-
JAMA Dermatology May 2022Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis are being evaluated primarily in placebo-controlled trials; network meta-analysis can provide relative efficacy and safety... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis are being evaluated primarily in placebo-controlled trials; network meta-analysis can provide relative efficacy and safety estimates for treatments that have not been compared head to head.
OBJECTIVE
To compare reported measures of efficacy and assessments of safety in clinical trials of systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis in a living 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 trial registries were searched through June 15, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials examining 8 or more weeks of treatment with systemic immunomodulatory medications for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis were included after screening titles, abstracts, and papers in duplicate.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were abstracted in duplicate. Bayesian network meta-analyses and assessed Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation certainty of evidence were performed. The updated analysis was completed from June to December 2021.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Outcomes include change in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scales (PP-NRS).
RESULTS
Since October 2019, 21 new studies were added, for a total of 60 trials with 16 579 patients. Up to 16 weeks of treatment in adults, abrocitinib, 200 mg daily (mean difference [MD], 2.2; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.2-4.0; high certainty) and upadacitinib, 30 mg daily (MD, 2.7; 95% CrI, 0.6-4.7; high certainty) were associated with reduced EASI slightly more than dupilumab, 600 mg then 300 mg every 2 weeks. Abrocitinib, 100 mg daily (MD, -2.1; 95% CrI, -4.1 to -0.3; high certainty), baricitinib, 4 mg daily (MD, -3.2; 95% CrI, -5.7 to -0.8; high certainty), baricitinib, 2 mg daily (MD, -5.2; 95% CrI, -7.5 to -2.9; high certainty) and tralokinumab, 600 mg then 300 mg every 2 weeks (MD, -3.5; 95% CrI, -5.8 to -1.3; high certainty) were associated with reduced EASI slightly less than dupilumab. There was little or no difference between upadacitinib, 15 mg daily, and dupilumab (MD, 0.2; 95% CrI, -1.9 to 2.2; high certainty). The pattern of results was similar for POEM, DLQI, and PP-NRS.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, abrocitinib, 200 mg; and upadacitinib, 30 mg daily, were associated with slightly better scores than dupilumab, and upadacitinib, 15 mg daily, was associated with similar scores to dupilumab. Abrocitinib, 100 mg daily, baricitinib, 4 mg and 2 mg daily, and tralokinumab, 300 mg, every 2 weeks were associated with slightly worse scores.
Topics: Adult; Bayes Theorem; Dermatitis, Atopic; Eczema; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pruritus; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35293977
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.0455 -
Acta Dermato-venereologica Aug 2020Bullous pemphigoid is an autoimmune subepithelial disease characterised by pruritus followed by urticarial plaques and finally bullae on the skin and mucosa....
Bullous pemphigoid is an autoimmune subepithelial disease characterised by pruritus followed by urticarial plaques and finally bullae on the skin and mucosa. Drug-associated bullous pemphigoid (DABP) is a term used to describe instances of bullous pemphigoid demonstrating clinical, histological, or immunopathological features identical or similar to those of the idiopathic form of bullous pemphigoid, associated with the systemic ingestion, or topical application of particular drugs. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive search of the literature according to PRISMA guidelines and a total of 170 publications were included in the final qualitative analysis. In conclusion, 89 drugs were implicated in DABP. The strongest evidence for DABP is seen with gliptins, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, loop diuretics, penicillin and derivatives. An appreciation of the medications associated with bullous pemphigoid enables clinicians to identify potential cases of DABP earlier and cease the offending medication.
Topics: Blister; Humans; Pemphigoid, Bullous; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Pruritus; Skin
PubMed: 32176310
DOI: 10.2340/00015555-3457 -
Journal of Alternative and... Oct 2020The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to describe the status on the effects of physical scar treatments on pain, pigmentation, pliability, pruritus,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to describe the status on the effects of physical scar treatments on pain, pigmentation, pliability, pruritus, scar thickening, and surface area. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Adults with any kind of scar tissue. Physical scar management versus control or no scar management. Pain, pigmentation, pliability, pruritus, surface area, scar thickness. The overall results revealed that physical scar management is beneficial compared with the control treatment regarding the management of pain ( = 0.012), pruritus ( < 0.001), pigmentation ( = 0.010), pliability ( < 0.001), surface area ( < 0.001), and thickness ( = 0.022) of scar tissue in adults. The observed risk of bias was high for blinding of participants and personnel (47%) and low for other bias (100%). Physical scar management demonstrates moderate-to-strong effects on improvement of scar issues as related to signs and symptoms. These results show the importance of specific physical management of scar tissue.
