-
Acta Dermato-venereologica Aug 2022The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies of systemic treatments with dupilumab, tralokinumab and Janus kinase inhibitors for moderate-to-severe atopic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies of systemic treatments with dupilumab, tralokinumab and Janus kinase inhibitors for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was performed using Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane library. All randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in adults were included. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with atopic dermatitis achieving 50%, 75%, and 90% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score after dupilumab, tralokinumab or Janus kinase inhibitors. Nineteen studies totalling 6,444 patients were included. In monotherapy studies, upadacitinib 30 mg once daily had the numerically highest efficacy regarding EASI-50, EASI-75 and EASI-90. In combination therapy studies with topical corticosteroids, dupilumab 300 mg once every other week had highest efficacy regarding EASI-50, and abrocitinib 200 mg once daily had the highest score regarding EASI-75 and EASI-90. Analysis provided evidence that dupilumab, tralokinumab and Janus kinase inhibitors all had an acceptable efficacy profile and resulted in clinically relevant improvements in EASI score. Furthermore, upadacitinib and abrocitinib seem to have great potential to treat patients with atopic dermatitis. However, further studies are needed to determine the long-term efficacy of Janus kinase inhibitors in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological; Dermatitis, Atopic; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35818735
DOI: 10.2340/actadv.v102.2075 -
Dermatology and Therapy May 2022The comparative efficacy of targeted systemic therapies for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) has not been systematically assessed using recent phase 3 data....
INTRODUCTION
The comparative efficacy of targeted systemic therapies for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) has not been systematically assessed using recent phase 3 data. This network meta-analysis assesses the comparative efficacy of targeted systemic therapies without the addition of topical corticosteroids (TCS) and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) in adults with moderate to severe AD.
METHODS
The systematic literature review searched through 17 May 2021 for phase 3/4 trials with upadacitinib, interleukin-4 (IL-4), interleukin-13 (IL-13), or JAK inhibitors compared with placebo or active intervention for adults and adolescents with moderate to severe AD with inadequate response to TCS/TCI or for whom TCS/TCI was medically inadvisable, without restrictions on year or region. Researchers assessed data using PRISMA guidelines. The proportion of patients achieving trial co-primary endpoints [Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) and reduction of ≥ 2 points from baseline; proportion of patients achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) improvement ≥ 75% from baseline (EASI-75)]; EASI improvement ≥ 90% from baseline (EASI-90); and ≥ 4-point improvement on Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from baseline (ΔNRS ≥ 4) were evaluated using Bayesian network meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Of 3415 initially identified records, network meta-analysis (NMA) ultimately included 6 records representing 9 unique studies. Two upadacitinib trials were also included. Eleven clinical trials including 6254 patients were analyzed. Upadacitinib 30 mg daily was the most efficacious therapy across all endpoints at the primary endpoint (week 12 or 16) and at earlier timepoints, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg daily and abrocitinib 200 mg daily.
DISCUSSION
Many factors need to be considered for treatment selection for AD. These findings can help healthcare providers when personalizing a patient's treatment.
CONCLUSION
Upadacitinib 30 mg daily, upadacitinib 15 mg daily, and abrocitinib 200 mg daily may be the most efficacious targeted systemic therapies over 12-16 weeks of therapy in AD.
PubMed: 35435637
DOI: 10.1007/s13555-022-00721-1 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jul 2022In recent years, the broadening understanding of the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis (AD) has led to the development of novel therapeutic molecules, that target core... (Review)
Review
In recent years, the broadening understanding of the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis (AD) has led to the development of novel therapeutic molecules, that target core inflammatory components of the disease. The Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducer and activation of transcription (STAT) pathway constitutes the principal signaling cascade for a large number of cytokines and growth factors and is involved in intracellular signal transduction and subsequent regulation of gene transcription. Current knowledge suggests that the robust activation of the T-helper (Th)-2 [interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-31] and Th22 (IL-22) immune responses in both skin and serum plays a pivotal role in the immunopathogenesis of AD especially at the acute stage, followed by a variable degree of Th1 (interferon-γ, tumor necrosis factor alpha) and Th17 (IL-17) activation in chronic disease. Of note, most of the aforementioned inflammatory cytokines utilize the JAK/STAT pathway for downstream signal transduction, explaining the emerging role of JAK inhibitors in the therapeutic armamentarium of AD. The present systematic review aims to discuss the involvement of JAK/STAT pathway in the pathogenesis of AD and summarize the clinical data available on the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors which have been used in the treatment of AD thus far.
