-
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Oct 2022The influence of diet on atopic dermatitis (AD) is complex, and the use of dietary elimination as a treatment has conflicting views. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The influence of diet on atopic dermatitis (AD) is complex, and the use of dietary elimination as a treatment has conflicting views.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the benefits and harms of dietary elimination for the treatment of AD.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to January 18, 2022, without language restrictions, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing dietary elimination and no dietary elimination for the treatment of AD. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses of eczema outcomes. We used the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation approach to assess certainty of evidence (CRD42021237953).
RESULTS
Ten RCT (n = 599; baseline median of study mean age, 1.5 years; median of study mean SCOring Atopic Dermatitis index, 20.7, range, 3.5-37.6) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with no dietary elimination, low-certainty evidence showed that dietary elimination may slightly improve eczema severity (50% with vs 41% without dietary elimination improved the SCOring Atopic Dermatitis index by a minimally important difference of 8.7 points, risk difference of 9% [95% CI, 0-17]), pruritus (daytime itch score [range, 0-3] mean difference, -0.21 [95% CI, -0.57 to 0.15]), and sleeplessness (sleeplessness score [range, 0-3] mean difference, -0.47 [95% CI, -0.80 to -0.13]). There were no credible subgroup differences based on elimination strategy (empiric vs guided by testing) or food-specific sensitization. Insufficient data addressed harms of elimination diets among included RCTs, although indirect evidence suggests that elimination diets may increase the risk for developing IgE-mediated food allergy.
CONCLUSIONS
Dietary elimination may lead to a slight, potentially unimportant improvement in eczema severity, pruritus, and sleeplessness in patients with mild to moderate AD. This must be balanced against potential risks for indiscriminate elimination diets including developing IgE-mediated food allergy and withholding more effective treatment options for AD.
Topics: Dermatitis, Atopic; Diet; Eczema; Humans; Immunoglobulin E; Infant; Pruritus; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders
PubMed: 35987995
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.06.044 -
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 -
Allergy Apr 2021As an evidence resource for the currently planned European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) clinical practice guideline "systemic treatment of atopic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
As an evidence resource for the currently planned European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) clinical practice guideline "systemic treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD)," we critically appraised evidence on systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe AD.
METHODS
We systematically identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the safety and efficacy of systemic treatments for AD up to February 2020. Primary efficacy outcomes were clinical signs, AD symptoms and health-related quality of life. Primary safety outcomes included cumulative incidence rates for (serious) adverse events. Trial quality was assessed applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Meta-analyses were conducted where appropriate.
RESULTS
50 RCTs totalling 6681 patients were included. Trial evidence was identified for apremilast, azathioprine (AZA), baricitinib, ciclosporin A (CSA), corticosteroids, dupilumab, interferon-gamma, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), mepolizumab, methotrexate (MTX), omalizumab, upadacitinib and ustekinumab. Meta-analyses were indicated for the efficacy of baricitinib [EASI75 RD 0.16, 95% CI (0.10;0.23)] and dupilumab [EASI75, RD 0.37, 95% CI (0.32;0.42)] indicating short-term (ie 16-week treatment) superiority over placebo. Furthermore, efficacy analyses of AZA and CSA indicated short-term superiority over placebo; however, nonvalidated scores were used and can therefore not be compared to EASI.
CONCLUSION
The most robust, replicated high-quality trial evidence is present for the efficacy and safety of dupilumab for up to 1 year in adults. Robust trial evidence was further revealed for AZA, baricitinib and CSA. Methodological restrictions led to limited evidence-based conclusions for all other systemic treatments. Head-to-head trials with novel systemic treatments are required to clarify the future role of conventional therapies.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Cyclosporine; Dermatitis, Atopic; Eczema; Humans
PubMed: 33074565
DOI: 10.1111/all.14631 -
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 -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Sep 2021Some Network Meta-analysis (NMA) has been published regarding atopic dermatitis (AD). These studies have considered drugs under investigation both in monotheraphy or in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Some Network Meta-analysis (NMA) has been published regarding atopic dermatitis (AD). These studies have considered drugs under investigation both in monotheraphy or in combination with topical corticosteroids, as well as systemic immunosuppressant therapies. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biological agents and small molecules in AD.
