Background: Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a heterogeneous group of rare and incurable genetic disorders characterized by fragility of the skin and mucosae, resulting in blisters and erosions. Several epidemiological studies in other populations have been carried out, reporting varying and sometimes inconclusive figures, highlighting the need for standardized epidemiological analyses in well‐characterized cohorts.Objectives: To evaluate the epidemiological data on EB in the Netherlands, extracted from the molecularly well‐characterized cohort in the Dutch EB Registry.Methods: In this observational study all EB‐patients that were based in the Netherlands and captured in the Dutch EB Registry between 1988 and 2018 were included. The epidemiological outcomes were based on complete diagnostic data (clinical features, immunofluorescence, electron microscopy and mutation analysis), with longitudinal follow‐up.Results: A total of 464 EB‐patients (287 families) were included. The incidence and point‐prevalence of EB in the Netherlands were 41.3 per million live births and 22.4 per million population, respectively. EB Simplex (EBS), Junctional EB (JEB), Dystrophic EB (DEB) and Kindler EB were diagnosed in 45.7%, 18.8%, 34.7% and 0.9% of the EB‐patients, respectively, with an incidence and point‐prevalence of 17.5 and 11.9 (EBS), 9.3 and 2.1 (JEB), 14.1 and 8.3 (DEB), 0.5 and 0.2 (Kindler EB). In 90.5% of the EB‐patients the diagnosis was genetically confirmed. During the investigated time period 73 EB‐patients died, 72.6% of whom as a direct consequence of their EB.Conclusion: The epidemiological outcomes of EB in the Netherlands are high, attributed to a high detection rate in a well‐organized set‐up, indicating that EB might be more common than previously assumed. These epidemiological data help to understand the extensive need for (specialized) medical care of EB‐patients and is invaluable for the design and execution of therapeutic trials. This study emphasizes the importance of thorough reporting systems and registries worldwide.

The “generalized severe” form of recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB-gen sev) is caused by bi-allelic null mutations in COL7A1, encoding type VII collagen. The absence of type VII collagen leads to blistering of the skin and mucous membranes upon the slightest trauma. Because most patients carry exonic point mutations or small insertions/deletions, most exons of COL7A1 are in-frame, and low levels of type VII collagen already drastically improve the disease phenotype, this gene seems a perfect candidate for antisense oligonucleotide (AON)-mediated exon skipping. In this study, we examined the feasibility of AON-mediated exon skipping in vitro in primary cultured keratinocytes and fibroblasts, and systemically in vivo using a human skin-graft mouse model. We show that treatment with AONs designed against exon 105 leads to in-frame exon 105 skipping at the RNA level and restores type VII collagen protein production in vitro. Moreover, we demonstrate that systemic delivery in vivo induces de novo expression of type VII collagen in skin grafts generated from patient cells. Our data demonstrate strong proof-of-concept for AON-mediated exon skipping as a systemic therapeutic strategy for RDEB.

Medication adherence is a key factor impacting efficacy and safety of medicines, yet how it is dealt with in European registration trials is unknown. A cross‐sectional analysis of European Medicines Agency (EMA) marketing authorization dossiers for new medicines approved through centralized procedures in the European Union between 2010 and 2020 was performed. Data were extracted from European Public Assessment Reports and Clinical Study Reports. Clinical trials covering five therapeutic areas were included: diabetes, respiratory conditions, cardiovascular diseases, infectious diseases, and oncology. Outcomes included adherence assessment, measurement methods, and rates. Overall, 102 medicines studied in 253 clinical trials were reviewed. All but one study reported measuring adherence. Two hundred twenty trials (87%) measured adherence using quantitative methods, while 32 (13%) trials monitored adherence but did not further quantify. Reported adherence rates were high (> 90%) across trials yet marked disparities in measurement methods and definitions were found. The most frequently used adherence measurement method was pill/dose count (single method: 52.7%; in combination: 37.7%; with patient diary/report: 17.3%; electronic methods: 1.4%; bioanalytical methods: 4.1%). Patient diary/report (6.4%) and electronic methods (2.7%) were also used as single methods. Electronic methods were more often used in respiratory and anti‐infective trials, while bioanalytical methods were more frequently used in diabetes. Overall, adherence is measured in EMA registration trials, yet the methods used and the way in which adherence rates are presented vary widely between trials and therapeutic areas. To better understand and compare efficacy of medicines, standardization of adherence definitions and measurement methods is needed.

Background: Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a rare, genetically and clinically heterogeneous group of skin fragility disorders. No cure is currently available, but many novel and repurposed treatments are upcoming. For adequate evaluation and comparison of clinical studies in EB, well-defined and consistent consensus-endorsed outcomes and outcome measurement instruments are necessary. Objectives: To identify previously reported outcomes in EB clinical research, group these outcomes by outcome domains and areas and summarize respective outcome measurement instruments. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in the databases MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO and trial registries covering the period between January 1991 and September 2021. Studies were included if they evaluated a treatment in a minimum of three patients with EB. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection and data extraction. All identified outcomes and their respective instruments were mapped onto overarching outcome domains. The outcome domains were stratified according to subgroups of EB type, age group, intervention, decade and phase of clinical trial. Results: The included studies (n = 207) covered a range of study designs and geographical settings. A total of 1280 outcomes were extracted verbatim and inductively mapped onto 80 outcome domains and 14 outcome areas. We found a steady increase in the number of published clinical trials and outcomes reported over the past 30 years. The included studies mainly focused on recessive dystrophic EB (43%). Wound healing was reported most frequently across all studies and referred to as a primary outcome in 31% of trials. Great heterogeneity of reported outcomes was observed within all stratified subgroups. Moreover, a diverse range of outcome measurement instruments (n = 200) was identified. Conclusions: We show substantial heterogeneity in reported outcomes and outcome measurement instruments in EB clinical research over the past 30 years. This review is the first step towards harmonization of outcomes in EB, which is necessary to expedite the clinical translation of novel treatments for patients with EB.