PubMed: 35956047
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11154431 -
The Journal of Infection Sep 2022Antibiotics are amongst the most commonly used drugs in children. In addition to inducing antibiotic resistance, antibiotic exposure has been associated with adverse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antibiotics are amongst the most commonly used drugs in children. In addition to inducing antibiotic resistance, antibiotic exposure has been associated with adverse long-term health outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic search using PRISMA guidelines to identify original studies reporting associations between antibiotic exposure and adverse long-term health outcomes in children. Overall pooled estimates of the odds ratios (ORs) were obtained using random-effects models.
RESULTS
We identified 160 observational studies investigating 21 outcomes in 22,103,129 children. Antibiotic exposure was associated with an increased risk of atopic dermatitis (OR 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30-1.52, p < 0.01), allergic symptoms (OR 1.93, 95%CI 1.66-2.26, p < 0.01), food allergies (OR 1.35, 95%CI 1.20-1.52, p < 0.01), allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (OR 1.66, 95%CI 1.51-1.83, p < 0.01), wheezing (OR 1.81, 95%CI 1.65-1.97, p < 0.01), asthma (OR 1.96, 95%CI 1.76-2.17, p < 0.01), increased weight gain or overweight (OR 1.18, 95%CI 1.11-1.26, p < 0.01), obesity (OR 1.21, 95%CI 1.05-1.40, p < 0.01), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (OR 1.74, 95%CI 1.21-2.52, p < 0.01), psoriasis (OR 1.75, 95%CI 1.44-2.11, p < 0.01), autism spectrum disorders (OR 1.19, 95%CI 1.04-1.36, p = 0.01) and neurodevelopment disorders (OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.09-1.53, p < 0.01). Dose-response effects and stronger effects with broad-spectrum antibiotic were often reported. Antibiotic exposure was not associated with an altered risk of allergic sensitisation, infantile colic, abdominal pain, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, type 1 diabetes, fluorosis, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
CONCLUSION
Although a causal association cannot be determined from these studies, the results support the meticulous application of sound antibiotic stewardship to avoid potential adverse long-term health outcomes.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Asthma; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 35021114
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2022.01.005 -
Journal of the European Academy of... Jun 2022Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, inflammatory skin disorder that most frequently occurs in children, but it can also affect adults. Even though most AD cases can be... (Review)
Review
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, inflammatory skin disorder that most frequently occurs in children, but it can also affect adults. Even though most AD cases can be managed with topical treatments, moderate-to-severe forms require systemic therapies. Dupilumab is the first human monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of AD. Its action is through IL-4 receptor alpha subunit inhibition, thus blocking IL-4 and IL-13 signaling pathways. It has been shown to be an effective, well-tolerated therapy for AD, as well as for asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP), and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). However, an increasing incidence of dupilumab-induced ocular surface disease (DIOSD) has been reported in patients treated with dupilumab, as compared to placebo. The aim of this study was to summarize scientific data regarding DIOSD in AD patients treated with dupilumab. A search of PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov databases was performed. There was no limit to study design. All AD cases were moderate-to-severe. DIOSD was either dermatologist-, allergist-, or ophthalmologist-assessed. Evidence shows that DIOSD occurs most frequently in patients with atopic dermatitis and not in other skin conditions, neither in patients with asthma, CRSwNP, nor EoE who are on dupilumab treatment. Further studies are warranted in order to establish a causal relationship between dupilumab and ocular surface disease. Nevertheless, ophthalmological evaluations prior to dupilumab initiation can benefit AD patients with previous ocular pathology or current ocular symptomatology. Also, patch testing for ocular allergic contact dermatitis might be advantageous in patients with a history of allergic conjunctivitis. Furthermore, TARC, IgE, and circulating eosinophils levels might be important biomarkers for a baseline assessment of future candidates to dupilumab treatment. However, TARC measurements should be resumed for research purposes only.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Dermatitis, Atopic; Humans; Interleukin-4 Receptor alpha Subunit; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35122335
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.17981 -
The American Journal of Clinical... Mar 2019Nutrition during infancy and toddlerhood may influence health and disease prevention across the life span. Complementary feeding (CF) starts when human milk or infant...