Topics: Cicatrix; Female; Humans; Male; Pigmentation Disorders; Postoperative Complications; Pruritus; Wound Healing
PubMed: 32589450
DOI: 10.1089/acm.2020.0109 -
ESMO Open Apr 2023Programmed death-ligand 1[PD-(L)1], cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), and lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) inhibitors are recent breakthroughs in... (Review)
Review
Programmed death-ligand 1[PD-(L)1], cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), and lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) inhibitors are recent breakthroughs in cancer treatment, however not all patients benefit from it. Thus new therapies are under investigation, such as anti-TIGIT [anti-T-cell immunoreceptor with immunoglobulin (Ig) and immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif domains] antibodies. TIGIT is an immune checkpoint inhibiting lymphocyte T cells by several mechanisms. In vitro models showed its inhibition could restore antitumor response. Furthermore, its association with anti-PD-(L)1 therapies could synergistically improve survival. We carried out a review of the clinical trial about TIGIT referenced in the PubMed database, finding three published clinical trials on anti-TIGIT therapies. Vibostolimab was evaluated in a phase I alone or in combination with pembrolizumab. The combination had an objective response rate of 26% in patients with a non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) naïve of anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1). Etigilimab was tested in a phase I alone or in combination with nivolumab, but the study was stopped due to business reasons. In the phase II CITYSCAPE trial, tiragolumab demonstrated higher objective response rate and progression-free survival in combination with atezolizumab than atezolizumab alone in advanced PD-L1-high NSCLC. The ClinicalTrials.gov database references 70 trials of anti-TIGIT in patients with cancer, 47 of them with ongoing recruitment. Only seven were phase III, including five about patients with NSCLC, mostly with combination therapy. Data from phase I-II trials highlighted that targeting TIGIT represents a safe therapeutic approach, with an acceptable toxicity profile maintained when adding anti-PD-(L)1 antibodies. Frequent adverse events were pruritus, rash, and fatigue. Grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in nearly one in three patients. Anti-TIGIT antibodies are under development as a novel immunotherapy approach. A promising research area includes the combination with anti-PD-1 therapies in advanced NSCLCs.
Topics: Humans; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Nivolumab
PubMed: 36933320
DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2023.101184 -
Biomolecules Mar 2023Dupilumab was first approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) and blocks the signaling of interleukin (IL)-4 and -13. Several other chronic skin conditions... (Review)
Review
Dupilumab was first approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) and blocks the signaling of interleukin (IL)-4 and -13. Several other chronic skin conditions share mechanistic overlaps with AD in their pathophysiology, i.e., are linked to type 2 inflammation. Most recently, dupilumab was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for prurigo nodularis (PN). Given its relatively good safety profile, effective off-label use of dupilumab has been reported for a multitude of dermatologic diseases and several clinical trials for dermatologic skin conditions are currently ongoing. We conducted a systematic review of applications of dupilumab in dermatology other than AD and PN by searching the databases PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library as well as the clinical trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov. We found several reports for effective treatment of bullous autoimmune diseases, eczema, prurigo, alopecia areata, chronic spontaneous urticaria, Netherton syndrome and a variety of other chronic inflammatory skin diseases.
Topics: Humans; Prurigo; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Dermatitis, Atopic; Skin
PubMed: 37189381
DOI: 10.3390/biom13040634 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Jan 2023Atopic dermatitis (AD, eczema) is driven by a combination of skin barrier defects, immune dysregulation, and extrinsic stimuli such as allergens, irritants, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD, eczema) is driven by a combination of skin barrier defects, immune dysregulation, and extrinsic stimuli such as allergens, irritants, and microbes. The role of environmental allergens (aeroallergens) in triggering AD remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
We systematically synthesized evidence regarding the benefits and harms of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for AD.
