All the listed end points are useful. When I read studies, I tend to look first to EASI scores, but when it comes to treating the individual patient in front of us, it's an n= 1. I haven't found too many patients interested in comparing these products' specific endpoints. The endpoints are necessary for product approval, but after that, I think most of our prescribing patterns flow from our real world experience using the meds with our patients.

As for JAK inhibitors, I'm looking forward to having new weapons to combat AD, but given the multiple safety concerns of the oral versions, I'd be more comfortable dipping my toes in this water with topical JAK inhibitors first, assuming they're available, too. Us allergists don't have much experience prescribing systemic meds that have potential thrombotic, malignant, infectious, and pregnancy complications. I'd like to see some guidance first from our national A/I societies on recommended baseline and ongoing labs/screenings for these oral JAK inhibitors. Dupixent would likely remain my go-to systemic drug during the initial oral JAK inhibitor rollout.

Potentially, topical JAK inhibitors could supplant some of the other topical agents we use, but for mild patient. I'd likely favor continuing to use the currents agents given their prove utility over many years and presumably their better side effect profile.

All the listed end points are useful. When I read studies, I tend to look first to EASI scores, but when it comes to treating the individual patient in front of us, it's an n= 1. I haven't found too many patients interested in comparing these products' specific endpoints. The endpoints are necessary for product approval, but after that, I think most of our prescribing patterns flow from our real world experience using the meds with our patients.

As for JAK inhibitors, I'm looking forward to having new weapons to combat AD, but given the multiple safety concerns of the oral versions, I'd be more comfortable dipping my toes in this water with topical JAK inhibitors first, assuming they're available, too. Us allergists don't have much experience prescribing systemic meds that have potential thrombotic, malignant, infectious, and pregnancy complications. I'd like to see some guidance first from our national A/I societies on recommended baseline and ongoing labs/screenings for these oral JAK inhibitors. Dupixent would likely remain my go-to systemic drug during the initial oral JAK inhibitor rollout.

Potentially, topical JAK inhibitors could supplant some of the other topical agents we use, but for mild patient. I'd likely favor continuing to use the currents agents given their prove utility over many years and presumably their better side effect profile.

All the listed end points are useful. When I read studies, I tend to look first to EASI scores, but when it comes to treating the individual patient in front of us, it's an n= 1. I haven't found too many patients interested in comparing these products' specific endpoints. The endpoints are necessary for product approval, but after that, I think most of our prescribing patterns flow from our real world experience using the meds with our patients.

As for JAK inhibitors, I'm looking forward to having new weapons to combat AD, but given the multiple safety concerns of the oral versions, I'd be more comfortable dipping my toes in this water with topical JAK inhibitors first, assuming they're available, too. Us allergists don't have much experience prescribing systemic meds that have potential thrombotic, malignant, infectious, and pregnancy complications. I'd like to see some guidance first from our national A/I societies on recommended baseline and ongoing labs/screenings for these oral JAK inhibitors. Dupixent would likely remain my go-to systemic drug during the initial oral JAK inhibitor rollout.

Potentially, topical JAK inhibitors could supplant some of the other topical agents we use, but for mild patient. I'd likely favor continuing to use the currents agents given their prove utility over many years and presumably their better side effect profile.

A. Topical JAK would be useful especially if it has better efficacy metrics than Elidel or Eucrissa

A. Topical JAK would be useful especially if it has better efficacy metrics than Elidel or Eucrissa

A. Topical JAK would be useful especially if it has better efficacy metrics than Elidel or Eucrissa

Clinical trial endpoints of interest are EASI 75 improvement, pruritis score and QOL as well as onset of action
I would use oral JAK inhibitors as third line, due to less favorable side effect profile than dupilimab would use if not improved on this therapy. A topical could be second line for those failing TCS. Therefore, milder patients may benefit from the effectiveness vs TCI or Eucrisa

Clinical trial endpoints of interest are EASI 75 improvement, pruritis score and QOL as well as onset of action
I would use oral JAK inhibitors as third line, due to less favorable side effect profile than dupilimab would use if not improved on this therapy. A topical could be second line for those failing TCS. Therefore, milder patients may benefit from the effectiveness vs TCI or Eucrisa

Clinical trial endpoints of interest are EASI 75 improvement, pruritis score and QOL as well as onset of action
I would use oral JAK inhibitors as third line, due to less favorable side effect profile than dupilimab would use if not improved on this therapy. A topical could be second line for those failing TCS. Therefore, milder patients may benefit from the effectiveness vs TCI or Eucrisa

Jak inhibitors add a different mechanism of action to treat AD. I routinely use SCORAD to grade my patients . I can see using oral JAK inhibitors to gain control and then switching to topical therapy. I minimize eucrisa and tacralimus because of burning with these agents.

Jak inhibitors add a different mechanism of action to treat AD. I routinely use SCORAD to grade my patients . I can see using oral JAK inhibitors to gain control and then switching to topical therapy. I minimize eucrisa and tacralimus because of burning with these agents.

Jak inhibitors add a different mechanism of action to treat AD. I routinely use SCORAD to grade my patients . I can see using oral JAK inhibitors to gain control and then switching to topical therapy. I minimize eucrisa and tacralimus because of burning with these agents.

If the QOL & pruritus are severe, I would consider topical JAK inhibitor Rx. This will be par with Protopic ointment and superior to Eucrisa. The patient must have exhausted all known therapies and has severe recalcitrant atopic dermatitis. The patient must have tried and failed Dupixent. Then, if they agree to the Black Box warning and multiple risks of oral JAK inhibitors, I may consider using them.