BACKGROUND
Nutrition during infancy and toddlerhood may influence health and disease prevention across the life span. Complementary feeding (CF) starts when human milk or infant formula is complemented by other foods and beverages, beginning during infancy and continuing to age 24 mo.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to describe systematic reviews conducted for the USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project to answer the following question: What is the relationship between the timing of the introduction of complementary foods and beverages (CFBs), or types and amounts of CFBs consumed, and the development of food allergy, atopic dermatitis/eczema, asthma, and allergic rhinitis?
METHODS
The literature was searched using 4 databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, PubMed) to identify articles published from January 1980 to February 2017 that met predetermined inclusion criteria. For each study, data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed. The evidence was qualitatively synthesized to develop a conclusion statement, and the strength of the evidence was graded.
RESULTS
Thirty-one included articles addressed the timing of CFB introduction, and 47 articles addressed the types and amounts of CFBs consumed.
CONCLUSIONS
Moderate evidence suggests that there is no relationship between the age at which CF first begins and the risk of developing food allergy, atopic dermatitis/eczema, or childhood asthma. Limited to strong evidence, depending on the specific food, suggests that introducing allergenic foods in the first year of life (after 4 mo) does not increase the risk of food allergy and atopic dermatitis/eczema but may prevent peanut and egg allergy. There is not enough evidence to determine a relationship between diet diversity or dietary patterns and atopic disease. Research is needed to address gaps and limitations in the evidence on CF and atopic disease, including research that uses valid and reliable diagnostic measures and accounts for key confounders and potential reverse causality.
Topics: Asthma; Breast Feeding; Dermatitis, Atopic; Diet; Eczema; Feeding Behavior; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Infant; Infant Food; Infant Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 30982864
DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy220 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Atopic dermatitis (AD) (or atopic eczema) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects children and adults and has an important impact on quality of life.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD) (or atopic eczema) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects children and adults and has an important impact on quality of life. Topical corticosteroids (TCS) are the first-line therapy for this condition; however, they can be associated with significant adverse effects when used chronically. Tacrolimus ointment (in its 2 manufactured strengths of 0.1% and 0.03%) might be an alternative treatment. Tacrolimus, together with pimecrolimus, are drugs called topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of topical tacrolimus for moderate and severe atopic dermatitis compared with other active treatments.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 3 June 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 5, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), and the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT database). We searched six trials registers and checked the bibliographies of included studies for further references to relevant trials. We contacted specialists in the field for unpublished data.A separate search for adverse effects of topical tacrolimus was undertaken in MEDLINE and EMBASE on 30 July 2013. We also scrutinised the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites for adverse effects information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of participants with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (both children and adults) using topical tacrolimus at any dose, course duration, and follow-up time compared with other active treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened and examined the full text of selected studies for compliance with eligibility criteria, risk of bias, and data extraction. Our three prespecified primary outcomes were physician's assessment, participant's self-assessment of improvement, and adverse effects. Our secondary outcomes included assessment of improvement of the disease by validated or objective measures, such as SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis), the EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index), and BSA (Body Surface Area) scores.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 studies, with 5885 participants. The variability of drug doses, outcomes, and follow-up periods made it difficult to carry out meta-analyses.A single trial showed that tacrolimus 0.1% was better than low-potency TCS by the physician's assessment (risk ratio (RR) 3.