
Atopic dermatitis (AD) care has expanded significantly in recent years, but for many patients, the lived experience hasn’t kept pace. What we see in clinic often reflects a familiar pattern: cycles of partial control, ongoing symptoms, and treatment decisions that don’t always match the true burden of disease.
In this webcast, Harrison Nguyen, MD, anchored the discussion with a case study of a familiar profile, focusing less on what we can do, and more on how we’re actually treating AD, and where that gap still exists.
Moderate on paper doesn’t always mean manageable: Measures like BSA and IGA don’t fully capture disease impact, especially when involvement is visible or itch persists. Head and neck disease, in particular, can carry a disproportionate burden.
Many patients stay in the cycle: Topicals, short-term improvement, relapse, and repeat. Even patients who have tried multiple therapies may never reach consistent control.
We’re often treating flares, not the disease: Care remains largely reactive, with treatment intensified during flares and scaled back once symptoms improve.
Earlier escalation is being reconsidered: Waiting for disease to worsen, or for multiple therapies to fail, may not serve patients well.
Stability is becoming the goal: Clear or almost clear skin matters, but so does consistency—fewer flares, less interruption, and less time spent managing symptoms.
Treatment burden matters: It’s not just whether something works, but how much effort it takes to maintain control, for both patients and practices.
Something to consider: Are we waiting too long to change course?
This session set the stage for a deeper look at how evolving treatment options, like lebrikizumab, may support a more consistent, long-term approach to disease control.
Please take a moment to share your thoughts in this brief survey. Your feedback helps shape future sessions. We’ll be continuing this discussion on April 14 with a new set of faculty—worth sharing with colleagues who may want to join.