If the QOL & pruritus are severe, I would consider topical JAK inhibitor Rx. This will be par with Protopic ointment and superior to Eucrisa. The patient must have exhausted all known therapies and has severe recalcitrant atopic dermatitis. The patient must have tried and failed Dupixent. Then, if they agree to the Black Box warning and multiple risks of oral JAK inhibitors, I may consider using them.

If the QOL & pruritus are severe, I would consider topical JAK inhibitor Rx. This will be par with Protopic ointment and superior to Eucrisa. The patient must have exhausted all known therapies and has severe recalcitrant atopic dermatitis. The patient must have tried and failed Dupixent. Then, if they agree to the Black Box warning and multiple risks of oral JAK inhibitors, I may consider using them.

Any of the clinical trial endpoints would be useful if used consistently by all observers and are measurable. Consider creating graphic for each patient. Consider using more than one clinical endpoint.

I would consider use of JAK inhibitor as second line unless there is a contraindication of first line therapy. AD severity should be a least strongly moderate or severe.

The availabilty of topical JAK inhibitors may decrease use of other topicals but will depend on cos, if there is a blackbox warning and coverage as well as prior auth hassels.

Any of the clinical trial endpoints would be useful if used consistently by all observers and are measurable. Consider creating graphic for each patient. Consider using more than one clinical endpoint.

I would consider use of JAK inhibitor as second line unless there is a contraindication of first line therapy. AD severity should be a least strongly moderate or severe.

The availabilty of topical JAK inhibitors may decrease use of other topicals but will depend on cos, if there is a blackbox warning and coverage as well as prior auth hassels.

Any of the clinical trial endpoints would be useful if used consistently by all observers and are measurable. Consider creating graphic for each patient. Consider using more than one clinical endpoint.

I would consider use of JAK inhibitor as second line unless there is a contraindication of first line therapy. AD severity should be a least strongly moderate or severe.

The availabilty of topical JAK inhibitors may decrease use of other topicals but will depend on cos, if there is a blackbox warning and coverage as well as prior auth hassels.

-At least 2 step improvement in IGA to no worse than 0 or 1; 75% or better improvement in EASI score; no or almost no pruritus
- Moderate to severe, unresponsive or inadequate response to topicals; probably would use Dupixent before considering oral JAK inhibitors
- I am not a big fan of Eucrisa, and would likely use topical JAK inhibitor before calcineurin inhibitors

-At least 2 step improvement in IGA to no worse than 0 or 1; 75% or better improvement in EASI score; no or almost no pruritus
- Moderate to severe, unresponsive or inadequate response to topicals; probably would use Dupixent before considering oral JAK inhibitors
- I am not a big fan of Eucrisa, and would likely use topical JAK inhibitor before calcineurin inhibitors

-At least 2 step improvement in IGA to no worse than 0 or 1; 75% or better improvement in EASI score; no or almost no pruritus
- Moderate to severe, unresponsive or inadequate response to topicals; probably would use Dupixent before considering oral JAK inhibitors
- I am not a big fan of Eucrisa, and would likely use topical JAK inhibitor before calcineurin inhibitors

Clinical endpoints would be no pruritus: zero itching, zero scratching, no lichenified patches, no eyelid eczema. Lack of would affect QOL.
AD would have to be the severe, after trying everything.
Topical JAK would probably replace the other topicals
until it has been used and studied for a few years.

Clinical endpoints would be no pruritus: zero itching, zero scratching, no lichenified patches, no eyelid eczema. Lack of would affect QOL.
AD would have to be the severe, after trying everything.
Topical JAK would probably replace the other topicals
until it has been used and studied for a few years.

Clinical endpoints would be no pruritus: zero itching, zero scratching, no lichenified patches, no eyelid eczema. Lack of would affect QOL.
AD would have to be the severe, after trying everything.
Topical JAK would probably replace the other topicals
until it has been used and studied for a few years.

In clinical practice 1)visual assessment by the clinician and the patients reporting of symptoms and how they impact their life are important 2) Analog itch scales are also important JAK inhibitors show high efficacy in abating signs and symptoms of inflammatory disease in the skin and joints The biggest question is whether they will carry a black box warning as a class If this occurs I think usage will be limited due to fear of incurring malpractice risk

In clinical practice 1)visual assessment by the clinician and the patients reporting of symptoms and how they impact their life are important 2) Analog itch scales are also important JAK inhibitors show high efficacy in abating signs and symptoms of inflammatory disease in the skin and joints The biggest question is whether they will carry a black box warning as a class If this occurs I think usage will be limited due to fear of incurring malpractice risk

In clinical practice 1)visual assessment by the clinician and the patients reporting of symptoms and how they impact their life are important 2) Analog itch scales are also important JAK inhibitors show high efficacy in abating signs and symptoms of inflammatory disease in the skin and joints The biggest question is whether they will carry a black box warning as a class If this occurs I think usage will be limited due to fear of incurring malpractice risk

Easi score and pruritus score most impactful. Would use In all subsets of AD from mild to severe. Would definitely prefer JAK inhibitor over topical calcineurin inhibitors or eucrisa due to better efficacy and tolerability

Easi score and pruritus score most impactful. Would use In all subsets of AD from mild to severe. Would definitely prefer JAK inhibitor over topical calcineurin inhibitors or eucrisa due to better efficacy and tolerability

Easi score and pruritus score most impactful. Would use In all subsets of AD from mild to severe. Would definitely prefer JAK inhibitor over topical calcineurin inhibitors or eucrisa due to better efficacy and tolerability