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.14 to 4.45, 1 study, n = 371, moderate-quality evidence). It was also marginally better than low-potency TCS on face and neck areas and moderate-potency TCS on the trunk and extremities by the physician's assessment (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.49, 1 study, n = 972, moderate level of evidence) and for some of the secondary outcomes. Compared with pimecrolimus 1%, people treated with tacrolimus were almost twice as likely to improve by the physician's assessment (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.42, 2 studies, n = 506, moderate quality of evidence). Compared with the lower concentration of 0.03%, the tacrolimus 0.1% formulation reduced the risk of not having an improvement by 18% as evaluated by the physician's assessment (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.92, 6 studies, n = 1640, high-quality evidence). Tacrolimus 0.1% compared with moderate-to-potent TCS showed no difference by the physician's assessment, and 2 secondary outcomes (1 study, 377 participants) and a marginal benefit favouring tacrolimus 0.1% was found by the participant's assessment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.29, 1 study, n = 974, low quality of evidence) and SCORAD.Based on data from 2 trials, tacrolimus 0.03% was superior to mild TCS for the physician's assessment (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.96 to 3.38, 2 studies, n = 790, moderate-quality evidence) and the participant's self-assessment (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.90, 1 study, n = 416, moderate quality of evidence). One trial showed moderate benefit of tacrolimus 0.03% compared with pimecrolimus 1% on the physician's assessment (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.98, 1 study, n = 139, low-quality evidence), but the effects were equivocal when evaluating BSA. In the comparison of tacrolimus 0.03% with moderate-to-potent corticosteroids, no difference was found in most of the outcomes measured (including physician's and participant's assessment and also for the secondary outcomes), but in two studies, a marginal benefit favouring the corticosteroid group was found for the EASI and BSA scores.Burning was more frequent in those using calcineurin inhibitors than those using corticosteroid tacrolimus 0.03% (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.96 to 3.14, 5 studies, 1883 participants, high-quality evidence), but no difference was found for skin infections. Symptoms observed were mild and transient. The comparison between the two calcineurin inhibitors (pimecrolimus and tacrolimus) showed the same overall incidence of adverse events, but with a small difference in the frequency of local effects.Serious adverse events were rare; occurred in both the tacrolimus and corticosteroid groups; and in most cases, were considered to be unrelated to the treatment. No cases of lymphoma were noted in the included studies nor in the non-comparative studies. Cases were only noted in spontaneous reports, cohorts, and case-control studies. Systemic absorption was rarely detectable, only in low levels, and this decreased with time. Exception is made for diseases with severe barrier defects, such as Netherton's syndrome, lamellar ichthyosis, and a few others, with case reports of a higher absorption. We evaluated clinical trials; case reports; and in vivo, in vitro, and animal studies; and didn't find any evidence that topical tacrolimus could cause skin atrophy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Tacrolimus 0.1% was better than low-potency corticosteroids, pimecrolimus 1%, and tacrolimus 0.03%. Results were equivocal when comparing both dose formulations to moderate-to-potent corticosteroids. Tacrolimus 0.03% was superior to mild corticosteroids and pimecrolimus. Both tacrolimus formulations seemed to be safe, and no evidence was found to support the possible increased risk of malignancies or skin atrophy with their use. The reliability and strength of the evidence was limited by the lack of data; thus, findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. We did not evaluate costs.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dermatologic Agents; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tacrolimus
PubMed: 26132597
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009864.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Atopic eczema (AE), also known as atopic dermatitis, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes significant burden. Phototherapy is sometimes used to treat AE... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atopic eczema (AE), also known as atopic dermatitis, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes significant burden. Phototherapy is sometimes used to treat AE when topical treatments, such as corticosteroids, are insufficient or poorly tolerated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of phototherapy for treating AE.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to January 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials in adults or children with any subtype or severity of clinically diagnosed AE. Eligible comparisons were any type of phototherapy versus other forms of phototherapy or any other treatment, including placebo or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology. For key findings, we used RoB 2.0 to assess bias, and GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. Primary outcomes were physician-assessed signs and patient-reported symptoms. Secondary outcomes were Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), safety (measured as withdrawals due to adverse events), and long-term control.