METHODS
A systematic review and NMA of biologics agents and small molecules in AD was performed. A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for clinical trials and systematic reviews between January 2000 and 19 December 2020. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. It was limited to English language and adult human subjects. Two networks were evaluated: monotherapy and combination with TCS. The two primary outcomes were Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75 and EASI 90 change from baseline to week 12-16, depending on source study cut-off. The Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool 2011 update was used to analyze the risk of bias, focused on the primary objectives.
RESULTS
30 RCTs (included in 26 publications) were included in the systematic review. Finally, 23 RCTs were included in the quantitative analysis (14 RCTs including 3582 patients in monotherapy; and 9 RCTs including 3686 patients with TCS). In monotherapy, a higher percentage of patients achieving EASI-75 was obtained with Upadacitinib 30 mg [OR: 18.90 (13.94; 25.62)] followed by Abrocitinib 200 mg [OR = 11.26 (7.02; 18.05)] and Upadacitinib 15 mg [OR: 10.89 (8.13; 14.59)]. These results were also observed in studies where the use of topical corticosteroid (TCS) was allowed (OR Upadacitinib 30 mg = 9.43; OR Abrocitinib 200 mg = 6.12; OR Upadacitinib 15 mg = 5.20). Regarding IGA, the percentage of patients achieving IGA0/1 was higher with both doses of Upadacitinib 30 mg [OR: 19.13 (13.14; 27.85)] and 15 mg [OR = 10.95 (7.52; 15.94). In studies where the use of TCS were allowed, however, the dose of Abrocitinib 200 mg [OR = 6.10 (3.94; 9.44)] showed higher efficacy than Upadacitinib 15 mg [OR = 5.47 (3.57; 8.41)]. Regarding safety, the drugs with the highest probability of presenting adverse effects were the Janus kinases (JAK) inhibitors, Upadacitinib and Abrocitinib in monotherapy and Baricitinib in combination with TCS.
DISCUSSION
Some risks of bias have been found, which must be taken into account when interpreting the results. The funnel plot shows a possible publication bias that may underestimate the efficacy of drugs. Upadacitinib and Abrocitinib are the drugs with the highest efficacy, both in monotherapy and in association with TCS. However, they were also those associated with the highest risk of adverse effects, showing monoclonal antibodies better safety profile.
LIMITATIONS
We have included molecules still in the development phase as well studies completed and presented at conferences and with data available in Trialsgov but not published yet. Several molecules' development had included a small number of patients from 12 to 17 years of age, without being able to differentiate the results from the adult population. Other: Founding: None. PROSPERO database registration number CRD42021225793.
PubMed: 34575076
DOI: 10.3390/life11090927 -
Heliyon Jun 2023The sparsity of head-to-head trials for medications used as in atopic dermatitis (AD) treatment makes therapy options difficult. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The sparsity of head-to-head trials for medications used as in atopic dermatitis (AD) treatment makes therapy options difficult.
OBJECTIVE
To better compare the efficacy and safety of abrocitinib and upadacitinib with dupilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe AD.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database for head-to-head trials.
RESULTS
Three studies with 2256 patients were included. The analysis revealed that improvement of EASI-75 was rapidly registered with abrocitinib/upadacitinib as compared to the dupilumab, even as early as week 2 of treatment. The proportions of patients who reached the endpoint of EASI-75 at week 12 and end of therapy were also higher in the abrocitinib/upadacitinib group. Significant improvement in EASI-90 scores was demonstrated with abrocitinib/upadacitinib at week 2 and at all subsequent time points. The administration of abrocitinib/upadacitinib provided a faster onset of IGA response at week 2. The differences in IGA response remained significant at week 12 and end of therapy. Compared with dupilumab, a larger proportion of patients treated with abrocitinib/upadacitinib achieved early itch relief at 2 weeks. Better results were found later during treatment, in between the 12 weeks to the end of study in abrocitinib/upadacitinib group. The only observed significant result of adverse events were severe adverse events between the abrocitinib/upadacitinib group (n = 40) and the dupilumab group (n = 24) (p = 0.043). TEAEs of any causality that led to treatment discontinuation and serious adverse events have not shown special risks in the patients treated with abrocitinib/upadacitinib.
