Generic instruments such as EQ-5D are useful to compare quality of life (QoL) of different populations and to include QoL information in health-economic research. However these instruments could be criticized for having some drawbacks, and disease-specific instruments could be more capable to measure those aspects of wellbeing influenced by a specific disease and could be more sensitive to measure health changes over the time. OBJECTIVES: We tested convergent validity and sensitivity to change over time of EQ-5D and the Dermatology-Life-Quality-Index (DLQI, possible scores=0-30, higher score=lower QoL) in Atopic Dermatitis (AD), a very frequent, chronic, sensitively disabling disease. METHODS: Data from the Costi-&-Outcomes-in-Dermatite-Atopica (CODA) naturalistic, prospective, Cost-Of-Illness study, involving moderate and severe AD patients, were used. Socio-demographic, clinical severity (with SCORAD, SCORing-Atopic-Dermatitis index, possible score=0-100, higher score=higher severity), economic and QoL data were collected. Patients from 16 y.o. self-completed twice (at flare-up and after 2 months) EQ-5D and DLQI. We tested correlation of EQ-5D indexes with DLQI and sensitivity to change over time of these indexes with paired Students' t tests, Standardized Response Mean (SRM), Effect Size (EF). RESULTS: Patients were 98, 48% male, median age=30.5 y.o. (18-77). At enrolment median SCORAD=53.0 (18.4-90.0), median EQ-VAS=65.0 (0.0-95.0), median utility score from EQ-profile=0.69 (-0.24 to 1.00), median DLQI=10.0 (0.0-30.0). EQ-VAS and utilities significantly correlated with DLQI (Spearman's coefficient >-0.500, p<0.0001 in every case). At follow-up SCORAD significantly decreased and patients reported significant higher levels of QoL with every score (Student's paired t test, p<0.0001 in every index). SRM (EQ-VAS=0.85, utility=0.70, DLQI=0.89) and ES (EQ-VAS=0.90, utility=0.76, DLQI=0.81) were significant. CONCLUSION: EQ-5D and DLQI are good to measure QoL related to AD and to evaluate wellbeing change over time. A routine use of these instruments should be considered in evaluating consequences of AD and its treatment on patients' wellbeing to optimize therapeutic choices.