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 trials with 1219 randomised participants, aged 5 to 83 years (mean: 28 years), with an equal number of males and females. Participants were recruited mainly from secondary care dermatology clinics, and study duration was, on average, 13 weeks (range: 10 days to one year). We assessed risk of bias for all key outcomes as having some concerns or high risk, due to missing data, inappropriate analysis, or insufficient information to assess selective reporting. Assessed interventions included: narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB; 13 trials), ultraviolet A1 (UVA1; 6 trials), broadband ultraviolet B (BB-UVB; 5 trials), ultraviolet AB (UVAB; 2 trials), psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA; 2 trials), ultraviolet A (UVA; 1 trial), unspecified ultraviolet B (UVB; 1 trial), full spectrum light (1 trial), Saalmann selective ultraviolet phototherapy (SUP) cabin (1 trial), saltwater bath plus UVB (balneophototherapy; 1 trial), and excimer laser (1 trial). Comparators included placebo, no treatment, another phototherapy, topical treatment, or alternative doses of the same treatment. Results for key comparisons are summarised (for scales, lower scores are better): NB-UVB versus placebo/no treatment There may be a larger reduction in physician-assessed signs with NB-UVB compared to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (mean difference (MD) -9.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.62 to -15.18; 1 trial, 41 participants; scale: 0 to 90). Two trials reported little difference between NB-UVB and no treatment (37 participants, four to six weeks of treatment); another reported improved signs with NB-UVB versus no treatment (11 participants, nine weeks of treatment). NB-UVB may increase the number of people reporting reduced itch after 12 weeks of treatment compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.72, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.69; 1 trial, 40 participants). Another trial reported very little difference in itch severity with NB-UVB (25 participants, four weeks of treatment). The number of participants with moderate to greater global improvement may be higher with NB-UVB than placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.17; 1 trial, 41 participants). NB-UVB may not affect rates of withdrawal due to adverse events. No withdrawals were reported in one trial of NB-UVB versus placebo (18 participants, nine weeks of treatment). In two trials of NB-UVB versus no treatment, each reported one withdrawal per group (71 participants, 8 to 12 weeks of treatment). We judged that all reported outcomes were supported with low-certainty evidence, due to risk of bias and imprecision. No trials reported HRQoL. NB-UVB versus UVA1 We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to UVA1 to be very low certainty for all outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (MD -2.00, 95% CI -8.41 to 4.41; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 108), or patient-reported itch after six weeks (MD 0.3, 95% CI -1.07 to 1.67; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 10). Two split-body trials (20 participants, 40 sides) also measured these outcomes, using different scales at seven to eight weeks; they reported lower scores with NB-UVB. One trial reported HRQoL at six weeks (MD 2.9, 95% CI -9.57 to 15.37; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 30 to 150). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events over 12 weeks (13 participants). No trials reported IGA. NB-UVB versus PUVA We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to PUVA (8-methoxypsoralen in bath plus UVA) to be very low certainty for all reported outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (64.1% reduction with NB-UVB versus 65.7% reduction with PUVA; 1 trial, 10 participants, 20 sides). There was no evidence of a difference in marked improvement or complete remission after six weeks (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.89; 1 trial, 9/10 participants with both treatments). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events in 10 participants over six weeks. The trials did not report patient-reported symptoms or HRQoL. UVA1 versus PUVA There was very low-certainty evidence, due to serious risk of bias and imprecision, that PUVA (oral 5-methoxypsoralen plus UVA) reduced physician-assessed signs more than UVA1 after three weeks (MD 11.3, 95% CI -0.21 to 22.81; 1 trial, 40 participants; scale: 0 to 103). The trial did not report patient-reported symptoms, IGA, HRQoL, or withdrawals due to adverse events. There were no eligible trials for the key comparisons of UVA1 or PUVA compared with no treatment. Adverse events Reported adverse events included low rates of phototoxic reaction, severe irritation, UV burn, bacterial superinfection, disease exacerbation, and eczema herpeticum.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to placebo or no treatment, NB-UVB may improve physician-rated signs, patient-reported symptoms, and IGA after 12 weeks, without a difference in withdrawal due to adverse events. Evidence for UVA1 compared to NB-UVB or PUVA, and NB-UVB compared to PUVA was very low certainty. More information is needed on the safety and effectiveness of all aspects of phototherapy for treating AE.