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrated that -JAK therapy, particularly abrocitinib and upadacitinib, exhibited superiority over dupilumab in achieving fast relief of disease signs with an acceptable safety profile in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.
PubMed: 37332971
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16704 -
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 -
Photodermatology, Photoimmunology &... Jul 2023This study investigates the dermatological as well as the esthetic potential of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. From... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study investigates the dermatological as well as the esthetic potential of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. From the electronic databases, 554 articles were assessed; however, only 31 studies were selected after manually screening and eliminating unnecessary studies. The potential effectiveness of LEDs for skin therapies was assessed by evaluating the standardized mean differences (SMDs) and funnel plots of this meta-analysis. It was discovered that both red and blue LED lights play an important role in the treatment of acne vulgaris with an overall statistically significant SMD of -2.42 [-2.64, -2.15] and I = 17% < 50%. Additionally, other LEDs (e.g., yellow LEDs and near-infrared devices) showed outstanding levels of effectiveness, not only in reducing the lesions of herpes simplex and psoriasis but also in improved skin rejuvenation with highly consistent analytical results (I = 0% and 33%, respectively). However, the analysis of LED-based skin wound healing and atopic dermatitis treatments exhibited heterogeneity (I = 85% and 90%) due to the lack of unpublished articles. In conclusion, it is suggested that LEDs are useful for dermatology and could be potential candidates for future cosmetic applications.
Topics: Humans; Skin; Psoriasis; Dermatitis, Atopic; Acne Vulgaris; Light
PubMed: 36310510
DOI: 10.1111/phpp.12841 -
Journal of the American Academy of... May 2021Neither dupilumab-associated facial erythema nor neck erythema was reported in phase 3 clinical trials for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, but there have been a...
BACKGROUND
Neither dupilumab-associated facial erythema nor neck erythema was reported in phase 3 clinical trials for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, but there have been a number of reports of patients developing this adverse event in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE
To outline all cases of reported dupilumab-associated facial or neck erythema to better characterize this adverse event, and identify potential etiologies and management strategies.
METHODS
A search was conducted on EMBASE and PubMed databases. Two independent reviewers identified relevant studies for inclusion and performed data extraction.
RESULTS
A total of 101 patients from 16 studies were reported to have dupilumab-associated facial or neck erythema. A total of 52 of 101 patients (52%) had baseline atopic dermatitis facial or neck involvement and 45 of 101 (45%) reported different cutaneous symptoms from preexisting atopic dermatitis, possibly suggesting a different etiology. Suggested etiologies included rosacea, allergic contact dermatitis, and head and neck dermatitis. Most commonly used treatments included topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, and antifungal agents. In the 57 patients with data on the course of the adverse events, improvement was observed in 29, clearance in 4, no response in 16, and worsening in 8. A total of 11 of 101 patients (11%) discontinued dupilumab owing to this adverse event.
LIMITATIONS
Limited diagnostic testing, nonstandardized data collection and reporting across studies, and reliance on retrospective case reports and case series.
CONCLUSION
Some patients receiving dupilumab develop facial or neck erythema that differs from their usual atopic dermatitis symptoms. Prompt identification and empiric treatment may minimize distress and potential discontinuation of dupilumab owing to this adverse event.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antifungal Agents; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact; Dermatitis, Atopic; Diagnosis, Differential; Erythema; Facial Dermatoses; Humans; Neck; Rosacea
PubMed: 33428978
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.01.012