4.7 Review

Clinical phenotypes and endophenotypes of atopic dermatitis: Where are we, and where should we go?

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 139, 期 4, 页码 S58-S64

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2017.01.008

关键词

Atopic dermatitis; clinical phenotype; endophenotype; biomarkers; stratified medicine; precision medicine

资金

  1. Sanofi/Regeneron
  2. Novartis
  3. PREDICTA: European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation Research
  5. MeDALL: European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme
  6. Christine Kuhne-Center for Allergy Research (CK-CARE)
  7. CK-CARE Center of Allergy Research and Education
  8. Kuhne Foundation
  9. Meda
  10. Menarini
  11. Nestle
  12. Vifor
  13. ALK-Abello

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a paradigmatic chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by a complex pathophysiology and a wide spectrum of the clinical phenotype. Despite this high degree of heterogeneity, ADis still considered a single disease and usually treated according to the one-size-fits-all'' approach. Thus more tailored prevention and therapeutic strategies are still lacking. As for other disciplines, such as oncology or rheumatology, we have to approach AD in a more differentiated way (ie, to dissect and stratify the complex clinical phenotype into more homogeneous subgroups based on the endophenotype [panel of biomarkers]) with the aim to refine the management of this condition. Because we are now entering the era of personalized medicine, a systems biology approach merging the numerous clinical phenotypes with robust (ie, relevant and validated) biomarkers will be needed to best exploit their potential significance for the future molecular taxonomy of AD. This approach will not only allow an optimized prevention and treatment with the available drugs but also hopefully help assign newly developed medicinal products to those patients who will have the best benefit/risk ratio.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据