METHODS
As part of the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD Guideline update, we searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Global Resource for Eczema Trials, and Web of Science databases from inception to December 2021 for randomized controlled trials comparing subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and/or no AIT (placebo or standard care) for guideline panel-defined patient-important outcomes: AD severity, itch, AD-related quality of life (QoL), flares, and adverse events. Raters independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We synthesized intervention effects using frequentist and Bayesian random-effects models. The GRADE approach determined the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
Twenty-three randomized controlled trials including 1957 adult and pediatric patients sensitized primarily to house dust mite showed that add-on SCIT and SLIT have similar relative and absolute effects and likely result in important improvements in AD severity, defined as a 50% reduction in SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.53 [1.31-1.78]; 26% vs 40%, absolute difference 14%) and QoL, defined as an improvement in Dermatology Life Quality Index by 4 points or more (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.44 [1.03-2.01]; 39% vs 56%, absolute difference 17%; both outcomes moderate certainty). Both routes of AIT increased adverse events (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.61 [1.44-1.79]; 66% with SCIT vs 41% with placebo; 13% with SLIT vs 8% with placebo; high certainty). AIT's effect on sleep disturbance and eczema flares was very uncertain. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main findings.
CONCLUSIONS
SCIT and SLIT to aeroallergens, particularly house dust mite, can similarly and importantly improve AD severity and QoL. SCIT increases adverse effects more than SLIT. These findings support a multidisciplinary and shared decision-making approach to optimally managing AD.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Humans; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Quality of Life; Bayes Theorem; Desensitization, Immunologic; Pyroglyphidae; Hypersensitivity; Asthma; Allergens; Sublingual Immunotherapy; Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus; Eczema
PubMed: 36191689
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.09.020 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Acne is a common, economically burdensome condition that can cause psychological harm and, potentially, scarring. Topical benzoyl peroxide (BPO) is a widely used acne... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acne is a common, economically burdensome condition that can cause psychological harm and, potentially, scarring. Topical benzoyl peroxide (BPO) is a widely used acne treatment; however, its efficacy and safety have not been clearly evaluated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of BPO for acne.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to February 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that compared topical BPO used alone (including different formulations and concentrations of BPO) or as part of combination treatment against placebo, no treatment, or other active topical medications for clinically diagnosed acne (used alone or in combination with other topical drugs not containing BPO) on the face or trunk.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Primary outcome measures were 'participant global self-assessment of acne improvement' and 'withdrawal due to adverse events in the whole course of a trial'. 'Percentage of participants experiencing any adverse event in the whole course of a trial' was a key secondary outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 120 trials (29,592 participants randomised in 116 trials; in four trials the number of randomised participants was unclear). Ninety-one studies included males and females. When reported, 72 trials included participants with mild to moderate acne, 26 included participants with severe acne, and the mean age of participants ranged from 18 to 30 years. Our included trials assessed BPO as monotherapy, as add-on treatment, or combined with other active treatments, as well as BPO of different concentrations and BPO delivered through different vehicles. Comparators included different concentrations or formulations of BPO, placebo, no treatment, or other active treatments given alone or combined. Treatment duration in 80 trials was longer than eight weeks and was only up to 12 weeks in 108 trials. Industry funded 50 trials; 63 trials did not report funding. We commonly found high or unclear risk of performance, detection, or attrition bias. Trial setting was under-reported but included hospitals, medical centres/departments, clinics, general practices, and student health centres. We reported on outcomes assessed at the end of treatment, and we classified treatment periods as short-term (two to four weeks), medium-term (five to eight weeks), or long-term (longer than eight weeks). For 'participant-reported acne improvement', BPO may be more effective than placebo or no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 1.45; 3 RCTs; 2234 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence). Based on low-certainty evidence, there may be little to no difference between BPO and adapalene (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.10; 5 RCTs; 1472 participants; treatment for 11 to 12 weeks) or between BPO and clindamycin (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.34; 1 RCT; 240 participants; treatment for 10 weeks) (outcome not reported for BPO versus erythromycin or salicylic acid). For 'withdrawal due to adverse effects', risk of treatment discontinuation may be higher with BPO compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.93; 24 RCTs; 13,744 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; low-certainty evidence); the most