Topics: Adult; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Eczema; Female; Humans; Male; Phototherapy; Quality of Life; Ultraviolet Therapy
PubMed: 34709669
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013870.pub2 -
Nutrients Dec 2016Recent literature has highlighted the possible role of vitamin D in atopic dermatitis (AD), and that vitamin D supplementation might help to treat AD. This study... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Recent literature has highlighted the possible role of vitamin D in atopic dermatitis (AD), and that vitamin D supplementation might help to treat AD. This study determined the relationship between vitamin D level and AD, and assessed the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases up to May 2015. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials were included based on the available data on the serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) level and quantified data available for severity assessed using the Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index or Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score. Compared with healthy controls, the serum 25(OH)D level was lower in the AD patients of all ages (standardized mean difference = -2.03 ng/mL; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -2.52 to -0.78), and predominantly in the pediatric AD patients (standardized mean difference = -3.03 ng/mL; 95% CI = -4.76 to -1.29). In addition, the SCORAD index and EASI score decreased after vitamin D supplementation (standardized mean difference = -5.85; 95% CI = -7.66 to -4.05). This meta-analysis showed that serum vitamin D level was lower in the AD patients and vitamin D supplementation could be a new therapeutic option for AD.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dietary Supplements; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nutrition Therapy; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Vitamin D; Vitamins; Young Adult
PubMed: 27918470
DOI: 10.3390/nu8120789 -
JAMA Dermatology Jun 2020Most clinical trials assessing systemic immunomodulatory treatments for patients with atopic dermatitis are placebo-controlled.
IMPORTANCE
Most clinical trials assessing systemic immunomodulatory treatments for patients with atopic dermatitis are placebo-controlled.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness and safety of systemic immunomodulatory treatments for patients with atopic dermatitis in a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, Global Resource of Eczema Trials database, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to October 28, 2019.
STUDY SELECTION
English-language randomized clinical trials of 8 weeks or more of treatment with systemic immunomodulatory medications for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis were included. Titles, abstracts, and articles were screened in duplicate. Of 10 324 citations, 39 trials were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were extracted in duplicate, and the review adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Network Meta-Analyses guidelines. Random-effects bayesian network meta-analyses were performed and certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Prespecified outcomes were change in signs of disease, symptoms, quality of life, itch, withdrawals, and serious adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 39 trials with 6360 patients examining 20 medications and placebo were included. Most trials were conducted for adults receiving up to 16 weeks of therapy. Dupilumab, 300 mg every 2 weeks, was associated with improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score vs placebo (mean difference, 11.3-point reduction; 95% credible interval [CrI], 9.7-13.1 [high certainty]). Cyclosporine (standardized mean difference, -1.1; 95% CrI, -1.7 to -0.5 [low certainty]) and dupilumab (standardized mean difference, -0.9; 95% CrI, -1.0 to -0.8 [high certainty]) were similarly effective vs placebo in clearing clinical signs of atopic dermatitis and may be superior to methotrexate (standardized mean difference, -0.6; 95% CrI, -1.1 to 0.0 [low certainty]) and azathioprine (standardized mean difference, -0.4; 95% CrI, -0.8 to -0.1 [low certainty]). Several investigational medications for atopic dermatitis are promising, but data to date are limited to small early-phase trials. Safety analyses were limited by low event rates.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Dupilumab and cyclosporine may be more effective for up to 16 weeks of treatment than methotrexate and azathioprine for treating adult patients with atopic dermatitis. More studies directly comparing established and novel treatments beyond 16 weeks are needed and will be incorporated into future updates of this review.
Topics: Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Azathioprine; Cyclosporine; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dermatologic Agents; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Methotrexate; Network Meta-Analysis; Pruritus; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32320001
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0796