacob SE. Contact dermatitis in atopic dermatitis children—past, present, and future. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2019;56:86–98.30225535 10.1007/s12016-018-8711-2
35. Marissen J Gomez de Agüero M Chandorkar P The delicate skin of preterm infants: barrier function, immune-microbiome interaction, and clinical implications Neonatology 2023 120 295 307 10.1159/000529026 36934717
Marissen J, Gomez de Agüero M, Chandorkar P, et al. The delicate skin of preterm infants: barrier function, immune-microbiome interaction, and clinical implications. Neonatology. 2023;120:295–307.36934717 10.1159/000529026
36. Reitamo S Ortonne JP Sand C A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, controlled study of long-term treatment with 0.1% tacrolimus ointment in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis Br J Dermatol 2005 152 1282 1289 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2005.06592.x 15948994
Reitamo S, Ortonne JP, Sand C, et al. A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, controlled study of long-term treatment with 0.1% tacrolimus ointment in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2005;152:1282–9.15948994 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2005.06592.x