common causes of withdrawal were erythema, pruritus, and skin burning. Only very low-certainty evidence was available for the following comparisons: BPO versus adapalene (RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.64; 11 RCTs; 3295 participants; treatment for 11 to 24 weeks; causes of withdrawal not clear), BPO versus clindamycin (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.90 to 4.11; 8 RCTs; 3330 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks; causes of withdrawal included local hypersensitivity, pruritus, erythema, face oedema, rash, and skin burning), erythromycin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.26; 1 RCT; 60 participants; treatment for 8 weeks; withdrawal due to dermatitis), and salicylic acid (no participants had adverse event-related withdrawal; 1 RCT; 59 participants; treatment for 12 weeks). There may be little to no difference between these groups in terms of withdrawal; however, we are unsure of the results because the evidence is of very low certainty. For 'proportion of participants experiencing any adverse event', very low-certainty evidence leaves us uncertain about whether BPO increased adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.70; 21 RCTs; 11,028 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks), with adapalene (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.00; 7 RCTs; 2120 participants; treatment for 11 to 24 weeks), with erythromycin (no participants reported any adverse events; 1 RCT; 89 participants; treatment for 10 weeks), or with salicylic acid (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 93.67; 1 RCT; 41 participants; treatment for 6 weeks). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that the risk of adverse events may be increased for BPO versus clindamycin (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.58; 6 RCTs; 3018 participants; treatment for 10 to 12 weeks); however, the 95% CI indicates that BPO might make little to no difference. Most reported adverse events were mild to moderate, and local dryness, irritation, dermatitis, erythema, application site pain, and pruritus were the most common.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence suggests that BPO as monotherapy or add-on treatment may be more effective than placebo or no treatment for improving acne, and there may be little to no difference between BPO and either adapalene or clindamycin. Our key efficacy evidence is based on participant self-assessment; trials of BPO versus erythromycin or salicylic acid did not report this outcome. For adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding BPO compared with adapalene, erythromycin, or salicylic acid. However, risk of treatment discontinuation may be higher with BPO compared with placebo or no treatment. Withdrawal may be linked to tolerability rather than to safety. Risk of mild to moderate adverse events may be higher with BPO compared with clindamycin. Further trials should assess the comparative effects of different preparations or concentrations of BPO and combination BPO versus monotherapy. These trials should fully assess and report adverse effects and patient-reported outcomes measured on a standardised scale.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adolescent; Adult; Benzoyl Peroxide; Cicatrix; Dermatologic Agents; Female; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 32175593
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011154.pub2 -
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 -
Micronized Purified Flavonoid Fraction in Hemorrhoid Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Advances in Therapy Jun 2020Hemorrhoidal disease (HD) is a common and recurrent problem for many adults worldwide. Venoactive drugs, such as micronized purified flavonoid fraction (MPFF; Daflon),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Hemorrhoidal disease (HD) is a common and recurrent problem for many adults worldwide. Venoactive drugs, such as micronized purified flavonoid fraction (MPFF; Daflon), have been used to treat HD and their clinical benefits have been demonstrated in previous meta-analyses of clinical trials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of MPFF across the broader spectrum of signs and symptoms following treatment of patients with HD.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify randomized clinical trials in which MPFF treatment was compared to placebo or no treatment for acute HD or for relief of symptoms after patients had undergone medical management or a surgical procedure to remove hemorrhoids. The main endpoints investigated were bleeding, pain, pruritus, discharge or leakage, and overall improvement. There was no limit on treatment duration.
RESULTS
From 351 unique records retrieved, 11 studies reported in 13 articles were included. On the basis of findings from qualitative analysis, MPFF was reported in most studies to be beneficial in treating bleeding, pain, pruritus, anal discharge/leakage, and tenesmus, and in overall improvement. Quantitative meta-analysis of four studies indicated that MPFF treatment provided significant benefits for bleeding (odds ratio [OR] 0.082, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.027-0.250; P < 0.001), discharge/leakage (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04-0.42; P < 0.001), and overall improvement according to patients (OR 5.25, 95% CI 2.58-10.68; P < 0.001) and investigators (OR 5.51, 95% CI 2.76-11.0; P < 0.001). MPFF also tended to decrease pain (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01-1.11; P = 0.06).
CONCLUSION
Taken together, these results suggest that MPFF treatment can improve the most important signs and symptoms of HD.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Diosmin; Female; Hemorrhoids; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 32399811
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-020-01353-7 -
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